Hey friends! I just wanted to apologize for not posting in over a week. Things have been so hectic for me lately that I just haven't had the time or the want-to to blog. Hopefully, things should start to quiet down now that a couple of big--big for me, that is-- events that I was working on are now done. Also, I was getting really frustrated at the library computers I have to use. Lately, they've been sooooo slow, and even when they load they can't always pull up the site that I want. I can't tell you how many times I've gotten that "Cannot Find Server" page while trying to pull up Blogger. It makes me want to puke!!!!!!!!! But today the computer I'm on is working great, so maybe the library staff fixed whatever was wrong with their system.
On more thing before I go. I've decided to start a new "column" on PGZ called Musings On.... I came up with this idea because I realized that my posts were becoming more and more political, and I felt I needed to do more posts on "life...and everything else" as it says in PGZ's description. However, since the majority of my posts are political I didn't want non-political posts to be just haphazardly thrown in, with no connection to the news of the day. So I came up with the Musings On... column. This column will be my thoughts on a variety of things that are on my mind and/or heart. I'm going to do this column every Friday. I hope Musings On... will be interesting to my readers. If nothing else, it'll give you a chance to see that I'm not all about politics. I do think about things other than Iraq, elections, and how to fight liberals. I'm not one dimensional. I do have a life (sort of). Musings On... will give you a glimpse of it.
See ya later!
PoorGrrl
"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." Eccl. 10:2, NIV. God has spoken. To the right is wisdom, honor, strength, and truth. To the left is...not. I know which way my heart leans. How about yours?
Tuesday, October 24, 2006
Friday, October 13, 2006
Quotable Quotes: On Criticism
"The personal insult is the last recourse of an exhausted mind." Pat Buchanan on The O'Reilly Factor, Wednesday, Oct. 11, 2006.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Evil in Nickel Mines
By now everyone who's not living under a rock knows about the horrible massacre of five Amish schoolgirls in Nickel Mines, PA, a week ago Monday. When I first heard the news, I immediately went into denial. It couldn't have been an Amish school, I told myself, the newscast got it wrong. I couldn't believe what I was hearing because the Amish are perhaps the most peaceful and harmless community in America. All they do is farm; who would want to hurt them, especially their children? When the horrible reality finally sank in I got sick to my stomach, and then I got mad.
Only pure evil could do what was done in Nickel Mines. Only a human being totally consumed with evil could go into a school, any school, handcuff the little girl pupils together, then execute them, one by one. We need to get reaquainted with the reality of evil. Almost as soon as the horror unfolded, talking heads were calling Charles Roberts, the killer, "crazy", and a "nut job". Charles Roberts wasn't crazy. He wasn't a nut job; he was evil. Evil. And the sooner we accept that, the better off we'll be.
People don't go into schools and murder the children there because they have guns, as Rosie O'Donnell would have you believe. No, people go into schools and murder the children there because they, the killers, are evil. Our society has spent at least a generation running away from the concept of evil. As we've abandoned God, we've abandoned God's opposite, evil. We now prefer to believe that atrocious acts like the one commited at Nickel Mines must be the product of some deep emotional and/or psychological disturbance in the perpetrator. We also prefer to believe that we can repair this disturbance with "treatment" and eventually release the "cured" monster back into society. That type of thinking is behind the current reluctance of so many judges to put child molesters in jail for any length of time. This type of thinking also leaves us ill prepared to deal with the killers who don't kill themselves, as Charles Roberts did.
The Amish community astonished us "English"--their word for the non-Amish--folks by immediately forgiving Charles Roberts. Some of the family members of the murdered girls even attended Roberts' funeral. Such acts are the result of the deeply Christian Amish culture. The Bible, in the New Testament, tells Christians to not resist evil but to "overcome evil with good". I think the Amish are trying to do that. I don't know if that is really the best way to deal with evil, but at least such a belief acknowledges that evil does, in fact, exist. And in doing that, the Amish are far ahead of us "progressive" English.
Only pure evil could do what was done in Nickel Mines. Only a human being totally consumed with evil could go into a school, any school, handcuff the little girl pupils together, then execute them, one by one. We need to get reaquainted with the reality of evil. Almost as soon as the horror unfolded, talking heads were calling Charles Roberts, the killer, "crazy", and a "nut job". Charles Roberts wasn't crazy. He wasn't a nut job; he was evil. Evil. And the sooner we accept that, the better off we'll be.
People don't go into schools and murder the children there because they have guns, as Rosie O'Donnell would have you believe. No, people go into schools and murder the children there because they, the killers, are evil. Our society has spent at least a generation running away from the concept of evil. As we've abandoned God, we've abandoned God's opposite, evil. We now prefer to believe that atrocious acts like the one commited at Nickel Mines must be the product of some deep emotional and/or psychological disturbance in the perpetrator. We also prefer to believe that we can repair this disturbance with "treatment" and eventually release the "cured" monster back into society. That type of thinking is behind the current reluctance of so many judges to put child molesters in jail for any length of time. This type of thinking also leaves us ill prepared to deal with the killers who don't kill themselves, as Charles Roberts did.
The Amish community astonished us "English"--their word for the non-Amish--folks by immediately forgiving Charles Roberts. Some of the family members of the murdered girls even attended Roberts' funeral. Such acts are the result of the deeply Christian Amish culture. The Bible, in the New Testament, tells Christians to not resist evil but to "overcome evil with good". I think the Amish are trying to do that. I don't know if that is really the best way to deal with evil, but at least such a belief acknowledges that evil does, in fact, exist. And in doing that, the Amish are far ahead of us "progressive" English.
Wednesday, October 04, 2006
Slow Loading
Hey friends! Just wanted to apologize for the long gaps between new posts. As most of you know, I have to blog at the library because I can't set up my computer at home. This situation really sucks. I love to blog and I want to give my readers something new to read daily, but even though I get a lunch break long enough to let me come to the library, sometimes the library's computers take forever to load. So I can spend what seems like half of my time just waiting for Blogger to come up on the monitor. Plus, I also have to look up work related things while I'm online so I can't spend the entire time blogging. Bummer! Well, I just wanted to explain the delay in new postings. Hope you understand. Have a killer day, and happy blogging!
Love,
PoorGrrl
Love,
PoorGrrl
Thursday, September 28, 2006
Oh! The Freakin' Torture!
Buried way in the back of my hometown paper was a little blurb about the hideous torture that the evil, wicked, lawless, Bush administration is inflicting on Guantanamo Bay detainees.
It seems that the evil, wicked, lawless Bush administration is breaking the Geneva Conventions and harming Gitmo captives by letting them--oh! I can't even say it!--celebrate Ramadan!!!! Yes, you read it right. The Muslims in Gitmo are being allowed to observe the fast during the "sacred" month of Ramadan. In accordance with the observance, the detainees are getting meals only before sunrise and after sunset. During the day they don't eat or drink anything; I think it's supposed to have something to do with learning spiritual discipline.
Can you imagine?! Damn that son of a Bush! How dare he let those prisoners follow their religion! Get me Human Rights Watch! I want the number to Amnesty International! We've got to put an end to this horror! Where are John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Cindy Sheehan, and Charles Rangel when you need them? Why doesn't The New York Times have every one of its reporters all over this? Why isn't Michael Moore down at Gitmo with his camera to get the evidence on film for future generations? Where, oh where, are all the lovers of human diginity, peace, and freedom?!
I'll tell you where they are. They're hiding under a rock, the hypocrites. Oh yes, they'll complain about prisoners being forced to listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers in a cold room, but when it comes to real mistreatment like this, they're silent as church mice. The suffering the detainees are enduring as they practice their faith behind bars must be excruciating. Now I see why liberals hate Bush. Anyone who'd respect the religious rights of terrorists has got to be Hitler reborn. I'm glad I've finally seen the light.
It seems that the evil, wicked, lawless Bush administration is breaking the Geneva Conventions and harming Gitmo captives by letting them--oh! I can't even say it!--celebrate Ramadan!!!! Yes, you read it right. The Muslims in Gitmo are being allowed to observe the fast during the "sacred" month of Ramadan. In accordance with the observance, the detainees are getting meals only before sunrise and after sunset. During the day they don't eat or drink anything; I think it's supposed to have something to do with learning spiritual discipline.
Can you imagine?! Damn that son of a Bush! How dare he let those prisoners follow their religion! Get me Human Rights Watch! I want the number to Amnesty International! We've got to put an end to this horror! Where are John McCain, Lindsey Graham, Cindy Sheehan, and Charles Rangel when you need them? Why doesn't The New York Times have every one of its reporters all over this? Why isn't Michael Moore down at Gitmo with his camera to get the evidence on film for future generations? Where, oh where, are all the lovers of human diginity, peace, and freedom?!
I'll tell you where they are. They're hiding under a rock, the hypocrites. Oh yes, they'll complain about prisoners being forced to listen to the Red Hot Chili Peppers in a cold room, but when it comes to real mistreatment like this, they're silent as church mice. The suffering the detainees are enduring as they practice their faith behind bars must be excruciating. Now I see why liberals hate Bush. Anyone who'd respect the religious rights of terrorists has got to be Hitler reborn. I'm glad I've finally seen the light.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
"F" You, Hugo!
Boycott Citgo filling stations. In the wake of Hugo Chavez's Bush-is-the-devil speech before the UN last Tuesday, I'm calling on all patriotic Americans to boycott Venezuelan owned Citgo.
It's time for the American people to get serious with those who mean us harm. Hugo Chavez has allied himself with Iran, Cuba, and probably every other enemy of our country. He's signed some 80 treaties with Iran, including one where Hugo pledges that an attack on Iran will be regarded as an attack on Venezuela. This man deserves not one more US dollar.
Some of you may think that boycotting Citgo is wrong because a lot of Americans work for the company and the boycott will unfairly hurt them. I understand that concern, but we can't let it stop us from doing what needs to be done. Yes, some Americans may get hurt if we stop buying gas from Citgo, but many more Americans may get hurt if we don't stop. As I said, Hugo Chavez is our enemy. He's sided with people who want a world without America. Giving him our dollars so he can use them against us is insane. It'd be better to buy our gas from much-maligned Exxon, at least it's American.
And while we're on the subject, other oil-producing countries besides Venezuela also hate us. We need to seriously curb our entire consumption of oil so as to deprive our enemies of a lucrative income. It's no better for Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria to get our dollars than it is for Venezuela to get them. So boycotting Venezuela is just a first step in what I hope will be a sea change in how we Americans live a large part of our lives. Hearing Hugo's rank anti-Americanism on national tv hopefully woke a lot of my fellow Americans up. It certainly woke me up and you can rest assured that Hugo has gotten his last dollar from me!
It's time for the American people to get serious with those who mean us harm. Hugo Chavez has allied himself with Iran, Cuba, and probably every other enemy of our country. He's signed some 80 treaties with Iran, including one where Hugo pledges that an attack on Iran will be regarded as an attack on Venezuela. This man deserves not one more US dollar.
Some of you may think that boycotting Citgo is wrong because a lot of Americans work for the company and the boycott will unfairly hurt them. I understand that concern, but we can't let it stop us from doing what needs to be done. Yes, some Americans may get hurt if we stop buying gas from Citgo, but many more Americans may get hurt if we don't stop. As I said, Hugo Chavez is our enemy. He's sided with people who want a world without America. Giving him our dollars so he can use them against us is insane. It'd be better to buy our gas from much-maligned Exxon, at least it's American.
And while we're on the subject, other oil-producing countries besides Venezuela also hate us. We need to seriously curb our entire consumption of oil so as to deprive our enemies of a lucrative income. It's no better for Iran, Saudi Arabia, or Nigeria to get our dollars than it is for Venezuela to get them. So boycotting Venezuela is just a first step in what I hope will be a sea change in how we Americans live a large part of our lives. Hearing Hugo's rank anti-Americanism on national tv hopefully woke a lot of my fellow Americans up. It certainly woke me up and you can rest assured that Hugo has gotten his last dollar from me!
Tuesday, September 19, 2006
My Other Blogs
Hey friends! I just thought I'd take a little break from talking about life, politics, and everything else to do some shameless self-promotion. Below are the addresses of my other other blogs--I've now got five altogether!--and I'd like for all my PGZ friends to stop by and have a look. Tell me what you think. Two of the blogs are political, and two are not. My newest blog, Day Care Daze, was just published today so it has only one post on it. Most of my other blogs have fewer posts than PGZ because I have to blog at the library and I don't have the time to post on all of them as often as I'd like. Still, blogging as soooooooo much fun that I didn't want to stop with just one, or even two! So check out my other blogs, and have fun!!!!!!!
Thanks,
Poorgrrl
God and Me @ http://divinemusings.blogspot.com
Kafir Warrior @ http://kafirwarrior.blogsopt.com
Planet RA! @ http://planetra.blogspot.com
Day Care Daze @ http://day-care-daze.blogspot.com
Thanks,
Poorgrrl
God and Me @ http://divinemusings.blogspot.com
Kafir Warrior @ http://kafirwarrior.blogsopt.com
Planet RA! @ http://planetra.blogspot.com
Day Care Daze @ http://day-care-daze.blogspot.com
Wednesday, September 13, 2006
Red Hot Chili Torture
I was watching "The O'Reilly Factor" last night and it was reported that The New York Times(TNYT) is accusing the CIA of torturing some Al Quaeda big shot we've captured. And how did the CIA torture him? They put him in a cold room and made him listen to--gulp!--the Red Hot Chili Peppers! NO!!!!!!!!!! Not the Peppers! Anything but that!!!!!!
Well, the music was played a little loudly. And the room was kinda cold, and the Al Quaeda big shot (don't remember his name and don't care to) did get a little uncomfortable and...cry me a fricking river.
Liberals don't want America to win the war against radical Islam(I no longer call it the war on terror). Face it. Whether it's the ACLU fighting against "profiling", or TNYT outing our wiretapping operation, or some lefty pundit complaining about the word "Islamofascist", liberals have chosen sides, and they're not with US. They're savvy enough, however, not to come right out and admit it. Instead, they hide their aiding and abetting of the enemy behind phony concerns about civil liberties, racism or, as in this case, torture.
C'mon! No one in his right mind believes that putting someone in a cold room and making them listen to rock music is torture. Sure, anyone would find that treatment uncomfortable but being uncomfortable and being tortured are two VERY different things. If you doubt that, think about this.
During the siege of the Branch Davidian compound in 1993, the FBI cut off the electricity and, at night, bombarded the compound with bright lights and loud noises, including tapes of rabbits being killed and Nancy Sinatra singing. I'm sure the Davidians inside the compound, especially the children, were quite uncomfortable. Yet I don't recall a single liberal yelling "Torture!" at the Clinton administration. But wasn't the treatment meted out to the Davidians quite similar to the treatment meted out to the Al Quaeda big shot? Both were made uncomfortable, and isn't being made uncomfortable the Left's working definition of "torture"? Not quite.
The Left's definition of "torture" is: being made uncomfortable by the Bush administration or operatives thereof. You see, it's all political. For liberals the real enemy, the only enemy, is George W. Bush. It's he whom they're at war with and they'll ally themselves with anyone, even Islamic militants who kill Americans, if Bush is their nemesis, too. So screaming "Torture!" is really a weapon liberals are using against their enemy. It has nothing to do with actually being against brutally violent interrogation methods. After all, listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers isn't brutal, no matter how loudly they're played.
Give it away, give it away, give it away, now!
Well, the music was played a little loudly. And the room was kinda cold, and the Al Quaeda big shot (don't remember his name and don't care to) did get a little uncomfortable and...cry me a fricking river.
Liberals don't want America to win the war against radical Islam(I no longer call it the war on terror). Face it. Whether it's the ACLU fighting against "profiling", or TNYT outing our wiretapping operation, or some lefty pundit complaining about the word "Islamofascist", liberals have chosen sides, and they're not with US. They're savvy enough, however, not to come right out and admit it. Instead, they hide their aiding and abetting of the enemy behind phony concerns about civil liberties, racism or, as in this case, torture.
C'mon! No one in his right mind believes that putting someone in a cold room and making them listen to rock music is torture. Sure, anyone would find that treatment uncomfortable but being uncomfortable and being tortured are two VERY different things. If you doubt that, think about this.
During the siege of the Branch Davidian compound in 1993, the FBI cut off the electricity and, at night, bombarded the compound with bright lights and loud noises, including tapes of rabbits being killed and Nancy Sinatra singing. I'm sure the Davidians inside the compound, especially the children, were quite uncomfortable. Yet I don't recall a single liberal yelling "Torture!" at the Clinton administration. But wasn't the treatment meted out to the Davidians quite similar to the treatment meted out to the Al Quaeda big shot? Both were made uncomfortable, and isn't being made uncomfortable the Left's working definition of "torture"? Not quite.
The Left's definition of "torture" is: being made uncomfortable by the Bush administration or operatives thereof. You see, it's all political. For liberals the real enemy, the only enemy, is George W. Bush. It's he whom they're at war with and they'll ally themselves with anyone, even Islamic militants who kill Americans, if Bush is their nemesis, too. So screaming "Torture!" is really a weapon liberals are using against their enemy. It has nothing to do with actually being against brutally violent interrogation methods. After all, listening to the Red Hot Chili Peppers isn't brutal, no matter how loudly they're played.
Give it away, give it away, give it away, now!
Monday, September 11, 2006
A Sorry Tribute
Today is the 5th anniversary of 9/11. I was going to write a nice nonpolitical post just remembering the victims of that horrible attack, then I saw Andy Rooney on 60 Minutes and I got mad as hell. No nonpolitical post today; nope, I'm going to say exactly how I feel about the domestic enemies that are tearing America down.
What got me so riled up? Andy Rooney blamed America for the attacks of five years ago. I'm not lying. At the end of his little commentary he always gives at the end of the show, he said that it might be alright to actually fight those who want to kill us but that it would be better to not behave in ways that make us hated. There you have it. Mr. Rooney might as well have spit on the grave of every victim of 9/11. According to him they, and all Americans, brought the catastrophe on ourselves by acting in ways that displeased the Islamic world.
We are in World War III. Our very survival is at stake. Islamic radicals want nothing less than the end of our civilization and all Andy Rooney and other liberals can do is blame America. That's what they are, the Blame America First cabal. They think that way because they're cowards and because they don't believe America is worth defending. Blaming America for 9/11 absolves these liberals of having to confront the actual killers and protects their pc view of the world, a view in which nonWhite, nonWestern, nonChristian people can't be proactively evil. If they're evil at all it's only to the degree that they've been provoked by us.
Liberals embrace this view because they think it makes them anti-racist, which is far more important to them than patriotism. And frighteningly, they're managing to convert many other Americans to their view. Just a few weeks ago it was revealed that over 30% of Americans now believe that the government either carried out 9/11 or refused to stop it. I was sickened when I heard that. We are in a war for our lives and over a third of the country thinks their own government is the real enemy. That makes me more terrified than I ever was on Sept. 11, 2001.
In the famous poem "In Flanders Fields", the poet urges the reader not to "break faith with us who die". The way to honor the dead, according to the poem, is to continue the fight against the foe. Only then will the dead not have died in vain. Andy Rooney and all his ilk need to read that poignant ode to the fallen of WW I. It tells us exactly what we need to do to honor the fallen of WW III. Sadly, I don't think Mr. Rooney and his Blame America First friends are open to the message of "In Flanders Fields". That's why I fear we may have lost the war already. Some tribute to the dead of 9/11.
What got me so riled up? Andy Rooney blamed America for the attacks of five years ago. I'm not lying. At the end of his little commentary he always gives at the end of the show, he said that it might be alright to actually fight those who want to kill us but that it would be better to not behave in ways that make us hated. There you have it. Mr. Rooney might as well have spit on the grave of every victim of 9/11. According to him they, and all Americans, brought the catastrophe on ourselves by acting in ways that displeased the Islamic world.
We are in World War III. Our very survival is at stake. Islamic radicals want nothing less than the end of our civilization and all Andy Rooney and other liberals can do is blame America. That's what they are, the Blame America First cabal. They think that way because they're cowards and because they don't believe America is worth defending. Blaming America for 9/11 absolves these liberals of having to confront the actual killers and protects their pc view of the world, a view in which nonWhite, nonWestern, nonChristian people can't be proactively evil. If they're evil at all it's only to the degree that they've been provoked by us.
Liberals embrace this view because they think it makes them anti-racist, which is far more important to them than patriotism. And frighteningly, they're managing to convert many other Americans to their view. Just a few weeks ago it was revealed that over 30% of Americans now believe that the government either carried out 9/11 or refused to stop it. I was sickened when I heard that. We are in a war for our lives and over a third of the country thinks their own government is the real enemy. That makes me more terrified than I ever was on Sept. 11, 2001.
In the famous poem "In Flanders Fields", the poet urges the reader not to "break faith with us who die". The way to honor the dead, according to the poem, is to continue the fight against the foe. Only then will the dead not have died in vain. Andy Rooney and all his ilk need to read that poignant ode to the fallen of WW I. It tells us exactly what we need to do to honor the fallen of WW III. Sadly, I don't think Mr. Rooney and his Blame America First friends are open to the message of "In Flanders Fields". That's why I fear we may have lost the war already. Some tribute to the dead of 9/11.
Thursday, September 07, 2006
Quotable Quotes: On War
"Our kindness in battle is perceived as a weakness, and it will be our undoing." Glenn Beck on "The Glenn Beck Show", Wednesday, Sept. 6, 2006.
Friday, September 01, 2006
This Just In
In my previous post I think I may have misquoted Nancy Pelosi's reaction to Donald Rumsfeld's speech. I'll check this out over the week-end and edit my post if I was wrong. Even liberals should be quoted correctly.
Have a safe and happy Labor Day!
Have a safe and happy Labor Day!
On the Offensive
Finally!!!!!! The Bush administration has finally gotten of it's duff and started to go on the offensive against critics of the Iraq war and those who are totally clueless about what the War on Terror is about. It's about time. George W. Bush may be a lot of things but the one thing he's not is a great communicator and he can no longer afford to wait for history to vindicate him. So I'm really glad that he and others in his administration are using the bully pulpit to get out their view.
Donald Rumsfeld really played hardball in his speech a couple of days ago to a veterans' group. Rummy layed it on the line, without pc doublespeak and without apology. He told the vets and the world that America and the rest of civilized humanity are facing a new fascism as dangerous as Naziism, and that those who don't or won't get it are the same kind of appeasers that allowed Hitler to grow so strong it took a world war to stop him. Rumsfeld didn't mince words, and I love him for it.
Of course the Democrats, feeling that Rummy was talking about them, went ballistic. Howard Dean, king of the "anti-war" crowd, claimed that Republicans were just name-calling because they can't defend their policies. And Nancy Pelosi barked that Rummy's remarks prove how badly the Bush administration needs to end. Sniff, sniff.
If the tough words of Rumsfeld, Cheney, Bush himself, or anyone else in the administration ticks the Dems off it's because they're true. We ARE in a war for our survival. The Islamists mean to DESTROY us; no amount of negotiations will dissuade them from that goal, just as no amount of negotiatons dissuaded Hitler. Anyone who can't or won't see that is another Neville Chamberlain waving another meaningless "peace of paper" and making another meaningless proclamation of "peace in our time". And Rumsfeld is Winston Churchill reborn, giving the world another dose of cold, hard truth that it doesn't want but desperately needs. I just hope and pray it doesn't take another 50 million dead to make the world wake up and GET IT.
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.
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)