The Grinch is alive and well and currently lives in Oak Lawn, Illinois. It seems that school officials have decided to dispose of Christmas and all of the associated school traditions at the behest of one Muslim parent. As it stands, most "Christmas" traditions are purely secular. The guy in the red suit is not Jesus and I don't believe that the jolly old elf was born in manger. Nor do I believe that any of the gifts in his bag can compare to the gift given by Jesus.
I believe in the separation of Church and State. But, I do not believe that freedom of religion is the same as freedom from religion. This nation was founded upon Judeo-Christian beliefs and that is a part of our history and the main reason why the United States is the country that it is today. Our Constitution explicitly states that our rights come from our Creator. This key historical fact is overlooked in many schools because to mention it would be a a violation of the so-called "separation of Church and State".
Look around the world. Has another country matched the generosity of the US? How much tolerance and religious freedom are available in secular communist states? How much tolerance and religious freedom are found in Muslim nations? I would venture to say that if a Christian suggested canceling a Muslim holiday in a Muslim country that they would not survive to ask again.
In Muslim countries there is little tolerance for non Muslim beliefs. Converts to Christianity are killed in some of the most brutal means imagininable. A female serving in the US military in Saudi Arabia can't even drive a vehicle while serving her country! Where is the outcry? Religion is forced down the throats of every US serviceman serving in a Muslim country. Can you drink a beer in Iraq if you are a US soldier? NO! Because this might offend the sensibilities of Muslims. Now in our own country, we don't want to offend Muslims with our so called "Christian Traditions". Most of these traditions are secular and contain only vestiges of Christianity. If someone is so offended, they are free to leave at any time or better yet, not show up in the first place.
To the cowards in Chicago I say, shame on you for acquiescing to the wishes of a tiny vocal minority. Unfortunately, the vocal minority trumps the silent majority 99% of the time. I hope that the silent majority turns out to vote.
To the rest of the Nation, Wake Up and Smell the Smoke!
http://cbs2chicago.com/local/local_story_271104049.html
Tuesday, October 2, 2007
Monday, October 1, 2007
Rethinking Illegal Migration
I had been planning to put a few of my thoughts out for discussion regarding my favorite Democratic presidential hopeful, Ms. Hillary Clinton. However, a friend sent me an article the other day that really made me think and reconsider my stance on the relationship between the United States and Mexico.
According to Mexican president Felipe Calderon, immigration is a natural and inevitable phenomenon that the United States should embrace so that more Mexican workers can come here. He also stated that the Mexico is losing it's best people to the United States. I think that he may be correct. We probably are getting the best from Mexico. The people that come across the border illegally show no respect for the rule of law and are contemptuous of everything that it means to be an American, including learning the English language. If this is the best that Mexico has to offer, then it is easy to understand why Mexico is rife with poverty, corruption and lawlessness.
The "official" number of "undocumented immigrants" is around 12 million. We used to call them "illegal aliens" but I guess that is not politically correct. It is very likely that the true number is much higher. But, even 12 million is millions too many. Especially when there are tens of thousands who are trying to enter legally and who can contribute more than they take. Even if Mexico is sending us their best, their best are still a net drain on the economy. When the cost of education, health care, social services etc. are factored in; it is unlikely that they have a positive effect on our economy. Unless cheap produce and artificially low unskilled wages are seen as positive.
Seasonal work would be a valid excuse for temporary migration. But, it is seldom temporary and more often than not, becomes permanent. Over time, they create isolated communities that demand special recognition and accommodation. They have children who are American citizens by virtue of the fact that they were born on American soil. These children also require special accommodation since their parents can't speak English and contribute to their education. Enter bi-lingual education at a significant cost to the taxpayers. Even though their parents were in violation of American Law at the time of birth, they are American citizens. If we closed the borders today, this 12 million would still become 24 million then 48 million very quickly. I might support amnesty if it included a change to the Constitution that would prevent automatic citizenship for the children of these criminals. While it may be unfair to the children, there should not be a reward for lawlessness.
This bring me back to Hillary. I recently read that she wants the US government to provide every child born in the US a $5000 savings bond or similar instrument. Her proposal would make it even more tempting for more people to come here illegally to get the $5000 per child reward. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there are only 12 million illegals. If we also assume that the average birth rate from the US Census Bureau of 14.1 per 1000 applies (it is probably higher than this) we have 168000 new US citizens born every year to parents who are criminals. Hillary is thus proposing to spend $840,000,000 annually for the baby shower. Plus these children then have all of the rights and privileges of being an American. This horrible idea could not even be funded for legal residents of this country. The fact that illegal offspring would benefit is even more galling. Fortunately, most will probably never see the $5000 or the amount that is is supposed to become. The whole program will just be another "trust fund" like Social Security that greedy, disingenuous, self-serving politicians can use to buy more votes.
I believe that both Democrats and Republicans are spineless when it comes to this issue. The Democrats are hoping to convert all of the illegals into loyal Democrats beholding to the government that supports them. I was especially galled by the Democratic candidates who participated in the Spanish language debate. This is the ultimate expression of political pandering. Likewise, the Republicans like the lower priced labor that is available when they look the other way at this violation of US law and national sovereignty. The simple fact that the pandering politicians are overlooking is that a country without borders is no longer a country.
According to Mexican president Felipe Calderon, immigration is a natural and inevitable phenomenon that the United States should embrace so that more Mexican workers can come here. He also stated that the Mexico is losing it's best people to the United States. I think that he may be correct. We probably are getting the best from Mexico. The people that come across the border illegally show no respect for the rule of law and are contemptuous of everything that it means to be an American, including learning the English language. If this is the best that Mexico has to offer, then it is easy to understand why Mexico is rife with poverty, corruption and lawlessness.
The "official" number of "undocumented immigrants" is around 12 million. We used to call them "illegal aliens" but I guess that is not politically correct. It is very likely that the true number is much higher. But, even 12 million is millions too many. Especially when there are tens of thousands who are trying to enter legally and who can contribute more than they take. Even if Mexico is sending us their best, their best are still a net drain on the economy. When the cost of education, health care, social services etc. are factored in; it is unlikely that they have a positive effect on our economy. Unless cheap produce and artificially low unskilled wages are seen as positive.
Seasonal work would be a valid excuse for temporary migration. But, it is seldom temporary and more often than not, becomes permanent. Over time, they create isolated communities that demand special recognition and accommodation. They have children who are American citizens by virtue of the fact that they were born on American soil. These children also require special accommodation since their parents can't speak English and contribute to their education. Enter bi-lingual education at a significant cost to the taxpayers. Even though their parents were in violation of American Law at the time of birth, they are American citizens. If we closed the borders today, this 12 million would still become 24 million then 48 million very quickly. I might support amnesty if it included a change to the Constitution that would prevent automatic citizenship for the children of these criminals. While it may be unfair to the children, there should not be a reward for lawlessness.
This bring me back to Hillary. I recently read that she wants the US government to provide every child born in the US a $5000 savings bond or similar instrument. Her proposal would make it even more tempting for more people to come here illegally to get the $5000 per child reward. For the sake of simplicity, let's assume that there are only 12 million illegals. If we also assume that the average birth rate from the US Census Bureau of 14.1 per 1000 applies (it is probably higher than this) we have 168000 new US citizens born every year to parents who are criminals. Hillary is thus proposing to spend $840,000,000 annually for the baby shower. Plus these children then have all of the rights and privileges of being an American. This horrible idea could not even be funded for legal residents of this country. The fact that illegal offspring would benefit is even more galling. Fortunately, most will probably never see the $5000 or the amount that is is supposed to become. The whole program will just be another "trust fund" like Social Security that greedy, disingenuous, self-serving politicians can use to buy more votes.
I believe that both Democrats and Republicans are spineless when it comes to this issue. The Democrats are hoping to convert all of the illegals into loyal Democrats beholding to the government that supports them. I was especially galled by the Democratic candidates who participated in the Spanish language debate. This is the ultimate expression of political pandering. Likewise, the Republicans like the lower priced labor that is available when they look the other way at this violation of US law and national sovereignty. The simple fact that the pandering politicians are overlooking is that a country without borders is no longer a country.
Thursday, September 27, 2007
Tolerance and Blasphemy
Miller Lite is no longer my beer of choice. I won't be pouring any down the drain in protest as that money has already been spent. However, it will no longer be what I order when I drop by my favorite watering hole for a "cold one". This is not because I think that there are better tasting beers on the market (I do). Nor or is it because I have reached my goal weight and now feel that I can drink regular beer. It is because I am disgusted with the Miller Brewing Company's sponsorship of a gay festival in San Francisco. It is not because they sponsored the event per se. I am sure that gays drink Miller Lite too and I believe in the freedom to choose and to express yourself. But, I also believe that enough is enough and I am tired of individuals and now corporations pandering to the extreme left while denigrating anything that has the faintest hint of Judeo-Christian ethics or morals.
The event of which I speak is the Folsom Street Fair, annual gay pride event that brings a halt to the streets of San Francisco. This city sanctioned event is a fantastic excuse for San Franciso's finest to join with other like-minded individuals to flaunt activities which should best be kept behind closed doors. Incidently, this is the same city that would not allow the United States Marine Corps to film a commercial on their streets becuase of the message it might convey. I guess the USMC is less desireable than men wearing women's clothes and engaging in public sex acts.
I am not a prude by any measure. I believe that if consenting adults wish to engage in certain activities they should be free to do so as long as they don't foist it on others. Personally, I would not consider gaining carnal knowledge in public. I believe thatt is a private matter between individuals, not a spectator sport. Is that not the mantra of the activists? I don't wish to "force my morality" on others. However, I would appreciate the same courtesy. I do believe that we all will answer for our actions in the end. If anyone thinks that I am foolish or wrong that's fine with me. Eat drink and be merry if that is your thing. But, please extend the same courtesy to me and refrain from forcing your morality on the rest of us.
Back to my reasoning for removing Miller Lite from my drink menu. The organizers of this event were not content to enjoy their decadence with the full blessing of the City of San Francisco. No, they needed to take a shot at Christians by promoting the event with a perverted homage to DaVinci's "Last Supper." I don't necessarily believe that their is anything special about the painting. But, it does provide imagery and a backdrop for the blasphemous statement that the event organizers wished to make. They certainly succeeded. There is absolutely no doubt of the contempt in which that segment of the gay community holds Christianity in general and Jesus in particular.
It is one thing to be tolerant. It is another to be affirming. It is completely another to embrace blasphemy. Fortunately for the organizers and participants, Christians believe in turning the other cheek and letting everyone answer for themselves in the final reckoning. Christians believe that God deals with blasphemers. I can only imagine the potential carnage in San Francisco and at Miller Breweries all over the country if the target for homosexual derision would have been something or someone venerated by Islam.
Where is the liberal outrage that arises any time that Muslims might be offended? I am sure that it will never appear. I am certainly not going to hold my breath. I will however be withholding my money from the Miller Brewing Company who is now trying to distance themselves a little from the offensive ad. The Miller High Life and Miller Lite logos were proudly displayed on the sponsorship page at the time of this writing. If they are taken down, I will post the screen shot.
See for yourself:
http://folsomstreetfair.org/fair-sponsors.php
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Legal Ethics -
Columbia University is not alone in its love of free perverse speech. Hofstra University Law School is sponsoring a "Legal Ethics" Conference entitled "Lawyering at the Edge: Unpopular Clients, Difficult Cases, Zealous Advocates" Among the luminaries pontificating on legal ethics will be Lynne Stewart, best known for her conviction for providing material support for terrorists. She was sentenced to 28 months for the ethical transmission of terrorism orders from her client, sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman, who was sentenced to life in prison for plotting to blow up five New York landmarks and assassinate Egypt's president. She was automatically disbarred for this conviction and she considers herself a martyr. I am not a lawyer. However I think I know what it means to be an accessory to a crime. Frankly, I see nothing but a lack of ethics in her case.
Every defendant regardless of crime is entitled to adequate legal representation. But, an attorney is only representing and acting on behalf of their client before the courts of which they are sworn officers. They do not have a responsibility or right to commit or even sanction further criminal acts on behalf of their client.
This is example of behavior that causes me to hold lawyers in general with such contempt. Her behavior was as ethical as Hitler's was humanitarian. Yet, she is hailed as an expert on legal ethics. Perhaps she should go and spend some time with sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman's associates and see how well she fares. Better yet, maybe she could just strap on some plastic explosives for the cause if she feels so strongly.
http://www.hofstra.edu/Home/News/PressReleases/091807_ethicsconference.html
Every defendant regardless of crime is entitled to adequate legal representation. But, an attorney is only representing and acting on behalf of their client before the courts of which they are sworn officers. They do not have a responsibility or right to commit or even sanction further criminal acts on behalf of their client.
This is example of behavior that causes me to hold lawyers in general with such contempt. Her behavior was as ethical as Hitler's was humanitarian. Yet, she is hailed as an expert on legal ethics. Perhaps she should go and spend some time with sheik Omar Abdel-Rahman's associates and see how well she fares. Better yet, maybe she could just strap on some plastic explosives for the cause if she feels so strongly.
http://www.hofstra.edu/Home/News/PressReleases/091807_ethicsconference.html
Why Earthquakes and Coastal Loss May Not Be So Bad
San Francisco, the epicenter of all things that define the land of fruits and nuts has finally said "no" to group that wanted to film on the streets. San Francisco, sanctuary city for anyone who violates America's borders, and proud host to countless public displays of activities that belong behind closed doors has finally said enough is enough. After unsuccessfully attempting to ban an aerial demonstration by the US Navy's Blue Angels, San Franciso has once again shown contempt for the United States Military. The Silent Drill Platoon of the United States Marine Corps was barred from filming a segment of their new commercial on the streets of San Francisco. Ironically, filming was on September 11.
The USMC exemplifies the best of our country and is one of the few institutions that hold true to our nation's heritage. It would be easy to say that San Francisco should be ashamed of itself. But that is the problem, they have no shame. It would consume too much space here to go down the list of things that San Francisco has openly supported and welcomed. Unfortunately, the US Marines are not on the list. It seems that the only criteria that causes a group not to be welcomed to the city is that the group represents some form of decency, honor, or values.
The Marines can't film on the streets of San Francisco. But I bet that when the zoophiles want a parade, a convention or even to film a documentary/how-to video, San Francisco will be welcoming them with open arms.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298039,00.html
The USMC exemplifies the best of our country and is one of the few institutions that hold true to our nation's heritage. It would be easy to say that San Francisco should be ashamed of itself. But that is the problem, they have no shame. It would consume too much space here to go down the list of things that San Francisco has openly supported and welcomed. Unfortunately, the US Marines are not on the list. It seems that the only criteria that causes a group not to be welcomed to the city is that the group represents some form of decency, honor, or values.
The Marines can't film on the streets of San Francisco. But I bet that when the zoophiles want a parade, a convention or even to film a documentary/how-to video, San Francisco will be welcoming them with open arms.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,298039,00.html
Friday, September 21, 2007
Dumb and Dumber
Today, an MIT sophomore was arrested for allegedly wearing a fake bomb inside the terminal at Logan Airport. It consisted of a circuit board, wires and Play-Doh. How stupid can this girl be? Miss Teen South Carolina seems like a genius next to this electrical and computer engineering major. The prankster is a young woman from Hawaii.
Her explanation for the device was to call it art. Art my arse! I had hoped when I first read the story that she was merely mentally ill with a death wish. While this may still be the case, I would venture to say that the cold hard reality is the that she is just beyond stupid. In this climate, how could anyone possibly think that such an act would have anything that resembles a good outcome? She could very easily and quite appropriately have been shot and killed. Although, I would guess that either she did not consider that possibility or she really is mentally ill. I am beginning to wonder if anyone takes the times that we are in seriously. At first glance, it seems that this young woman has no clue as to how serious the threat of terrorism is. I suppose that she could just be a victim of her own upbringing. Or maybe she is just another ignorant, idealistic college student whose brain has been filled with liberal pablum, spoon-fed to her by Bush and US hating professors. You can't even walk onto an airplane with knitting needles, nail files or a screwdriver. Yet, she thought it would be OK to walk into an airport with an artistic rendition of a bomb!
She should be held accountable for her stupid and reckless actions. She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. She implied that she had a bomb by her actions and appearances. The fact that it was not a bomb is meaningless. If a person implies that they have a weapon in the commission of a crime, the fact that they did not actually have one has no bearing. It is the threat of deadly force that is considered. Certainly she caused panic and acted in a threatening manner while pretending to have a bomb. She should be treated the same way as anyone else who threatens to do harm with explosives.
I do have to wonder if the unbridled liberalism that pervades college campuses added to her stupidity. On many campuses it is quite likely that she will be hailed as a hero for her brilliant method-acting performance as a would be suicide bomber. I can envision a Hollywood movie already in the works. She was profiled and singled out for wearing a fake bomb. Her freedom of expression was violated as she was not able to proudly display her artwork extolling the virtues of hand-crafted explosive devices.
She might even get to speak at Columbia University eventually. Columbia would roll out the red carpet for sure. After all, they are welcoming Mahamoud Ahmadinejad as a guest speaker but cancelled a speech by one of the Minutemen. I imagine that Ann Coulter would not be welcomed as a dissenting voice either. Funny how liberals talk about the free exchange of ideas , as long as they come from the left.
Don't forget the kid who was expelled from grade school for a drawing that resembled a gun.
I guess that was a bit of a rambling tangent. But, this is my opinion.
Her explanation for the device was to call it art. Art my arse! I had hoped when I first read the story that she was merely mentally ill with a death wish. While this may still be the case, I would venture to say that the cold hard reality is the that she is just beyond stupid. In this climate, how could anyone possibly think that such an act would have anything that resembles a good outcome? She could very easily and quite appropriately have been shot and killed. Although, I would guess that either she did not consider that possibility or she really is mentally ill. I am beginning to wonder if anyone takes the times that we are in seriously. At first glance, it seems that this young woman has no clue as to how serious the threat of terrorism is. I suppose that she could just be a victim of her own upbringing. Or maybe she is just another ignorant, idealistic college student whose brain has been filled with liberal pablum, spoon-fed to her by Bush and US hating professors. You can't even walk onto an airplane with knitting needles, nail files or a screwdriver. Yet, she thought it would be OK to walk into an airport with an artistic rendition of a bomb!
She should be held accountable for her stupid and reckless actions. She should be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. She implied that she had a bomb by her actions and appearances. The fact that it was not a bomb is meaningless. If a person implies that they have a weapon in the commission of a crime, the fact that they did not actually have one has no bearing. It is the threat of deadly force that is considered. Certainly she caused panic and acted in a threatening manner while pretending to have a bomb. She should be treated the same way as anyone else who threatens to do harm with explosives.
I do have to wonder if the unbridled liberalism that pervades college campuses added to her stupidity. On many campuses it is quite likely that she will be hailed as a hero for her brilliant method-acting performance as a would be suicide bomber. I can envision a Hollywood movie already in the works. She was profiled and singled out for wearing a fake bomb. Her freedom of expression was violated as she was not able to proudly display her artwork extolling the virtues of hand-crafted explosive devices.
She might even get to speak at Columbia University eventually. Columbia would roll out the red carpet for sure. After all, they are welcoming Mahamoud Ahmadinejad as a guest speaker but cancelled a speech by one of the Minutemen. I imagine that Ann Coulter would not be welcomed as a dissenting voice either. Funny how liberals talk about the free exchange of ideas , as long as they come from the left.
Don't forget the kid who was expelled from grade school for a drawing that resembled a gun.
I guess that was a bit of a rambling tangent. But, this is my opinion.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Why Can't We Be Friends?
The future Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mahmoud Ahmandinejad, is coming to America and he wants to visit Ground Zero to lay a wreath. I may be wrong in thinking that he would actually be commemorating the bravery of the hijackers who destroyed the towers. But it seems that even Hillary Clinton is opposed to such a visit, for the moment. I wonder if a future President Clinton would feel the same way. Liberals of her ilk use the most vitriolic references to Americans, including President Bush. Yet, most of the time, they embrace and only speak in the most glowing terms of people such as Ahmandinejad, Assad, and others who are bent upon the destruction of Western Civilization. She and other liberals have said that they do not support his visit to Ground Zero. However, they do not assign any labels to him other than "President". A term that they rarely even use to describe George Bush. In President Bush's case, it is more often used in disgust with a certain distaste. They show more respect for Mahmoud than George. Nice.
No one seems to remember that Ahmandinejad was involved in the taking of hostages during the Carter administration. That fact alone should bar him from entering the United States. His presence only underscores the moral bankruptcy and general hatred of the United States that permeates the United Nations. Granted, he is really only a figurehead, a puppet that dances at the whim of the Supreme Leader of Iran who happens to be a radical Islamic cleric. Liberals who decry anything that even smells like a religious conviction of anyone in the United States, seem to have no difficulty at all accepting a nuclear armed theocracy whose answer to religious dissent is death. This is the same mindset that inspired those noble martyrs to strike the heart of capitalism and western decadence on September 11, 2001. If a martyred hijacker gets greeted by 70 virgins, how many would Mahmoud get if he launched a nuke into Tel-Aviv or gave one to a martyr to hand deliver somewhere in the heart of the Great Satan?
Welcome to New York Mahmoud! I am sure you will feel a sense of pride when you step onto the streets of New York.
No one seems to remember that Ahmandinejad was involved in the taking of hostages during the Carter administration. That fact alone should bar him from entering the United States. His presence only underscores the moral bankruptcy and general hatred of the United States that permeates the United Nations. Granted, he is really only a figurehead, a puppet that dances at the whim of the Supreme Leader of Iran who happens to be a radical Islamic cleric. Liberals who decry anything that even smells like a religious conviction of anyone in the United States, seem to have no difficulty at all accepting a nuclear armed theocracy whose answer to religious dissent is death. This is the same mindset that inspired those noble martyrs to strike the heart of capitalism and western decadence on September 11, 2001. If a martyred hijacker gets greeted by 70 virgins, how many would Mahmoud get if he launched a nuke into Tel-Aviv or gave one to a martyr to hand deliver somewhere in the heart of the Great Satan?
Welcome to New York Mahmoud! I am sure you will feel a sense of pride when you step onto the streets of New York.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
