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.
Friday, September 01, 2006
Tuesday, August 29, 2006
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.
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.
Wednesday, August 23, 2006
Go Farmer's Branch!
Lou Barletta's ideas are spreading!!!!!
Farmer's Branch (FB), a suburb of Dallas, TX (if my geographic memory serves) has joined the ranks of small cities trying to do what the feds won't: enforce America's immigration laws. City councilman Tim O'Hara is trying to introduce municipal legislation not unlike that in Hazelton, PA, Barletta's city. Among other things Mr. O'Hara wants stiff penalties against employers who hire illegals and landlords who rent to them, and he wants English to be FB's official language. Of course, FB and councilman O'Hara are coming in for the usual treatment meted out to anyone who dares support American law, culture, and sovereignty.
Domingo Garcia and Hector Flores, both of LULAC, have lobed verbal "city of hate" missiles at FB and charges of racism at O'Hara. A boycott of FB is also in the works. The pro-illegals activists are becoming boringly predictable. Dare to raise your voice against the massive violation of American law by foreigners and you're a racist. Hey LULAC, why don't you ever call all those "Gringo!" yelling Hispanics racist? Isn't "gringo" a racist word? And why isn't Mexico a country of hate for putting its military on its border with Guatemala? If Mexicans should be free to walk across America's border any time they want, shouldn't Guatemalans be free to walk across Mexico's border any time they want? Let's have some consistentcy here!
But of course, consistentcy is as foreign to the Left as enforcing our immigration laws is to the feds. So it's left up to small cities like Hazelton, PA and Farmer's Branch, TX to do what the Constitution requires the federal government to do: protect America. Apparently, protecting America must now become the job of every city, county, state, and citizen. Hazelton and Farmer's Branch have stepped up to the plate. It's time for the rest of us to step up, too.
Farmer's Branch (FB), a suburb of Dallas, TX (if my geographic memory serves) has joined the ranks of small cities trying to do what the feds won't: enforce America's immigration laws. City councilman Tim O'Hara is trying to introduce municipal legislation not unlike that in Hazelton, PA, Barletta's city. Among other things Mr. O'Hara wants stiff penalties against employers who hire illegals and landlords who rent to them, and he wants English to be FB's official language. Of course, FB and councilman O'Hara are coming in for the usual treatment meted out to anyone who dares support American law, culture, and sovereignty.
Domingo Garcia and Hector Flores, both of LULAC, have lobed verbal "city of hate" missiles at FB and charges of racism at O'Hara. A boycott of FB is also in the works. The pro-illegals activists are becoming boringly predictable. Dare to raise your voice against the massive violation of American law by foreigners and you're a racist. Hey LULAC, why don't you ever call all those "Gringo!" yelling Hispanics racist? Isn't "gringo" a racist word? And why isn't Mexico a country of hate for putting its military on its border with Guatemala? If Mexicans should be free to walk across America's border any time they want, shouldn't Guatemalans be free to walk across Mexico's border any time they want? Let's have some consistentcy here!
But of course, consistentcy is as foreign to the Left as enforcing our immigration laws is to the feds. So it's left up to small cities like Hazelton, PA and Farmer's Branch, TX to do what the Constitution requires the federal government to do: protect America. Apparently, protecting America must now become the job of every city, county, state, and citizen. Hazelton and Farmer's Branch have stepped up to the plate. It's time for the rest of us to step up, too.
Friday, August 18, 2006
Support the Agents!
In case you haven't heard, two Border Patrol (BP) agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, were recently convicted of unjustly shooting a Mexican national smuggling drugs into the United States. If that wasn't bad enough, the Department of Homeland Security actually tracked down the drug dealer in Mexico and brought him back to America to testify against the agents! The drug dealing Mexican is now suing for $5,000,000 claiming his civil rights were violated. What kind of a world are we living in?!?!
About the only good thing that will come out of this case is that it'll prove that opponents of illegal immigration are NOT racist against Mexicans or anybody else. The BP agents are Hispanic and it's the radio talk shows and other conservative media that are supporting them. Why would they do that if they were racist? In any case, this outrage against these agents must not stand, and you can do something about it. Go to www.grassfire.org and sign the petition demanding that President Bush pardon these agents who were only doing their job: protecting America. If we the people don't stand up for those on the front lines, no one will. I've stood up, will you?
About the only good thing that will come out of this case is that it'll prove that opponents of illegal immigration are NOT racist against Mexicans or anybody else. The BP agents are Hispanic and it's the radio talk shows and other conservative media that are supporting them. Why would they do that if they were racist? In any case, this outrage against these agents must not stand, and you can do something about it. Go to www.grassfire.org and sign the petition demanding that President Bush pardon these agents who were only doing their job: protecting America. If we the people don't stand up for those on the front lines, no one will. I've stood up, will you?
Tuesday, August 15, 2006
What Were They Thinking?!
When I heard over the week-end that Israel had agreed to a UN brokered cease-fire in its war with Hezboallah I couldn't believe it. The first thought in my mind was, what were they thinking?! It's been almost two days since the guns fell silent and the Katyushas stopped falling and I'm worried that Israel only bought Hezbuallah time to regroup in order to fight again.
After declaring that the destruction of Hezboallah was it's goal, I can't believe that Israel really agreed to stop fighting short of that objective. Surely the Israelis knew that stopping the war short of Hezboallah's total destruction would give that organization the chance to claim victory, which it has done. Don't the Israelis realize that the feeling of having defeated the mighty IDF will only embolden Hezboallah and all other terrorist groups that live for Israel's death?
And what on earth could've convinced the Israelis to trust their very survival, not just their security, to the UN and the Lebanese army? As part of the cease-fire deal, the UN and the Lebanese army are supposed to secure south Lebanon and disarm Hezboallah. But wasn't the UN and the Lebanese government supposed to have done just that after Israel pulled out of south Lebanon in 2000? Instead, the Hez was given six years to get tons of weapons from Iran and turn south Lebanon into a guerilla base. So, if the UN and the Lebanese government were unwilling or unable to disarm Hezboallah in 2000 what makes anybody with a brain think they're willing and able to do it now? Hezboallah has already said it won't disarm. So unless the UN and the Lebanese government are prepared to wage war on the Hez, I don't see how the cease-fire deal can last.
On "The O'Reilly Factor" last night Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the UN, tried to explain this unlikely turn of events and reassure the audience that it wasn't a victory for Hezboallah. He wasn't convincing. He kept insisting that Hezboallah's fighting capacity had been badly degraded, as if repeating it made it so and, more ominously, he kept using the word "hope" a lot as in, "I hope the UN and Lebanese army can disarm Hezboallah."* When your survival is at stake, hope won't cut it.
When Israel launched this war on Hezboallah in response to it's killing of eight of her soldiers and the kidnapping of two others (whom she hasn't gotten back), I thought she was really committed to destroying Hezboallah once and for all. I was wrong. Instead of wiping out her enemy, Israel has caved to world opinion, political correctness and, apparently, her own aversion to waging a real boots-on-the-ground-failure-is-not-an-option war. In the name of peace, the Israelis have chosen to sign their own death certificate, for that is what this cease-fire really is. Again, all I can say is, What were they thinking?!
*A paraphrase, not a direct quote.
After declaring that the destruction of Hezboallah was it's goal, I can't believe that Israel really agreed to stop fighting short of that objective. Surely the Israelis knew that stopping the war short of Hezboallah's total destruction would give that organization the chance to claim victory, which it has done. Don't the Israelis realize that the feeling of having defeated the mighty IDF will only embolden Hezboallah and all other terrorist groups that live for Israel's death?
And what on earth could've convinced the Israelis to trust their very survival, not just their security, to the UN and the Lebanese army? As part of the cease-fire deal, the UN and the Lebanese army are supposed to secure south Lebanon and disarm Hezboallah. But wasn't the UN and the Lebanese government supposed to have done just that after Israel pulled out of south Lebanon in 2000? Instead, the Hez was given six years to get tons of weapons from Iran and turn south Lebanon into a guerilla base. So, if the UN and the Lebanese government were unwilling or unable to disarm Hezboallah in 2000 what makes anybody with a brain think they're willing and able to do it now? Hezboallah has already said it won't disarm. So unless the UN and the Lebanese government are prepared to wage war on the Hez, I don't see how the cease-fire deal can last.
On "The O'Reilly Factor" last night Dan Gillerman, Israel's ambassador to the UN, tried to explain this unlikely turn of events and reassure the audience that it wasn't a victory for Hezboallah. He wasn't convincing. He kept insisting that Hezboallah's fighting capacity had been badly degraded, as if repeating it made it so and, more ominously, he kept using the word "hope" a lot as in, "I hope the UN and Lebanese army can disarm Hezboallah."* When your survival is at stake, hope won't cut it.
When Israel launched this war on Hezboallah in response to it's killing of eight of her soldiers and the kidnapping of two others (whom she hasn't gotten back), I thought she was really committed to destroying Hezboallah once and for all. I was wrong. Instead of wiping out her enemy, Israel has caved to world opinion, political correctness and, apparently, her own aversion to waging a real boots-on-the-ground-failure-is-not-an-option war. In the name of peace, the Israelis have chosen to sign their own death certificate, for that is what this cease-fire really is. Again, all I can say is, What were they thinking?!
*A paraphrase, not a direct quote.
Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Now Here's An Idea!
While driving to work this morning Darrell Ankarlo, one of my favorite radio talk show hosts, was talking about a study* that found that teens who listen to sexually suggestive music were twice as likely to have sex in the next two years as teens who didn't. When I heard this a great idea immediately popped into my mind: sue the "artists" who record this stuff.
That's right; sue 'em! Every teen parent, AIDS patient, rape victim, and STD sufferer should sue the folks who make explicit music and any other kind of explicit entertainment. Great idea, huh? No? Come on!
Liberals are devoted to the belief that individuals aren't really responsible for the illegal, immoral, and/or irresponsible things they do (or the subsequent consequences); society is. That's the driving force behind all their lawsuits against tobacco companies and their calls for similar lawsuits against gun manufacturers. I'm just taking their own belief to the next level.
Think about it. Using liberals' logic, isn't a struggling unwed--or even wed--teen parent owed something from the "artists" who glorify out-of-wedlock sex in every song they sing? After all, the study showed that teens who listen to that type of music are more likely to have sex than teens who don't, and with sex comes consequences. Liberals claim that tobacco companies and gun manufacturers, not individual smokers and gun owners, are responsible for smoking-related diseases and gun violence, respectively, simply by virtue of supplying the product that caused the illness or mayhem. So, then, aren't "artists" who saturate the airwaves with sexually explicit music (and movies, tv shows, etc.) just as responsible for the negative results of their product?
"This is nonsense!" liberals will scream. "Individuals are in control of their own bodies; music can't make people do anything they don't want to do. And even if music could influence people like that, it's up to parents to supervise their kids so they don't get into trouble. Besides, the right to free speech allows these performers to make any kind of music they choose. This is just another instance of conservative censorship!" Yep, libs will say something a lot like this against my idea, but in so doing they'll only expose their own hypocrisy and inconsistency.
There's a lot of physical and emotional suffering, and financial hardship, directly caused by smoking and gun violence, but that's not why liberals wage war on tobacco companies and gun manufacturers; if it were, they'd be suing explicit music "artists" as I write because there's a lot of suffering and financial hardship directly caused by "free" sex, too. No, liberals go after tobacco companies and gun makers simply because they don't like smoking or gun ownership,
and they're trying to establish a new code of secular morality. They do like "free" sex, though. And they want it promoted as far and wide as possible, despite the grief it's caused, because it's their most potent weapon against traditional, Judeo-Christian values.
So liberals won't care for my idea of suing the likes of Emenim, The Pussycat Dolls, or Madonna, but sane folks, many of whom are helping to raise their illegitimate grandkids, will. If Big Tobacco and the gun makers have to pony up for the dirt left behind by their products, music "artists" should, too. Let's keep it consistent, libs.
*I didn't catch the name of the study or who did it because I caught only part of Darrell Ankarlo's show, but if you Google "Darrell Ankarlo" that should put you on the right path to finding all the info on the study you want.
That's right; sue 'em! Every teen parent, AIDS patient, rape victim, and STD sufferer should sue the folks who make explicit music and any other kind of explicit entertainment. Great idea, huh? No? Come on!
Liberals are devoted to the belief that individuals aren't really responsible for the illegal, immoral, and/or irresponsible things they do (or the subsequent consequences); society is. That's the driving force behind all their lawsuits against tobacco companies and their calls for similar lawsuits against gun manufacturers. I'm just taking their own belief to the next level.
Think about it. Using liberals' logic, isn't a struggling unwed--or even wed--teen parent owed something from the "artists" who glorify out-of-wedlock sex in every song they sing? After all, the study showed that teens who listen to that type of music are more likely to have sex than teens who don't, and with sex comes consequences. Liberals claim that tobacco companies and gun manufacturers, not individual smokers and gun owners, are responsible for smoking-related diseases and gun violence, respectively, simply by virtue of supplying the product that caused the illness or mayhem. So, then, aren't "artists" who saturate the airwaves with sexually explicit music (and movies, tv shows, etc.) just as responsible for the negative results of their product?
"This is nonsense!" liberals will scream. "Individuals are in control of their own bodies; music can't make people do anything they don't want to do. And even if music could influence people like that, it's up to parents to supervise their kids so they don't get into trouble. Besides, the right to free speech allows these performers to make any kind of music they choose. This is just another instance of conservative censorship!" Yep, libs will say something a lot like this against my idea, but in so doing they'll only expose their own hypocrisy and inconsistency.
There's a lot of physical and emotional suffering, and financial hardship, directly caused by smoking and gun violence, but that's not why liberals wage war on tobacco companies and gun manufacturers; if it were, they'd be suing explicit music "artists" as I write because there's a lot of suffering and financial hardship directly caused by "free" sex, too. No, liberals go after tobacco companies and gun makers simply because they don't like smoking or gun ownership,
and they're trying to establish a new code of secular morality. They do like "free" sex, though. And they want it promoted as far and wide as possible, despite the grief it's caused, because it's their most potent weapon against traditional, Judeo-Christian values.
So liberals won't care for my idea of suing the likes of Emenim, The Pussycat Dolls, or Madonna, but sane folks, many of whom are helping to raise their illegitimate grandkids, will. If Big Tobacco and the gun makers have to pony up for the dirt left behind by their products, music "artists" should, too. Let's keep it consistent, libs.
*I didn't catch the name of the study or who did it because I caught only part of Darrell Ankarlo's show, but if you Google "Darrell Ankarlo" that should put you on the right path to finding all the info on the study you want.
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
A Waste of Time
President Bush wasted his time when he spoke to the NAACP a few days ago. I just don't understand why he did it. If Bush thought he was going to score some points for himself and the Republican party in this election year he was sadly mistaken.
The NAACP hates Bush, conservatives, the Republican party, and everything they stand for. The NAACP may have done some good things back in the day but now it's become an organization dedicated to racial self-interest and the perpetuation of the victim mentality among Blacks. As you can tell, I'm a Black person who doesn't care much for the NAACP.
When I was growing up nobody in my neighborhood talked about the NAACP. There was nothing in my virtually all Black neighborhood that anyone could point to and say, "The NAACP did that for us". The group was totally irrevelant to the day-to-day lives of my family and my friends' families. And the group is totally irrevelant to me now. That's why I think President Bush wasted his time speaking to it.
And if the President felt he just had to speak to the NAACP he should've used the occassion to deliver a dose of cold, hard truth to that group. Instead of pandering to Black "leaders'" obsession with racism and revenge politics, Bush should've boldly pointed out that most problems facing Black Americans today are self-inflicted. Yes, racism still exists, but it's not the cause of Blacks' destructively high rates of crime, poverty, and illegitamatcy*. Trying to change White people's attitude toward Blacks won't solve those problems. And Bush should've reminded his audience that racism is a human problem, not a White people's problem. Blacks can be just as racist as Whites, and not just against Whites but also against Hispanics, Asians, and Jews, to name a few. Of course, those other non-Whites and Jews are often racist against Blacks.
Yes, Bush could've told the NAACP that racism haunts every human heart; no one race has a monopoly on it. He could've told the NAACP that America has overcome most of it's racist past and racism no longer can stop anyone with determination from making it in this country. He could've told the NAACP that what racism still exists doesn't force Blacks to have babies out of wedlock, commit crime, or sell drugs. Those are personal choices for which only the individual is responsible. Bush could've told the NAACP all of these things, but didn't. Instead, he chose to pander. He wasted his time and America's. And that's really sad.
*I hope I spelled that right.
The NAACP hates Bush, conservatives, the Republican party, and everything they stand for. The NAACP may have done some good things back in the day but now it's become an organization dedicated to racial self-interest and the perpetuation of the victim mentality among Blacks. As you can tell, I'm a Black person who doesn't care much for the NAACP.
When I was growing up nobody in my neighborhood talked about the NAACP. There was nothing in my virtually all Black neighborhood that anyone could point to and say, "The NAACP did that for us". The group was totally irrevelant to the day-to-day lives of my family and my friends' families. And the group is totally irrevelant to me now. That's why I think President Bush wasted his time speaking to it.
And if the President felt he just had to speak to the NAACP he should've used the occassion to deliver a dose of cold, hard truth to that group. Instead of pandering to Black "leaders'" obsession with racism and revenge politics, Bush should've boldly pointed out that most problems facing Black Americans today are self-inflicted. Yes, racism still exists, but it's not the cause of Blacks' destructively high rates of crime, poverty, and illegitamatcy*. Trying to change White people's attitude toward Blacks won't solve those problems. And Bush should've reminded his audience that racism is a human problem, not a White people's problem. Blacks can be just as racist as Whites, and not just against Whites but also against Hispanics, Asians, and Jews, to name a few. Of course, those other non-Whites and Jews are often racist against Blacks.
Yes, Bush could've told the NAACP that racism haunts every human heart; no one race has a monopoly on it. He could've told the NAACP that America has overcome most of it's racist past and racism no longer can stop anyone with determination from making it in this country. He could've told the NAACP that what racism still exists doesn't force Blacks to have babies out of wedlock, commit crime, or sell drugs. Those are personal choices for which only the individual is responsible. Bush could've told the NAACP all of these things, but didn't. Instead, he chose to pander. He wasted his time and America's. And that's really sad.
*I hope I spelled that right.
Wednesday, July 26, 2006
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.
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.
Thursday, July 20, 2006
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?
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.
Thursday, July 13, 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!
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!
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!
Tuesday, July 11, 2006
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!
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!
Wednesday, July 05, 2006
Thursday, June 22, 2006
"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!
"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!
Tuesday, June 13, 2006
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!
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!
Saturday, June 10, 2006
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.
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.
Friday, May 26, 2006
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 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.
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
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.
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.
Tuesday, May 09, 2006
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!!!
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!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)