Big Girl Pants

immigrants fail to assimilate, threaten our national identity

over the weekend i attended a send off program for the daughter of my most liberal friend.  her daughter, we'll call her holly (20-year old soon to be college senior), is every bit as liberal as her mother - possibly more - and she is heading to sierra leone to work with the school sisters of notre dame on their long-standing education mission to that country.  i think this is a wonderful move for her and should be very humbling in terms of what we have vs. what "they" have.

holly and i had a long conversation on monday when she came over to get a long silk/linen scarf to take for her head covering (to help keep her hair out of her face and keep her cool) and a travel pillow.  i love this girl for so many reasons, but one of the things i love most about her is her ability to debate logically.  one of the things that so infuriates me is her ability to take a rational point in a debate and fail to see or understand how it can and should be applied.  it's the liberal thing.

in our conversation we were talking about the places i've been and her previous two trips to italy and the places we'd both like to go.  somehow (i'm not sure how) the talk turned to the "plight" of immigrants here, there and everywhere.  because, let's face it folks, it is NOT just the united states that is having a tough time with illegal immigrants.

anyhow, holly said something fairly profound that really got me thinking.  in talking about the instability all over africa, she said "do you know anything about tanzania and how it got things mostly stabilized?" to wit i had to answer "um, no, not really."  so she told me to look it up because they had done something "so amazing" to help engender a feeling of nationalism that was working on a grand scale.

for those of you who don't know a whole lot about politics and stateism in africa, suffice to say that a great deal of the strife and fighting on that continent is caused by age-old tribal rivalries.  the fact is that imaginery borders were put into place and countries named and tribes were told to "you now belong to this country or that country" with told disregard of the status of relations between the various tribes being sent to this country or that country.

many of these countries were "founded" in the 1960's or even later.  a majority of people in those countries don't think of themselves as somalians or sierra leonians or even tanzanians but as members of the various tribes.  for instance, tanzania is made up of more than 125 tribes and each has its own language and identity.  not only that, it is actually two separate countries (tanganyika and zanzibar) combined into one with a unified republican government formed by the governments of the two countries.

there is quite a bit of interesting information here if you're interested.  it talks of the differences between the tribes, between women and men, the economy and just about everything else you never wanted to know about tanzania.  it also mentions a few times that the national language is kiswahili (go here to learn about it); english is the language of the government and higher level jobs.  apparently the "amazing" thing they did in tanzania was to establish the national language to elevate a sense of country.

what a concept, eh?  so i said to holly "this is the exact reason intelligent, logical people in our country are pushing for english to recognized as the official national language of the united states."  and she said?  "well our situation is a bit different and we need to honor the different cultures of those who immigrate here by not forcing them to speak the language of the majority." 

huh?  if there is anyone out there who can make sense of that convoluted statement, please comment and explain it to me.  i surely don't get it.

but the whole conversation and my subsequent reading on tanzania got me to thinking about how similiar the united states is to those african countries.  we're every bit as much of potpouri in terms of our cultural make up as any of those countries - the primary differences being that our states (and country on the whole) were self formed and the majority of the people here are here because they choose to be so.

think about it.  we're a melting pot.  we have people here from all over the world.  each comes with his or her own language and cultural identity.  each is looking to do more than merely survive - seriously folks, why would someone move to a new country if they don't have any hope to do better there than in his or her country of birth?

when this country was in its formative period as colonies, it was primarily a subject of england.  thus the majority of people here spoke english as their first language.  as new people moved here from germany, italy, china, japan, mexico, france, spain, greece, russia and so on and so forth they arrived speaking languages that were not english.  but because the majority of people spoke english and business and government were conducted in english people learned english.  this was true even BEFORE we became an actual independent country.

this doesn't mean that some of them didn't continue to speak spanish or german or italian or mandarin at home, but it wasn't a language they could use in the outside world of the united states (previously american colonies).  they may have kept some of the traditions from "home" but they didn't expect the rest of the population to adopt their traditions or eradicate traditions that had come into existence (or accepted) here.

today, in the united states, the majority of people still speak english as their first language.  business and government is primarily conducted in english.  and yet english is not our official or national language.  but why not?

in our schools we teach (or attempt to teach) those whose first language isn't english in their language.  officially we call it "english as a second language" (or esl), privately i call it sheer stupidity.  people can't learn a language by getting a new word each day ala sesame street.  people learn a language by using that language.

but here in our country the pc crowd has determined that immigrants will do better if we help them to hang on to the national identity of their former country.  huh?  this is just illogical and devoid of all common sense.

nearly 100 years ago, in 1919, theodore roosevelt penned these words:

"In the first place, we should insist that if the immigrant who comes here in good faith becomes an American and assimilates himself to us, he shall be treated on an exact equality with everyone else, for it is an outrage to discriminate against any such man because of creed, or birthplace, or origin. But this is predicated upon the person's becoming in every facet an American, and nothing but an American. There can be no divided allegiance here. Any man who says he is an American, but something else also, isn't an American at all. We have room for but one flag, the American flag. We have room for but one language here, and that is the English language for we intend to see that the crucible turns our people out as Americans, of American nationality, and not as dwellers in a polyglot boarding house and we have room for but one sole loyalty and that is a loyalty to the American people."

these are sage words even today.  but too many think they are passe or ancient thinking or maybe it's simply that they are unapologetic in their sentiment that is good to be an american.  one other thing that teddy said that sticks with me is this

"We want to make our children feel that the mere fact of being Americans makes them better off... This is not to blind us at all to our own shortcomings; we ought steadily to try to correct them; but we have absolutely no grounds to work on if we don’t have a firm and ardent Americanism at the bottom of  everything."

and this statement emodies everything that is emotionally tied to being an american.  we are better in that we welcome more people of more cultures and nationalities than ANY other country in the world.  we recognize that there are things we need to work on and we do.  we work at our weaknesses at the personal, local, national and international level.  and we are, for the world's elite, the most reviled nation in the history of the world.

even the elite of the world want to come here.  even they recognize the opportunity and freedom available here.  so why do they want to change that?

i don't know anyone who is against all immigration into our country - i'm not saying those people don't exist, i just don't know any of them.  i do believe that the media, some immigrant support groups and some of our friends on the left, are trying to portray those of us against illegal immigration as being against all immigration.  but this is simply isn't the case.

i realize that it may be scary to come to a new country and leave behind all that you know and all that is familiar.  but how much worse it must be to come to a new country and still try hold on to everything you knew at "home".  i guess that is the primary motivation behind those who refuse to assimilate, but they are truly missing the point of coming to the united states.

people coming to this country - from anywhere else - and not becoming fluent in the language and the history of the country is a bad thing.  it lessens the immigrant's chances for an excellent, successful life and it weakens the fabric of our country.

when i was halfway through this post, i found a post on this subject over at my good friend donald's place (american power) and asked if i could crosspost a portion of it here - thankfully he acquiessed.  you can read his whole post here, and it's well worth the time to do so, but here are the important parts:

in his post, donald quotes from the important samuel huntington (of "clash of civilizations?" fame) article, "the hispanic challenge":

"The media offers up a steady diet of data about current immigration from Mexico, and much of it consists of "averages" regarding English-language skills, income, home-ownership rates, education and so forth. But while digesting these figures, it's important to keep in mind that Latino immigration is ongoing. These averages are snapshots of a moving stream and therefore of little use in measuring assimilation. To properly gauge assimilation, we need to find out how immigrants in the U.S. are faring over time. Only longitudinal studies that track individuals can provide that information.

"Just looking at averages can give you a very distorted view of who's learning English or dropping out of school or climbing out of poverty....

"The reality, however, is that the longitudinal studies show real socio-economic progress by Latinos. Progress is slower in some areas, such as the education level of adult immigrants, and faster in others, such as income and homeownership rates. But there is no doubt that both assimilation and upward mobility are occurring over time. With respect to linguistic assimilation, which is one of the more important measures because it amounts to a job skill that can increase earnings, the historical pattern is as follows: The first generation learns enough English to get by but prefers the mother tongue. The children of immigrants born here grow up in homes where they understand the mother tongue to some extent and may speak it, but they prefer English. When those children become adults, they establish homes where English is the dominant language. There's every indication that Latinos are following this pattern. According to 2005 Census data, just one-third of Latino immigrants in the country for less than a decade speak English well. But that proportion climbs to 75% for those here 30 years or more. There may be more bilingualism today among their children, but there's no evidence that Spanish is the dominant language in the second generation. The 2000 Census found that 91% of the children of immigrants, and 97% of the grandchildren, spoke English well."

donald also quotes from a u.s. news article, "mexican immigrants prove slow to fit in"  which shows that the question maybe a bit more complicated than huntington purports:

In the heart of California's iconic Orange County—home to Disneyland and the bourgeois teens of MTV's Laguna Beach—is troubled Santa Ana. The county seat of 353,000, where nearly 6out of every 10 adults over age 25 lack a high school diploma, suffers from crippling poverty and an explosion in crime. In 2004, the Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government placed Santa Ana at the very top of its Urban Hardship Index—officially dubbing it worse off than Miami, Detroit, Cleveland, and Newark, N.J. With 76 percent of its population Hispanic, mostly Mexican immigrants, Santa Ana is the poster child for the troubles of the country's immigration policies and of Mexican immigrants in particular.

Now, a new study lays bare what sociologists and others have long argued: Mexican immigrants are assimilating to life in the United States less successfully than other immigrants. Sponsored by the conservative Manhattan Institute think tank, "Measuring Immigrant Assimilation in the United States" by Jacob Vigdor, a professor of public policy studies and economics at Duke University, introduces a novel assimilation index that uses census and other survey data to measure how similar select immigrant groups are to native-born Americans. Using such factors as intermarriage, English ability, military service, homeownership, citizenship, and earnings, Vigdor assembled a 100-point assimilation index. The closer to 100, the more assimilated an immigrant group. Overall, the report shows immigrants are weaving into the American fabric at a remarkable clip, despite arriving poorer and knowing less English than immigrants of a century ago. And they are gaining speed, with new arrivals assimilating faster than those who came more than 20 years ago. With a score of 53, Canadians are the most assimilated, followed closely by Filipinos, Cubans, and Vietnamese. The main outlier: Mexicans, with a score of 13—followed by Salvadorans.

Why Mexicans are faring so poorly in the United States is complicated, experts say. But the root of the problem is no surprise: Many Mexicans are here illegally, depriving them of rungs on the economic ladder and the opportunity to gain citizenship. "There are certain jobs or certain services you just can't get [as an illegal immigrant]," Vigdor says. "There are plenty of indications here that for those Mexican immigrants who are interested in making a more permanent attachment to the United States, their legal status puts very severe barriers in that path."

this may explain why the actual immigrant is failing at assimilation into americanization, but what of their children - even the "anchor babies" who are american citizens?  what of the children of the anchor babies?  thanks to the vagaries of esl, we have second and third generation americans who do not speak english fluently - in some parts of the country even naturally born americans of hispanic (primarily mexican) origin speak poor english with a spanish accent! 

how do you explain this with anything other than they value their association with mexico more than with the united states?  how do you see theese results and still cling to the notion that esl is the best way to educate these people?

in his paper titled "english language proficiency and wage rates of mexican immigrants" from 2002 (Download jeremy_sanford_2002.pdf), jeremy sanford proposes that english language deficiency is a large determinant in the wage gap between mexican immigrants and u.s. natives or even other immigrant groups:

"Mexican immigrants tend to be segregated somewhat from the rest of US society; some 42% of Hispanics lived in predominantly Hispanic neighborhoods in 1990 (Chiswick and Miller, 1999). This is probably because of choice; immigrants feel most comfortable living with those who speak their language and share their culture. However, in choosing to live with other Mexican immigrants, they are choosing to live with people who have, on average, relatively little education, low English language skills, and scant earning power. Thus, employers will be less likely to open businesses and stores in Mexican neighborhoods, and simply by choosing to live among other Mexican immigrants they are choosing to live in economically depressed neighborhoods. Even the best and the brightest of the Mexican immigrants may be “pulled back” towards the 'average' Mexican and may earn less than they might have had they not been Mexican."

however, further in the u.s. news article the author posits:

Indeed, in a unique multigenerational study spanning four decades, Generations of Exclusion, sociologists Edward Telles and Vilma Ortiz found that many immigrants and their children had made slow progress assimilating for cultural and economic reasons. A large community means a large dating pool: Only 17 percent of third-generation Mexicans studied had married non-Hispanics. The authors found adult Mexican-Americans in the third and fourth generations lived in more segregated neighborhoods than they did as youths, largely because of the many new immigrant arrivals. Educational levels, meanwhile, lagged behind the national average. However, English ability was nearly universal, even among first-generation immigrants, which should ease the concerns of some lawmakers who want to make English the natural language. Significantly, though, 36 percent of fourth-generation Mexican-Americans studied could still speak Spanish.

i have been unable to ascertain what standard is used by the sociologists, edward telles and vilma ortiz, to determine "...english ability was nearly universal even among first- generation immigrants..."  i have been unable to find any other study or author who puts forth this notion.

still further in the u.s. news article:

Perhaps most telling: Of the approximately 1,500 surveyed in two distinct immigrant communities—Los Angeles and San Antonio—most identified as "Mexican" or "Mexican-American" even into the fourth generation. It's that kind of cultural signifier that has so many white Americans concerned that this is a group not interested in becoming American.

wow - ya think?!?

donald continues in his post that as santa ana's "city's population is 76 percent Hispanic with 53 percent foreign born - the city's literally a classic microcosm of the phenomenal sub-national trends in demographic diversity giving way to ethnic homegeneous-hegemonic dominance."

but, as donald observes, should just talking about this stuff get you branded as racist?

donald contines by saying:

Lou Dobbs

is not my favorite. He's a political opportunist and grandstander on immigration, and his "war on the middle class" segments are unhinged on issues of economic mobility and trade. But some of his reports on immigration are indeniably accurate in detailing the problems of local commuities around the country in tackling out of control immigration .

And because of reports like these, the nihilist left-wing of the open borders operation is up in arms about the media's "

fanning" of anti-immigration racial tensions:

 

This criticism's not compelling, considering the radical left's open-borders movement, with its recent

May Day protesters in Los Angeles, for example, hoisting Che Guevara banners and Mexican flags in a sea of green and red.

(See also, Heather MacDonald, "The Immigrant Gang Plague").

What happened to the American flag? Must not be too popular for

the La Raza set.

Here's a hometown rebuttal:

This idea of America being a multicultural community has served only to dilute our sovereignty and our national identity. As Americans, we have our own culture, our own society, our own language, and our own lifestyle. This culture has been developed over centuries of struggles, trials, and victories by millions of men and women who have sought freedom. We speak ENGLISH, not Spanish, Portuguese, Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language. Therefore, if you wish to become a part of our society, learn the language!

in the b

usiness week article from 15 march 2004, "Hispanic Nation: Hispanics are an immigrant group like no other. Their huge numbers are challenging old assumptions about assimilation. Is America ready?" the authors begin by telling the story of anchor baby maria velazquez and her immigrant husband carlos saying:

The Velazquezes speak fluent English and cherish their middle-class foothold in America. Maria and Carlos each earn about $20,000 a year as a school administrator and a graveyard foreman, respectively, and they own a simple three-bedroom home. But they remain wedded to their native language and culture. Spanish is the language at home, even for their five boys, ages 6 to 18. The kids speak to each other and their friends in English flecked with "dude" and "man," but in Cicero, where 77% of the 86,000 residents are Hispanic, Spanish dominates.

The older boys snack at local taquerías when they don't eat at home, where Maria's cooking runs to dishes like chicken mole and enchiladas. The family reads and watches TV in Spanish and English. The eldest, Jesse, is a freshman at nearby Morton College and dreams of becoming a state trooper; his girlfriend is also Mexican-American. "It's important that they know where they're from, that they're connected to their roots," says Maria, who bounced between Spanish and English while speaking to BusinessWeek. She tries to take the kids to visit her parents in the tiny Mexican town of Valle de Guadalupe at least once a year. "It gives them a good base to start from."

based on the information further down in the article this is fairly typical of the mexican immigrants.  it's a great article and one i highly recommend anyone concerned with the effects of unbridled/illegal immigration read.

essentially as mexican immigrants are coming into the states at an estimated 400,000 persons per year.  i say estimated because we really don't know what the actual number is because of the illegals.  additionally, they are reproducing at a rate of 3% per annum vs .8% by all other groups except muslims who are reproducing at a rate 5% - but that's a whole other discussion.

assimilation for mexicans and other hispanics is not really aided by the american society in general.  from mandated esl classes in the public schools, to street signs to government forms (including voting ballots) to private industry "selling in spanish", we are enabling an entire segment of our society to "opt out" of being/becoming american.

america was not founded as a "nation of immigrants" but rather as a nation of freedom and independence and self-sufficiency.  she (and we) have always welcomed those who yearn for freedom and want to be americans.  but freedom isn't free - along with the rights afforded by our constitution, there is the duty of being a active and productive member of society.

how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if you have broken the law to get here?  how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if primarily honor only the traditions of the country you left to come here to better yourself - from flying the mexican flag to eating primarily mexican foods to surrounding yourself with spanish speakers from your home country?  how productive or active can you be as a member of american society if you don't actively seek out relationships with people outside of the hispanic community?

unless we act decisively and soon we will fulfill the words of one other thing that teddy roosevelt said: 

"The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, or preventing all possibility of it continuing as a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities."

and then what will become of us?

my girl, angel, is posting on this very issue over at her place - go check it out.

observations from africa on the agent of change...

yesterday, while playing blog golf i came across this post from patrick.  patrick posted a few sections of the letter from africa and it got me thinking.  and searching.

for those of you who are frequent visitors you know that i have pretty much sworn off the politics of this year's presidential elections.  however, i have been watching, with no small degree of amazement, the circus going on between obama and clinton.

prior to this excercise in research that i have been engaged in since patrick's post got stuck in my craw, i was decidedly AGAINST voting for john mccain as potus.  however, based on the information i have unearthed, i have decided that i absolutely must change my position if it is barack hussein muhammed obama who is handed the nomination by the dnc.

i apologize, in advance, for the length of this post; but not the content.  quite simply this is information that we must get out there and we need to make this post go viral.  the letter mentioned above, in its entirety, is here:

Thanks for sending out an alert about Obama.

We are living and working in Kenya for almost twelve years now and know his family (tribe) well. They are the ones who were behind the recent Presidential election chaos here.

Thousands of people have been displaced by election violence (over 350,000) and I don’t know the last count of the dead.

Obama under “friends of Obama” gave almost a million dollars to the opposition campaign who just happened to be his cousin, Raila Odinga, who is a socialist trained in East Germany. He has been trying to bring Kenya down for years and the last president threw him in prison for trying to subvert this country!

December 27th elections brought cries from ODM (Odinga Camp) of rigged election. Obama and Raila speak daily. As we watch Obama rise in the US we are sure that whatever happens, he will use the same tactic, crying rigged election if he doesn’t win and possibly cause a race war in America.

What we would like you to know is what the American press has been keeping a dirty little secret. Obama IS a Muslim and he IS a racist and this is a fulfillment of the 911 threat that was just the beginning. Jihad is the only true Muslim way. We have been working with them for 20 years this July! He is not an American as we know it.

Please encourage your friends and associates not to be taken in by those that are promoting him. It is world wide jihad. All our friends in Europe are very disturbed by the Muslim infiltration into their countries. By the way. His true name is Barak Hussein Muhammad Obama. Won’t that sound sweet to our enemies as they swear him in on the Koran!

God Bless you.

Pray for us here in Kenya. We are still fighting for our nation to withstand the same kind of assault that every nation, including America, is fighting. Takeover from the outside to fit the new world order. As believers, this means we will be the first targets.

Here in Kenya, not one mosque was burned down, but hundreds of churches were burned down, some with people in them, burned alive.

Jesus Christ is our peace but the new world order of Globalism has infiltrated the church and confused believers into thinking that they can compromise and survive. It won’t be so. I will send you a newsletter we sent out in February documenting in a more cohesive manner what I’ve tried to say in a few paragraphs.

Celeste and Loren Davis

celeste and loren davis are, indeed, missionaries serving in the kenya area. you can  read about their missions here. in an email, mr. loren indicated to me that this was a personal email sent to a friend of theirs in response to some information sent to them on obama; they had no idea the information had begun to be disseminated to the world wide web.

yesterday i sent the following email to celeste and loren in attempting to verify the accuracy of the information in the posts.

recently there is a letter circulating the internet titled “a letter from africa” that is pertaining to barrack Obama and it is attributed to the two of you.  is this a legitimate letter?

please advise, as if it is, I will be blogging on it in the near future…

thanks so much!  and god bless you both in your endeavors.

heidianne jackson
blogging at http://biggirlpants.typepad.com

the response from mr. and mrs. davis was swift and informative:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From: combineharvesting@hotmail.com
To: combineharvesting@hotmail.com
Subject: FW: see attachments and Washington Post/Obama
Date: Tue, 22 Apr 2008 22:22:36 +0000

This was a personal e-mail sent to a friend . It was in response to an email we had received regarding Obama. We did not know it would hit the worldwide web.  Since it has, here is some more important information on Obama you won't find on the net.

ODM mentioned in the cartoon is the same party as Obama's cousin, Raila Odinga.  Raila had the 100% backing of the Muslims and should he win would make Islam the only recognized religion in Kenya.  This is an extension of the battle that is going on in Somalia, Sudan, Iraq and 9-11. 

It appears Obama is using the same strategy as his cousin Raila used in America.  We see the  same thing happening here.

See google: Raila Odinga Barak Obama cousins, Dick Morris Raila Odinga, Muslims Back Obama   

Loren and Celeste Davis

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please see the following important ATTACHMENTS:

The MOU, “Memorandum of Understanding” between Raila Odinga and the Muslim leaders to make Kenya an Islamic nation. 

Download railas_agreement_with_muslims_page_1.jpg

Download railas_agreement_with_muslims_page_2.jpg

Download railas_agreement_with_muslims_page_3.jpg

The cartoon in Kenya’s Nation newspaper regarding Obama being the ODM’s candidate for president in the U.S.

The list of donors to Raila’s campaign.  Note the one underlined “friends of BO”.  This $1 million  gift is from the friends of Barak Obama.

Download obamas_gift_to_raila.jpg

July 3, 2006 Houston Chronicle, an article was published by Jim Hoagland, a Pulitzer prize winning syndicated columnist who writes for the Washington Post.

The article is headlined:  “THIS WORLD CAN’T TOLERATE MORE RELIGIOUS INTOLERANCE”

Hoagland quotes Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into UNIVERSAL, rather than RELIGIOUS-SPECIFIC VALUES.  “NOW THIS IS GOING TO BE DIFFICULT FOR SOME WHO BELIEVE IN THE INERRANCY OF THE SACRED SCRIPTURES.  But in a PLURALISTIC DEMOCRACY, we have NO CHOICE.  Politics depends on our ability to persuade ea. Other of common aims based on a common reality…AT SOME FUNDAMENTAL LEVEL, RELIGION. DOES NOT ALLOW FOR COMPROMISE.  It’s the art of the impossible.  To base one’s life on such uncompromising commitments may be sublime; to base our policy-making on such commitments would be a DANGEROUS THING.”

Hoagland says, “Obama’s words could easily be adopted as well as guidelines for all gov’s in the Middle East and elsewhere”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

the information provided gave me the places to look to find even more pertinent information.  the article has a great deal of other "interesting" ideas but it seems it is no longer available at the houston chronicle unless i have an online subscription (i don't).  a link to it in its entirety is here.  the attachments referenced by mr. and mrs. davis are linked if you click on the title of each one above.

on 11 january 2008, this story ran in the u.k. telegraph.  some pertinent information from the article by mr. mike pflanz:

Kenya's defeated presidential challenger Raila Odinga has claimed to be a cousin of Barack Obama and said that they had discussed his country's post-election violence.

• Kibaki offers talks with Kenyan rival Odinga
• Obama senses victory as voting begins

Mr Odinga, 63, said that the US senator's father, from western Kenya's Luo tribe, was his maternal uncle.

"He has called me to talk about the destabilising constitutional crisis in this country, despite being in the middle of the very busy New Hampshire primary," Mr Odinga said yesterday.

Mr Obama's spokesman Robert Gibbs confirmed that the senator spoke to  the Kenyan opposition leader on Monday afternoon for about five minutes before going into a rally in New Hampshire, according to Associated Press.

and then:

Mr Obama has not commented on the Kenyan opposition leader's claim to be a relative.

and finally:

Mr Obama's uncle, Said Obama, said that his village, Kogela, in western Kenya, had been spared the violence and expressed his excitement as his US relative led polls in New Hampshire's Democrat primaries.

"Ah, that's wonderful, but I don't want to jump just yet," Said Obama told AP.

listen to odinga making the claims with his own mouth.  too bad he didn't decide to follow in the footsteps of another of his relations - check it out here - it seems that the esteemed dick cheney and obama are distant relatives.

from another story in the u.k. telegraph is this tidbit:

It is said there is a bitter joke among Kenya's Luo community that the United States of America will elect a member of their tribe as president before the East African country does.

not very funny to me.  how about you?

writing for the conservative voice, michael gaynor had just a slew of interesting tidbits, a few of which are below:

• "--Raila Odinga is of the Luo tribe to which Obama's late African-Arab Muslim father belonged. Obama's older brother still lives there; Abongo 'Roy' Obama is a Luo activist and militant Muslim who argues that the black man must liberate himself from the poisoning influences of European culture. He urges his younger brother, Barack, to embrace his African heritage. Barack Obama has a Kenyan grandmother [gaynor's note: according to Kenyan usage, not a biological grandmother] and several African brothers and sisters as well.
• "--Odinga claimed the election was rigged when he lost, then there were riots and a sort of civil war, but it was the Christians who were getting killed by the Muslims. Christians were burned alive in churches and they were macheted in the streets. It is reported that 1,000 people were killed when all was said and done. Right now, Odinga is claiming the presidency and fighting to be sole president, and in a diplomatic effort, the powers that be allowed him to be co-president until the election is figured out.
• "--Odinga also had an interesting political strategist help with his campaign, an American, who used to be a campaign employee of Bill Clinton's. It is the first time that an American political strategist has worked on any Kenyan campaign. Recommended by Barack Obama?

• "--Raila Odinga's official presidential website is similar to Barack Obama's, and Odinga's main campaign message and slogan is: CHANGE. Vote for Change. Agent of Change. Look at his website: http://www.raila07.com/

there's so much more there and i encourage all of y'all to go read the whole thing.  but how about odinga and obama both being "agents of change?"  stop the aclu has a great post on this very thing, too.

a quick google search on 'muslims back obama' 827,000 items were returned in less than .19 seconds.  hmmm, looks like there is some readily available information out there. 

items like this article from the council on american-islamic relationship's (cair) website.  in highlighting a convert to islam's (julia shearson) thoughts, the article says:

CAIR is not endorsing specific candidates, but she sees the move towards Mr Obama, by the young in particular, as part of a wider awakening.

i also liked this article and all its links.  this article from the canada free press also got my attention and is well worth the read; one of the most salient nuggets is:

As a fledgling Christian, Obama didn't join just any church. He joined the United Church of Christ.

The United Church of Christ is very anti-Israel and supports divestment. It also sponsors speeches at its many functions by the Arab "Christian" pro-terror religious organization, Sabeel. Sabeel holds some of its biggest meetings in Chicago.

further

Is the "New Face" theory espoused in USA Today, New Face as in the "Portrait of Dorian Grey"?

What if Obama's into Pious Fraud Islam–Hudaibiyah treaty "kiss the hand of your enemy until you can cut it off"?.  Not Obama? Remember the pictures of the little kids bobbing their heads up and down at the madrassas? They are all of the age Obama would have been in back in Indonesia.

judi mcleod finishes her article with:

Meanwhile hype notwithstanding, "the new face of change and reform for the democratic party" is no Abe Lincoln, but could be the most upwardly mobile Muslim of the millennium.

debbie schlussel certainly furthers the argument that obama is a muslim or at the very least is viewed as a muslim by the muslims.  the good people over at frontpagemag.com agree with her.  here.  here.  and here.  but i think this is my favorite evidence that the muslims are supporting obama's run for potus.  this picture really does say it all.

folks, the evidence is overwhelming.  this is NOT a smear campaign.  this is fact.  and if you're not motivated to vote against obama by voting for mccain, then you are being just plain stubborn.  please do not take this as an all out endorsement for john mccain; in fact if obama doesn't get the democrat nomination i still probably won't vote for mccain.  but if he does, i'm voting for mccain.  i hope all of you will join me.

in the course of my research i have been introduced to whole new gang of bloggers and i am infinitely better for the finds.  i encourage all of you to check out the following links: the baltimore reporter, conservative thoughts, death by 1000 papercuts, and jaspar jottings.

i have diligently researched every statement and link within this post.  it is my intention to not only inform, but also to inflame and motivate others out there who may be where i was.

btw, angel is blogging on how the fight to stop islam invading our country is racist.  check out her post and let her know you were there.

i now return you to your regularly scheduled denial - updated

the people in this country don't want to believe that we are on a precipice between dhimmitude and our freedoms.  there has been an islamic jihad declared against the west in general, and especially here in america.  you can find the call to this jihad in site after site after site.

so many in our society say "it's only the radical muslims who buy into this crap".  really?  so where are all the moderate muslims speaking out against the jihad?  where are all the moderates denouncing the world-wide dhimmification of non-muslims?  where are all the moderates standing up for the christians in the community?  where are all the moderates denouncing the fanatics among them who are honor killing their women, who are mutilating the genitals of their daughters?

islam was born in arabia, in the two cities of mecca and medina, where the prophet Muhammad, its founder, lived between 570 and 632.  it is here that muhammad received his "revelation".  after he died, his predication was given its final form in the book called the koran (or qur'an).  in the three centuries that followed his death, muslim theologians and jurists elaborated the corpus of islamic jurisprudence on two main pillars, the koran and the hadiths.  the hadiths being the acts and sayings (sunna) attributed to muhammad.  the jurists used myriad interpretative principles to establish shari'a, the islamic law, to make it conform to allah's will expressed to muhammad in the koran and the hadiths.

according to dhimmitude.org, dhimmitude can only be understood from pov of jihad because jihad is the origination of dhimmitude.  apparently, the way it works is like this:  if you submit without fighting the islamic jihadists, you are given "a pledge of security" and essentially you are protected from the jihad laws against the infidels:

"...the jihad laws against infidels which command killing, slavery, ransom or deportation for the enemies. Peace and security for non-Muslims are recognised only after their submission. Protection status is provided through the Islamization of conquered lands."

yeah, yeah, we all know this.  so what already.  be patient!  this stuff is important if we are to understand what we're up against.

all over the world, the islmaic jihadists are using our own freedoms against us to further their goal of subjugating we infidels.  striking at the heart of ourselves, in the country that spawned us, the government is going after a blogger who's only crime is to have spoken the truth against what the islamists are doing to his community, his country.  lionheart is currently in the u.s. and in order to avoid arrest in britain, he will be staying here awhile. 

also in the u.k. authors and publishers are being sued for slander!  this includes authors and publishers in the states if someone happens to be able to buy a copy of the publication and have it shipped to them in a foreign nation.  and our courts are upholding the preposterous notion that the u.k. has jurisdiction over this matter.  this is madness!

cair, that [supposedly] moderate islamic rights organization is an unindicted co-conspirator in the hamas funding trial.  and still the current administration (and its accomplices in congress) treat cair as if they have some legitimate function in realizing peace between muslims and infidels.

now we have come to a point in this election cycle where we, the [supposed] conservatives, basically have a choice between a clinton-lite candidate and a wanna be reagan candidate.  of course, we could also decide to vote for an actual clinton, or a former muslim.  while i'm not wholly fond of any of my remaining choices, mitt seems to stink least of the options and i'm [sort of] supporting him.  i will be voting for him on tuesday in lieu of forfeiting my right to bitch about the choice i have come november.

we are in a fight for our country, our liberties, our very way of life.  the liberals around us call for greater and greater capitulation to the forces around us: amnesty for illegal aliens, appeasing the terrorists (and potential terrorists), u.n. control of the earth's seas, "free" healthcare for everyone, closing gitmo so as not to offend any more muslims and/or sensitive socialists, surrendering of our ability to defend ourselves, destroying our economy to appease the global warming wanks, the expansion of abortion on demand, the appointment of activist judges, and the list goes on (and on and on and on...)

of those items above, how do those things fall in line with the actions, words and history of our two remaining candidates?  this pdf (Download romney_vs_mccain.pdf) gives you a pretty good idea - please feel free to distribute it to all whom you know.  it appears there isn't much difference between the two of them, there is enough difference to make mccain squarely out of touch with who we are and where we should be heading.

but, although the differences are not huge, i find myself compelled to vote for romney come super tuesday.  a few of the reasons:  He did not actively campaign against republicans and republican positions  - i also like that he has not given voice to a lot of kowtowing to islamists.  not much i know, but this has come down to an election cycle of degrees.

maybe mitt will appoint constitutional constructionists.  maybe john boy will support the people's right to bear arms.  who knows.  right now, i trust mitt more if for no other reason then he has a shorter history of screwing his constituents.

i believe he will keep gitmo open and allow "enhanced interrogation techniques" that will keep us and our servicemen and women in harm's way safer.  i also think, because of this commitment, he will be less likely to bend over and give away our freedoms to the islamo-fascists then mr. mccain.

however, as i told goat tonight - it is my most sincere hope that the "republicans" lose this time around.  maybe next time we'll be able to elect a grown up...

UPDATE: people across the conservative spectrum are coming out of the woodworks to denounce mccain.  check out these links:

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2008/02/01/mccains_straight_lies

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/DavidLimbaugh/2008/02/01/mccain,_the_anti-conservative

http://www.newsmax.com/reagan/?s=al&promo_code=443D-1

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/Dobson_vote_McCain/2008/02/01/69333.html

http://www.newsmax.com/ruddy/john_mccain/2008/01/31/69000.html

http://www.townhall.com/blog/g/a4a633c6-f24c-416b-bc24-b5ed8ec8ff57

we should note that mccain finished up the 4th quarter 2007 with $4.5m in campaign debt and a total number of donors somewhere around 110,000.  this is a train that can be stopped as it's not moving too quickly - regardless of what the lsm is trying to tell us.

mccain is NOT potus yet and there is nothing saying he has to be so.  so climb on board and start pulling the emergency brakes to derail this thing.  as defiant infidel has rightly noted, we did it with harriet miers, we did it with shamnesty and we can do it again.  we must.

one more thing i have trackedback this article to angel's weekend post that ties right into this one.  i heartily recommend you pop over and give her a read!

for this, too, i am grateful

i must admit that i have been in a particular funk this christmas season.  i've been rationalizing things and boy am i good at it.  seems that i, just like my liberal counterparts, am able to come up with a whole slew of reasons that it's ok for me to be acting "this way".

what way is that, you ask?  hmmmm - blue.  down in the dumps.  self-pitying.  whiny.  probably a few more, but i think i'll stop there.

then, this morning while catching up on my reading (been too busy to blog and read as much as i'd like) i came across a gem that made me sit up and take notice.  david r. usher, senior policy analyst for true equality network and the president of the missouri affiliate of american coalition for fathers and children and he wrote a piece last week at men's news daily that is well worth the read.  in part it says:

Christmas is often considered to be little more a time of giving stuff to people. Many of us rush around to get something for everyone we would feel embarrassed about if we left off the list. This is not the spirit of giving – it is the insecurity that develops when we have have no gratitude.

The true spirit of Christmas is “gratitude”. No matter how much we have, or how little, or how much we have lost or been taken advantage of, gratitude is the human spirit of Christmas. Everyone religious or atheist can have gratitude simply by practicing it.

For everyone I have ever met who thought they had a lousy lot in life, I have also met a person who is not grateful for what they do have...

...Let everyone now spend a few minutes writing down a list titled “I am grateful for ….”. The gift of Christmas will come for you, even if you think you have nothing to give.

so here is the start of my list.  i am grateful for...

1. my children.  each of them is special and beautiful and mine.  and no matter how big they get (my son is 6'4") when i look at them i see them in their dr. denton's at the top of the stairs on their way to bed.  when they are hurting, or happy, sad or angry, they are still that toddler trying to figure out their next step.

2. my husband.  he is my rock and my best friend.

3. for our founding fathers who loved liberty more than safety; who risked all so that we might have the freedoms God granted us.

4. for our men and women standing in harm's way so that we might have the freedoms God granted us.

5. my family, even if we're not getting along they are my tether to the past and i would not be me if it weren't for them.

6. the internet - without it i would be a damn-sight more ignorant than i am now and i wouldn't have "met" so many wonderful people who inform, encourage and challenge me to be better and know more.

7. my customers - without them i wouldn't be able to do the things i love so much.

i know there is more, but that is my start.  and i do feel better and more christmas-y.

will anyone join me in making the list?

merry christmas y'all and a prosperous and joyous new year to you as well.

speak now or forever live in fear...

debbie over at right truth brought this whole thing to my attention.  truth be told, tantor let me know about the mosque in his post from 10 sept 2007 titled "the london markaz" but i had no idea that people were speaking out against in london.  sorry for not grasping the whole situation, tantor - great work for bringing this to light, deb.

worried about the security impact of the mega-mosque, councillor alan craig spoke out against it's being built.  the good folks over at god tube posted this:

the death threat video mentioned in deb's post is no longer available at you tube - i think this is the same one, but i'm not certain.  i wonder why.  perhaps they are worried that it will present the followers of islam, the religion of peace, in a bad light....

back in february the u.k. telegraph reported that the mosque would be blocked by the government.  from the article written by ben leapman and jonathan wynne-jones:

"A senior security source said that he was concerned about the proposed mosque, and expected ministers to use their powers to call in, and turn down, the planning application.

The move was confirmed by a senior Government source, who said there were fears that the giant mosque could damage community relations in the area, and added: "We are going to stop it."

There are clear planning grounds on which the development could be turned down. It is so close to the main Olympic venues that it may interfere with preparations for the Games."

and further:

"Tablighi Jamaat has hired a lobbying firm with a track record of supporting controversial planning applications, in an attempt to build political support for the project.

Indigo Public Affairs says that a formal planning application for the mosque will be submitted in the autumn, possibly with the size scaled back to meet some of the objections. A spokesman said: "Our client utterly refutes any links to terrorism. It is a predominantly apolitical organisation seeking to go about its faith in a peaceful way."

Tablighi Jamaat is a conservative and ultra-orthodox group with close links with the Wahhabi form of Islam practised in Saudi Arabia. Hundreds of British Muslims are sent by Tablighi Jamaat to madrassas in Pakistan every year, raising fears that some may be brainwashed. A leaked FBI memo alleged that al-Qaeda was using the organisation "as cover... to network with other extremists".

Mohammed Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer, two of the July 7 suicide bombers, are believed to have visited the organisation's European headquarters, a mosque in Dewsbury, West Yorkshire. Supporters of Tablighi Jamaat point out that even if this were the case, the mosque would not necessarily be the place where the pair were brainwashed.

Muslims living near the site, in West Ham, have raised more than 3,000 signatures on a petition calling for the project to be halted. They want any new mosque to draw in all strands of Islam."

wow.  so at that point even muslims were trying to stop the building of the mosque - if for, albeit, different reasons than mr. craig.

fast forward about six months.  alan craig becomes more vocal in his opposition to the building of this mega-mosque.  two months ago the telegraph ran a new article about the situation just after the death threat video aired.  at that time, mr. craig did respond.  from the article:

"Mr Craig, a councillor for Canning Town South ward in Newham borough, has upset some Muslim residents in the area with his resistance to plans for a 12,000 capacity "mega-mosque" at Abbey Mills, near West Ham tube station.

It is being proposed by the ultra-orthodox group Tablighi Jamaat, whose previous adherents include Glasgow airport bomber Kafeel Ahmed, shoe bomber Richard Reid and the July 7 bombers Mohammad Sidique Khan and Shehzad Tanweer.

Until yesterday there was a web link from the Abbey Mills mosque website to abdullah1425's YouTube mini website, where he identifies himself as Muhammad, 23, from Stevenage, Herts. Yesterday Mr Craig said he refused to be intimidated by the clip, which he described as "an open invitation to take me out".

He said: "It's either a sick joke or it's worse. Even if I don't worry about myself, to put my wife and two young children on there is particularly sick."

Mr Craig said he had no problem with Muslims, but did object to Tablighi Jamaat's plan on the grounds of its alleged terror links."

although never officially sanctioned or censured, this group is 'on the list', so to speak.  also from the article:

"In 2003 Michael Heimbach, the deputy chief of the FBI's international terrorism section, was quoted in the New York Times as saying: "We found that al-Qa'eda used them for recruiting, now and in the past."

A French counter-terrorism official has also called it the "antechamber of fundamentalism", claiming it acted as a stepping stone to more extremist action."

of course the group denies any link to terrorism claiming they are a "peaceful, apolitical movement..."  whatever.

this great video, if you can understand his cockney accent, is a great support for councillor craig.  unfortunately, some others in the newham council can't scramble to appease the muslims fast enough.  clearly they have no idea that they are going straight to dhimmi-hood on the fast train.  to hell in a handbasket as it were.

i wonder, what sort of muslim participates in the olympics.  surely no women - they can't possibly be able to participate in sports in a burka.  sort of like other jobs they can't reasonably handle - ht to angel over at 'woman honor thyself' and be observant.  i can see it now: iran represented in gymnastics by wht's no-ah in a stylish, black, burka.  sheesh.

it saddens me that the uk is becoming completely and totally dhimmified.  i will someday, possibly sooner rather than later, miss my trips across the pond to london town.  i know it will come to that because i will NEVER wear a headscarf and i will never submit.

we need more people like councillor craig who are willing to speak out against the dark energy that is engulfing our planet.  as i said over at right truth's post: "my prayers and heart go out to these people. we need to do whatever we can to promote their courage."

this is my contribution to spreading the word.  won't you join me?

the art of the [political] sell

everyone keeps saying that rudy giuliani is the inevitable winner of the 2008 rnc nomination.  why?  because "he can beat hillary?"  i disagree.  he's not inspiring in real life, but he sure does great in the soundbites!  let's examine the real mr. giuliani a bit, shall we?

some are pointing to the fact that he's been married more than twice as an issue.  that's just fluff - actually, i think the msm is saying that the marriage thing is an issue for conservatives because they assume it is and they found a couple of people to agree so we all must think so too.

no, i'm more concerned about the things he did as mayor giuliani than as mr. giuliani.  i'm also concerned with what he is saying now to try to change who he has been - and i believe that we all need to be so.

in a recent column, pat buchanan posits that rudy is "...represents a return to liberal Republicanism that would strip the GOP of its hard-won progress on moral, social and cultural issues..."  he further says:

A Giuliani presidency would represent the return and final triumph of the Republicanism that conservatives went into politics to purge from power. A Giuliani presidency would represent repudiation by the party of the moral, social and cultural content that, with anti-communism, once separated it from liberal Democrats and defined it as an institution.

i believe this to be dead on accurate.  this video says so much about him while rudy's have a grand ol' time:

so after a public lifetime of being pro-abortion, anti-gun rights, pro-affirmative action, etc. and being in march after march in the gay rights parade in new york, we are now to believe that he's a conservative?  sorry, i'm not buying it.

in april of 2006 joseph farah wrote in his column 'between the lines' for world net daily this about mr. giuliani:

"...the smart money has long suggested that Giuliani is incapable of winning the Republican nomination for the presidency because of his hideous positions on homosexuality and abortion. But it appears Giuliani is aware of this weakness and is attempting to hoodwink American evangelicals the way Bill Clinton did.

As Andrew Sullivan put it, "If Rudy is talking Jesus, he's going to run."

And, boy, is he ever talking the talk.

Rudy Giuliani in drag

Now, before I tell you what he said, and to whom he said it, let me first introduce to you the real Rudy Giuliani.

Is America really ready for a drag-queen president?

Can America survive another obnoxious phony baloney masquerading as one thing and governing as another?

Will Republicans be fooled again and nominate a candidate who favors unrestricted abortion on demand?

Should we expect the Grand Old Party to become the Gay Old Party in 2008 and put its stamp of approval on a guy 100 percent committed to the homosexual activist agenda?

and look where we are with rudy. 

for instance, with rudy giuliani we get the same view on abortion that president clinton had (and will have): personally against it, but believes a woman has a right to choose.  and then he says he supports constitutional constructionists for judges.  forgive my blondness, but aren't these two viewpoints just a tad contradictory?

it would be different if he said "i personally am opposed to abortion, and i believe that with a court comprised of constitutional constructionists roe v. wade would be overturned and the rule on abortion would be handed back to the states (where it belongs) and then i would fight at the state level to protect a woman's right to choose."  but that's not what he has said.  at least i have been unable to find any thing to indicate that this is what he believes.

the people over at the jewish task force break it down even further, calling rudy the 2008 election disaster.  much of the article is no longer timely (john mc cain and condoleeza are both mentioned as possible winners) but the information on rudy is still valid, if a trifle harsh...  in the article (that was originally published in 2005) they say:

Giuliani is completely pro-abortion, and even supports the barbaric practice known as partial birth abortion.

But that is just the beginning of his extreme left-wing positions: Giuliani is pro-Sodomite, pro-Third World immigration and anti-Second Amendment.

Every year as New York's mayor, Giuliani marched in the Sodomite parade down Fifth Avenue with all of the transvestites, the sadomasochistic freaks wearing Nazi helmets, and the child molesters of the National Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA).

Giuliani himself dressed in "drag" - he wore a dress, a wig, makeup and lipstick - on more than one occasion.

Giuliani's sexual escapades are as bad as those of Bill Clinton.

Giuliani married his first cousin and then pulled all types of strings to get the marriage annulled by the Catholic Church. (Catholics are not allowed to divorce, and so "annulment" of a marriage is sometimes used to end an unwanted union.)

Giuliani then married his second wife, Donna Hanover, who starred in the evil pornographic and child-molesting play, The Vagina Monologues. In the play, a grown woman has a lesbian, child-molesting relationship with a 13-year-old girl.

An uncaring mother and a cheating husband made for tabloid fodder during the messy Giuliani-Hanover divorce - Television personality Donna Hanover starred in The Vagina Monologues, a play about lesbian pedophilia, and played Jimmy Carter's sister, Ruth Carter Stapleton, in The People vs. Larry Flynt, a loving cinematic tribute to the infamous porn king, depicted in the film as a “free speech” crusader 

Giuliani then openly cheated on his second wife, parading around the city with his adulterous mate, Judith Nathan. Giuliani even wanted to bring his adulterous mate into the Mayor's official residence in Gracie Mansion to openly live with him. He did not care that his young son Andrew was living there and would have seen his father together with his adulterous partner every day.

Finally, Giuliani sought to divorce his second wife. This time, he did not seek an "annulment," he openly sought a divorce.

When the Giuliani's separated, he moved into the apartment of an AIDS-infected homosexual "couple" whom he had befriended.

How can Republicans who so bitterly condemned the terrible moral example set by Bill Clinton now support for President the equally slimy Rudy Giuliani?

back in june william burnett references a piece in the village voice denouncing rudy's catholicness.  in so far as i could care less what religion potus is (provided it's not islam or the like) this does have some implications.  if he's not really catholic, based on his actions and his life, then how can we expect him to behave in a conservative manner at any level?  any way, in the burnett piece he says:

On abortion, the article goes point-by-point in Giuliani's public career to demonstrate a man embracing the so-called right to abortion much more than politically necessary to get elected into office. In fact, as a matter of policy, Giuliani continued Mayor Ed Koch's practice of having the city fund abortions at city hospitals for women who could not afford it -- no questions asked. According to the article...

One of [Giuliani's] prime claims to the presidency, emphasized on the stump, is his slashing of the city's welfare rolls. But even as he found brutal new ways to cut the poor off the dole, he was using millions in city funds to subsidize abortions for women whose incomes were too high to meet [Federal subsidy] eligibility standards.

this does not sound like a man who is "personally against abortion" to me.  does it to you?

possibly more informative is this information from john hawkins over at human events.  he lays it out so well, i can't think any more should be necessary as a reason to vote against this guy in the primaries.  mr. hawkins posits that rudy is not really against gay marriages, is anti-second amendment, pro-abortion, and he is pro-illegal immigration.  in fact mr. hawkins says:

If you agree with the way that Nancy Pelosi and Company deal with illegal immigration, then you'll find the way that Rudy Giuliani tackles the issue to be right down your alley.

there is more, but it goes on and on and on.  none of it good.  call him charismatic.  call him personable.  call him a great salesman.  just don't call him a conservative, because he isn't.

personally, i think that rudy was very positive and public in the aftermath of 9/11.  however, i also recognize that 9/11 saved rudy politically.  does this make him a good fit to be potus?  i don't think so.  but make no mistake: IF rudy gets the nomination (because a lot of people are too idiotic to vote for an actual conservative) i will support his bid for the presidency.  i just don't want it to come down to that....

will the real conservative please stand up...

i watched the debate last night.  and then i watched it again this morning.  and then again at lunch time.

i really like watching these things on the computer, after the fact, so that i can pause and reflect and pause and replay, etc..  in addition i read the live blogging from fred's campaign page to get his people's viewpoint and it's a must read in my opinion.

i also, purposely, didn't watch the "post debate action" until after i was satisfied that i had gleaned all that i could from the debate.  i also didn't watch the "post debate action" until i had visited the blogs of a few of my favorite bloggers including conservatism with heart, blogs for fred thompson, hot air, goat's barnyard and michelle malkin.  i have great respect for each of these blogs and like that they always challenge me (and themselves) with great questions.

having said that, i'd like to give my point of view and hope to spark some good conversations here, and elsewhere.

dee's view, over at conservatism with heart is that rudy won the debate and that fred was down the list with a "b" rating.  she says:

Fred Thompson--B
I hate to admit it but Thompson was some what of a disappointment last night. He had some good answers on things but he didn't do anything to inspire passion. I liked his answer on Education and vouchers, his line referring to the Haditha marines and he had a great response to the lazy question but otherwise not a big night for him.

it's really rare, but i have to respectfully disagree with dee (sorry, but i still love you).  he's a slow speaker, but that shouldn't be mistaken for lack of interest.  i listened to his words, i watched his face, i think he was brilliant. 

fred addressed the questions put to him honestly and forthrightly (is that a word) regardless of the "fall out".  i thought fred had great passion - when he spoke about beating hillary and reminding us what the party stands for:  "...let's don't get diverted onto some single individual, whoever their nominee is, they're going to lead us down the road to a comfortable mediocrity and that's not the united states of america that i grew up in."  when he spoke of integrity in saying what he said that needs to happen with social security - he stood by what others have quoted him as saying, saying: "...it's based on the notion that there's no reason to run for the presidency of the united states if you can't tell the truth..."

i'd love to see a thompson/hunter ticket for 2008.  i believe the two of them to be the most consistent, conservative and electable on the stage last night.

i heard some other things that i liked from some others. 

i used to like mccain.  then he started veering left in the 2000 cycle to appeal to the libs.  then he pulled his "gang of 14" gig.  then the immigration issues.  and the list goes on and on.  but aside from the woodstock comment that garnered him a standing 'o', he also said "...he's going to force us to setup a league of democracies..." in regards to putin and russia.  however, we can't setup a league of anything if we sign onto the law of the sea treaty which mccain isn't speaking out against at this point.

i've never been a big fan of mike huckabee.  i know that many like him, but he just seems like a lib in rino clothing to me.  not at the debate, but still one of my favorite stories ever:

congratulations are in order for Keith Richards, lead guitarist for the Rolling Stones. The man has been promised a pardon for a traffic offense — from 1975 — courtesy of a fan, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee.

Richards was fined $162.20 for reckless driving more than three decades ago after being stopped in a tiny town 70 miles south of Little Rock, between shows in Memphis and Dallas, reports Reuters. Richards paid the fine by mail.

Huckabee said he talked to the possible future father of Capt. Jack Sparrow backstage at a Stones concert in March, and, after Richards joked about his past, the governor (and bass player in an amateur band) suggested the rocker apply for a pardon.

i like that story because my husband plays bass in an amateur band too. :)  but seriously folks.  i have to give kudos to mr. huckabee for having the best line of the debate when he said "there's nothing funny about hillary being president."  how right he is, how right he is.  but still not enough for to want him on the ticket....

i'm not going to comment too much on mitt or rudy.  i would vote for either of them if they made it on the ticket, but i won't be voting to put them there.  i just don't like them very much.  i think mitt likes to make too many deals with the libs in order to say he did something, anything.  and i think rudy likes big government and likes being a part of big government.

any how, all in all i think fred was the most impressive.  i think fred was the only one on the stage who deserved to invoke ronny.  i think i like fred more and more as time passes...

definitely NOT green with envy...

did you know that we've painted the empire state building green!?!?  well not paint, really, but it appears to be green to honor the end of ramadhan.  angel has a great post and great imagery here and both defiant infidel and debbie over at right truth add to angel's information.

i have placed a call to their pr department - specifically a ms. melanie marsh - and left a message that i am appalled at the idiocy of honoring a group especially in new york where we should all still have such a violent recollection of what the muslim terrorists did to our nation.  i am not going to hold my breath waiting for a return call.

the empire sate building's official internet site has an entire page devoted to the history of the lighting of the building and another for the upcoming schedule.  it's important to note that several people are saying that this is the first time the building will be completely green, but clearly this isn't the case:

October 09, 2007

Green/Green/Green*

New York Restoration Project and NYC Parks Department - Million Trees NYC

wow, i wonder if they did it that way because they wanted to be able to say it wasn't the only thing that warranted an all green e.s.b.?!?!

please join us in calling and registering your dissatisfaction over this horrendous act of political correctness.  i wonder what color they light the building to commemorate easter or jewish passover?  perhaps the other jewish holidays?

anyone?

one blogspot for burma

free burma!!!