Rain in the Sahara

Last Wednesday the House passed a nonbinding resolution labelling as genocide the killing of 1 million Armenians by Turkey during WWI. On Sunday House Speaker Nancy Pelosi vowed to push forward on the resolution despite bitter protest from Turkey. Now I agree that those murders were in fact genocide. I also believe that they were the last gasp of jihad that Islam could muster before it was subdued by the European powers. I don't believe for one minute, though, that Pelosi wants this resolution because she cares about honoring the Armenian dead or making a statement about the nobility of America (Look! America is condemning genocide. America is good!).

Nancy Pelosi wants the Armenian resolution because she wants to upset our relationship with Turkey. Why? Because Turkey is our staunch ally in the Iraq War, allowing supplies from fuel to water to reach our troops from its soil. If Turkey ends its military relationship with us over this resolution, as it has threatened to do, we'd have to reroute those supplies in ways that could be prohibitively expensive. And if you can't supply an army, it can't fight. Now you're getting the picture.

This whole resolution business is about ensuring defeat in the Iraq War and doing it in a way that normally only our enemies would try: by cutting off supplies to our troops. This makes me sick. In her effort to please her fanatically anti-Bush base, Pelosi is willing to sacrifice our boys. And then she tries to make her dirty work look clean by wrapping it up in specious concern for the memory of slaughtered Armenians. If I were Armenian I'd be outraged at such exploitation of the Armenian nation's greatest tragedy.

If Pelosi, or any other American, wants to oppose the Iraq War they certainly have the right to do so. But they should be patriotic about it and not try to cut our troops' legs out from under them. And they should have the decency not to use another people's tragedy to cover their pro-defeat shenanigans. But expecting patriotism and decency from Pelosi who, after all, hails from San Francisco, is like expecting rain in the Sahara. It ain't happenin'.

Happy Columbus Day!

Happy Columbus Day! I hope you had a great holiday and took the time to remember the man who paved the way for the birth of America. Columbus rocks!

For a slightly more detailed view of Columbus Day see my post on my blog RA Folk Nation at http://rafolknation.blogspot.com/.

No Old Glory for Obama

I was watching tv tonight and just saw a story about Barack Obama that I can't believe. It seems that "patriot" Obama has decided to stop wearing his American flag lapel pin. Why? Obama claimed that he preferred to simply talk about what he wants to do for our country and that would show Americans his inner patriotism. Not buying it. Considering the stranglehold that far-left groups like MoveOn.org and The Daily Kos have on the Democratic presidential candidates, I suspect that some far-left puppet master told Obama to ditch the Stars and Stripes--or else.

Whatever the reason Obama removed the flag pin, it was a big mistake to do it. He can talk all he wants to about showing his patriotism from the inside out, taking off the pin clearly reveals that Obama is uncomfortable with being American. It's like John Kerry claiming, in the '04 presidential campaign, to be a good Catholic while also insisting that he wouldn't wear his faith on his sleeve. Why not? If you're so religious, why would you be reluctant to show it? Likewise, if you're so patriotic, why would you be ashamed to flaunt it?

Of course, I understand that the wearing of symbols--flags, crosses, or whatever--can be a shallow and hypocritical ploy to get votes or win over public opinion, but it can also MEAN SOMETHING. It can reveal where someone's heart is truly at, where his allegiance truly lies.

Maybe Obama really is patriotic, but felt that would hurt his chances with the far-left crowd he apparently thinks he needs to win. So he dropped Old Glory to reassure that constituentcy that he's not TOO American. Or maybe the opposite is true. Maybe Obama is an anti-American American and dumped the flag because he was tired of not acting in sync with his true feelings.

I don't know what really motivated Obama to do what he did. I do know that his action won't help liberals repair their bad reputation on patriotism. Surely Obama knows that. I guess that was a price he was willing to pay to make whatever statement he was trying to make. All I can say is, "Thanks, Obama, for giving us conservatives the rope with which to hang you!"

Finding the Truth in People Magazine

Sometimes the truth jumps out at you from places where you least expect it and it can be pretty jarring when it does. That's what happened to me today as I was browsing through the magazines in Walgreen's.

I'd picked up this week's--October 8--issue of People and was casually flipping through its pages when I came across a review for the movie "The Kingdom". Now you know that liberals always insist that they support the troops and act indignant when their patriotism is questioned. But often their true feelings slip out in spite of themselves, and that's what happened in People.

I haven't seen "The Kingdom" (TK), but it must really be a good movie because People's movie reviewer Leah Rozen gave it three out of four stars. However, she mixed some revealing criticism in with the praise. While calling TK "a gripping action-thriller", "smart", and "exciting", Rozen also complained that the movie had "a hyperheroic Hollywood...ending" and that it "pander[ed] to [Americans'] most jingoistic instincts". What was it about "The Kingdom" that so upset Rozen? Apparently, the movie was too pro-American. That's right.

In "The Kingdom" the Americans, at least the FBI team that's sent to Saudi Arabia, are the good guys, and they kick terrorist ass in a way that had the audience cheering, Rozen admits. That was too much for her. She must've been in a tizzy about how to review the movie. Intellectual honesty apparently forced Rozen to give "The Kingdom" a good rating, but she threw in her disclaimers as a sop to her liberal reading audience. It was as if she were saying, "Ok guys, I have to admit that "The Kingdom" is a good movie, but I want you to know that I didn't fall for all its pro-American stuff."

Rozen's review revealed the corrupt version of "patriotism" that prevails among today's liberals. Routing for America is "hyperheroic". Cheering when America destroys her enemies is "jingoism". For liberals such things are BIG no-nos. Therefore, since they can't route FOR America the only option left is to route AGAINST America, which liberals do with relish. Whether it's Harry Reid declaring the Iraq War lost, Cindy Sheehan calling America evil, or Sean Penn cozying up to America-hating dictator Hugo Chavez, liberals have declared war on their own nation. They consider their self-hatred and investment in defeat as a "sophisticated" form of patriotism. Real patriotism--loving America, defending her, routing for her to win--is disavowed as racist, militarist, imperialist or, as Rozen put it, jingoist. The truth slipped out. And you thought People printed only fluff.

Waiting, Waiting, Waiting

I'm waiting. It's been three days since Iran's president Ahmedinejad spoke at Columbia University (CU) and declared that there're no homosexuals in Iran, and I'm still waiting for the homosexual/liberal/feminist protest machine to pour its foot soldiers into the streets in rage.

How many times have gays and their liberal and feminist allies angrily marched against their fellow Americans who happen to be moral traditionalists? Americans who don't support gay marriage or gay adoptions, for instance, but who also would never and have never harmed a gay person even verbally, let alone executed one. Yet Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, president of a country that DOES execute gays, is invited to speak at one of America's most prestigious universities, and the overwhelming majority of those who oppose him are Jews rightly outraged by Ahmadinejad's pledge to eradicate Israel.

Where was the campus gay alliance? Or the gay student union? Where were the campus' feminist groups? Where were the student Democrats? Where were all the liberal campus groups who would've been out in force if Pat Robertson, Ann Coulter, or Condaleeza Rice had spoken at CU, assuming they would've been invited?

Apparently, liberals' hatred for Bush is so virulent, so irrational, that they're willing to make common cause with an anti-gay, anti-Semitic, anti-woman Muslim fanatic just to embarrass the
president. And "make common cause with" is the only way I can describe liberals' deafening silence in the face of Mahmoud's hateful ramblings. This is a sad and sick state of affairs, indeed. Embracing the tyrant is more agreeable to liberals than admitting that the Right is right about Ahmadinejad, and the whole war on radical Islam, too.

I'm sure liberals will be incensed at my opinion. "We don't support tyrants!" they'll yell. "We haven't sold out our values!" they'll scream. "We're patriotic, too!" they'll throw in for good measure. I'm not buying it. If liberals want to prove they haven't sold their soul to the Muslim devil in exchange for a chance to jab Bush, they should start their protests now. They know how to do it. I'm waiting.

Toby Keith - American Soldier

Hey you liberal, America hating, Hollywood scum! Here's a piece of REAL patriotism from an artist who gets it. You might want to look at this video before trying to pass off your troop-smearing movies as patriotic. And while you're at, check out Frank Capra's "Why We Fight" series to educate yourselves on Hollywood's forgotten pro-American past.

Invitation to Evil

I don't know how much longer I can stomach liberals. When they're not making movies slandering our troops they're inviting America-hating tyrants to propagandizing on our campuses.

It was bad enough when Harvard allowed Iran's former president Ayatollah Khatami to speak there last year. Now Columbia University has invited current Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadenijad--I don't know if I spelled that right and I don't care--to speak on its campus. Just how low can liberals go?

Liberals are defending this outrage by playing the free speech card. If we don't allow Ahmadenijad to speak, they say, America will look hypocritical in the eyes of the world. Instead, we should give Iran's top Holocaust denier a prestigious platform for his venom and show him and the world what a tolerant nation we are. Gag me!!!

Iran and the rest of the world already know that America is a tolerant nation with freedom of speech for all. As I mentioned above, a former Iranian president spoke at Harvard just last year. The Iranians understand our freedoms; that's why they exploit them so well. Ahmadenijad will use his visit to Columbia University to portray himself as a reasonable man of peace. It will be a propaganda boon to him and his regime. The idea that dear Mahmoud will return to Iran a changed man after getting baptized in the light of America's freedom is ludicrous, yet liberals believe it passionately.

Why are liberals always so willing to embrace America's enemies? Why do they jump at the chance to give them a stage for their anti-American views? Why do they have such faith in their goodwill, yet are loathed to give the benefit of the doubt to their own leaders? The short answer is because liberals, too, hate America. In fact, that's the only answer.

Quotable Quotes: On Liberals

"[C]ontrarianism is creativity for the untalented." Dennis Miller, on The O'Reilly Factor, Wednesday, Sept. 12, 2007, describing the treasonous liberals who are desperate for an American defeat in Iraq and the larger war on terror. Great line!

This Tragic Day

Today is the 6th anniversary, to the day, of the horrific Islamic terrorist attacks on America. With the country divided like it hasn't been since the Vietnam War, I plead with all patriotic Americans to stop and remember what really happened six years ago.

On this day in 2001 liberals weren't attacked. Conservatives weren't attacked. Christians weren't attacked. Atheists weren't attacked. Blacks weren't attacked. Whites weren't attacked. Men weren't attacked. Women weren't attacked. Straights weren't attacked. Gays weren't attacked. The poor weren't attacked. The rich weren't attacked. What happened on September 11, 2001 is that AMERICANS were attacked.

Nineteen Islamic terrorists targeted all Americans when they hijacked those planes and flew them into the Pentagon and the World Trade Center. The terrorists were telling us that they hated ALL of us. They didn't try to divide their victims by color, gender, class or any other category that, sadly, so many Americans are obsessed with. No, the nineteen Muslim murderers hijacked planes and destroyed them with no concern for which Americans were on them.

We must remember. REMEMBER!!!! On 9/11 we were attacked as a single nation. We must defeat, indeed, we can ONLY defeat the killers as a SINGLE nation! And it WAS Islamic killers who committed this horrendous act. The troglodytes spouting hateful, anti-American conspiracy theories are servants of our enemies. They are fifth columnists working for America's defeat. They must be defeated as thoroughly as the Islamic militants who still want to kill us.

On September 11, 2001 the worst happened to this country, and we responded with the best. Firemen rushed into buildings that people were running out of. People filled the churches to pray for strength and guidance. Firemen carried a gay chaplain out of the rubble with no concern that he was gay. Americans of every race, class, religion, sexual orientation, and national origin declared they were Americans first, and the other things second. The best poured out of us because, as Alexis de Tocqueville said over a hundred years ago, America is great because America is good.

America is good!!!! That's something else we must remember this tragic day. We did nothing to cause the terrorists to attack us. Our foreign policy isn't to blame. Our freedom isn't to blame.
Our support for Israel isn't to blame. The only things to blame for 9/11 are the terrorists and their religion. Remember that, my fellow Americans. Remember the horror. Remember the death. Remember the Fallen, who suffered unimaginable anguish as they perished. Remember America, remember. Then ask God to have mercy on our enemies, because we won't.

Quotable Quotes: On War

"We are going to kill [the] German bastards. I would prefer to skin them alive but, gentlemen, I fear some of our people at home would accuse me of being too rough." Gen. George S. Patton.

Substitute "Muslim" for "German" and this is what we should be saying in our war against jihad but, alas, political correctness has even more of a strangle hold on Americans now than it did in Patton's time.

Don't Tread On Me America Tribute

A killer video to a killer song! This is what patriotism looks like, liberals.

Epiphany Moments or, How I Came To Think The Way I Do

For many people a Black conservative is a contradiction in terms. The liberal establishment has been very successful in convincing everyone--Whites and Blacks, liberals and conservatives--that Blacks and other minorities are the exclusive possession of the Left. So I'm sure a lot of people are wondering just how a Black woman like me came to be in the "enemy" camp. It was an osmotic process marked by what I call "epiphany moments": events and/or circumstances that clarified exactly what I believed and why.

I didn't get my ideas from my family. My parents, grandparents and other relatives were, and still are, totally apolitical. By "apolitical" I don't mean that they didn't have opinions on things, only that they didn't wear those opinions on their sleeves. However, they made it known that they liked Democrats/liberals and didn't like Republicans/conservaties. They played the role written for them by liberals. And that probably was the beginning of my transformation from unthinking supporter of liberalism to thinking conservative.

As I said, my family had their opinions. My maternal grandmother made the biggest impression on me. She was devoutly pro-life and she instilled that belief into me. As I got older I found it increasingly difficult to square my pro-life belief with voting for the staunchly pro-choice Democratic party. My views on other issues, such as gay rights and gun control, also put me into conflict with the liberal-controlled Democrats. After voting for Democrats in several elections, I finally decided to be true to myself. Why, I asked myself, should I vote for a party that didn't represent my values? Because that's what good little Black folks were supposed to do? I wasn't playing that game anymore. I was an individual and I would vote my values, my beliefs, not my group affiliation. That was my first epiphany moment, and more were to come.

Andres Serrano gets the credit for my second epiphany moment. Serrano, for those who don't know, is the "artist" who, in 1989, put a crucifix in a jar of his own urine, photographed it, and titled the picture Piss Christ. The controversy over that blasphemous piece of "art" opened my eyes to liberals' hypocrisy and anti-Christian bigotry.

When Serrano's picture hit the public square conservatives were outraged. Their outrage was intensified when they learned that the photo was funded by the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA). Conservatives called for NEA funds to be cut for Serrano's work. Note, they didn't call for Piss Christ to be banned from view, only that the government not pay for it. At the time I thought that was a quintessentially liberal position. After all, liberals were the ones always calling for the separation of church and state. No public money, they insisted, should be used to promote or attack religion. I couldn't think of a grosser attack on religion than Piss Christ. Yet the loudest and most vehement supporters of Serrano were liberals. Talk about a wake up call.

I felt like my intelligence was being insulted by liberals during the Serrano controversy. Not only did they accuse Serrano's conservative critics of being censors, which was patently untrue, but some of them even denied that Piss Christ was anti-Christian. I couldn't believe it. If an artist had put a photo of Martin Luther King in a jar of urine, photographed it, then titled the photo Piss Blacks, liberals would've immediately recognized it as racist. And they would've gone ballistic if the NEA had funded the photo. But when hate was spewed out against Christians, liberals thought it deserving of government aid, or pretended it didn't exist. But I was supposed to vote for liberals because of my race. No way!

And speaking of race, the shameful Clarence Thomas-Anita Hill affair sealed my liberal-to-conservative transformation. When supposedly anti-racist liberals attacked Thomas, a Black Supreme Court nominee, with unbridled vengeance I knew liberalism was a fraud.

Clarence Thomas committed the worst crime a Black man can commit in the eyes of liberals: he dared to think for himself. A conservative, Thomas was nominated for the nation's highest court by Bush the Elder. Liberals tried everything to stop the nomination; when all their efforts had failed, Anita Hill conveniently emerged to accuse Thomas of sexual harrassment. A media circus ensued. Liberals and feminists gleefully declared Thomas guilty and demanded his nomination be withdrawn. Thomas was subjected to weeks of a humiliating investigation before Congress, where his character was assassinated and his reputation shredded. When it was all over justice prevailed and Thomas took his seat on the high court.

Clarence Thomas' ordeal showed me what liberals' really think. Supposedly anti-racist, they rejected Blacks' right to think independently. Supposedly committed to justice, they convicted Thomas on an accusation alone. Supposedly fair minded and against corruption, they never questioned the blatantly political timing of Anita Hill's accusation. Supposedly tolerant, they worked nonstop to prevent ideological diversity on the Supreme Court. They practiced everything they claimed to be against. Epiphany moment number three.

There were other "e-moments" on my way to becoming a conservative but these are the biggies. If one or more of these events hadn't happened I'd be middle-of-the-road today, if not outright liberal (scary thought). But fate saw fit to bring these episodes into my life to make me what I am and I'm grateful. I am proud to be a Black conservative. I wouldn't have it any other way!

Korean Cutie Does Hip Hop

I think this video is adorable. My great-niece agrees. She wants me to buy her clothes just like the ones the little Korean "star" is wearing!

How Many More Have to Die?

Tonight I watched The O'Reilly Factor as usual and there was a segment in which Bill O'Reilly and Geraldo Rivera squared off over the recent murders of three young people by an illegal alien (IA) in Newark, NJ. I was hoping that this particularly heinous crime--the three victims were shot execution style--would shake Geraldo out of his racially motivated devotion to what I call the Doctrine of the Inherent Innocence of the Illegal Alien, a key left-wing article of faith. It didn't.

As unbelievable as it sounds, Geraldo took the same illegal-status-isn't-the-issue position on these horrific murders as he took on the DUI killing of two American teenage girls by an illegal alien in Virginia Beach, VA. earlier this year. I was dumbfounded. In spite of the visciousness of the Newark attacks, Geraldo still believes that America has an obligation to give safe haven to violently criminal IAs, especially if they're Latino. What world is this man living in?!

Obviously, black and white Americans dying at the hands of Hispanic IAs don't matter to Mr. Rivera. All that matters to him is that his racial kin escape all responsibility for their actions. If Latinos break into America like thieves in the night then, once here, use fake documents, steal Americans' identities, and kill Americans with guns or cars, it's all America's fault. Five dead American young people aren't enough to change Geraldo's mind. So I ask Mr. Rivera, "How many more non-Hispanic Americans have to die before you'll put your fellow citizens before your race? How many more, Geraldo? How many more?"

Oh Happy Day!!!!

Today my Mom marks her first anniversary being cancer free. Oh happy day!!!!!!!

Debate in Spanish? Not!

On the Glenn Beck Show tonight there was a lively exchange on the subject of the presidential candidates debating on the Spanish language tv station Univision. As you might've guessed, I came down on the no-debate-in-Spanish side. And I don't apologize for it.

I know that Hispanics are the fastest growing minority and I understand the desire of the candidates to win over this voting block. But they should reach out to Hispanics the same way they reach out to other Americans, in English. The candidates aren't speaking Chinese to Chinese Americans, are they? They aren't reaching out to Cajun Americans in French. None of them are campaigning in New York's Little Odessa neighborhood waving signs written in Cyrillic letters. All other non-English speaking minorities are expected to participate in this nation's civic life in English. Why should the standard be different for Hispanics?

The language of America is English. It might not be "official", but it's reality. America began as a British colony and part of that heritage is the language we speak. If you don't want to speak English, don't come here. You definitely shouldn't come here and then demand that Americans disown their own culture, including their language, in order to accomodate you. No, you have to accomodate America. Enter America legally, assimilate into her culture, embrace her heritage, and learn English as fast as you can. Do this and you will be welcomed; don't do this and you will be deservedly resented. The choice is yours and in the meantime, no debates in Spanish!

Marx or Clinton?

I found this post a few days ago on the blog Tired of All the Liberal Rhetoric Out There (click on elwoodin in my links list to read it). I've long believed that modern liberalism is nothing more than repackaged Marxism. Read the quotes below and decide if you agree.

"We're going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good." Hillary Clinton (06/29/04).

"[W]e can't...just let business as usual go on and that means something has to be taken away from some people." Hillary Clinton (06/04/07).

"It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few, and for the few...and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity." Hillary Clinton (05/29/07).

These three quotes alone expose the smarmy socialist heart of Hillary Clinton's "progressive" ideology. Taking things away from people? What things? What people, Hillary? How will you take the things away? What will you do to those people who don't want to give up their stuff? Shared prosperity? Don't you know, Hillary, that sharing is voluntary and not something ordered by the state? Anyone considering voting for Hillary Clinton for president should have these questions on his mind. But hold on, there's more.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need." Karl Marx (1875).

"[T]he gap between those who are enjoying the fruits of the modern economy and those who aren't is growing wider." Hillary Clinton (05/29/07).

"[T]he most advanced countries [have]...a heavy progressive or graduated income tax." Karl Marx (1848). So that's where liberals get their love affair with taxes from!

"I believe we need a new progressive vision...I believe we can help more workers join unions to improve wages and conditions in our work places." Hillary Clinton (05/29/07).

"The real fruit of [working people's] battles lies...in the ever-expanding union of the workers." Karl Marx (1848).

"Society does not consist of individuals but expresses the sum of interrelations, the relations within which these individuals stand." Karl Marx (1858).

"...I'm obviously not talking just about or even primarily about geograph[y]...but about the network of relationships and values that do connect us and bind us together." Hillary Clinton (1996). Hmmm. Geography doesn't matter, only the "network of relationships and values that...bind us together." That explains perfectly why "progressives" are so in love with illegal aliens. It doesn't matter that they spit on our laws, we're bound to them by shared values and relationships. Gag me!

"The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways, the point, however, is to change it." Karl Marx (1845).

"We are at a stage in history in which remolding society is one of the great challenges facing all of us in the West." Hillary Clinton (04/06/93).

There you have it, folks. Hillary Clinton channeling Karl Marx. And you still want to vote for this woman?! God forbid!

Barack Obama: The Black Neville Chamberlain

Presidential candidate Barack Obama has been a star ever since throwing his hat into the presidential ring. Many people adore him simply because they see him as a breath of fresh air, a political maverick uncorrupted by Washington and who sincerely cares about the folks. Few people pay attention to his actual beliefs or policy positions. And that's a big mistake.

While Obama might have some good ideas--most politicians do--I'm scared of him. I fear he's totally possessed by the spirit of Neville Chamberlain, and that bodes ill for the safety and even survival of America and the entire Free World.

For those who don't know, Neville Chamberlain was Britain's Prime Minister in the '30's, when Hitler ruled Germany. Terrified of another war, Chamberlain, along with other European "leaders", negotiated with and appeased Hitler at every turn. No action was too dishonorable for Chamberlain to commit in the name of peace. His biggest claim to fame, or infamy, was his sell out of Czechoslovakia to Nazi Germany in 1938. He returned to England a hero, waving before the newsreel cameras the infamous "Peace of Paper" and proclaiming he had secured "Peace in our time". Less than a year later World War II broke out.

Fast forward to Obama, 2007.

During the YouTube debate Obama said that, if elected president, he would talk with the leaders of rogue nations and do so without conditions. Like his spiritual grandfather, Obama has an irrational faith in negotiation and the goodwill of tyrants. In an effort to clarify his remarks after receiving some criticism for them, Obama tried to make diplomacy seem like a bold strategy. He kept saying that we have nothing to fear from negotiation, implying that the Bush administration is cowardly for not talking to and dignifying dictators and terrorists.

Obama claimed that we shouldn't be afraid to tell "the worst dictators" that we don't like their values, human rights violations, or support for terrorists, but if they were willing to "go in a new direction" we should be willing to talk. How touching. Obama's going to trust leaders--and their terrorist sidekicks-- who oppress women, deny the Holocaust, call for the eradication of entire nations, demand conversion to their religion or else, and starve their people en masse. But he won't concede that president Bush has even a drop of decency. And that outlook is supposed to protect America? Yeah, right.

I can just see Obama--oops!--I mean Osama bin Laden and friends shaking at the thought of an Obama presidency. "Please Allah!" they'll pray in terror. "Save us from America's new leader! He's not like Bush. He wants to talk to us! He's going to tell us he doesn't like our values! Oh please, Allah, save us!"

And you want to elect Barack Obama commander-in-chief? Please!

PGZ's New Look

Hey friends! Dig the new look? I hope so. I was getting so tired of the old Poorgrrl Zone template. It had become so dull to me, but I was unsure about changing it for a long time. Then Blogger came up with this new and super easy way to change and customize their blogs. I played around with the new system on some of my other blogs and liked what I got so I decided to take the plunge and change PGZ's look (the look is very similar to a couple of my other blogs). Who knows. By this afternoon I may decide I don't like this custom job and change again, but for now Poorgrrl Zone has a brand new face. Enjoy!

Quotable Quotes: On Free Speech

"Some people's idea of free speech is that they are free to say what they like but if anyone says anything back, that is an outrage." Sir Winston Churchill

I didn't know Sir Winston understood liberals so well.