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.
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Wednesday, April 19, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, April 18, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, April 13, 2006
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?
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?
Friday, March 31, 2006
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
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
Wednesday, March 22, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, February 23, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 08, 2006
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
PoorGrrl
Wednesday, February 01, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, January 29, 2006
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
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?
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?
Tuesday, January 24, 2006
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.
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.
Sunday, January 22, 2006
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."
"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.
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.
Thursday, January 19, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, January 18, 2006
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
PoorGrrl
Sunday, January 15, 2006
Friday, January 13, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, January 12, 2006
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
PoorGrrl
Sunday, January 01, 2006
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)