If you want to support Farmer's Branch, TX in it's fight to stop illegal immigration sign the petition at www.supportfarmersbranch.com. All patriotic Americans need to show this little Texas city that we are with it. So pass this info along to everyone you know and let's show the citizens of Farmer's Branch that they are NOT alone!
P.S.
The Farmer's Branch councilman who's leading the charge against illegal aliens in the city is named Tim O'Hare, not O'Hara as I incorrectly wrote in my previous post.
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Go Farmer's Branch!
Lou Barletta's ideas are spreading!!!!!
Farmer's Branch (FB), a suburb of Dallas, TX (if my geographic memory serves) has joined the ranks of small cities trying to do what the feds won't: enforce America's immigration laws. City councilman Tim O'Hara is trying to introduce municipal legislation not unlike that in Hazelton, PA, Barletta's city. Among other things Mr. O'Hara wants stiff penalties against employers who hire illegals and landlords who rent to them, and he wants English to be FB's official language. Of course, FB and councilman O'Hara are coming in for the usual treatment meted out to anyone who dares support American law, culture, and sovereignty.
Domingo Garcia and Hector Flores, both of LULAC, have lobed verbal "city of hate" missiles at FB and charges of racism at O'Hara. A boycott of FB is also in the works. The pro-illegals activists are becoming boringly predictable. Dare to raise your voice against the massive violation of American law by foreigners and you're a racist. Hey LULAC, why don't you ever call all those "Gringo!" yelling Hispanics racist? Isn't "gringo" a racist word? And why isn't Mexico a country of hate for putting its military on its border with Guatemala? If Mexicans should be free to walk across America's border any time they want, shouldn't Guatemalans be free to walk across Mexico's border any time they want? Let's have some consistentcy here!
But of course, consistentcy is as foreign to the Left as enforcing our immigration laws is to the feds. So it's left up to small cities like Hazelton, PA and Farmer's Branch, TX to do what the Constitution requires the federal government to do: protect America. Apparently, protecting America must now become the job of every city, county, state, and citizen. Hazelton and Farmer's Branch have stepped up to the plate. It's time for the rest of us to step up, too.
Farmer's Branch (FB), a suburb of Dallas, TX (if my geographic memory serves) has joined the ranks of small cities trying to do what the feds won't: enforce America's immigration laws. City councilman Tim O'Hara is trying to introduce municipal legislation not unlike that in Hazelton, PA, Barletta's city. Among other things Mr. O'Hara wants stiff penalties against employers who hire illegals and landlords who rent to them, and he wants English to be FB's official language. Of course, FB and councilman O'Hara are coming in for the usual treatment meted out to anyone who dares support American law, culture, and sovereignty.
Domingo Garcia and Hector Flores, both of LULAC, have lobed verbal "city of hate" missiles at FB and charges of racism at O'Hara. A boycott of FB is also in the works. The pro-illegals activists are becoming boringly predictable. Dare to raise your voice against the massive violation of American law by foreigners and you're a racist. Hey LULAC, why don't you ever call all those "Gringo!" yelling Hispanics racist? Isn't "gringo" a racist word? And why isn't Mexico a country of hate for putting its military on its border with Guatemala? If Mexicans should be free to walk across America's border any time they want, shouldn't Guatemalans be free to walk across Mexico's border any time they want? Let's have some consistentcy here!
But of course, consistentcy is as foreign to the Left as enforcing our immigration laws is to the feds. So it's left up to small cities like Hazelton, PA and Farmer's Branch, TX to do what the Constitution requires the federal government to do: protect America. Apparently, protecting America must now become the job of every city, county, state, and citizen. Hazelton and Farmer's Branch have stepped up to the plate. It's time for the rest of us to step up, too.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Support the Agents!
In case you haven't heard, two Border Patrol (BP) agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, were recently convicted of unjustly shooting a Mexican national smuggling drugs into the United States. If that wasn't bad enough, the Department of Homeland Security actually tracked down the drug dealer in Mexico and brought him back to America to testify against the agents! The drug dealing Mexican is now suing for $5,000,000 claiming his civil rights were violated. What kind of a world are we living in?!?!
About the only good thing that will come out of this case is that it'll prove that opponents of illegal immigration are NOT racist against Mexicans or anybody else. The BP agents are Hispanic and it's the radio talk shows and other conservative media that are supporting them. Why would they do that if they were racist? In any case, this outrage against these agents must not stand, and you can do something about it. Go to www.grassfire.org and sign the petition demanding that President Bush pardon these agents who were only doing their job: protecting America. If we the people don't stand up for those on the front lines, no one will. I've stood up, will you?
About the only good thing that will come out of this case is that it'll prove that opponents of illegal immigration are NOT racist against Mexicans or anybody else. The BP agents are Hispanic and it's the radio talk shows and other conservative media that are supporting them. Why would they do that if they were racist? In any case, this outrage against these agents must not stand, and you can do something about it. Go to www.grassfire.org and sign the petition demanding that President Bush pardon these agents who were only doing their job: protecting America. If we the people don't stand up for those on the front lines, no one will. I've stood up, will you?
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
What Were They Thinking?!
When I heard over the week-end that Israel had agreed to a UN brokered cease-fire in its war with Hezboallah I couldn't believe it. The first thought in my mind was, what were they thinking?! It's been almost two days since the guns fell silent and the Katyushas stopped falling and I'm worried that Israel only bought Hezbuallah time to regroup in order to fight again.
After declaring that the destruction of Hezboallah was it's goal, I can't believe that Israel really agreed to stop fighting short of that objective. Surely the Israelis knew that stopping the war short of Hezboallah's total destruction would give that organization the chance to claim victory, which it has done. Don't the Israelis realize that the feeling of having defeated the mighty IDF will only embolden Hezboallah and all other terrorist groups that live for Israel's death?
And what on earth could've convinced the Israelis to trust their very survival, not just their security, to the UN and the Lebanese army? As part of the cease-fire deal, the UN and the Lebanese army are supposed to secure south Lebanon and disarm Hezboallah. But wasn't the UN and the Lebanese government supposed to have done just that after Israel pulled out of south Lebanon in 2000? Instead, the Hez was given six years to get tons of weapons from Iran and turn south Lebanon into a guerilla base. So, if the UN and the Lebanese government were unwilling or unable to disarm Hezboallah in 2000 what makes anybody with a brain think they're willing and able to do it now? Hezboallah has already said it won't disarm. So unless the UN and the Lebanese government are prepared to wage war on the Hez, I don't see how the cease-fire deal can last.
On "The O'Reilly Factor" last night Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the UN, tried to explain this unlikely turn of events and reassure the audience that it wasn't a victory for Hezboallah. He wasn't convincing. He kept insisting that Hezboallah's fighting capacity had been badly degraded, as if repeating it made it so and, more ominously, he kept using the word "hope" a lot as in, "I hope the UN and Lebanese army can disarm Hezboallah."* When your survival is at stake, hope won't cut it.
When Israel launched this war on Hezboallah in response to it's killing of eight of her soldiers and the kidnapping of two others (whom she hasn't gotten back), I thought she was really committed to destroying Hezboallah once and for all. I was wrong. Instead of wiping out her enemy, Israel has caved to world opinion, political correctness and, apparently, her own aversion to waging a real boots-on-the-ground-failure-is-not-an-option war. In the name of peace, the Israelis have chosen to sign their own death certificate, for that is what this cease-fire really is. Again, all I can say is, What were they thinking?!
*A paraphrase, not a direct quote.
After declaring that the destruction of Hezboallah was it's goal, I can't believe that Israel really agreed to stop fighting short of that objective. Surely the Israelis knew that stopping the war short of Hezboallah's total destruction would give that organization the chance to claim victory, which it has done. Don't the Israelis realize that the feeling of having defeated the mighty IDF will only embolden Hezboallah and all other terrorist groups that live for Israel's death?
And what on earth could've convinced the Israelis to trust their very survival, not just their security, to the UN and the Lebanese army? As part of the cease-fire deal, the UN and the Lebanese army are supposed to secure south Lebanon and disarm Hezboallah. But wasn't the UN and the Lebanese government supposed to have done just that after Israel pulled out of south Lebanon in 2000? Instead, the Hez was given six years to get tons of weapons from Iran and turn south Lebanon into a guerilla base. So, if the UN and the Lebanese government were unwilling or unable to disarm Hezboallah in 2000 what makes anybody with a brain think they're willing and able to do it now? Hezboallah has already said it won't disarm. So unless the UN and the Lebanese government are prepared to wage war on the Hez, I don't see how the cease-fire deal can last.
On "The O'Reilly Factor" last night Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the UN, tried to explain this unlikely turn of events and reassure the audience that it wasn't a victory for Hezboallah. He wasn't convincing. He kept insisting that Hezboallah's fighting capacity had been badly degraded, as if repeating it made it so and, more ominously, he kept using the word "hope" a lot as in, "I hope the UN and Lebanese army can disarm Hezboallah."* When your survival is at stake, hope won't cut it.
When Israel launched this war on Hezboallah in response to it's killing of eight of her soldiers and the kidnapping of two others (whom she hasn't gotten back), I thought she was really committed to destroying Hezboallah once and for all. I was wrong. Instead of wiping out her enemy, Israel has caved to world opinion, political correctness and, apparently, her own aversion to waging a real boots-on-the-ground-failure-is-not-an-option war. In the name of peace, the Israelis have chosen to sign their own death certificate, for that is what this cease-fire really is. Again, all I can say is, What were they thinking?!
*A paraphrase, not a direct quote.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Now Here's An Idea!
While driving to work this morning Darrell Ankarlo, one of my favorite radio talk show hosts, was talking about a study* that found that teens who listen to sexually suggestive music were twice as likely to have sex in the next two years as teens who didn't. When I heard this a great idea immediately popped into my mind: sue the "artists" who record this stuff.
That's right; sue 'em! Every teen parent, AIDS patient, rape victim, and STD sufferer should sue the folks who make explicit music and any other kind of explicit entertainment. Great idea, huh? No? Come on!
Liberals are devoted to the belief that individuals aren't really responsible for the illegal, immoral, and/or irresponsible things they do (or the subsequent consequences); society is. That's the driving force behind all their lawsuits against tobacco companies and their calls for similar lawsuits against gun manufacturers. I'm just taking their own belief to the next level.
Think about it. Using liberals' logic, isn't a struggling unwed--or even wed--teen parent owed something from the "artists" who glorify out-of-wedlock sex in every song they sing? After all, the study showed that teens who listen to that type of music are more likely to have sex than teens who don't, and with sex comes consequences. Liberals claim that tobacco companies and gun manufacturers, not individual smokers and gun owners, are responsible for smoking-related diseases and gun violence, respectively, simply by virtue of supplying the product that caused the illness or mayhem. So, then, aren't "artists" who saturate the airwaves with sexually explicit music (and movies, tv shows, etc.) just as responsible for the negative results of their product?
"This is nonsense!" liberals will scream. "Individuals are in control of their own bodies; music can't make people do anything they don't want to do. And even if music could influence people like that, it's up to parents to supervise their kids so they don't get into trouble. Besides, the right to free speech allows these performers to make any kind of music they choose. This is just another instance of conservative censorship!" Yep, libs will say something a lot like this against my idea, but in so doing they'll only expose their own hypocrisy and inconsistency.
There's a lot of physical and emotional suffering, and financial hardship, directly caused by smoking and gun violence, but that's not why liberals wage war on tobacco companies and gun manufacturers; if it were, they'd be suing explicit music "artists" as I write because there's a lot of suffering and financial hardship directly caused by "free" sex, too. No, liberals go after tobacco companies and gun makers simply because they don't like smoking or gun ownership,
and they're trying to establish a new code of secular morality. They do like "free" sex, though. And they want it promoted as far and wide as possible, despite the grief it's caused, because it's their most potent weapon against traditional, Judeo-Christian values.
So liberals won't care for my idea of suing the likes of Emenim, The Pussycat Dolls, or Madonna, but sane folks, many of whom are helping to raise their illegitimate grandkids, will. If Big Tobacco and the gun makers have to pony up for the dirt left behind by their products, music "artists" should, too. Let's keep it consistent, libs.
*I didn't catch the name of the study or who did it because I caught only part of Darrell Ankarlo's show, but if you Google "Darrell Ankarlo" that should put you on the right path to finding all the info on the study you want.
That's right; sue 'em! Every teen parent, AIDS patient, rape victim, and STD sufferer should sue the folks who make explicit music and any other kind of explicit entertainment. Great idea, huh? No? Come on!
Liberals are devoted to the belief that individuals aren't really responsible for the illegal, immoral, and/or irresponsible things they do (or the subsequent consequences); society is. That's the driving force behind all their lawsuits against tobacco companies and their calls for similar lawsuits against gun manufacturers. I'm just taking their own belief to the next level.
Think about it. Using liberals' logic, isn't a struggling unwed--or even wed--teen parent owed something from the "artists" who glorify out-of-wedlock sex in every song they sing? After all, the study showed that teens who listen to that type of music are more likely to have sex than teens who don't, and with sex comes consequences. Liberals claim that tobacco companies and gun manufacturers, not individual smokers and gun owners, are responsible for smoking-related diseases and gun violence, respectively, simply by virtue of supplying the product that caused the illness or mayhem. So, then, aren't "artists" who saturate the airwaves with sexually explicit music (and movies, tv shows, etc.) just as responsible for the negative results of their product?
"This is nonsense!" liberals will scream. "Individuals are in control of their own bodies; music can't make people do anything they don't want to do. And even if music could influence people like that, it's up to parents to supervise their kids so they don't get into trouble. Besides, the right to free speech allows these performers to make any kind of music they choose. This is just another instance of conservative censorship!" Yep, libs will say something a lot like this against my idea, but in so doing they'll only expose their own hypocrisy and inconsistency.
There's a lot of physical and emotional suffering, and financial hardship, directly caused by smoking and gun violence, but that's not why liberals wage war on tobacco companies and gun manufacturers; if it were, they'd be suing explicit music "artists" as I write because there's a lot of suffering and financial hardship directly caused by "free" sex, too. No, liberals go after tobacco companies and gun makers simply because they don't like smoking or gun ownership,
and they're trying to establish a new code of secular morality. They do like "free" sex, though. And they want it promoted as far and wide as possible, despite the grief it's caused, because it's their most potent weapon against traditional, Judeo-Christian values.
So liberals won't care for my idea of suing the likes of Emenim, The Pussycat Dolls, or Madonna, but sane folks, many of whom are helping to raise their illegitimate grandkids, will. If Big Tobacco and the gun makers have to pony up for the dirt left behind by their products, music "artists" should, too. Let's keep it consistent, libs.
*I didn't catch the name of the study or who did it because I caught only part of Darrell Ankarlo's show, but if you Google "Darrell Ankarlo" that should put you on the right path to finding all the info on the study you want.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
A Waste of Time
President Bush wasted his time when he spoke to the NAACP a few days ago. I just don't understand why he did it. If Bush thought he was going to score some points for himself and the Republican party in this election year he was sadly mistaken.
The NAACP hates Bush, conservatives, the Republican party, and everything they stand for. The NAACP may have done some good things back in the day but now it's become an organization dedicated to racial self-interest and the perpetuation of the victim mentality among Blacks. As you can tell, I'm a Black person who doesn't care much for the NAACP.
When I was growing up nobody in my neighborhood talked about the NAACP. There was nothing in my virtually all Black neighborhood that anyone could point to and say, "The NAACP did that for us". The group was totally irrevelant to the day-to-day lives of my family and my friends' families. And the group is totally irrevelant to me now. That's why I think President Bush wasted his time speaking to it.
And if the President felt he just had to speak to the NAACP he should've used the occassion to deliver a dose of cold, hard truth to that group. Instead of pandering to Black "leaders'" obsession with racism and revenge politics, Bush should've boldly pointed out that most problems facing Black Americans today are self-inflicted. Yes, racism still exists, but it's not the cause of Blacks' destructively high rates of crime, poverty, and illegitamatcy*. Trying to change White people's attitude toward Blacks won't solve those problems. And Bush should've reminded his audience that racism is a human problem, not a White people's problem. Blacks can be just as racist as Whites, and not just against Whites but also against Hispanics, Asians, and Jews, to name a few. Of course, those other non-Whites and Jews are often racist against Blacks.
Yes, Bush could've told the NAACP that racism haunts every human heart; no one race has a monopoly on it. He could've told the NAACP that America has overcome most of it's racist past and racism no longer can stop anyone with determination from making it in this country. He could've told the NAACP that what racism still exists doesn't force Blacks to have babies out of wedlock, commit crime, or sell drugs. Those are personal choices for which only the individual is responsible. Bush could've told the NAACP all of these things, but didn't. Instead, he chose to pander. He wasted his time and America's. And that's really sad.
*I hope I spelled that right.
The NAACP hates Bush, conservatives, the Republican party, and everything they stand for. The NAACP may have done some good things back in the day but now it's become an organization dedicated to racial self-interest and the perpetuation of the victim mentality among Blacks. As you can tell, I'm a Black person who doesn't care much for the NAACP.
When I was growing up nobody in my neighborhood talked about the NAACP. There was nothing in my virtually all Black neighborhood that anyone could point to and say, "The NAACP did that for us". The group was totally irrevelant to the day-to-day lives of my family and my friends' families. And the group is totally irrevelant to me now. That's why I think President Bush wasted his time speaking to it.
And if the President felt he just had to speak to the NAACP he should've used the occassion to deliver a dose of cold, hard truth to that group. Instead of pandering to Black "leaders'" obsession with racism and revenge politics, Bush should've boldly pointed out that most problems facing Black Americans today are self-inflicted. Yes, racism still exists, but it's not the cause of Blacks' destructively high rates of crime, poverty, and illegitamatcy*. Trying to change White people's attitude toward Blacks won't solve those problems. And Bush should've reminded his audience that racism is a human problem, not a White people's problem. Blacks can be just as racist as Whites, and not just against Whites but also against Hispanics, Asians, and Jews, to name a few. Of course, those other non-Whites and Jews are often racist against Blacks.
Yes, Bush could've told the NAACP that racism haunts every human heart; no one race has a monopoly on it. He could've told the NAACP that America has overcome most of it's racist past and racism no longer can stop anyone with determination from making it in this country. He could've told the NAACP that what racism still exists doesn't force Blacks to have babies out of wedlock, commit crime, or sell drugs. Those are personal choices for which only the individual is responsible. Bush could've told the NAACP all of these things, but didn't. Instead, he chose to pander. He wasted his time and America's. And that's really sad.
*I hope I spelled that right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)