Quotable Quotes: On Self-Defense

"If someone is coming to kill you, kill him first." The Talmud.

This may be more of a paraphrase than an exact quote, but the point is nonetheless well made.

Check Out My Guest Post

Hey friends! Guess what? I made a guest appearance on another blog! If you look in my link field you'll see a link called elwoodin. That's the link to the blog Tired of All the Liberal Rhetoric Out There (TALROT), written my friend Robert. If you go there you'll see a guest post written by none other than yours truly! The post is titled "Welcome to America. Now Speak English!". I was honored to make a guest appearance on Robert's blog. Please stop by and have a look see. Even if you don't like my post--I can't imagine how you couldn't--I'm sure you'll find TALROT quite interesting and informative. Hope you drop by, and please leave a comment if you do!

Thanks,

PoorGrrl

PS

My post is written in red just in case you have trouble finding it.

It Snowed!!!

Guess what? It snowed! That's right. In a VERY surprising change of weather big white flakes fell from the sky for about 30 minutes. It was awesome! I'm sure people up north will think, "So what" but here in this part of Texas the white stuff is always greeted with childlike glee. We get so little of it here and hardly ever before January. And what's really weird is that the high was 80 just this past Tuesday. That old saying is true: if you don't like the weather in Texas wait a few minutes. Well, it took 48 hours for a change but it was worth the wait. It SNOWED!!

Happy Thanksgiving!

I wish all my readers and blogging friends a most blessed Thanksgiving tomorrow. Remember all you have to be thankful for as you gather with friends and family to enjoy good food, good fun, and good company. And remember the ones who are with us only in spirit*. Have a blessed day!

Sincerely,

Poorgrrl

*Happy Thanksgiving, Daddy! I can't believe this is my third holiday without you. I'd give anything to have you here. I love you and miss you so much. Rest in peace, my father and friend.

Your daughter,

Shun

Hate Crimes Rise By Nearly 8%. Eek!

I saw the headline in my local newspaper this morning. The FBI has revealed that hate crimes rose by almost 8% in 2006, with nearly 8000 bias motivated crimes occurring that year. In response the usual suspects whined their usual tune about America's poor, victimized minorities. But considering there are 300 million people of every race in this country, having less than 8000 bigotry based assaults on either people or property is shining proof of America's great progress toward equality for all. Don't expect the race hustlers to admit that, though.

I oppose the very notion of "hate crimes". Hate crime laws are an attempt to punish people for what they (alledgely) think, not for what they do. They're Orwellian to the core. How do you know what someone was thinking at the moment of the crime? If perp and victim are of different races you could assume racism. But the victim could've just been the easiest target at the moment. And even if a perp deliberately targets a particular group of people it doesn't automatically mean he's acting out of hate. The group might just pose less of a threat to him. He might target illegal aliens, for instance, because they're less likely to call the police and NOT because they're illegal aliens. He might target the elderly because they can offer less physical resistance, NOT because he's got it in for old folks. We need to be VERY careful when we start criminalizing people's thoughts.

Another big problem with hate crime laws is the tougher sentences mandated for hate crimes. I've never understood how being mugged, raped, or murdered is worse when the criminal is a different race, gender, or sexual orientation from the victim. Even if a perp acts out of hate the victim is traumatized by the crime itself, not the thoughts behind it. A rape victim isn't comforted by knowing that she wasn't attacked because she was Black. However, a rape victim might be further traumatized by knowing that her attacker received a lesser sentence because he was an "ordinary" rapist rather than a hate rapist. And then there's murder.

Proponents of hate crime laws and the tougher sentences mandated by them are often the same people who oppose the death penalty. This is highly problematic. How can they insist that hate crimes be punished more severly than "ordinary" crimes yet oppose the severest punishment possible for hate murders? After all, the only way to punish hate murders more severly than "ordinary" murders is to give the death penalty for one and life without parole for the other. Death penalty opponents, naturally, won't support that. The only alternative is to give hate murderers life without parole but "ordinary" murderers less than that. The families of "ordinary" murder victims would NEVER stand for such a diminishing of their loved ones' lives. Life without parole is the lightest sentence for murder, any murder, that most people will accept. So the end result will be that hate murderers and "ordinary" murderers receive the same sentence. How illogical is that?

But hate crimes laws are inherently illogical. I believe they were never meant to protect minorities. Rather, their purpose is to make guilt ridden, self-hating, left-wing Whites feel good about themselves. By championing these laws (and a lot of other things) such Whites seek to separate themselves from and atone for what they see as the entirely criminal nature of their race's interaction with non-Whites. They're trying to tell the non-White world, "Whites have horribly oppressed you but I'm a different kind of White person. I'm really good. Look at what I'm doing for you." If liberal Whites want to assuage their unearned guilt then they should do so, but not at the expense of justice and common sense. A criminal act should get the same punishment regardless of the motive for it. No victim is worth more than another. Isn't that what equality really means?

Correction

I have a correction to make. In my post "Apostles of Anti-Americanism" I wrote that Brian de Palma's movie "Redacted" had already been released. That wasn't the case. I thought that some early screenings I'd heard about were the film's actual showing. In fact, "Redacted" opened nationwide only yesterday, Friday, November 16. Sorry for the mistake.

Apostles of Anti-Americanism

Well, another "anti-war" movie has bombed. "Lions for Lambs", Hollywood's latest offering in the hate America category, flopped big at the box office last weekend. This follows the lackluster performance of earlier America-the-bad films such as "Rendition", "In the Valley of Elah", and Brian de Palma's "Redacted", which many movie theaters won't even show, I hear. More "anti-war" movies are due out next year and Hollywood will lose even more money. But Hollywood is supposed to love money. What's going on here?

Americans won't spend their hard earned dollars to be told they, their country and their military are evil. I believe Hollywood knew that from the beginning. I believe that Americans were never the intended audience for movies like "Lions for Lambs" and the others. No, Hollywood made these films for a GLOBAL audience. Tinsel Town's liberals want to support the rest of the world's anti-US animosity . They want the America haters to be strengthened in they're conviction. They are apostles of anti-Americanism. And they're proud of it.

Of course, if you confronted the Hollywood Left about this they'd deny it. They'd act--act is the operative word--indignant at the very suggestion that they were deliberately helping America's enemies. They're just dissenting, they'd say. They're just asking thoughtful questions, they'd say. Yes, extremely negative images of America are being broadcasted all over the world. Yes, every jihadi will use those images to recruit more fanatics. But that was never they're intention, they'd insist. They love America; really, truly, you gotta believe they do.

Yeah, right. The only thing more insulting than the anti-American movies liberals make is their belief that the rest of Americans are dumb enough to believe their profession of patriotic love. Hey Hollywood, if you're so patriotic why not make a movie about Scott Southworth, an American soldier who adopted a handicapped Iraqi child? Or a movie about baby Mariam who received life saving surgery in the US thanks to our fighting men? Or a film about the Anbar Salvation Front, an Iraqi militia that allied itself with us to destroy Al Queda in Anbar province? Why not make any of those films, Hollywood? I mean, since you love America so much.

Nothing pro-American will ever be made by the Hollywood Left. They are on the side of our enemies. It's like George Orwell said, you can't hamper one side in a war without automatically helping the other side. Brian de Palma, Meryl Streep, Robert Redford, and the rest of the Tinsel Town traitors know that perfectly well. They take their job of aiding their side very seriously. They're playing hardball. It's time for the good guys to play hardball, too.

Tributes to Our Troops, God Bless Them!!!

Question On My Mind

This one is for liberals. If poverty causes terrorism, as many libs assert, then please tell me where are all the Haitian suicide bombers?

Running With The Big Dogs

We all know about the pummeling Hillary Clinton got at the latest Democratic presidential debate. We also know that Hill has tried to bounce back from this debacle by playing the gender card. She was ganged up on by mean ol' men who dared to question her because she's a woman. We can't let that stand, ladies! Defend poor Hillary!! This makes me want to puke. It's a shameless but all too typical example of liberal hypocrisy.

C'mon Hill! You claim to be a strong woman. You insist that women receive equal rights and equal treatment. Apparently, though, you don't know what that means. Well, let me tell you. It means that if you dodge straightforward questions; if you have murky positions on important issues; if you choose to put yourself in the meat grinder that is presidential politics you have to take the hard blows that go with that. Do you think that the territory of politics should change because you're a woman? Isn't that the antithesis to the equality that feminism is supposed to be about?

I cannot imagine Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir whining about some boys' club ganging up on them. They were too busy acutally running their countries and winning wars. Margaret Thatcher took what was meant as an insult and turned it into a distinguished moniker, becoming known worldwide as The Iron Lady. If this latest episode is any indication you, Hillary, are no Iron Lady. So please, either shut up and play the game as is or take the advice of an old saying: if you can't run with the big dogs stay under the porch.

Say It Ain't So, Dog!

Dwayne Chapman, aka Dog the Bounty Hunter, has gotten himself into BIG trouble by saying nigger while on the phone with his son. Apparently, the son in question is dating a Black woman and Dog didn't want the family's occasional use of the slur to be used against them. A recording of the conversation was leaked to the National Enquirer, which led to the story airing tonight on both The O'Reilly Factor and Hannity and Colmes. A&E is suspending it's production of Dog's show "Dog the Bounty Hunter" because of the controversy.

I want to say that as a Black woman I think this incident is being blown out of proportion. Yes, Dog Chapman was full of anger when he said nigger on that phone call. He also used profanity. Why isn't he being raked over the coals for that?

Let's get something straight. Using a racial slur doesn't automatically make you a racist. I've used racial slurs myself, usually when someone of another race pisses me off. If a Hispanic driver grabs the parking space I was waiting for I've been known to say, "Damn wetback!" Does that mean I hate Hispanics? When I watched the movie "Jackass" I thought to myself, "Only white guys could be that stupid." Does that mean I hate Whites? No and no. Using racial slurs is often a crime of passion. No one should be instantly and permanently defined by that.

We live in a time when liberals are keen to prove their belief that America is irredeemably racist and that racism is peculiar to Whites. Dog's unfortunate utterance has given them ammunition to push that belief. The truth, though, is that Blacks say nigger way more than Whites and paid millions to do it. You can't buy a rap album that's not full of nigger this and nigger that. Blacks and liberal Whites are being profoundly hypocritical when they have a meltdown over a White guy saying nigger but give Blacks a pass for saying it.

If we really want nigger to be an unsayable word we've got to stop rewarding Blacks who use it in their "art". Millions of Whites listen to rap music. If they hear their favorite rap singers throwing nigger around like it was a compliment, what are they going to think? Certainly not that nigger is a bad word. It's like a parent telling his kids not to curse while constantly saying the "f" word in front of them. Talk about double messages!

I think Dog Chapman was just angry, like I was when that Hispanic guy stole my parking space. I'm open to the possibility that I could be wrong. Maybe Dog really is a virulent racist and just hid it really well all these years. Maybe having a Black pastor was just a dishonest show. Maybe accepting his brother's Asian wife was just for the cameras. And maybe Dog just lied about his mother being Native American. Maybe, but I don't think so. You're still a good egg in my book, Dog.

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'.