"F" You, Hugo!

Boycott Citgo filling stations. In the wake of Hugo Chavez's Bush-is-the-devil speech before the UN last Tuesday, I'm calling on all patriotic Americans to boycott Venezuelan owned Citgo.

It's time for the American people to get serious with those who mean us harm. Hugo Chavez has allied himself with Iran, Cuba, and probably every other enemy of our country. He's signed some 80 treaties with Iran, including one where Hugo pledges that an attack on Iran will be regarded as an attack on Venezuela. This man deserves not one more US dollar.

Some of you may think that boycotting Citgo is wrong because a lot of Americans work for the company and the boycott will unfairly hurt them. I understand that concern, but we can't let it stop us from doing what needs to be done. Yes, some Americans may get hurt if we stop buying gas from Citgo, but many more Americans may get hurt if we don't stop. As I said, Hugo Chavez is our enemy. He's sided with people who want a world without America. Giving him our dollars so he can use them against us is insane. It'd be better to buy our gas from much-maligned Exxon, at least it's American.

And while we're on the subject, other oil-producing countries besides Venezuela also hate us. We need to seriously curb our entire consumption of oil so as to deprive our enemies of a lucrative income. It's no better for Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria to get our dollars than it is for Venezuela to get them. So boycotting Venezuela is just a first step in what I hope will be a sea change in how we Americans live a large part of our lives. Hearing Hugo's rank anti-Americanism on national tv hopefully woke a lot of my fellow Americans up. It certainly woke me up and you can rest assured that Hugo has gotten his last dollar from me!

My Other Blogs

Hey friends! I just thought I'd take a little break from talking about life, politics, and everything else to do some shameless self-promotion. Below are the addresses of my other other blogs--I've now got five altogether!--and I'd like for all my PGZ friends to stop by and have a look. Tell me what you think. Two of the blogs are political, and two are not. My newest blog, Day Care Daze, was just published today so it has only one post on it. Most of my other blogs have fewer posts than PGZ because I have to blog at the library and I don't have the time to post on all of them as often as I'd like. Still, blogging as soooooooo much fun that I didn't want to stop with just one, or even two! So check out my other blogs, and have fun!!!!!!!

Thanks,

Poorgrrl

God and Me @ http://divinemusings.blogspot.com
Kafir Warrior @ http://kafirwarrior.blogsopt.com
Planet RA! @ http://planetra.blogspot.com
Day Care Daze @ http://day-care-daze.blogspot.com

Red Hot Chili Torture

I was watching "The O'Reilly Factor" last night and it was reported that The New York Times(TNYT) is accusing the CIA of torturing some Al Quaeda big shot we've captured. And how did the CIA torture him? They put him in a cold room and made him listen to--gulp!--the Red Hot Chili Peppers! NO!!!!!!!!!! Not the Peppers! Anything but that!!!!!!

Well, the music was played a little loudly. And the room was kinda cold, and the Al Quaeda big shot (don't remember his name and don't care to) did get a little uncomfortable and...cry me a fricking river.

Liberals don't want America to win the war against radical Islam(I no longer call it the war on terror). Face it. Whether it's the ACLU fighting against "profiling", or TNYT outing our wiretapping operation, or some lefty pundit complaining about the word "Islamofascist", liberals have chosen sides, and they're not with US. They're savvy enough, however, not to come right out and admit it. Instead, they hide their aiding and abetting of the enemy behind phony concerns about civil liberties, racism or, as in this case, torture.

C'mon! No one in his right mind believes that putting someone in a cold room and making them listen to rock music is torture. Sure, anyone would find that treatment uncomfortable but being uncomfortable and being tortured are two VERY different things. If you doubt that, think about this.

During the siege of the Branch Davidian compound in 1993, the FBI cut off the electricity and, at night, bombarded the compound with bright lights and loud noises, including tapes of rabbits being killed and Nancy Sinatra singing. I'm sure the Davidians inside the compound, especially the children, were quite uncomfortable. Yet I don't recall a single liberal yelling "Torture!" at the Clinton administration. But wasn't the treatment meted out to the Davidians quite similar to the treatment meted out to the Al Quaeda big shot? Both were made uncomfortable, and isn't being made uncomfortable the Left's working definition of "torture"? Not quite.

The Left's definition of "torture" is: being made uncomfortable by the Bush administration or operatives thereof. You see, it's all political. For liberals the real enemy, the only enemy, is George W. Bush. It's he whom they're at war with and they'll ally themselves with anyone, even Islamic militants who kill Americans, if Bush is their nemesis, too. So screaming "Torture!" is really a weapon liberals are using against their enemy. It has nothing to do with actually being against brutally violent interrogation methods. After all, listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers isn't brutal, no matter how loudly they're played.

Give it away, give it away, give it away, now!

A Sorry Tribute

Today is the 5th anniversary of 9/11. I was going to write a nice nonpolitical post just remembering the victims of that horrible attack, then I saw Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes and I got mad as hell. No nonpolitical post today; nope, I'm going to say exactly how I feel about the domestic enemies that are tearing America down.

What got me so riled up? Andy Rooney blamed America for the attacks of five years ago. I'm not lying. At the end of his little commentary he always gives at the end of the show, he said that it might be alright to actually fight those who want to kill us but that it would be better to not behave in ways that make us hated. There you have it. Mr. Rooney might as well have spit on the grave of every victim of 9/11. According to him they, and all Americans, brought the catastrophe on ourselves by acting in ways that displeased the Islamic world.

We are in World War III. Our very survival is at stake. Islamic radicals want nothing less than the end of our civilization and all Andy Rooney and other liberals can do is blame America. That's what they are, the Blame America First cabal. They think that way because they're cowards and because they don't believe America is worth defending. Blaming America for 9/11 absolves these liberals of having to confront the actual killers and protects their pc view of the world, a view in which nonWhite, nonWestern, nonChristian people can't be proactively evil. If they're evil at all it's only to the degree that they've been provoked by us.

Liberals embrace this view because they think it makes them anti-racist, which is far more important to them than patriotism. And frighteningly, they're managing to convert many other Americans to their view. Just a few weeks ago it was revealed that over 30% of Americans now believe that the government either carried out 9/11 or refused to stop it. I was sickened when I heard that. We are in a war for our lives and over a third of the country thinks their own government is the real enemy. That makes me more terrified than I ever was on Sept. 11, 2001.

In the famous poem "In Flanders Fields", the poet urges the reader not to "break faith with us who die". The way to honor the dead, according to the poem, is to continue the fight against the foe. Only then will the dead not have died in vain. Andy Rooney and all his ilk need to read that poignant ode to the fallen of WW I. It tells us exactly what we need to do to honor the fallen of WW III. Sadly, I don't think Mr. Rooney and his Blame America First friends are open to the message of "In Flanders Fields". That's why I fear we may have lost the war already. Some tribute to the dead of 9/11.

Quotable Quotes: On War

"Our kindness in battle is perceived as a weakness, and it will be our undoing." Glenn Beck on "The Glenn Beck Show", Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2006.

This Just In

In my previous post I think I may have misquoted Nancy Pelosi's reaction to Donald Rumsfeld's speech. I'll check this out over the week-end and edit my post if I was wrong. Even liberals should be quoted correctly.

Have a safe and happy Labor Day!

On the Offensive

Finally!!!!!! The Bush administration has finally gotten of it's duff and started to go on the offensive against critics of the Iraq war and those who are totally clueless about what the War on Terror is about. It's about time. George W. Bush may be a lot of things but the one thing he's not is a great communicator and he can no longer afford to wait for history to vindicate him. So I'm really glad that he and others in his administration are using the bully pulpit to get out their view.

Donald Rumsfeld really played hardball in his speech a couple of days ago to a veterans' group. Rummy layed it on the line, without pc doublespeak and without apology. He told the vets and the world that America and the rest of civilized humanity are facing a new fascism as dangerous as Naziism, and that those who don't or won't get it are the same kind of appeasers that allowed Hitler to grow so strong it took a world war to stop him. Rumsfeld didn't mince words, and I love him for it.

Of course the Democrats, feeling that Rummy was talking about them, went ballistic. Howard Dean, king of the "anti-war" crowd, claimed that Republicans were just name-calling because they can't defend their policies. And Nancy Pelosi barked that Rummy's remarks prove how badly the Bush administration needs to end. Sniff, sniff.

If the tough words of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush himself, or anyone else in the administration ticks the Dems off it's because they're true. We ARE in a war for our survival. The Islamists mean to DESTROY us; no amount of negotiations will dissuade them from that goal, just as no amount of negotiatons dissuaded Hitler. Anyone who can't or won't see that is another Neville Chamberlain waving another meaningless "peace of paper" and making another meaningless proclamation of "peace in our time". And Rumsfeld is Winston Churchill reborn, giving the world another dose of cold, hard truth that it doesn't want but desperately needs. I just hope and pray it doesn't take another 50 million dead to make the world wake up and GET IT.

Support Farmer's Branch!

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

It's Hard Out There for a Felon

This past Sunday there was a little excitement in my part of Texas. After carjacking two cars, this Black guy hijacked an 18-wheeler with a White woman inside and led police on a slow speed, three county chase (the woman was driving with a gun to her head). Thankfully, the incident ended peacefully but almost immediately after he was in custody the suspect, Samuel Scott Jones, began blaming his actions on racism.

Jones claimed that all Black men have an "x" on their backs, that the government is out to get them, and that they can't get good jobs. He did apologize to his hostage and credited her with stopping him from doing anything that would get him killed, but I shudder to think how many victicrat* Blacks and White liberals will be ready to excuse his crime because of his race.

I'm not one of those victicrat Blacks who thinks that life is so hard for Blacks, especially Black men, that any criminal act they committ is ok because it's a political statement against a racist system. Crime isn't ok from anyone for any reason. As a Black person I actually have the radical idea that Blacks should be more opposed to crime committed by fellow Blacks because such crime makes our whole race look bad. Jones' actions only added to the negative stereotype of the predatory Black male. And the premise behind his actions is just false.

As stated above Jones claimed, among other things, that Black men can't get good jobs. Funny, in my community and in my circle of family, friends, and associates are Black men who've managed to become policemen, bank managers, surgeons, computer programmers, business owners, photographers, and teachers, to name a few occupations. All of these men grew up in the same system that Samuel Jones did yet, somehow, they all mangaged to find good jobs. Maybe not being a felon helped.

That's right. Samuel Jones was already a felon before he embarked on his "political statement" Sunday. Jones served nine years in prison for possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He was released in 2002 and could only find low paying jobs afterwards. Well, duh! What did Jones think? Employers would welcome him with open arms? Actually some did welcome him, just not the ones who paid what Jones thinks he's worth.

I marvel at people who think society owes them a living no matter what their behavior or lifestyle and then blame society, not their illegal, immoral, or irresponsible acts, when they can't get or keep a job. Well Mr. Jones I've got news for you: it's hard out there for a felon. Shocking as it may seem, most of us decent folks tend to look askance at things like drug dealing and the people who do them. If we have a choice between hiring someone who's broken the law and someone who hasn't, we tend to go with the latter. Call us crazy, but that's just how we work. And if you, Mr. Jones, really wanted to work you should've played by the rules. No one forced you to sell cocaine and no one forced you to hijack a truck and take a hostage. Those were your choices. Stop blaming racism and try taking responsibility for your own actions, Mr. Jones. That might help you when you get out of jail next time. Otherwise, you'll be making political statements until you're shot dead. And that'll be your choice, too.

*This term was coined by Black author Larry Elder to describe Blacks who blame all of their failures on racism and refuse to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions.

Dear McCommas and TayDigga

Hey McCommas! I'm glad you really did bookmark me. I do consider it an honor! I've already read Tammy Bruce's two previous books, "The NewThought Police" and " The Death of Right and Wrong"; that's why I was so excited when "The New American Revolution" came out. "Revolution" is proving a good read, but I think Tammy is a bit too optimistic about the renewal of American patriotism. I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think so. I will check out Half.com when I can. I can only blog when I'm at the library since I don't have a computer at home, so it might take me a while to get there, but I'll get there! Again, welcome to the Zone, McCommas. I hope I can keep you interested!

Now for you, TayDigga. I have only one thing to say to you: YES I AM BLACK!!!!!!! Just because I'm not a kneejerk liberal Democrat doesn't mean I'm not Black. If you knew anything about history you'd know that most Blacks were Republican from the end of the Civil War until the Great Depression. Why? Because Abraham Lincoln was Republican. In fact, the Republican party was founded specifically as an anti-slavery party. And in 1964 more Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Act than Democrats. The segregated South was known as the Solid South--solidly Democratic. And as for being sympathetic, I'm sympathetic toward all people who try to get ahead by legal means. I have no sympathy for anyone who thinks they're entitled to break the law just because of their race and/or class. Caring about someone means holding them accountable when they do wrong and encouraging them when they do right. For the time being conservatives in both parties are the only people willing to say that publicly. That's what I'm zealous for. Got it, TayDigga?

Quotable Quotes: On Peace

"Don't fall in love with peace at any cost; it will always make [you] do the wrong thing." Glenn Beck, on The Glenn Beck Show, July 18, 2006.

In His Own Words

Below is a reprint of Mayor Lou Barletta's open letter to the people of Hazelton, PA., explaining his crackdown on illegal aliens in the city. Reading Mayor Barletta's own words just makes him rock even harder. Have a look, then do the same in YOUR town!


From the Mayor's Desk...

An Open Letter from Mayor Lou Barletta:

I believe the United States of America is the greatest nation on Earth. People who are in this country have an incredible amount of opportunities and blessings. But some people have taken advantage of America's openness and tolerance. Some come to this country and refuse to learn English, creating a language barrier for city employees. Others enter the country illegally and use government services by not paying taxes or by committing crime on our streets, further draining resources here in Hazelton.

Illegal immigration leads to higher crime rates, contributes to overcrowded classrooms and failing schools, subjects our hospitals to fiscal hardship and legal residents to substandard quality of care, and destroys our neighborhoods and diminshes our overall quality of life.

The City of Hazelton is empowered and mandated by the people of Hazelton to abate the nuisance of illegal immigration by aggressively prohibiting and punishing the acts, policies, people, and businesses that aid and abet illegal aliens. This is why I proposed the Illegal Immigration Relief Act.

Part of this ordinace, if enacted, would punish companies that hire illegal immigrants by denying them permits, making it harder for them to renew permits and forcing their loss of city business.

Another part would hold landlords accountable. Because people moving into the city naturally require a place to sleep, our landlords are our first line of defense. Landlords who rent to illegal immigrants--that is, who rent to people without checking their documentation, may be fined $1000 for every illegal immigrant staying on their properties.

The final part of this ordinance makes English the official language of Hazelton. All city documents will only be available in English. Those applying for a permit would have to speak English. While our emergency services will never be denied to anyone because of a language barrier, every other aspect of city business will be conducted only in English. Let me be clear, this ordinance is intended to make Hazelton one of the most difficult places in the U.S. for illegal immigrants.

This measure is not racist because it does not target one particular race. The Illegal Immigration Relief Act is intended to deter and punish any illegal immigration in the City of Hazelton. Requiring the use of English does not target any other language; it merely states that no matter what language you prefer to speak at home, English will be spoken when you conduct business with Hazelton officials.

Illegal immigration is a drain on city resources. Every domestic incident, every traffic accident, every noise complaint, each time we send our police department, fire department or code enforcement officer to respond, it costs taxpayer dollars.

If the City of Hazelton began publishing official documents or conducting business in a second language, how would we respond when someone asks us to use a third, or fourth language?

Recent crimes--the shooting on Chestnut Street, the discharge of firearms at the Pine Street Playground, and high profile drug busts--have involved illegal immigrants. Sadly, some of those allegedly involved in those crimes were detained by other law enforcement officials over the years, but were somehow allowed to remain in this country. They eventually migrated into Hazelton, where they helped create a sense of fear in the good, hardworking residents who are here legally.

This ordinance does not roll back the welcome mat to those who are legally in the United States. This country was built on the backs of legal immigrants. My own great-grandparents came to this country seeking a better life. Rather, this ordinance seeks to stem the flow of illegal immigrants into Hazelton. They are not welcome here!

To the residents of Hazelton, I say thank you for your continued support. Hazelton is moving forward and becoming an even better place to live. To our recently arrived legal immigrants, I say welcome. I personally wish you all the best. With hard work and determination, the United States and Hazelton can be a place where your dreams come true. And to illegal immigrants and those who would hire or abet them in any way, I say your time is up. You are no longer welcome.

If you support this measure, please click this link to email us your support. You can also show your support by attending the City Council meeting on Thursday, June 15th @ 7:00 P.M. where this ordinance will be presented to Council for approval. The next council meeting where the second reading will take place is July 13th @ 7:00 P.M. Please mail your petition in before that date to show your support. You may also contact my office at 570-459-4910.

Thank you and God Bless America.


Now those are the words of a true American!

Message to McCommas

Hey McCommas! I enjoyed your comments on my Ann Coulter post. Did you really bookmark my blog? That's never happened before. I'm glad you liked my blog enough to do that;it's nice to know when someone takes such an interest in what I have to say. :)

Yes, I've read the Willie Horton chapter in Ms. Coulter's book, "Godless". It was great, just like all of the five chapters I've read so far. I'm now starting chapter six. I'm reading the book a little slower than usual because I'm also reading Tammy Bruce's book, "The New American Revolution", and blogging, of course (and working!). I saw in your profile that you've read Ms. Bruce's two previous books, "The New Thought Police" and "The Death of Right and Wrong". Ms. Bruce rocks, doesn't she? It's amazing what you can learn from a gun-toting, pro-choice, feminist lesbian!

Again, thanks for bookmarking my blog, McCommas. I'm glad you like what I have to say. Welcome to the Zone!

Lou Barletta Rocks!

In case you haven't heard, Lou Barletta is the mayor of Hazelton, PA. Mayor Barletta has taken on the illegal alien (IA) problem in his small city and I say, You go Lou!

It's sad that a small town mayor has to act to solve this problem because the federal government is so gutless, but I'm thrilled to see someone standing up against this danger to our country.

Mayor Barletta has enacted tough measures against IAs and those who help them. For starters, the city of Hazelton will revoke the license of any business caught knowingly employing IAs. Landlords who knowingly rent to illegals will be fined $1000 per IA they house. And English will be Hazelton's official language. I think I like that measure most of all.

Of course, Mayor Barletta will be called a racist. That's the pro-IA lobby's tactic of choice. But he's determined to stand against the IA menace, come what may. And I will stand with Mayor Barletta, as all true Americans should. He's protecting his town and, by extension, his country. Mayor Barletta is a real American hero; he rocks!

Happy Birthday, America!

Happy Birthday, America! I hope everyone had a happy, fun-filled 4th!

"They're Not Supporting the Troops"

In the wake of the brutal murders of our brave warriors Thomas Lowell Tucker and Kristian Menchaca, I'm reprinting a letter from warrior Anthony Ippoliti that first appeared in his hometown newspaper The Ridgefield Press. Mr. Ippoliti was giving an answer to all those "peace" activists who claim they're supporting the troops even as they disdain the war. Mr. Ippoliti tells them just how wrongheaded they are. Read and learn.


"They're Not Supporting the Troops"
by Anthony Ippoliti

I am fortunate enough to receive The Ridgefield Press every few weeks and enjoy keeping abreast of local issues currently pressing in our small town. I am a U.S. Marine Infantryman currently serving in Fallujah, Iraq, and my mother usually includes The Press in the many care packages she send me.

Since we have very limited access to telephones, The Ridgefield Press is the primare means by which I receive local news. Almost every week, I open The Press and find an article or letter to the editors denouncing the coalition effort in Iraq. Invariably, the individuals behind these anti-war letters and rallies mask their political agenda by asserting that they "support the troops but not the war". People like Vince Giordano, Paul Sutherland, and Anne Stubbs are pictured in the April 13 edition of The Press carrying a yellow-ribboned coffin and signs that say "Bring Them Home Now." They read off the names of the dead and claim to "show support for our troops" while urging lawmakers to "bring them home." They believe that the U.S.-led coalition should never have entered Iraq and that the current effort is a never-ending quagmire that has made no progress. They believe that things are progressively getting worse and think that our forces should just pick up and leave. They do all this under the pretense that they are supporting the troops. However, what they are really doing is using our lives and the issue of our safety and well-being as a means to achieve a political end.

My primary concern is the assertion that these individuals support the troops in Iraq but not our mission. It boggles my mind that this logic is actually utilized on a large scale. Supporting the troops but not the war is like saying that you support filmmakers but not making films. One cannot claim to support an individual in a given profession but not support what the said profession entails. This is essentially a slap in the face to those in the service.

How protesting the job we are doing in Iraq while demanding our withdrawal constitutes supporting us is beyond me. Futhermore, I'm particularly interested in how these people support us, specifically. I have never once received a letter from an individual who claims to "support the troops, not the war." Not a single Marine I know has received anything that could be considered remotely supportive from any of these people or the groups they represent. We have received phone cards, hygiene supplies, food, etc., from members of state and local government, radio stations, schools, private individual and organizations, but never once from any group claiming to "support the troops, but not the war."

I ask again: How can these groups claim to support our troops while telling us that what we are participating in is wrong? How can they support us if they are essentially saying that our blood and sacrifices have all been given in vain? How can they support us if they say that our comrades and brothers who have been wounded or killed in action have done so for a hopeless and morally questionable cause?

I reply to the questions I pose with a simple answer: They can't. As a matter of fact, I assert with a considerable degree of confidence that their effort make our already difficlult job even more difficult. I'll go so far as to say that their rallies and protests cost more and more servicemen their lives and limbs every day. I support my assertion with evidence gathered first hand. I see the Iraqi people every day. The protesters do not. I speak with the Iraqi people every day. The protesters do not. I don't sit behind a desk and do paperwork or resupply efforts in the military. I an am Infantry Marine and I walk the sewage-filled streets of this city every day. In Falllujah, the people watch Al Jazeera. However, they also watch CNN. A lot of them fear that the United States will soon cut and run. The people of Iraq see when our country is divided. When they see rallies to "Bring The Troops Home," they see that as a sign that we will end our efforts prematurely. Furthermore, they know that the insurgents will not end their efforts early. That leads them to the conclusion that when we leave, the insurgents will still be there--if we don't finish the job. Much that they see on American television leads them to believe that we intend to abandon our efforts before the new Iraqi government is capable of defending itself and its citizens.

The actions of these aforementioned organizations and the heavy media coverage their rallies often generate serves as a fuel for the insurgency. Insurgents believe they can drive us out through the idea of "death by a thousand cuts." The longer they persist in their efforts, the more the America public becomes disenchanted with the coalition effort. The insurgency sees this as a result. These criminals will continue to kill Iraqi civilians, Iraqi Police, Iraqi Army and coalition forces so long as they see that their efforts are alienating the American public from its military.

And for those of you that aren't up to speed with the situation in Iraq, the insurgents attack and kill established public services (such as Iraqi police and Iraqi army) more often than they attack coalition forces. As a matter of fact, an explosive-laden insurgent blew himself up last week outside the Iraqi police station that is attached to our compound. The insurgents aren't fighting simply to drive America out of Iraq. They are fighting to destroy any semblance of the Iraqi goverment so that they can impose their will on its people. Publicly protesting our efforts in Iraq fuels the insurgency. Doing it under the pretext of "supporting our troops" is disgraceful.

Let me now emphasize that I respect an American citizen's right to voice his or her opinion in a public forum. Such a right is granted in the U.S. Constitution. However, voicing one's opinion in such an irresponsible way is something I do not support. Additionally, using deployed service members as a mask to serve your purely political purpose is downright shameful. If your desire is to protest the war, then protest the war, but don't use me or any reference to our troops as a tool to bolster your purpose.

I'll summarize by saying this: Organizations such as The Ridgefield Coalition to Stop the War do not support our troops. No matter what they say or what is printed on the signs they carry, hey effectviely do the opposite of supporting us. They downright hurt us. Such organizations damage the morale of the men and women in the armed forces and progressively cause them to believe less and less in the mission at hand. The conditions here are difficult as it is. Opening a month-old edition of The Ridgefield {ress and reading an article about an anti-war demonstration that uses our troop in an effort to maks it's true cause doesn't help. Please don't feign support while effectively telling us that we are fighting for an unworthy cause. I think I speak for an ovewhelming majority of our troops when I ask organizations like The Ridgefield Coalition to Stop the War to discontinue using Marines, soldiers, airmen and sailors as a means to serve a political end. You are neither supporting us nor honoring us. You are doing the exact opposite.


Couldn't have said it better myself, soldier. Semper Fi!

I Wannabe Ann Coulter!

I wannabe Ann Coulter!

Yes, I admit it. Even though she said some pretty controversial things in her latest book, I wannabe her. Honestly, I haven't read a single book she's written, at least not all the way through. But I like her take-no-prisoners style when debating the issues on tv.

I love the fact that she's an outspoken--to put it mildly-- conservative woman. Ann Coulter shatters the Left's doctrine of identity politics, that restrictive notion that a person's political and social views should be determined by the group(s) to which he belongs. According to the doctrine, women are supposed to be liberal, voting Democrat under the unquestioned assumption that Democrats are the only politicians who can help them as women. Ann Coulter is a proud, right-wing woman, fearlessly voicing her disdain for the Left and all it's toxic "solutions" for our nation's problems. No wonder the mainstream media hates her.

Ann Coulter is the poster child for what I call individualist politics, the idea that a person's political and social beliefs are and should be determined by his education and life experiences as an individual, not by the group(s) to which he belongs. Usually, people who practice individualist politics are members of "oppressed" groups--women, gays, minorities-- whom the Left insists must be left-wing. For an individual member of such a group to think for himself and come to a different view is heresy of the highest order. Such people are subjected to the most venomous hatred by the devotees of tolerance and diversity. Just ask Ann, she knows.

And that's why I wannabe Ann Coulter. I practice individualist politics, but I'm not nearly as courageous in expressing it as Ann is. I'd settle for just half her chutzpah. If I had that I could knock down some doors instead of being semi in the closet. If only Ann could send her spirit to possess those seeking courage; I'd be a willing vessel. Find me a psychic! Find me a channeler! I wannabe Ann Coulter. She rocks!

Michael Berg Sucks

On the day when every American should've been rejoicing over the killing of terrorist Abu Musad al-Zarqawi, Michael Berg could only express sadness at the demise of his son Nicholas Berg's killer.

If you remember, Nicholas Berg was beheaded by al-Zarqawi in 2003, but if you're to believe the incredible statements by the elder Berg, al-Zarqawi probably wasn't Nicholas' killer.

In an interview on Fox News, Michael Berg, a professed pacifist, openly doubted that al-Zarqawi killed his son, dimissing both the videotape showing al-Zarqawi beheading Nicholas and claims of al-Zarqawi's guilt from the "lying FBI". Instead, Berg insisted that George Bush was responsible for his son's death because Bush started the Iraq war. According to Berg's thinking, if Bush hadn't invaded Iraq al-Zarqawi never would've been in the country. Never mind that al-Zarqawi was in Iraq before the war began.

Michael Berg hates America. He might try to hide his hatred behind a mask of pacifism, but the animus he harbors for the US oozed out of every word he spoke on Fox News. No one who loves his country could engage in and believe the kind of reality reversal that Berg so painfully practices and believes. His desperate need to see America as the bad guy, in total disregard of the evil committed by her enemies, can come only from hate.

I cut Michael Berg no slack because he lost a child in the Iraq war. Many people have lost children in this war but they haven't gone over to the enemy's side. And they don't preach a "pacifism" that opposes only America's wars, not war itself. Michael Berg's status as a grieving father earns him no pass on the outrageous things he said about al-Zarqawi, Bush, and this war. He is routing for America's defeat and that makes him a traitor, plain and simple. And if you don't see that, you're as treacherous as he is.

In Memoriam

This coming Monday is Memorial Day. Most people are just looking forward to a three day weekend, which is understandable; I'm looking forward to a three day weekend, too. However, I hope every American, every citizen of a free nation, will stop and take at least a moment to remember and give thanks for all those who gave their lives so we could have the liberty too many of us not only take for granted, but promiscuously abuse.

You don't necessarily have to visit a cemetary and place a flag on a veteran's grave, although that would be nice. Just remember, if only for a moment. And remember, too, those veterans who fought for us who aren't dead. If you know of a veteran in your neighborhood, pay him a visit and say thanks for his sacrifice. If you don't know any veterans personally, why not make a donation to a veteran's hospital or a nursing home that has veterans among it's residents? These are some little things we can do to show our appreciation.

And remember, also, that these veterans fought for us to have liberty, NOT libertinism. Understanding the difference between these two concepts is a big thing we can do to honor our vets.

So, enjoy your three day weekend, I'm going to. But remember. Remember.

They deserve it.

You Can't Have MY Country!

I watched the President's Monday night speech on illegal immigration and I was as disappointed, no, outraged, as I thought I'd be.

I was initially hopeful when I heard media reports that House Republicans would be pleased with Bush's speech. Then I heard rumblings about the National Guard (NG) being put on the border and, yes, I was hopeful that Bush had finally got it. But then I saw in my local paper that Vicente Fox had called Bush about the NG rumors and Bush had reassured him that the NG would only be used temporarily. That's when I got mad. And the speech only made me madder.

Sure, Bush started off by trying to talk a good game about securing the borders. He promised more Border Patrol (BP) agents-- by 2008. Yippee! Just think of all the illegals who can come in in the mean time! He talked up technology--infrared drones, virtual fences, and other sci-fi stuff--and yes, he said he'd put the NG on the border, but no more than 6000 and they'd have no authority to do anything. All of this was supposed to pacify all of us Americans who believe passionately in securing our nation's borders, and stopping the flood of illegals, before we deal with the 12 million illegals who're already here. Did Bush really think he could get away with insulting our intelligence? He thought wrong.

I voted for Bush twice. I didn't do that because I agreed with everything he stood for. I did it because I thought Bush was a conservative who could be counted on to put America first, before globalism, before corporatism, before socialism, before illegal aliens and their leaders; I was wrong. What Bush showed me in his speech last night was that he's got a "blame America first" mentality that usually belongs to liberals. Bush is terrified of being seen as anti-Hispanic, why else would he virtually guarantee Mexican president Vicente Fox that the NG would be a paper tiger on the border? Why else does he continually parrot the illegals-are-doing-jobs-Americans-won't-do party line even though the Hispanic Pew Center showed that Americans are the majority of the workers in all the industries that employ the most illegals?

President Bush seems to have forgotten that he was elected by Americans, to protect America, not by Vicente Fox and the millions of his countrymen who are in America illegally. America owes nothing to Mexico and the rest of Latin America. We aren't to blame for their poverty and have no obligation to atone for our prosperity by committing national suicide. Vicente Fox, like previous Mexican presidents, wants an open border so he can ship Mexico's poverty problem north and thereby avoid making necessary reforms within Mexico. He wants to keep the status quo because the corruption makes certain Mexicans very, very rich. But Fox also wants to regain the Southwest, which Mexico lost to America in the 1846 War. He's lauching a demographic war against the US, hoping to achieve a critical mass of unassimilated Mexicans on US soil who, through the ballad or the bullet, will wrench the Southwest away from America and hand it back to Mexico.

Bush should've forthrightly told Fox that the US is a sovereign nation, with legitimate borders and legitimate immigration laws that must be respected by all foreigners, including Mexicans. He should've told Fox that America isn't a welfare program for poor Mexicans (and other Latin Americans). Bush should've told Fox that needing a job doesn't entitle poor Mexicans to break American law. And, finally, Bush should've told Fox that he can't tell America not to put troops on her southern border when Mexico has troops on its southern border. Then, last night, Bush should've told the American people what he told Fox.

Of course, none of the above happened. Bush opted to go pc, talking briefly about border enforcement then lingering on the supposed need for a "temporary" guess worker program and waxing elegant about America's immigrant heritage, forgetting that past immigrants came here legally. And that's the crux of the issue. Either you believe in the legitimacy of American law, or you don't. Those who don't, and that crowd seems to include the President, aren't going to come right out and say so. Instead, they'll hide their disdain for American law--and sovereignty--behind phony compassion and specious anti-racism, claiming that enforcing our laws is heartless and bigoted and no one wants to be that.

Those of us who love America, her history, culture, language, and heritage, and who value her sovereignty as much as our own lives must stand up and make our voices heard. We've left the streets in the hands of those who're working for America's demise. After the President's speech last night, we know we can no longer afford to stay silent. The House Republicans get it; a few governors get it; the Minutemen get it. And we get it. It's time to let them know it.

JP Tells It like It Is

Below is a reprint of a post I saw on the blog JP's Mind. It's great. Read, think, and enjoy.

I don't think being a minority makes you a victim of anything except numbers. The only things I can think of that are truly discriminatory are things like the United Negro College Fund, Jet Magazine, Black Entertainment Television, and Miss Black America. Try to have things like the United Caucasian College Fund, Cloud Magazine, White Entertainment Television, or Miss White America and see what happens. Jesse Jackson will be knocking down your door.

Guns do not make you a killer. I think killing makes you a killer. You can kill someone with a baseball bat or a car, but no one is trying to ban you from driving to the ball game.

I believe they are called the Boy Scouts for a reason, that is why there are no girls allowed. Girls belong in the Girl Scouts! ARE YOU LISTENING MARTHA BURKE?

I think that if you feel that homosexuality is wrong it is not a phobia, it is an opinion.

I have the right NOT to be tolerant of others because they are different, weird, or tick me off.

When 70% of the people who get arrested are black, in cities where 70% of the population is black, that is not racial profiling, it is the Law of Probability.

I believe that if you are selling me a milkshake, a pack of cigarettes, a newspaper, or a hotel room, you must do it in English! As a matter of fact, if you want to be an American citizen you should have to speak English!

My father and grandfather didn't die in vain so you can leave the countries you were born in to come over here and disrespect ours.

I think the police should have the right to shoot your sorry ass if you threaten them after they tell you to stop. If you can't understand the words "freeze" or "stop" in English, see the above lines.

I don't think just because you were not born in this country you are qualified for any special loan programs, government sponsored bank loans, or tax breaks, etc., so you can open a hotel, coffee shop, trinket store, or any other business.

We did not go to the aid of certain foreign countries and risk our lives in wars to defend their freedom so that, decades later, [their citizens] could come over here and tell us our constitution is a living document and open to their interpretations.

I don't hate the rich; I don't pity the poor.

I know pro wrestling is fake, but so are movies and television. That doesn't stop you from watching them.

I think Bill Gates has every right to keep every penny he made and continue to make more. If it ticks you off, go and invent the next operating system that's better and put your name on the building.

It doesn't take a village to raise a child right, but it does take a parent to stand up to the kid and smack their little behinds when necessary, and say "NO!".

I think tattoos and piercings are fine if you want them but please, don't pretend they are a political statement. And, please, stay home until that new lip ring heals. I don't want to look at your ugly, infected mouth as you serve me French fries!

I am sick of "Political Correctness". I know a lot of black people and not a single one of them was born in Africa, so how can they be "African-Americans"? Besides, Africa is a continent. I don't go around saying I am a European-American because my great, great, great, great, great, great grandfather was from Europe. I am proud to be from America and nowhere else!

And if you don't like my point of view, tough...

I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION, UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL!

I was asked to send this on if I agree or delete if I don't. It is said that 86% of Americans believe in God. Therefore I have a very hard time understanding why there is such a problem in having "In God We Trust" on our money and having "God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. Why don't we just tell the 14% to Shut Up and BE QUIET!!!

Just Say "NO!" to Cinco de Mayo

Like all true Americans I am furious at these illegal aliens taking to the street to demand rights they have no right to demand. However, I'm also increasingly angry with my fellow true Americans who, in the comfort of their homes, bitch and complain about the illegal alien invasion of this country but won't do a damn thing about.

In my previous post, "Dissing the American Worker", I suggested something true Americans could do to make our voices heard. I called for a national strike on May 5, Cinco de Mayo, to show our lawmakers, the mainstream media, and the illegals just who is the real backbone of America's economy. The plan was for all true Americans to stay home from work and school and to let the empty offices, factories, and classrooms speak more loudly than any demonstration could. I still believe we should do the strike, but I've changed the focus a little.

Instead of taking off from work this coming Friday, I'm calling on all true Americans to boycott every Cinco de Mayo parade and celebration and to keep their children home from school because most schools will be glorifying the holiday. We must NOT participate in this show of Mexican nationalism at a time when American nationalism is routinely denounced as racism. We must send a message to Hispanic activists that we will NOT be bullied into silence and inaction by their specious accusations of racism and we must tell our government that we demand border security and that we're fed up with politicians playing politics with America's sovereignty. And that's what the whole illegal alien issue is really all about, American sovereignty.

America is an independent, sovereign nation with every right to have immigration laws and to control it's border. That fact is what's really under attack by the illegal aliens and their liberal allies. When illegals march in the streets demanding amnesty they're effectively saying that American law is inherently illegitimate and, frighteningly, millions of guilt-ridden, self-hating (white) liberals agree with them. These people view America the way Hamas views Israel: as an illegitimate country with no right to exist. Enforcment of our immigration laws is a declaration of our national legitimatcy, that's why illegals, Hispanic activists, the Mexican government, and American liberals want it to stop. All these people want us to accept the notion that America's right to exist is nullified by its racism, sexism, classism, imperialism, and oppression and that poor Mexicans--(non-white) poor people everywhere--therefore have the right to enter America at will. An open border is the way America atones for its sins.


All true Americans must zealously reject this nation-destroying, leftist doctrine. We must stand up for OUR country, OUR laws, OUR sovereignty. We must boldly declare that while true immigrants--people who come here legally and assimilate into our culture--are warmly welcomed, illegal aliens will NOT be tolerated. We must fearlessly join the battle to save the land of the free and the home of the brave. The days of celebrating other peoples' nations and cultures while our own are smeared and trashed are over. Just say "NO!" to Cinco de Mayo. Let the war begin.

Deafening Silence

Where are the peaceniks when you need 'em?

When a Palestinian terrorist blew up dozens of Israelis and himself on Monday you would've thought that all the anti-war devotees would've been marching in the streets. They can organize in a New York minute so it should've taken no time for them to grab their anti-war signs and head out the door. Instead, all we got from Cindy Sheehan, Code Pink, ANSWER, and all the other anti-war suspects was cold, deafening silence.

But what did we expect? These "anti-war" activists are the biggest hypocrits around. They're not anti-war at all; they're anti-America, anti-Bush, anti-Israel, and anti-West. When the right people commit grotesque acts of war or terrorism, it's ok. And Palestinians top the "right people" list. No one from the "peace" crowd is going to condemn a Muslim killer because most of them are Muslim killers and their sympathizers. Don't think so? Find a replay somewhere of past "anti-war" rallies around the world and look closely at the protesters. You'll be shocked at all the Middle Eastern faces and garb you'll see. Check out the messages on the placards the protesters are holding. You'll notice Palestinian blah, blah, blah, or Hamas blah, blah, blah, or Socialist Workers blah, blah, blah. The protesters don't hide their allegiances. And anyone with a brain they're willing to use knows that Hamas, the PLO, and Socialists are not pacifists.

If you're a peacenik or a peacenik sympathizer and are outraged by this post, prove me wrong. The next time a homicide bomber strikes in Tel Aviv, or Baghdad, or London, or Madrid marshall your forces and take to the streets. Shout at the top of your lungs, "Down with suicide bombing!" Or, "No to radical Islam!" Or, dare I even suggest it, "God bless America!" If you do this consistently you might earn some actual moral credibility, otherwise you'll remain in the cesspool of hypocrisy that's already your home.

The GAE Stalinists Strike Again

For decades the White House Easter egg hunt has been a time for families to have agenda-free holiday fun with the President and First Lady. Not anymore. This Easter gays decided to politicize this apolitical tradition by stacking the hunt with gay families, wearing rainbow leis so they'd be easily identified, in order to make their pro-gay point.

Frankly, I doubt that any average gay family came up with this in-your-face idea. No, I firmly believe it was the brainchild of the gay activist elite (GAE) Stalinists. These people have total disregard for tradition. For them, everything is political. Every event, every place, every time is the right event, place, or time to force their agenda in the face of average folks. Think about it. The last thing families expect to find at the White House Easter egg hunt is activists campaigning for or against controversial causes. That sort of thing just doesn't belong at a family event like the egg hunt, yet the GAE Stalinists just had to intrude on this tradition. Why?

Supposedly, all the gay families wanted was to let themselves be seen so that people would see that they're just like everybody else. The problem with that explanation is that gay families, and single gays, are already seen and accepted in America today. Most Americans don't believe in giving gay couples the special, legal status of marriage, but they also don't believe in harming gays and their families. In short, most Americans practice the tolerance that gays claim they want. The problem is, mere tolerance isn't enough for the GAE Stalinists; they want total, unquestioning social, legal, and moral approval of homosexuality. And they feel that the surest way to get it is to go after the children.

The GAE Stalinists want to indoctrinate children with a pro-gay view; it's that simple. It's down right creepy the way they zero in on kids. The stunt at the Easter egg hunt was so important precisely because it was a family event. People would be there with their kids, and when the kids heard other kids calling two women mommy the parents would be forced to talk about homosexuality when they least expected it. The GAE Stalinists don't want parents to be in control of how, whether, and/or when they talk to their own kids about homosexuality. Leaving parents in control means that some kids won't learn the "correct" view, so the GAE Stalinists are working hard to take control away from parents and anyone who supports them.

Remember the brouhaha over the Boy Scouts? The Scouts don't allow openly gay men to be Scout masters, but rather than respect the Scouts' freedom of association rights, GAEs sued to force them to accept gay Scout masters. The GAEs claimed they were fighting discrimination, but the Boy Scouts were and still are a private organization with the freedom to set it's own leadership standards. If GAEs didn't like the Scouts view of homosexuality, they were free to start a pro-gay scouting group that would allow gay men to be masters. But if they did that, that would mean that the Boy Scouts would still exist and be free to impart their "anti-gay" views to children. That was the real issue for the GAEs. They didn't want the existence of a huge organization, influencing the minds of millions of kids, over which they had no control.

It's the same thing with public schools. Liberals don't vehemently oppose vouchers for private schools because of church/state issues, or because such vouchers would bankrupt pubilc schools. No, liberals oppose vouchers because every child lost to the public schools is a child lost to liberal social indoctrination, chief of which is approving of homosexuality. Children must be kept in the public schools, no matter how academically bad many of them are, because it gives the GAE Stalinists the captive audience they crave, with parents easily being kept out of the loop.

I hope ordinary gay people come to realize that stunts like the Easter egg hunt protest hurt their cause. Straight people, all people for that matter, don't like being ambushed with political messages thrown at them at inappropriate times. There is a time and a place to make political statements; family holidays are not that time or place. I actually believe most gay people agree with that and they should let their "leaders" know it.

Dissing the American Worker

Like every American, I've seen the huge demonstrations in favor of illegal aliens' "rights". I've heard, over and over again, how the illegals are the backbone of America's economy. I've heard that grotesque lie and I'm sick of it! I'm an American worker and I'm pissed! And every other American worker should be pissed, too!

Let's set the record straight. Illegal aliens make up only 5% of the American workforce. Sure, they may be crucial to some industries in some regions of the country, but on the whole their contribution to the US economy is minimal. The real backbone of the American economy is the American worker. America has the lowest unemployment rate of any industrialized nation and her workers are the most productive in the world. America produces 30%--30%!-- of the world's wealth. America's economy is a kick ass miracle, and American workers are the kick ass miracle workers. We produce the wealth that creates the jobs that pay the illegals the dollars they send back to Mexico by the billions. Indeed, the money illegal Mexicans send back to Mexico is that country's second largest source of national income. Thus, American workers are not only the backbone of the American economy, we're the backbone of the Mexican economy, too! But don't expect our elected officials, the msm(mainstream media), Hispanic activists, the AFL-CIO, and the illegals themselves to give us any credit. And the reason why should piss us off.

Think about it. This notion that illegal aliens hold up America's economic sky is ridiculous on it's face; you just have to do simple math to see how grossly false it is, yet powerful people, from the president on down, have not only swallowed this idea hook, line, and sinker, but are actively basing, or trying to base, public policy on it. Why? Why are so many people so willing to believe and act on something so obviously false? Race, that's why. America is a predominately white nation, which means it has a predominately white workforce therefore, to give credit to American workers for America's economic success means giving credit primarily to white people, and that violates the pc race code.

The pro-illegal alien activists dogmatically assert the idea that everyone who opposes illegal entry into America does so only because of racism. The dissing of (white) American workers and the assertion that illegals are the saviors of our economy is an effort to counter this alleged racism and give the illegals racial pride and a motive to demonstrate. Obviously, illegals and many legal Hispanic citizens fervently believe they are indeed America's saviors; it's time we snapped them out of their delusion.

I believe we, America's workers, should stage a national strike. We have left the streets in the hands of people who mean us no good, and theirs is the only voice our elected officials are listening to. We must shock, and I mean shock, the politicians, unions, reporters, even ourselves, back into reality with a massive job walkout to show them just who really drives this economy.

On Friday, May 5, every American worker should stay home. The symbolism of doing this on Cinco de Mayo is obvious. When we stay home, when the banks, schools, stores, offices, factories, day care centers, restaurants, gas stations, and every other workplace is closed, then the pro-illegal alien activists and their friends will be hit hard with the truth and not be able to deny it. I know going on strike is a big step. Many of you are probably thinking you can't afford it, or you'll lose you job. Well, if your boss threatens to fire you, ask him if he threatened to fire his Hispanic employees who participated in the demontrations on Monday, April 10. If he didn't threaten to fire them, he has no right to do it to you. And if he does, go to your union, if you have one. That'll be a test for the union. Rememeber, the AFL-CIO, which is supposed to represent American workers, was at the demonstrations on Sunday and Monday giving its support to illegal aliens. This was a bitch slap in the face to American workers who, as I've said repeatedly in this post, are the real backbone of America's economic miracle. Don't let that stand. Go to your unions and remind them that they exist to represent you, not illegals. And the best way to remind them is not to show up for work on Cinco de Mayo.

I love America with all my heart and I don't like the thought of shutting down her economy, but if that's what it'll take to stop the pro-illegal alien train in its tracks and force the politicians to hear us and do their Constitutionally-mandated duty of securing America's borders, then here comes the strike. We must shut America down for a day if she's to have a future as a sovereign, independent, nation. Are you with me?

Happy Birthday!*

Happy birthday to me!
Happy birthday to me!
Happy birthday to me-ee!
Happy birthday to me!

Hello friends! Well, you guessed it. On this date, 42 years ago, I decided to grace this orbiting sphere with my presence. Is this a lucky planet, or what!

I haven't done much to celebrate, and probably won't, since I feel that birthdays, like Christmas, are really for kids. Still, I plan on buying the Lord of the Rings trilogy on DVD as a present to myself; not much, but I won't get a chance to splurge on myself like that for another year. Also, I got the most beautiful cake from my co-workers. It was so pretty I didn't want to cut it. I took three or four pictures of it so I'd always have it in it's original glory.

Well, that's all for now. Just wanted to let y'all know that yours truly has finished another year of life and is gratefully starting a new one. May it be blessed!

Love,

PoorGrrl

Oh! Reilly!

I'm a fan of Bill O'Reilly. I listen to O'Reilly Factor radio and watch The O'Reilly Factor tv show. I usually agree with Mr. O'Reilly, but I'm very disappointed in his position on criticizing Islam. Mr. O'Reilly doesn't think that criticizing Islam, even if the criticism is true, is a responsible thing to do during the War on Terror. I couldn't disagree more.

We need to know our enemy. Too many Americans are stuck on the idea that we really are the bad guys and need to atone for our sins against Muslims and try to make them love us. Mr. O'Reilly would refer to such people as far-left loons, yet he sounds just like them when he blasts people like Pat Robertson and Franklin Graham, son of Billy Graham, for "insulting" Islam.

I believe Mr. O'Reilly's heart is in the right place. He believes that criticism of Islam by public figures like Robertson, Graham, and others, plays into the hands of radical Islamists by giving them proof that Americans hate Muslims, proof they can show to other Muslims and get recruits and sympathizers. I understand that reasoning, but it's just plain wrong.

Radical Muslims hate us because, to them, we're infidels. We will never stop being infidels until we convert to Islam or submit to Islamic rule. Therefore, nothing positive we say about Islam will make them love us. It is our status as non-subjugated infidels that galls them; saying nice things about their religion doesn't change that status. I thought Mr. O'Reilly prided himself on being a no-spin guy, but when it comes to Islam he's one of the biggest spinmeisters around and wants everyone else to be spinmeisters, too. But spin won't win the War on Terror; truth will.

Winston Churchill and Ronald Reagan were vilified for daring to tell the truth about the great evil of their day. We now know that if their countrymen, and the world, had listened to them sooner a horrid war and great human suffering could've been avoided. Pat Robertson, Franklin Graham, and anyone else who "insults" Islam are the Churchills and Reagans of our time. Mr. O'Reilly should know that. I do.

Cartoon Madness

Hi friends! It's been a while just like I said it would, but I've got some time on my lunch break to post so here goes!

It seems I've heard nothing since I've been offline but all the news about Muslims rioting over some amateurish cartoons about Muhammad. This makes me sick. Muslims apparently feel the cartoons are disrespectful to Muhammad in particular and Islam in general, yet do they really think they're going to encourage respect for their religion and prophet by going nuts over some cartoons? And shouldn't the respect go both ways?

"Respect us! Respect our prophet!" Muslims demand without showing the slightest inclination to respect the West and its values, chief among which is freedom of expression. In a free society you're going to hear and see things you don't like, things that offend you. The proper response is to counter the offending info with your own views and let the market place of ideas decide who wins. You don't go on rampages destroying property and killing people. Does Islam so corrode the brain that Muslims don't understand that?

Denmark is not a Muslim country. It's people are not a Muslim people, consequently it's naive at best and imperalistic at worst to expect them to act according to Islamic law/values. Muslims ought to be concerned with the behaviour of fellow Muslims. The terror attacks on 9/11, the beheading of civilian hostages in Iraq, the "honor" killing of rape victims, the suicide bombings of buses, hotels, and other civilian targets, and the utter silence of the Muslim world in the face of these atrocities bring far more dishonor on, and create more disrespect toward, Islam than any cartoon ever could. Think about that, Muslims.

Settling In*

Hi friends! Just letting you know I moved over the week-end. I didn't go to another apartment as planned; instead, I moved in with my Mom so I could get caught up on my bills without having to worry about another rent payment. The down side is I that can't set up my computer in Mom's house! I will have to blog from public libraries around town until I get my own place again, which I hope will be SOON. So keep checking me out. I may not post as regularly as before, but I'm still here! Later!

PoorGrrl

Downsizing*

Hi friends (and enemies!). I'm just posting to tell you that you might not hear from me for a few days, or longer. I'm moving, either this week-end or the next, and I'm spending my free time packing, not blogging. I hate to admit it, but after three months of unemployment and only two months of almost full-time employment, the rent monster has kicked my butt. I just can't afford my place anymore. I'm downsizing to a strictly no-frills apartment in the small suburb where I work. Hopefully, this will let me get caught up on my bills and start saving for a better place. I'll let everyone know how things go. Wish me luck!

PoorGrrl

P.S.
In case you're wondering, the asterisk by the title means the post is strictly personal. Posts with no asterisk are commentary that may or may not include my personal business.

Goodbye, Dear Ness!*

This just in. Nessitopia.com, the supercool website published by my nephew, has come to an end. It seems Nephew has better things to do than maintain a website. I feel like I did when he dropped all things Pokemon overnight; it's another sign that he's growing up and into new things and interests. But that's what life's all about, growing and changing. I wish you success, Nephew, in all of your new endeavors!!

Love,

Auntie

Where I Stand

It will come as no surprise to even first time readers of this blog that I'm for victory in Iraq. I have a "poster" on this blog saying just that. However, I wasn't gung ho for going to war in Iraq before it actually happened, so I feel I should clarify my position on this volatile issue.

When President Bush first mentioned going to war with Iraq I didn't think it was a good idea. I didn't think Bush had made the case that Iraq was a unique threat to America. I know, I'm sounding like Susan Sarandon, but let me explain. I didn't doubt that Iraq had WMD's. I simply believed that it wouldn't matter if we destroyed every WMD in Iraq because there were too many other sources for terrorists to get WMD's if they really wanted them. Islamic Pakistan, for instance, has nukes. Surely, if we destroyed Saddam's WMD's Osama could go there for material to make a dirty bomb. Russia has had loose control over its nukes since the collapse of the Soviet Union. And lets not forget North Korea, which would sell anything to anyone to prop itsself up. So, if the war in Iraq was meant to keep America safe from WMD-wielding terrorists, it was a failed war from the start because WMD's are everywhere.

I also had reservations about the war because I remember what happened at the end of the Gulf War, when the first President Bush let Saddam massacre the Kurds and Shiites after calling on them to revolt against him. I feared that that memory would blunt at least some of the expected enthusiasm for America as liberator. After all, how could people who were betrayed--yes, betrayed--by America years earlier be expected to embrace American troops now? So, I had a couple of serious doubts about the war, but once we were committed I was gung ho for victory which sets me apart from people like Susan Sarandon, Michael Moore, Cindy Sheehan, Howard Dean, etc., who are routing for defeat.

Now that we're in the fight I understand that we must win. I understand that overthrowing Saddam's horrific regime was a noble act, even if it wasn't the stated reason for going to war. I understand that the insurgents aren't freedom fighters, as Saddamite Cindy stupidly called them, but bad guys who will put Iraq back under tyranny if they win. I understand that Abu Ghraib was a mole hill, not a mountain. I understand that Americans are free to question or oppose the war, but I also understand that people who call the insurgents freedom fighters and Bush the world's greatest terrorist are anti-American/Bush, not anti-war.

We all now know that Iraq didn't have WMD's, but I'm willing to give President Bush the benefit of the doubt that he sincerely believed they existed, based on the intelligence given to him. And remember, other leaders such as Tony Blair and Russia's Putin, also believed that Saddam had WMD's. I don't think Bush lied.

I wouldn't have gone to war in Iraq if I were Bush. Instead, I would've put an indefinite moratorium on Muslim immigration to America. Until the war on terror was won, no Muslim would enter this country. I then would've put troops on the Mexican border to stop terrorists and others from entering America illegally. Next, I would've had a meeting with all the auto makers who build and/or sell cars in America, and I would've told them that within a year a) all cars sold in America must get 50 mpg and b) they must invent an easy-to-install device for existing cars that would increase their mpg by at least 10%. Next, I would've worked with Congress, governors, and mayors to hammer out a tax incentive/cut for Americans who solarize their homes. Next, I would've massively increased government funding for r&d on alternative energy and the infrastructure for delivering it to the public. The purpose of all this would be to impoverish our enemies and free us to deal with them without worrying about oil supplies. And that would be just the beginning!

My "instead of" scenario outlined above would win me no points from the politically correct crowd, but the purpose of a president is to protect the American people, not kowtow to political correctness. Bush has done what he thought was necessary to protect us. Maybe he was wrong, but it is outrageous to accuse him of deliberately lying us into a war just to make oil profits. The people who do that are only revealing the irrational, ideology-driven, hatred of Bush that's the real driving force behind their "pacifism". They are on the side of the insurgents; I am on the side of America. That's where I stand. How about you?

Read and Understand

Below is a quote from my friend--yes Trevor, I consider you a friend--fellow blogger and American soldier, Trevor. I want all you defeatists and America haters to read what one soldier has to say about his service in and for Iraq. Maybe you'll come away with a new understanding of how wrong you are and how good American warriors like Trevor are. Read and understand.

Having been in Baghdad for several months now, I’m more cognizant than ever of my own mortality, and of the expiration date that all of us have. I want my life to make sense and mean something. I think it does, despite all the rowdy people back home who scream and slobber about the “illegal war,” poking at what is being done over here with a stick, afflicted by intellectual myopia, making the wounds worse by offering stinging criticisms but no positive alternatives to the current course of action. They ask so many questions, but are never satisfied with the answers. They gloss over the evil that is Saddam Hussein and the mass graves of somewhere between a quarter-million and half-million human beings. They ignore the brokenness of civilization in this part of the world and spend their precious breaths blaming instead of actively helping.
Partway through my first and what I hope will be last war, I’m more convinced than ever that war actually does change history, sometimes for the better. Whether this war, my war, will make the world better or worse remains to be seen. It’s up in the air. Much progress has been made, infrastructure built and lives improved. That is one side of the coin. There is the other, uglier side too. Many people have died. Many wonder for what? I don’t have all those answers and the daily shrieks of the superpundits on both sides have grown almost intolerable.
All I can offer from this vantage point is to add my labors to the vast effort here and hope. And I can honor those who have died at the hands of the savages.

Right on, Trevor!

To read the complete post this quote is taken from, click on willtoexist.com in my link field.

Sir Winston Churchill on Islam

I found this quote on the blog Slantright; it was copied from Qando Blog. The quote is from Curchill's 1899 book, 'The River War". See what the greatest leader of the 20th century had to say about Islam, before the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, Chechneya, Bosnia, Kosovo, and the other problems modern Muslims say are the cause of Muslim terrorism.

"How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property where ever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property--either as child, wife, or concubine--must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

Individual Muslims may show spendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science--the science against which it had vainly struggled--the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

"Bigots Go Home"?

Last night, while babysitting for some friends, I was watching FoxNews and noticed a blurb about a pro-life protest march in San Francisco. The blurb was on what I call the news bar that's at the bottom of the tv screen. The pro-lifers were protesting the Roe v. Wade decision which has it's anniversary today. They were countered by pro-abortion marchers shouting, "Bigots go home", and that's what caught my attention.

We all know that the abortion debate brings out heated passions on both sides, but why, I wondered, did the pro-abortion demonstrators in San Francisco call the pro-lifers bigots? The abortion debate has nothing to do with race or even gender. Millions of pro-lifers are women. Indeed, judging from all the pro-life rallies and protests I've seen on tv, women are the backbone of the pro-life movement, yet the SF pro-lifers were called bigots. Having thought about it, I think I know why, and it gets to the bottom of why I'm not a liberal.

As I stated above, millions of women are pro-life. I'm one of them. My best friends are pro-life. I've had female co-workers who were pro-life. So I know that pro-lifers aren't bigots. Yet liberals are obsessed with making every issue about bigotry, or racism, or hate. Apparently, they think it proves their moral and intellectual superiority over their opponents, but I think it reveals their moral and intellectual bankruptcy.

It takes no great mental effort to dismiss your ideological foe with a pre-packaged rebuttal. This is especially true when the rebuttal has little or no relation to the actual issue at hand. Still, liberals do this all the time. And why do they do it? Because they lack convincing arguments for their ideas and because they're too arrogant to think they need them. Liberals are about discrediting the views of others rather than defending their own. They seem to really believe that all they have to do is smear opposing views for the gloriously obvious goodness of their own ideas to shine forth. And what better way to smear opposing views, and the people who hold them, than to paint them as bigoted, racist, or hateful?

This was brought home to me during the bitter debate over welfare reform during Clinton's presidency. Republicans were giving the public real stastitics on the failure of the old welfare system, most notably that it hadn't reduced poverty one bit in 30 years. And the Democrats' response? The Republicans were cruel! The Republicans were racists! The Republicans wanted to starve children! I'll never forget Congressman Charles Rangel actually saying that there were "similarities" between the Republicans' welfare reform bill and Naziism. Opposing a welfare system that kept people poor made you a Nazi??!! That's when I lost all respect for liberals. Truth and common sense didn't matter. Power mattered, and liberals thought they could regain it by launching a hysterical smear campaign they assumed the public was dumb enough to believe. They assumed wrong, and they're still out of power.

I realize that most people aren't going to change their position on the abortion issue, which ever side they're on. But the harshness of the debate could ebb if the pro-abortion side started showing a little more respect for the intellectual depth of the pro-life side. In fact, liberals need to show more respect for the intellectual depth of their opponents on all issues. It's time they started defending their ideas and stopped assasinating non-liberals' character.

Answering Bruce786

It's late and I'm tired, but I'll try to answer Bruce786's comments to my post, "War on Islam? Bah! Humbug!"

First, Bruce786 missed the point of my post. I wasn't trying to give a theological review of Islam as he seemed to think, given the nature of his way too long comments. Rather, I was just pointing out the stupidity of the claim that there's a war on Islam by the West, and I think I did a pretty good job of doing that. What you believe about the truth or falsehood of Islam is irrevelant to deciding whether or not there's a war being waged against it. I'm not a churchgoer, but I believe there's a cultural cold war being waged against Christianity in America. Other non-Christians, inlcuding Jews and at least one pro-choice, feminist, lesbian, feel the same way. Obviously, you don't have to believe in Christianity to see that it's under assault in modern America. Likewise, you don't have to believe or disbelieve in Islam to determine if there's a war on it or not. You just have to look at the evidence, and it says there's no war on Islam.

I didn't deny that certain portions of the international Muslim population are under duress from non-Muslims. I just pointed out that what's happening to Muslims in the West Bank, for instance, doesn't stop the rest of the Muslim world from being Muslim. After all, when someone says there's a war on Islam, the implication is that Muslims are being attacked, persecuted, and killed worldwide for no other reason than for being Muslim, and that the Islamic faith is being repressed by state force, and that's just not true. Muslims aren't being killed or persecuted in America or anywhere else in the West. On the contrary, they have total religious freedom protected not only by constitutional law but also by the socio-political phenomenom of political correctness, which makes criticizing Muslims racist. Thus, in some ways, Muslims in the West have more rights than native Westerners, and certainly more rights than non-Muslims have in the Muslim world. Apparently, certain Muslims and their sympathizers don't want such facts to be heard.

As for Burce786's theological comments, I admit my eyes glazed over while trying to read them. I just can't take seriously someone who says that Abraham, Moses, and Jesus were Muslims when they lived thousands of years before Muhammad. I've heard this claim before. If I'm not mistaken, it's actually made in the Koran itself, which helps explains why I don't take it seriously. I suppose the reasoning is that since "Islam" means "submission", and Abraham, Moses, Jesus, and other Biblical figures submitted to God, they were "Muslims", i.e. "those who submit". Yeah, right. The only way Abraham, Moses, Jesus and all the rest were Muslims is in the generic sense, with a little "m". They submitted to God, not to Islam.

I suspect there might also be a more sinister element to this idea. Muslims, at least the dangerous ones, believe that any piece of land that comes under Islamic domination must remain Islamic forever. If it falls into non-Muslim hands it must be "liberated" in a jihad. So, if you can claim that all of the world's pre-Islamic, monotheistic, prophets were really Muslims you've got a divine right to all the land they lived and preached in. And if you can claim that Islam goes all the way back to Adam and Eve, then you've got a divine right to the whole world! Neat, huh? Imperialism by divine decree. It sure explains why Muslims stormed into Persia, Syria, India, Judea, Egypt, North Africa, Spain, and France centuries before anyone in any of those places raised a hand in anger against them.

Well, I think I've answered you, Bruce786. I've probably pissed you off a bit, too. I can live with that. In America we can speak our minds without anyone issuing a fatwa to kill us. Thank God the Pilgrims were Christians.

Flu Attack*

Hi friends! I haven't posted in a couple of days because I've been down with a mini flu, at least that's what I'm calling it. I've come home from work the last two days and taken a hot bath and curled up in bed for much needed rest. Unfortunately, I can't afford to take off from work, even if I'm sick. Fortunately, I'm getting better. By this time tomorrow I hope to be back to my old self. See you then!

PoorGrrl

"24"*

"24" starts tonight! Yeah!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

War on Islam? Bah! Humbug!

Like a lot of people since 9/11, I've been wondering what makes Islamic terrorists tick. The recent arrests in Italy of three Algerian martyr wannabes again brought this question to my immediate attention. The Algerians wanted to pull off a series of attacks that would dwarf 9/11. Why? From the chatter on the news, blogs, and elsewhere, it seems that Islamic terrorists believe there's a war on Islam and the primary aggressor is America. I know, the idea's hilarious to rational Americans and Westerners, but is passionately believed by a huge segment of the Muslim world.

So what's the evidence for this alleged war on Muhammad's faith? Israel, and America's support for it, is exhibit A. No matter what you're talking about, it always comes back to Israel and the Palestinians. The mistreatment of the Palestinians is all the proof many Muslims need for the existence of an anti-Islamic crusade. The only problem with this scenario is that not all Palestinians are Muslims. A small minority are Christians, yet Israel's occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip is never referred to as a war on Christianity. But even if all Palestinians were Muslims their occupation by Israel could hardly be called a war on Islam.

Palestinians probably make up less than 1% of the entire Muslim population. And their area of conflict with Israel occupies a negligible amount of the world's predominately Muslim land. So even if you believe that Israel is guilty of the worst atrocities against the Palestinians, such atrocities would have no impact on the ability of non-Palestinian Muslims to practice their faith.
Sure, many non-Palestinian Muslims feel a lot of sympathy for their co-religionists in the West Bank and Gaza, but they can't honestly claim that what's happening there is preventing them from being fully Muslim. Foam at the mouth all you want about the Palestinian-Israeli conflict, it's still flimsy evidence for a war on Islam.

Another complaint from radical Muslims is that Western, especially American, culture is taking over their culture. War on Islam! Not! It's true that American pop culture dominates the world, but that's because people want it. There wouldn't be a McDonald's on virtually every corner in virtually every city in the world if people weren't buying Big Macs and McNuggets. If people in Muslim countries want to listen to Eminem, then American record companies are going to supply them with Eminem cd's. It's not a war on Islam or any other religion; it's supply and demand. Muslim parents, and other adults, have only themselves to blame if their kids want American music, movies, video games, etc. Their children's desire exposes their failure to teach them Muslim values and that's an internal Muslim problem, not an American pop culture industry problem. And it sure as hell ain't a war.

Face it, terrorists. THERE'S NO WAR ON ISLAM. Across the Islamic world, from the Sahara to Southeast Asia, Muslims practice their faith without interference from Americans or any other Westerners. Indeed, the West bends over backwards to pander to Muslim sensibilities. Since 9/11, America has let in thousands of Muslim immigrants and George W. Bush still pushes his "Islam is a religion of peace" line. London Muslims are now building the largest mosque in England. In many circles, it's considered racist to even hint that Muslims might be responsible for their own problems, while hating America, the West, and/or Israel is seen as the height of progressive thought. But there's a war on Islam. No, there's a war BY Islam on America and the West, a war which we'd better wake up to before we lose our civilization to a Sharia dark age. Wake up, America! Wake up, Europe! The war is on us.

I'm Back...Again!*

Well, I'm back again. Where've I been? Dsl problems again. It seems SBC put out a disconnect notice one day before they received my payment and then they couldn't reverse the notice even though my bill was paid in full and even had a credit. I don't understand why SBC couldn't reverse the notice, sounds fishy to me, but I'm back on now and I intend to stay this way! Look for regular postings starting tomorrow. Happy blogging!

PoorGrrl

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year everyone!