Big Girl Rantz

if illegal immigration isn't the problem, then what is? - UPDATED

earlier this year jerry rivers, aka geraldo rivera, says that "...illegal aliens commit crimes at a lower rate than u.s. citizens..."  however, shouldn't someone remind geraldo that if they came here without permission, then 100% of them have committed a crime?   i'm sure all of you have seen the video, but here it is just in case.

i bring this up because i saw this on the back of a pickup truck on i-35 today: "don't worry, the king of england didn't like the minute man project either" and it got me to thinking about all this again.  He also had "Support the 2nd Amendment; its the original homeland security act" but that's a whole other post...

recently due, at least in part, to public outcry dick durbin and harry reid's latest version of the "dream act" was defeated.  i doubt seriously that it will finally die here.  these people apparently don't understand that the good people of the united states simply DO NOT support their efforts to give amnesty to the illegal aliens in this country.

they will not admit that the amnesty push is simply a ploy to get more voters into the fold.  and it seems that each the democrats and the bush "republicans" think that "they" will be the ones to garner the voters.

the proponents of "undocumented citizens" will tell you that at one point all of us entered the country illegally.  whatever.  if they really believe this, then why do they not oppose the immigration laws of mexico or canada or - well you get the picture.  they don't believe this, it's just a convenient sound bite to justify support for breaking the laws of our country.

the people who are coming to our country illegally, are NOT coming here to become a part of our communities and our country.  they demand that we change our culture to accommodate them.  they demand that we speak their language.  the fly the flag of the country they abandoned to come here.  they demand the rights of citizens when they are NOT citizens. 

but do they support the same type of treatment for immigrants to their countries? of course not.  well, at least vincente fox doesn't.  he believes that the u.s. borders should be open but that mexico has the right to keeps its borders closed.

but the worst is not the trash they are bringing to our country.  it is not the increase in the cost of educational services, medical services, welfare services, crime and punishment or infrastructure.  no, the worst is that these illegal immigrants take so much and contribute so little.

i had a conversation with some people i know who put forth the argument that these people who are working "without documentation" or with "borrowed documentation" are actually good for the country.  see, the rationale is that they are paying all this money into the tax system and taking so little because they can't because they are "considered" illegal.

usillegalaliens blog had a great post (well one of many) where they analyze the impact of illegal aliens on our country.  the article is long and has many references, but it is well worth the read; the information contained in it is simply amazing.  the article also brings out a point i had not heard before:

Finally, another negative aspect of illegal immigration, that few realize, is the impact it is having on Congressional reapportionment. Remember, the Census Bureau counts all people for determining representative apportionment, not just citizens. As a result, there is a shift of political power going on from the states with lower illegal alien populations to states with higher illegal alien populations as noted in a Center for Immigration Studies article, Remaking the Political Landscape - The Impact of Illegal and Legal Immigration on Congressional Apportionment, as detailed in the chart to the right.

Note the 18 seat swing from mostly rust belt to sun belt? You can expect more of this after the 2010 census, if we continue counting foreign nationals for congressional representation - something I'm sure the founders did not intend when they put the enumeration requirement in the Constitution.

All this is massive collateral damage from a "victimless crime" so we can save ten cents on a head of lettuce.

additionally, as this article by daniel gonzalez of the arizona republic points out, the illegals spend as little as possible so that they can send as much as possible home.  this allows the family members left behind to live a bit better than they otherwise would and it props up the mexican economy to boot.

i know, i know.  not ALL immigrants who are here illegally are from mexico, but the vast majority of them are.  i understand that there are others who are slipping in side door and it includes drug dealers and perhaps even terrorists.  all the more reason we need to close the borders.

recently chris burgard released a new movie, border, paints a horrible but true picture of what the illegal immigration is doing along our border with mexico.  according the film's website:

"Border takes you on a journey from state to state and exposes a failed system and a failed policy. Burgard's courageous journey includes powerful footage in the border crossing regions of America where dead bodies, armed Mexican military incursions, 'rape trees,' and drug traffickers are commonplace."

in an interview with frontpage magazine, chris burgard discusses the film and how/why he got started in making it.  i think the most telling thing he said in the interview (and none of it was fluff) was:

Well I know that the problem will continue only as long as the Federal Government wants it too. After seeing a US Stryker unit completely close down one of the biggest drug corridors in New Mexico for a month, and after spending a great deal of time working with the rank and file US Border Patrol agents. I am convinced that we have more than enough tools in the shed to secure the border whenever we want to. It is a matter of choosing not to. If enough people pay attention and participate, keep up the same kind of pressure that shut down the phone system of the US Senate, only then when the politicians in Washington are afraid of losing their jobs and their power will you see real change.

i believe he's right.  i believe it's time to shut this down NOW.  any ideas of what the next step is?

UPDATE with posting from Patrick - Check out the statement Fred made: http://haloscan.com/tb/joubertconlon/241965978828955840

UPDATE with posting from Debbie - Check out this information from Oklahoma from Right Truth: http://righttruth.typepad.com/right_truth/2007/11/judge-denies-pr.html

updated - hucka-bee, hucka-was, huck-do? hucka-don't!

as dee and i have discussed a number of times, mike huckabee makes my skin crawl.   aside from the fact that he looks like a cheap imitation of gomer pyle, i simply couldn't name why i couldn't stand him.  i almost felt guilty because i thought i was judging that book merely by it's cover.

but then today, dee put this up and i followed all the links to mike's america and john fund and rebecca.  it was all great information and i finally felt the first stirrings of vindication.

you should definitely follow the links as well, but i have chosen my favorite segment of the fund article to whet your appetite:

Governors who served with him praise Mr. Huckabee for his ability to work with others, but say he was clearly a moderate. "He fought my efforts to reform the National Governors Association and always took fiscal positions to my left," former Colorado Gov. Bill Owens, a supporter of Mitt Romney, told me.

Rick Scarborough, a pastor who heads Vision America, attended seminary with Mr. Huckabee and is a strong backer. But, he acknowledges, "Mike has always sought the validation of elites." When conservatives took over the Southern Baptist Convention after a bitter fight in the 1980s, Mr. Huckabee sided with the ruling moderates. Paul Pressler, a former Texas judge who led the conservative Southern Baptist revolt, told me, "I know of no conservative he appointed while he headed the Arkansas Baptist Convention."

Mr. Huckabee's reluctance to surround himself with conservatives was evident as governor, when he kept many agency heads appointed by Bill Clinton. Zac Wright, a spokesman for incoming Democratic Gov. Mike Beebe, was asked this year why 15 Huckabee agency heads had been retained. Most of them were "Clinton people," he replied, not "Huckabee people." Mr. Huckabee told me many of his agency heads had "apolitical" responsibilities.

enter my buddy goat's great post that i somehow missed earlier today (in my defense it has been a particularly busy day) and now i know my gut was right.  no bout adoubt it. his is actually a link to a post from american spectator about the bad ole days with huckabee in arkansas.  to me, the most important passage from the amspec article is this:

Ask lots of folks in Arkansas, including Republicans, and a fair number will probably tell you that Huck is for Huck is for Huck. National media folks like David Brooks, dealing in surface appearances only, rave about what a nice guy Huckabee is, and a moral exemplar to boot. If they only did a little homework, they would discover a guy with a thin skin, a nasty vindictive streak, and a long history of imbroglios about questionable ethics.

Once, Gov. Huckabee even had the gall to file suit against the state ethics commission. He lost.

but all in all, i think this blog post from the arkansas times sums it up best:

In the final analysis, Huckabee's failure in nine months to raise in Arkansas an amount equivalent to what Bill Clinton raised at the outset of his entry into the presidential race (when the dollar was worth more and campaign contribution limits were lower) is a telling read on the depth of affection Huckabee left here. Instructive, too, are the polls that show Hillary a likely winner over Huckabee in Arkansas.

i mean, seriously folks, if the conservatives (and/or republicans) of arkansas aren't united behind huckabee why should any of us climb on board with him?

UPDATE: from dee this morning:

I also updated the post with 2 more DEVASTATING articles about him. Apparently he pardoned a rapist who when released sexually assaulted and murdered a woman right here in Missouri. Yikes!! No way to Huckabee, Pat Toomey's article says he's not even good enough for VP and I would agree. The articles also talk about how the liberal media loves him because in many ways he is a big government lib. I was wondering why the liberal KY3 Missouri blog was always touting him, now I know why.

Here are the articles:
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12205

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YzNiY2M5NzIxZDJlMDUxNzUwYmQ4ZDU5ZDAzY2U3YWU=

each of these is an excellent read and i highly recommend them.  thanks!

re-defining 'non-judgmental language'

oh. my. god.

this book has, apparently, been out since 2006, but somehow i have just learned about this today.  according to the website hawking this book:

"Why Mommy is a Democrat brings to life the core values of the Democratic party in ways that young children will easily understand and thoroughly enjoy. Using plain and non-judgmental language, along with warm and whimsical
illustrations, this colorful 28-page paperback depicts the Democratic principles of fairness, tolerance, peace, and concern for the well-being of others. It's a great way for parents to gently communicate their commitment to these principles and explain their support for the party.

Why Mommy is a Democrat may look like a traditional children's book, but it definitely isn't just for children. With numerous subtle (and not-so-subtle) satirical swipes at the Bush administration and the Republican party, Why Mommy will appeal to Democrats of all ages!

first of all, who knew the democrats had principles of fairness, tolerance, peace and concern for the well-being of others?  second of all, how can you take satirical swipes, subtle or otherwise, using non-judgmental language?

let's examine these things shall we?  in her post on monday, angel pointed out "One man’s 'hate speech' is another man’s Truth."  generally speaking, anything a conservative says that a liberal disagrees with is "hate speech".  conversely, anything a liberal says, no matter how ridiculous, illogical or hateful, is "truth".  got it?  so, if i, as a conservative, cannot say anything you, as a democrat, disagree with then for whom is there fairness?

when i look at the democrat party, i see that there is tolerance for illegal aliens.  tolerance for islamists, regardless of how "radical".  i see bashing of our men and women in arms - whether currently standing in harm's way or not.  i see denial of the rights of christians.  i see the bashing of conservatives.  i see the embracing of homosexuals so long as they are not republicans.  i see the promotion of children so long as those children are not espousing anything that is conservative in nature - otherwise the poor child is just mislead or ignorant.

i fail to see how this qualifies democrats as "tolerant".  it is simply group think, which is very close to mob rules, to embrace everything that mirrors your beliefs while bashing and dismissing anyone who does not.nothing's going to hurt you tonight, not on my watch" just so the dems have right to say idiotic things promotes peace.  or how bypassing the president to meet with the syrian president (and other leaders in the middle east) promotes peace.  or how teaching our children that the war of northern aggression was about slavery and that we owe reparations forever more to all "persons of color" promotes peace.  or tolerance.  or fairness.

i also fail to understand how promoting tolerance towards people who want to kill us promotes peace.  or how denigrating the people willing to stand on that ground and say "

as for "concern for the well-being of others" they can stuff it.  government simply has no business taking care of me or mine.  especially my children.  or yours.  ever notice that when it comes to abortion a "woman's right to choose" is sacrosanct, but once she's decided to keep the kid all choices must be sanctioned by the government?!?  ever notice, as i have, that the majority of people who are vegetarians because of the idea of "cruelty to animals" is pro abortion?  ever notice that, in democrat speak, concern for others only exists in so far as it can garner them votes?

it is my experience that democrats are none of these things.  that democrats have only one goal and that is to establish a socialist utopia here in our country.  well no thank you.

btw, did you happen to notice what the momma squirrel is protecting her young from?  anyone else ever had the thought that democrats must wish that their party animal to be a mouse instead of a donkey?

to stay married, move to massachusetts?

been reading a lot over at robert's place in the last week or so.  several different posts and so no single post is really applicable to link to here.  but there's this person "shaw" who has posted a few times that massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate per 1000 people of any state in the nation.

robert tried to challenge him, but he never quite responded with anything more than the information in his original comment.  so it got me to thinking, and researching, about this topic.  what i found wasn't quite so straight forward as shaw and the op-ed page of the boston globe would have us believe.

this post doesn't even begin to examine the sanctity of marriage as one man and one woman.  this deals strictly with trends in marriages and divorces in our great nation.

according the to the boston globe op-ed, from just about 3 years ago, william d'antonio posits that based on the latest data massachusetts has the lowest divorce rate in the nation.  the divorce rate per 1000 people, for 2002, in the state of massachusetts is 2.4 (or 2.5 depending on the source).  conversely, according to that same data, the divorce rate in the state of texas is 4.1.  well it certainly sounds like married people in massachusetts have a better chance of "making it" - doesn't it?

according to the op-ed:

The Associated Press, using data supplied by the US Census Bureau, found that the highest divorce rates are to be found in the Bible Belt. The AP report stated that "the divorce rates in these conservative states are roughly 50 percent above the national average of 4.2 per thousand people." The 10 Southern states with some of the highest divorce rates were Alabama, Arkansas, Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, North Carolina, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Texas. By comparison nine states in the Northeast were among those with the lowest divorce rates: Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont.

not so fast, bozo boy.  first of all, when did arizona become a "southern state"?  also, that number is per 1000 people in the state.  how many people in the state got married?  what is the percentage of people who marry that end up in divorce.  how are "marriages" counted?  upon further review, the rates listed per 1000 people aren't really so impressive.  i found the rates at the cdc and they appear to be the same ones referenced by this doc.  i also found them from the census bureau, but they didn't have it such a nifty document...

for instance when you compare the divorce rates for the the nine northeast states he lists as among the lowest divorce rates you will notice that they do not have such a high marriage rate, either.  so to extrapolate the information for the actual divorce rate you merely need to divide the divorces per 1000 people by the marriages per 1000 people.

for instance the nine lowest states by percentage of people divorcing vs. marrying is are south carolina (37%), south dakota (38%), tennessee (39%), utah (39%), massachusetts (42%), rhode island (42%), arkansas (43%), vermont (43%), and illinois (44%).  so essentially, massachusetts, rhode island and vermont stay in the top nine.  south carolina moves to the number spot in terms of lowest rate of divorce and arkansas moves the bottom nine to the top nine...

i do feel it is important to note that i exclude hawaii and nevada because the numbers for those states are skewed by the sheer number of people who get married there and then go home (for instance nevada is 67.4 marriages out of 1000 people with a percentage of divorce of 11%).  i also ignored states for whom there is no data for both divorce and marriage for the 2002 year.  a friend of mine points out that this necessarily skews the numbers for the rest of the country, but i can only do so much with the data presented to me.

the nine highest rates of divorce become mississippi (77%), arizona (71%), washington (71%), west virginia (64%), pennsylvania (60%), colorado (59%), connecticut (58%), michigan (58%) and new jersey (57%).  that makes three of the best nine in the divorces per 1000 people fall to the worst nine in percentages of divorce versus marriage.  only arizona and mississippi are in the bottom nine in both lists.  the rest are all in the middle somewhere.  the percentage of people, nationwide, who get divorced vs. married (including hawaii and nevada) is 49%.  texas is the worst on the list in terms of divorces per 1000 people, but it's below the national average with a percentage of 46.

i'm pretty certain that south carolina, illinois, tennessee, and arkansas are in the bible belt and they're in the lowest nine states for percentage of divorces vs. marriages.  also, utah has an extremely religious population and they're in the best nine as well.  and six out of the nine highest in terms of divorces vs. marriages are very liberal states. 

so what is one to surmise from all this number crunching and data?  beats me.  but i'm pretty sure it doesn't mean that you're less likely to get a divorce is you live in massachusetts.  or more likely to get a divorce is you live in texas or "the bible belt".  please tell me i'm not the only one who thinks the boston op-ed is just a tad offbase.

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...

hillary bankrolling bloggergate?

earlier this week goat posted this video.  i know it's a long one, but it's a must see video. 

from this video, we clearly see that hillary is NOT the uninformed innocent she has been claiming to be.  we get an upclose view of how she uses and abuses people so long as it's good for her.  but i wonder - are people in hollywood abandoning peter paul in support of hillary on this one?  will peter paul ever be a clinton supporter again?

then, yesterday, newsmax published an article by richard lawrence poe entitled "hilary ensnared in bloggergate" and it begins

"Call it "Bloggergate" — the subversion of the blogosphere by Democrat money.

To be more precise, Bloggergate is the subsidizing of left-wing bloggers with illegal Democrat campaign contributions, laundered through ostensibly “non-partisan” non-profit groups."

i love this word "bloggergate".  read the whole thing, poe does a great job of it, but the gist is that hillary is behind media matters.  hear it here: 

in her own words, as plain as day, hillary says she helped "start and support" media matters and center for american progress. 

also, from you tube, i found this gem from jcjcd who is apparently hillary's greatest fan.  it's cobbled together, cherry-picked items with the implied intent to portray that everyone is picking on hillary and she started media matters because she needs an avenue to defend herself.  what, the msm isn't enough???

not too long ago, the chances of getting this information out to the people would have been pretty much impossible.  but now, led by conservative talk radio and bolstered by those of us (if i may so humbly include myself) in the blogosphere we have a real chance of reaching the general populace and educating them on this stuff.  as michael reagan said in a recent weekly column that was picked up by human events:

"Those of us in talk radio and the Internet are the left’s worst nightmare – our monitoring of their activities had been shining the light of truth on their attempts to deceive the nation, and their current assault on the new media is failing as a result."

this is a dead on bullseye for what is happening.  they spew stuff, the conservative radio hosts pick it up and then the bloggers grab it and spread the word further.  or maybe it's the other way around sometimes (most of the time? who cares).  either way, the word gets out there and they're stopped.

let's hope that camille paglia is right when she says that hillary can't win (and shouldn't) - i certainly agree with her!!!  goat says we need to make this thing viral; this is my contribution to that effort.

what was he thinking???

ben stein, the former speechwriter for nixon, the stand up conservative's conservative has given a campaign donation to al franken.  read the whole story here.

now, i'm no fan of norm coleman, but al franken?!?!  i'm even less a fan of his. 

are we LOST or just blind, deaf & stupid?

can someone please explain to me why the united states of america is even considering ratification of the "law of the sea treaty" (lost)?  this just makes no sense to me.  none.

gabrielle reilly does a great job of presenting both sides of the article and it's a great place to start.  but there is (as always) so much more to know. 

in his 2004 state of the union address president bush said "america will never seek a permission slip to defend the security of our country."  but that is precisely the position the united states will be in if we ratify lost.

i honestly wonder if the president, or any proponent of the treaty in congress, has even read all 202 pages of this thing.  my guess is not - if they had, surely they would no longer be a "for" this thing.

currently, the dems are in nearly unanimous agreement with the president that they should vote in favor of ratification.  in fact, there are only a handful of republicans opposing it.  we need to make certain that they stand determinedly against this or it will get the 2/3 vote it needs in the upper house to pass.  and based on the behavior of some senators this just isn't a priority for them.

according to cliff kincaid in an article for the national ledger there were two republicans, john sununu (r-n.h.) and norm coleman (r-mn) who were just too busy to attend the senate foreign relations meeting on this treaty.  however, both of them did find time to attend a photo op with bono (of u2 fame) the next day.  now how's that for priorities?!?

in speaking of richard lugar (rino-in) - who managed to make the photo op and both meetings of the committee, mr. kincaid had this to say: "Lugar is a globalist who has been pushing UNCLOS [lost] for many years. He not only believes in more foreign aid; he favors getting the U.S. entangled in more international treaties."

back in 2004 the senate, led by senate foreign relations chairman richard lugar, attempted to ram the treaty approval through before opposition could be garnered against it.  however, americans rose up in protest against this treaty and (much like with the  illegal alien amnesty) its proponents in the senate were shocked.

once again, this is happening.  the president is pushing for acceptance within the next three weeks.  the hope is that it will be a done deal before anyone (read "the american public") knows that something is going down.  we simply must stop it.  check out this post from libertypost.org  there's a ton of information on this and we need to get everyone educated.

writing for the patriot post in last week's digest edition, oliver north says " before casting a vote to ratify lost, all 100 senators should read article 314 of this onerous treaty and article ii, section 2 of the u.s. constitution.  the un-crafted document specifies that amendments to the treaty can be adopted - and therefore enforced - without the consent of any signatory.  yet our constitution requires that two-thirds of our senate concur in any treaty.  do 67 members of this senate now want to surrender that authority?"

don from over at american power suggests that we all take a look at this article from the wall street journal.  it ties in quite nicely to this post and i encourage all of you to read it as well.

to go along with this lost debacle, dems in the house seem to be working hard to make the american apparatus targeting terrorism both deaf and blind.  this is according to  senator kit bond (r-mo) in an interview with bill kessler of newsmax.  and he's not the only one saying this.

in opposition to the "restore act" (responsible electronic surveillance that is overseen, reviewed and respected) deputy whip eric cantor (r-va) stated on his website that he planned on introducing an amendment to the bill "to clarify that nothing in the bill shall be construed to prohibit the intelligence community from conducting surveillance needed to prevent Osama Bin Laden, Al Qaeda, or any other foreign terrorist organization…from attacking the United States or any United States person.”  i believe it was an attempt to force the dems into casting a vote for or against the defense of america and americans.

thankfully, for the time being at least, this bastardization of fisa has been pulled.  are they that opposed to our intelligence agencies being able to fight the terrorists that they decided to pull the plug on the vote?

i posited over at right truth earlier this week that "the entire dnc is in cahoots with al qaeda to hinder the intelligence gathering" effort.  and, although some think that this is all hyperbole, i stand by my statement.

in 1776 samuel adams said "it does not take a majority to prevail...but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men."  these are sage words and the converse is also true.  enemies of freedom can also prevail by setting brushfires of fear, or political correctness or dhimmitude, or what have in the minds of the masses.

at least that's my way of thinking - what do you think?

heads held high and flag a-waving!

  the other day i was reading the comments for otto's latest post and truth-pain posted a comment that reminded me what it means to be an american.  he posted the transcript from canadian broadcaster, gordon sinclair's 06 june 1973 "let's be personal" broadcast.  it's a great read, but it's not really the story i'm telling.

mr. sinclair dashed off this 2 page script for his show after watching and listening (on radio) the u.s. pull out of vietnam.  while others around the globe and those here at home were calling for americans to hang our heads in shame (or worse), his was a voice of encouragement and reason.

to otto's list of things that would be different if the united states weren't here to be the world's snot rag, robert (of conservative commentary fame) added three more.  i'm sure the list can be added to (nearly) infinitum.  but even that is only part of the story.

when ronald reagan made his first official visit to canada eight  years after the initial broadcast of sinclair's words, reagan was able to meet and converse with sinclair about the impact those words had on him.  the president told sinclair of playing his copy of the single at his ranch in california when things were bleak while he was governor.  mr.  reagan went so far as to praise the "canadian journalist who wrote that tribute" to the united states when we were so desperately in need of a friend.

gordon sinclair wrote his most famous speech just a little more than a month before my ninth birthday and i have vivid memories of hearing this played on the radio and of hearing my parents and other family "grown-ups" discussing it.  i think it really chapped my granddad's butt to think that this support came from a canadian!  however, i believe that my granddad, a man who was more patriotic than any other i have ever known, was extremely grateful that someone came to our defense as we had come to others' defense so many times before.

fast forward now to 2007 and things are worse for us.  we bear the brunt of demonization from those around the world who think the world would be a better place without the u.s.  referencing otto's blog again, he lists quite a few things that would be different if america weren't the super power we are.  and those differences would not equate to better for anyone in the world.

in november of 2006, daron christopher, wrote in the pitt newspaper that "americans aren't as generous as they might think they are".  as proof of this he cited the fact that we are in slot 21 out of 22 in percentage of gni given in foreign aid.  he also posits that we are the target of terrorist because of "anger at how much resources we consume versus how much we help the billion people in the world who live on less than $1 a day".  what a load of crap.

in raw dollars, we give more than anyone in the entire world.  but it's not the .7% of our gni and so people are painting americans as selfish or ungenerous.  there are 22 "advanced nations" who, back in 1970, pledged to increase "official development aid" to .7% of gni - almost no countries are doing that - in fact, the figures i found from www.oecd.org show that only five countries have consistently done this 2003-2006.

big deal. 

if saving a country from dhimmification were dependent upon higher foreign aid numbers then why are countries like denmark, norway and luxembourg having issues with their islamic populations?  every one of these countries give at least .7% of its gni in foreign aid.

what about china?  they give very little foreign aid and most of what they do give goes to  africa.  why aren't they having any issues with their muslim population?  hmmm, could it be that they aren't consuming too much?  perhaps it's that they are more "tolerant" than we in america are?  another load of crap.  they are a closed society.  they have no tolerance.  they do not permit their muslim population any sort of religious freedoms as they enjoy in the west.  in fact, they do not permit any segment of their population any sort of religious or personal freedoms.

the terrorist regimes, worldwide, hate us because we are not an islamic nation.  period.

europe wasn't winning the war against hitler before we joined up in wwii.  the soviet union would have held on for who knows how long if reagan hadn't have begun the arms escalation back in the 80's.  while everyone in europe, as well as the whiney liberals in our own country, sat cowering and issuing dire predictions of doom that the soviets were going to annihilate us, reagan remained confident that his penis measuring contest would show us to have the larger appendage.  he was right.

that's where we are now.  people say "well let's be more understanding"  "let's give more to those regions" - yeah, sure.  most of the countries receiving aid are so corrupt that a large percentage of the aid never makes it where intended.  my granddad used to call that sort of fiscal irresponsibility "throwing good money after bad".  the libs, and some of whom claim to be new republicans, call it "compassion".  just one more load of crap to put on the pile.

what it really comes down to, in this writer's opinion, is who has the largest appendage.  obl and his ilk are betting that america is going to tuck it back in our pants and turn tail, which is what they saw us do in vietnam.  and it's what will happen if the code pink whackos, moveon.org and the entire leftist dems get their way.  then what?

then what?  when the entire region becomes an even larger breeding ground for terrorists.  when terrorism becomes an even more commonplace occurrence.  when country after country becomes more and more dhimmified.  what happens then?  blame the bush administration, of course.  rewrite history to fit the version you want the world to believe?  begin wearing headscarves (as non-muslim women in some parts of paris already do) so that you don't offend the muslims next door?  anything to keep the peace, right?

what happens when we are the only country left with any sort of freedoms or mindset to fight the jihadists again?  will we still need to seek the world's approval to go after them?  if the europeans are already afraid of their muslim populations to the point that they will not support us in our current endeavor, why would anyone think they would support us when their entire region has been dhimmified?  they won't.  they won't be able to even if you find people scattered here and there willing to be part of the resistance.

remember, a large part of europe - including the jews - did not believe what hitler was doing until it was too late.  anyone remember neville chamberlain???  it was almost too little too late from most of europe prior to the yanks going over there.  if it weren't for us, they'd be speaking deutsch in paris.

winston churchill said

"If you will not fight for right when you can easily win without bloodshed; if you will not fight when your victory is sure and not too costly; you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance of survival. There may even be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no hope of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves."

(thanks g-man for that reminder) these are sage words that are, perhaps, more pertinent now than when they were first spoken.  at what point will those who are "against this war" be willing to fight?  at what point will the europeans stand up and say "this price is too high - you shall not pass"?

if the military option is "off the table" as some on the left have said, my guess is they'll go down kissing the ass of the muslims still trying to appease them.  they won't believe they're going to be killed until it's too late.  they simply don't believe in good and evil - that is unless evil is being used to describe the united states.

americans are the most generous people on earth.  the numbers for donations as a percentage of gni don't include the dollars given by americans to the red cross which is in turn used to help in emergencies worldwide. according to nation master, for the latest  statistics in terms of donations to the red cross, the united states gives more by nearly 55% than anyone else IN THE WHOLE WORLD!!!  we give freely as individuals and not just as a country by government wealth redistribution.  we care more than any other nation about the state of the world.

screw those people who continue to cast aspersions on the intent of we americans who see the need to stand and fight against those who would subjugate all of us in the name of allah.  this is one penis measuring contest that we cannot lose.  to paraphrase mr. sinclair, we will come out of this thing with our flag high. and when we do, we will be entitled to thumb our noses at the lands, and people that are gloating over our present troubles.

and i am one american who hopes that that is just what we do.  who's with me?

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?

why do we do what we do?

the past nine days have been a journey for me, both physically and figuratively.  i have started to write a new post at least three times, prior to this, since monday and each time i have stopped because it didn't feel as if what i was typing was sufficient.  i'm not sure that this attempt will be any more sufficient, but it is what it is.

the last lines of this ad from the 1984 reagan/mondale election cycle says quite a bit to me.  not just about our country, but about life in general.  perhaps this other quote from mr. reagan, goes one step further: "you and i have the courage To say to our enemies, "there is a price we will not pay.  there is a point beyond which they must not advance"

on monday, i had to do what is perhaps the hardest thing i have ever had to do.  after driving nearly 2400 miles (round trip) to find my (wayward) sister and bring her home with me to help her pick herself up, i had to then kick her out of my house.  i had to concede that which others had told me for many years:  there is no way to help her because she believes nothing is her fault and everyone owes her.

my sister is a very intelligent woman although all proof of that seems to be sorely lacking in most of what she does and who she is.  my sister is also a crack addict and an alcoholic.  she is also on parole (or is it probation, i can never remember) for drug and alcohol related issues as well as fighting and hitting a police officer.  she is also a democrat who believes that the republicans are trying to keep her down via her addictions.

as i was driving her to the bus station on monday (she asked me to take her there) it dawned on me that my relationship with her is some sort of an analogy for my view of the anti-american crowd in general.  i see them, i hear them, i comprehend the words they are saying but i have absolutely no understanding of their view point or how they justify what they espouse.

with my sister i can put it down to perhaps the drugs and/or alcohol have addled her brain, but i doubt that i can say that about the majority of people in the anti-american crowd.  however, the psychosis seems to be quite similar.

i say "if you want to stay with me, i will give/get you whatever help you need so long as you adhere to the rules of your probation (yes, it is probation, i now recall) - the choice is yours - if you don't want to adhere to these rules you will need to leave."  she hears "you're going to be my slave and i will own you and you will do whatever i say or i'll kick you out."  i say "you can't stop drinking and doing drugs if you don't stop hanging out in bars and hanging out with people who are doing drugs."  she hears "you're a loser who isn't capable of change."

i have no more success in talking to her than i have talking about matters of the constitution of national history and the like with those of a liberal persuasion.

i have a good friend who is a very staunch liberal.  to say the least, we have some very colorful  conversations.  the conversations (that aren't about our children or our last trip to europe together) go something like this:

i say "there is nothing in the constitution that guarantees anything other than no state religion and no interference with a person's right to worship." she says "so you think that we should include a religious litmus test when selecting judges?"  i say "when did i say that?" she says "so i have to believe in the same god as you, the constitution guarantees me a wall between church and state."  with this friend the conversations never get too nasty because we know each other and like each other and simply agree to disagree.

but the end result is the same.  i say something that she responds to with something that isn't a response to something i said.  generally these conversations (with other liberals i've spoken to)  devolve into a personal attack against me or bush or my lineage, etc.  generally, when i try to remain calm and bring the discussion back to the point i made, the subject is then changed.

can anyone offer an explanation for me?

on the trip back to kansas city with my sister we stopped for lunch at a subway.  we were the only customers in the place and i was wearing my wonderful resistance t-shirt.  the gentleman behind the counter was arabic.  as he read my shirt, he smiled and said "that is an accurate translation.  where did you get this shirt?"  i began to tell him about cafepress.com and michele malkin all the while sort of bracing myself for him to become annoyed about the shirt.

in the middle of our exchange a couple of (what appeared to be college kids) walked in and one of them immediately began to berate me about my shirt.  the other one turned to the man behind the counter and said "i'm sorry that she is so insensitive and that you had to be belittled by her and her shirt."

the man behind the counter very calmly told both of them that they "should never speak from a position of ignorance" and that they "should never assume they know what a situation is by their own beliefs."  i wasn't sure what he meant until he continued saying he "is a christian who left iran because of the persecution of the muslims"and that "only here in america is he able to be free from the hatred of the muslims" and further he stated that he "will be ordering this shirt for him and his wife and his children so that they can be reminded why it is important to fight the muslims everywhere."  needless to say, we were all dumbfounded.

it seems that i completely forgot that not everyone in the middle east is muslim. that the christians in the middle east are being forced to submit to conversion or become dhimmi or worse.  i immediately applauded him on his statements and apologized for assuming him to be muslim.  he graciously accepted my apology.

and what about the two "kids" that walked in on us?  one of them was suitably stunned to the point of speechlessness, unfortunately the other was not.  his immediate and vitriolic response started with "i can't believe you've betrayed your people and bought into the bullsh*t that the neo-cons are dumping" and went downhill from there.  she didn't say so, but i think my sister agreed with him.

clearly they were listening to something other than this man speak.  or maybe, i'm wrong.  maybe nothing is as it seems and we need to look for the twisted, hidden meaning in everything.  got tin hat?

what do you think?

one blogspot for burma

free burma!!!

bloggers unite to free burma!

  icognito brings us information that bloggers, near and far, are being asked to post in a specific manner on 04 october 2007.

please join us in supporting the pro-democracy efforts in burma.  sign up here and then the rest is easy peasy.  from the free burma official site:

Take part in this action for a Free Burma!

Taking part in the Free Burma! campaign is as simple as possible:
If you are a website owner or blogger you just have to post one entry on the 4th of October 2007 on your website/blog with the title/text Free Burma! and include one of the graphics from this page or from our Flickr group to sync our global voices. Please use the tag "free burma" if possible. For bloggers, our slogan is: “One blogpost for Burma”, for website owners: “One text for Burma”.

If you have no website or blog we need you even more: Please help us to spread the word while commenting on other blogs with our message/link, posting on forums, guestbooks and message boards, tell your neighbours, friends or kids and first of all: Sign our list of participants! Furthermore you can visit our Wiki for more information and organisation.

oh, and get your burma t-shirts from cafepress, here.

thanks for you participation and cooperation.

do we care too much?

yesterday, just before it started raining, i asked our czech exchange student to help me bring in our flags - the u.s. flag and the bonnie blue flag of federalism.  as we were taking the american flag in, i admonished him to be careful not to let the flag touch the ground.  then began the conversation that reminded me of why i get so frustrated with four-year-olds.

he said, "why?"  so i tried to explain to him pride in country and the honor we afford the american flag and protocol we follow to take care of the flag.  "why?", says he again.  so i continue to try to get across to him, what we believe it means to be an american citizen.  and the circle continued.  after 3 or 4 more "why?"s, he finally proclaimed "you american's care too much about stupid things."

wow.  just like that.  i kind of smiled and said, "well maybe.  but i bet we'll be our own independent nation after you are no longer."  and i walked away and put it out of my mind.

later on, while we were all watching 'the patriot' he asked "why do american boys want to go to war?  why do they not just try to solve things with talking, because i think that is nicer than fighting."  and i realized that it was going to be a long, long night.

i asked him if he had ever tried to reason with a bully.  after several minutes of getting him to understand the phrase "reason with" and then to understand what a bully is, the conversation really got under way.  he admitted he had never been bullied, but knew others who had.  so the conversation went something like this:

"did those boys who were being bullied first try to talk to the bullies to get them to stop?"  he replied, "no, these mean people will not talk, so the people just gave them what they wanted."  so i said, "and once the person gave the bully what he asked for, did the bully go away and leave him alone?"  "no, he kept asking for more." was the response.

we went back and forth in this vain until he finally said "you can't stop a bully so you must just give him what he wants so you can try to live as peacefully as possible and then no one can blame you if he does something bad to someone else."  and once again, wow.  just like that.

i finally told him, that we fight the bullies.  i told him to remember when the bully would pick on you that walking on the other side of the playground got you nothing. that when the bully knew he had you on the run he kept after you no matter what you did.

the only way to stop a bully is when the bully start picking on you is to hit them in the nose just as hard as you can. then, while they have tears in their eyes just beat the holy hell out of them. then, and only then will they will leave you alone.  diplomacy is a fine place to start, but if you don't have force as a backup plan, it will do no good. standing up to the bully is all that will.

the conversation continued to ahmadinejad and the right to bear arms and osama and hitler so-on-and-so-forth throughout the evening.  i'm not really sure he understood all of what we discussed, but he did concede at the end that it would be better to live without bullies than to be constantly giving them what they want - i think the hitler analogy may have helped there.

he also acknowledged that it was the american's who stopped hitler, but wondered why we can't just all get along.  he further mused "is this country, or any country, really worth fighting for if people are going to die?"  i wonder, has he been so steeped in the "i'm ok, you're ok" mentality that there is little hope of developing righteous moral outrage at the perpetrators instead of those fighting against the tide?

perhaps we should all take to heart john stuart mills' words from the 19th century:

"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things; the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks nothing worth a war, is worse. A man who has nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety is a miserable creature who has no chance at being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself."

check out this great post via free republic from april of 2005 and it ties in even more.  we must care and me must take action.

so, do we care too much?  maybe some do, and maybe some don't care at all - those who believe we're all just one world and we need to be excellent to each other (to borrow from bill and ted).  but i think most of use fall in the category of caring some, but not enough. 

what say you?