Quotable Quotes: On Socialism

"I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them." Thomas Jefferson.

Socialism as we understand it didn't exist in Jefferson's day but he obviously had an uncomfortable inkling it was coming. Sadly, it seems that we as a people have decided not to heed this Founder's warning.

"Restoring America's Image"

Hillary Clinton already has a plan for when she's elected president. Quite presumptive of her, considering she hasn't even been elected the Dems' presidential candidate. Anyway, dear Hillary recently announced that, after her election, she'll immediately send emissaries around the world to proclaim the end of "cowboy diplomacy" and restore America's image. How sweet. Not!

"Restoring America's image" sounds great but is just another front in liberals' war against Bush instead of the terrorists who want to kill us. The slogan derives from liberals' persistent delusion that terrorism is caused by the "imperialism" of the Bush administration, beginning with the Iraq War. If we would only surrender in Iraq and sell out the Israelis, liberals believe, the Arab/Muslim world would love us and global utopia would break out. That's the essence of their idea of "restoring America's image": undermine the Bush administration by agreeing with the America haters and appeasing our enemies.

Liberals have conveniently forgotten all the terrorist attacks against America that occurred before Bush was president. The World Trade Center was first attacked in 1993 when Bill Clinton, Hillary's hubby, was president. Our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were also bombed during Clinton's presidency when, presumably, everybody loved America. Many other terrorists attacks were launched against this country in the pre-Bush era, going all the way back to the Iran hostage crisis under wimp-in-chief Jimmy Carter. But that's reality and the anti-Bush psychotics have simply willed reality out of their minds.

Let's be honest. Hillary Clinton and all the other liberals don't give a rat's ass about America's image. The call to restore our image is just a cover for their policy of rabid anti-Bush hatred and anti-Americanism. It's a cover for their sympathy for radical Islam. It's a cover for their defeatism. It's a cover for their internationalism. It's a cover for their socialism. If you vote for liberals this is what you'll get. You've been warned. Now do the right thing and side with those who care about our country's survival. The best image for America is that of a free, intact, sovereign nation. If you want to restore anything, restore that.

GAE Rights Yes, Freedom No

The GAE (Gay Activist Elite) Stalinists have struck again, this time across the big pond. Britain has instituted new sexual "equality" regulations and they have cost a Christian couple the foster son they've loved for two years.

Sixty-five-year-old Vincent Matherick and his wife Pauline, 61, became foster parents in 2001 and have successfully nurtured 28 troubled children since then. But Somerset County decided the Mathericks weren't fit to keep their latest foster child after they refused to sign a paper agreeing to teach the boy that homosexuality is good. Consequently, the 11-year-old has been taken from a loving home and placed in a county hostel. Vincent Matherick explained that he doesn't hate gays but felt he couldn't endorse behaviour that conflicted with the Word of God.
That didn't matter. Freedom of religion and conscience, not to mention a child's happiness, are inconsequential compared to the lofty goal of normalizing homosexuality.

This is a shocking story. There's nothing more Orwellian than government officials entering people's homes and telling them what to teach their children. Granted, the Mathericks were foster parents who, like all foster parents, have to abide by state standards. But how does not approving of homosexuality suddenly make them unfit when they weren't unfit for the last six years? And you better believe that if the GAE Stalinists can get away with using the government to impose their views on foster parents they'll use the government to impose their views on natural parents. Mark my words. The day is coming in the West when parents will be assigned a social worker to make sure they're raising their children "correctly". And a large percentage of those social workers will be GAE.

For now, the Mathericks have been forced out of fostering for being politically incorrect. They've indicated that they might appeal the decision of the Somerset County Council. I pray they do and I pray they win. Children need a loving home like the one the Mathericks are ready and willing to provide more than they need an ideology. Sadly, Britain's GAE Stalinists think otherwise and children are paying the price.

Predators and Traitors

Peace activists are anti-military. No matter how much they claim otherwise, these people hate our troops and the country they fight for. I was reminded of this just yesterday while listening to the radio.

I was driving my Mom to the store when Michael Medved's talk show came on. His guest was a representative of the "anti-war" group Code Pink (CP). Unfortunately, I don't remember the woman's name, but her words are unforgettable. This woman admitted that she and Code Pink, who were trying to close a Marine recruiting office in Berkeley, CA, called our troops predators and traitors. That's right, predators and traitors. That's what the peace crowd thinks of our soldiers.

Michael Medved asked this sorry excuse for an American why she and CP would call our military such names. This woman claimed that the military recruiters were predators because they were going after Berkeley's "vulnerable youth", and that they were traitors because they'd betrayed the trust of said youth by not telling them the whole story about military service. I'm not sure what this woman meant by the "whole story". It's no secret that the military fights wars and that in war people get injured and killed. Young people who are or might be considering joining the armed forces already know that. So where's the betrayal of trust?

Of course, this isn't the first time liberals have shown their hatred for America's finest. "Anti-war" protestors in Oregon--I believe it was Oregon--burned an American soldier in effigy. Brian de Palma has made a movie protraying our troops in Iraq as a bunch of raping, murdering thugs. Cindy Sheehan referred to our boys, including her own son Casey, as murderers. Rosie O'Donnell insinuated that our troops are terrorists who've killed nearly a million Iraqis. Susan Sarandon and her lover Tim Robbins made similar accusations. And let's not forget the entire city of San Francisco which has banned ROTC from its schools, denied the USS Iowa the right to dock at its port, and prevented the Marines from filming a recruiting commercial there. But they support the troops, the peaceniks say. Don't you believe it!

Believe what these people say and do when they're on their home turf. Believe what they say and do when they're among like-minded folks who won't question them. Believe what they say and do when they're caught up in the sanctimonious moment of "marching for peace". But don't ever believe them when they say they love our troops. They hate our troops. Remember, they called them predators and traitors. You can't get more hateful than that. Believe me.

Libertinism Uber Alles

I believe liberals want an end to age of consent laws. In fact, I believe liberals want an end to ALL laws regulating sexuality. When I see liberals voting to pass out the Pill to eleven-year-old girls; when I see liberals opposing tough penalties for child rapists; when I see liberals imposing gay marriage on people who've already voted against it, I can come to no other conclusion.

Liberals are libertines. Sexual freedom is their core principle. That, and not respect for women's rights, is the real motive for their love affair with abortion. An instant end to pregnancy gets women back into the all-important game of sleeping around--oops!--I mean hooking up. Likewise, passing out birth control to middle schoolers is not about protecting them from STDs and/or unplanned pregnancy; rather, it's about conditioning adults to accept the "fact" that kids, even quite young ones, can and do consent to sex.

Think about it. How can you give condoms or the Pill to children without tacitly admitting that said children can consent to the activity those items are for? You can't. And once you accept that children can consent to sex, the age of the people they're having sex with becomes irrelevant. After all, if an eleven-year-old can consent to sex with another eleven-year-old, why not with a 15-year-old? Or a 20-year-old? Or a 30-year-old?

I can easily imagine the day when an accused child molester will insist that little Suzy wanted it and use as proof the birth control pills she got from her friendly school nurse. The nurse not only knew that Suzy was sexually active, the molester's lawyer will argue, she condoned the 12-year-old's behaviour by giving her contraceptives, no questions asked. So, if his middle aged client is guilty of a crime, the school nurse is a clear accessory. I don't think you want to be the nurse who'll have to answer that charge.

Liberals will insist that the above scenario is just hysterical, right-wing propaganda against personal freedom. But liberals don't believe in freedom, not when it comes to sex. Then, liberals are pure, unadulterated libertines opposing ALL judgements and restrictions on sexuality. Everyone, including children, must be free to do as they please with their bodies. For liberals this is enlightened, progressive thinking. To the clear thinking masses it's cultural suicide, and it will not stand.

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!!!!!!!