Tuesday, July 11, 2006

About that claim of why Muslims hate non-Muslims....

...it does not appear to hold water after the news of Islamic terrorists attacking Bombay's train system. The Islamists have been hating all non-Islamic countries and peoples for centuries. Any liberal/anti-American/fifth-columnist who tries to deny that simply is either a paid stooge or an ignorant fool. History does not back up the "They hate us becasue of our policies" argument.

Why did they attack India? Land, pure and simple. Islam has been trying for centuries to reconquer all land that Muslims once held. Spain, Eastern Europe, etc, all have faced Muslim campaigns to take them from the non-Muslims who control them and whose native lands they are. And Islam has invaded Europe in wars of pure impreialism many times. How many times has Europe or America invaded Arabia or Muslim lands in a desire to conquer and hold? Never. The Crusades, as I must constantly remind the ignoramuses who populate American capmuses these days, were a reaction to retake the Holy Land (never Muslim property) from the Mulsim invaders who ruthlessly conquered and raped it in 1076, and closed the pilgrimage routes. Before that time, the Christians had never invaded Muslim territory in an attempt to conquer, though the Muslims had by that time been conducting a war of extermination against all non-Muslims, leading to the complete destruction of the classical North African states (and the occupation of most of Christian Spain) for over four hundred years.

In this case, India controls most of the majority-Muslim province of Kashmir. This was a result of the 1947 division of the British Raj between Pakistan and India. The afore-linked site is good, though it fails to mention that India is still Hindu- not 'secular'. the difference is that Hindu India is ruled by a non-religious legal system of law, unlike sharia-dominated Pakistan where any so-called imam can accuse anyone of anything and be upheld with or without ev idence. India, in contrast, relies on British rule of law.

Ever since the division, Muslims have been trying to take Kashmir by force, never mind how many Indian civilvians they kill or injure. The two countries have gone to war twice over the disputed province, the last time in 1965. And the Indian Hindus and Sikhs have long known of the terrorist tactics employed by the Muslims, and have first-hand knowledge of living as dhimmis- the long Mughal rule over India gave them plenty of practice!

Hat tip to Breitbart.com.

More Illegal Immigration (Good) News

Despite the failure of the Federal government to put any teeth into the fight against illegal immigration, the states and some municipalities are taking on the fight themselves. According to an article filed today by the AP, Colorado's Democratic-dominated Legislature has passed bills revoking most benefits to illegals over the age of 18. According to the article, "The bill would apply to Medicare, Medicaid, unemployment insurance, energy assistance programs and aging and adult services. (Colorado Governor) Owens has said an estimated 50,000 illegal immigrants could be thrown out of those programs."

Good. There is no earthly reason why the taxpayers of the United States of America should be paying for non-Americans' healthcare and benefits- especially ILLEGAL non-Americans. If they want our benefits, there is an easy way to get them- become LEGAL immigrants. Yes, it is not easy, but that is the only way that most Americans want it to be. Illegal aliens are not welcome in this country, and the sooner more states begin cracking down on these illegals, the better off all Americans will be. And I agree with the Republican legislators who said this does not go far enough. I also think that Colorado's citizens should be allowed to vote on the bill, as the Republicans also suggested.

Undoubtedly the illegal alien lobby will try to overturn this in court. However, should that occur, it provides a wonderful opportunity for the Legislature to tell the Courts to butt out. There is nothing in the Constitution that allows the Judiciary to dictate what legislatures can and cannot do in enforcing illegal immigration. And the Legislature shoul tell the Courts that they have no jurisdiction in this area. By law, they do have that power.

As a side-note, much of this increased enforcement of illegals is directly due to the La Raza/MEChA-sponsored illegal demonstrations that really focused American eyes on the problem. I think most of us are tired of seeing these law-breakers get benefits and services that we American citizens are not entitled to. We are tired of seeing these so-called 'day-laborers' hanging out in parking lots free of police supervision, making us worry about our children. So thank you La Raza. You did a great service for the debate over ILLEGAL immigration- and most American's are coming down on the side of America. As the Colorado legislation proves, even Democrats can see the handwriting on the wall and at least some of them on a local basis are taking it seriously. Too bad their counterparts in Washington, DC are not doing the same.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.

Wednesday, July 05, 2006

Who Hates Whom?

We here in the United States often seem to hear, especially from the Press elites at the NY Times, CNN, etc how "the rest of the world hates America." Well, as in so many other areas, it appears that the Press is not exactly accurate with this statement. A more truthful statement might be "We in the Press hate the United States because most Americans don't believe in our far-leftist causes and don't elect enough Democrats." But that would require actual honesty- not something the American media (aptly re-christened the 'Drive-By Media' by the always-educational Rush Limbaugh) are known for.

However, in the area of international regard, a new survey by the Pew Research Center which was first published in The Economist magazine finds that maybe we Americans are not as despised as the Mainstream Media would like us all to think. You might also be surprised at which countries have the most positive opinions of this great country of ours. And Professor Victor Davis Hanson weighs in by pointing out that Sometimes the caliber of a nation is found not in why it is liked, but rather in why it is not. Dr. Hanson also says in his excellent article:

All that being said, the disdain that European utopians, Arab dictatorships, the United Nations, and Mexico exhibit toward the United States is not (as the Kerry campaign alleged in the last election) cause for tears, but often reason to be proud, since much of the invective arises from the growing American insistence on principles abroad.

As I mentioned above, the survey might surprise you, but the most interesting facet for me was finding that approximately 17 percent of Americans have a negative image of their own country. As The Futurist correctly states in his excellent article on this phenomenon, "8-10% of the US population comprises of active or semi-active fifth-columnists." In this, I believe he is correct. The anti-Americans are a small percentage, but because I believe that most of the US Press Corps fall into this category, they receive a much larger voice than they deserve. The Futurist has an excellent article on this fifth column, in which he expands on these thoughts.

In conclusion, on this July 5, 2006, I am even prouder that I live in a country whose current leadership is not afraid to push for freedom, whose citizenry is still largely patriotic (if one excludes Hollywood, most of the US Press and other sundry blue-state elites). And above all I am proud that I am an American.

Happy Birthday, to the United States of America. Happy Birthday, Old Glory. Your stars and stripes have lost none of their luster, and the principles that this great nation was founded upon still persevere in most American hearts- despite the best efforts of the US Media to destroy them.

Hat tip to The Futurist.

Tuesday, July 04, 2006

Fining the Press?

China is proposing a new law that would fine journalists and media organizations- including foreign journalists- for unauthorized or fraudulent reporting. According to the story as reported by MyWay News:

"News outlets that report emergencies without authorization or issue fraudulent reports would be fined up to $12,500 under the draft law being considered by Parliament."

While I am definitely against the reporting of emergencies without approval clause (that is simply yet another way for China to try to keep its private messes away from the rest of the world and their own people), the fraudulent reporting fines are a great idea. If possible, I think that ought to be implemented here in the United States as well.

Considering the disasters caused by the fraudulent reporting on Plamegate, the Hurricane Katrina fiasco in New Orleans and various other stories- the once-again false reports of an impending Fitzmas (the hope held by most pressies and Democrats that Karl Rove might be indicted, though no one has yet offered a good explanation of any crime he has committed) being merely the latest, the US press needs some kind of mechanism to keep them in check. Their idea of reporting seems to be "if it hurts America (or even better a Republican office-holder, especially the President), let it rip! If it hurts America's enemies (or God forbid, a Democrat), bury it and kill it quick!" Yet another reason why the world's journalists are seeing their credibility and ratings drop precipitously all over, and especially here in the United States.

Monday, July 03, 2006

A Look Back at...

...the "Treason Times", in times of yore, today sometimes called by it's lesser-known nom-de-plume, the "New York Times". Seems the Times has an even longer history of giving aid and comfort to our enemies (by the way, Bill Kellar, since you clearly have no knowledge of our Consititution other than the First Amendment, that is defined as 'treason' in Article III, Section 3) than we thought. Snicker.......

Hat tips to Power Line and Matt Drudge..

More Judicial Arrogance...

...from our beloved federal justices. In this case, a federal judge apparently thinks that dolphins are more important than defending ourselves from our enemies. Or maybe she just wants us to lose this war we are fighting against Islam. So she decided that the Navy cannot use one of their most important tools- sonar!

This is simply more proof that the sooner Congress reins in judges who are making decisions about things of which they posses no knowledge or expertise, the better off we will be. I think it is time for Congress to tell the federal judiciary they have no authority over the Armed Forces and that they also have no authority over the open seas. Where do these activist judges think their authority comes from? Certainly not the Constitution! They threw that venerable document out the window long ago in their haste to remake it into a 'living' document. Perhaps we can have Congress write a law removing the Judiciary's power of judicial review and also specifying that any judge who makes decisions like this is subject to immediate removal from the Bench. Without appeal. That ought to rein in our activist judges a bit.

Hat tip to Matt Drudge.