Tuesday, December 12, 2006

Is Christmas Back?

Much was made last year about various schools and businesses taking Christmas out of our Christmas season vernacular.

This year things seemed to have quieted down a little bit. However, in response to threats of a lawsuit last week, the Seattle-Tacoma International Airport took down their Christmas trees. Apparently a Jewish man had asked for a menorah to be displayed as well, and threatened to sue when the airport denied his request.

However, after a weekend of controversy and a flood of phone calls, the Port of Seattle put the Christmas trees back up on display yesterday. I think most would agree the Port of Seattle did the right thing by putting the trees back up, but personally I would have no problem had they simply included a menorah in their display.

In any event, the story has made national news. Christmas is back! Or so I thought. Take a look at how Janet Tu and Lornet Turnbull characterize the story, in their report which was distributed nationally. Here is the first line of the story:

"The holiday trees that went away in the middle of the night are back. "

And liberals wonder why conservatives get so frustrated with our media. The entire story is about Christmas trees, and how those Christmas trees caused a controversy, and how a Jewish man wanted a minora to be displayed with the Christmas trees. Yet these dimwits, in their misguided attempts at being politically correct, describe them as holiday trees in their first sentence!!!

If the items in question were "holiday" trees, then there wouldn't have been a controversy in the first place. How this fact is lost on Tu and Turnbull is beyond me.

Here's the story as reported in the Houston Chronicle.

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Where 2 or More Are Gathered in Allah's Name....

there is terror?

Earlier this week 6 Muslim imams were removed from a US Airways flight. Apparently they were saying their evening prayers as a group on the plane, and passengers became suspicious. The 6 were removed from the plane, detained by security workers, questioned, and released.

On the surface, this is an unfortunate incident. Muslims should be able to pray in public without raising suspicion. Naturally, groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations are angry. Said Ibrahoom Hooper, spokesman for CAIR "This is a growing problem of singling out Muslims or people perceived to be Muslims at airports, and it's one that we've been addressing for some time". Gee Ibrahim, I wonder what might have happened 5 years ago to trigger this problem?

There are thousands of Muslims on the other side of the world who want to kill us and destroy our nation. The number of Muslims in the USA who want to kill us is unknown. So is our continued suspicion of Muslims (especially religious clerics) intolerance, or diligence?

To answer these questions, consider this analogy: Let's assume that France has declared war on the United States. French men around the world are actively calling for the destruction of America. The French have destroyed the Sears tower and the Empire State Building, and killed 3,000 Americans in the process. They have bombed our ships at sea, and murdered our citizens abroad. They've bombed marine barracks, and several US embassies around the world. They are calling other French men to murder Americans, they hold American flag burning rallies, and claim they will not end this war until they fly the Tricolore over the White House. Thousands of French citizens demonstrate their commitment to destroying the USA every day.

How would America respond to this declaration of war? Would French Americans be viewed as just Americans, or would their presence in the United States stir up some suspicion? Would we be justified in prohibiting French citizens from entering the United States? If you were ready to board a flight, and 6 Frenchmen sang La Marseillaise in the terminal prior to boarding, would you call security?

In this scenario, obviously we would be justified in profiling French citizens, and closely monitoring every person with a French passport. In fact, the argument could be made that the only flights on which French citizens could board would be one way flights back to Paris.

The reality is that the religion of Islam has declared war on the United States. Sure, the argument could be made that the religion of Islam has no borders, and no government, therefore a declaration of war cannot be made. However, it's safe to say that dozens, if not hundreds, of Islamic leaders have indeed declared war. And they've recruited tens of thousands of soldiers to wage this war. They are well funded, armed, and willing to die in this "holy" war. Islamic leaders have stated that Americans should be killed wherever they are found, and that they will not give up their jihad until Sharia law is brought to the United States. Are we to pretend that this is simply rhetoric coming from a few Imams? Are we to put our heads in the sand and pretend that all Muslims standing on US soil are peaceful? As long as Muslim clerics are preaching jihad, and as long as their followers number in the tens of thousands, any amount of scrutiny of Muslims in the United States is fair game.

If Muslims are unhappy about their treatment, the answer is simple. End this jihad! Shut down the mosques that fund terrorist groups. Arrest those who declare war vs. the USA. Arrest those who preach jihad to Muslim school children. Join us in this fight against radical Islam, or accept the fact that as a Muslim you will be viewed with suspicion.

Thursday, November 16, 2006

Free Ice Cream and Longer Recess!!

In what comes as little surprise, Democrats are using their new found majority status in Congress to push for an increase in the federal minimum wage, which has remained stagnant at $5.15 for nearly a decade.

To be fair, I agree that an increase is appropriate. However, Democrats have gone overboard in their proposal to raise the minimum wage to $7.25 an hour. They suggest that a family cannot live on $5.15 an hour, to which I reply "of course they can't". But the minimum wage isn't designed to be a "minimum family wage". It's a pay rate commensurate with new entrants into the job market, such as high school students and recent graduates, part time college students, etc. The general idea of our free market economy is to provide incentives for people to learn, grow, and obtain marketable skills so that they are able to earn higher wages. Any attempts to convert the minimum wage to a living wage are doomed to cause economic havoc. After all, why not just make everybody rich and make the minimum wage $500/hour?

In addition to the negative impact on inflation, an increase to the minimum wage will also put more people out of work, as marginally profitable employers choose to employ 5 people at $7.25 as opposed to 7 people at $5.15.

Although a pure free-market economist would argue that the minimum wage should actually be $0, and that employees and employers should be free to negotiate any salary, I'm not quite that hard core. So let's look at the simple economics. Inflation over the course of the past 10 years has averaged approximately 2.53% (according to this site). Adjusting for inflation, $5.15 10 years ago is equal to $6.61 today ( =5.15*(1+0.0253)^10 for the Excel challenged). So any increase up to that amount has some basis in economic reality. Anything more than that and we're talking grade school Student Council politics.

Ted Kennedy's call for a $7.25 minimum wage here.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Houston Janitorial Workers Protest

For months now, janitorial workers in Houston have taken to the streets, protesting their wages and benefits. I frequently see a group of 20 - 30 workers marching with picket signs in front of various downtown skyscrapers.

Typically there is one man in charge with a bull horn, shouting an incomprehensible mix of English and Spanish. Always eager to speak to people demonstrating in the streets, I engaged one of their front line workers a couple weeks ago. She was the person designated to hand out flyers to the public. As she held out a flyer to me, I asked "What's this all about?". The woman looked at me if I was speaking another language, and I asked again "what are y'all protesting about?". She looked at me for a few seconds, still holding the flyer in my direction, and finally said "more money!".

In a heartless neocon moment, worthy of a Bruce Hornsby song, I said "oh yeah? Well I want more money too". Spanish speaking immigrants can insist on speaking Spanish all they want, but somebody should tell them that they'll have a very hard time influencing public opinion and government policy until they can speak English.

Fast forward to yesterday, when the same group actually brought traffic to a halt at one of Houston's busiest intersections on the west side of town. They littered the intersection with garbage, and chained themselves to garbage cans. This demonstration was accompanied by the usual chants of "Si se puede" (yes we can), and a new one "Aqui estamos, y no nos vamos" which roughly translated means "Here we are, and we're not leaving".

Wow. So let's step back for a moment. We have 12,000,000 or so illegal immigrants in the United States who pay no regard to our immigration laws. Now we see evidence that they're eager to unionize, and they're willing to engage in civil disobedience to get their way when their jobs don't pay well enough. And they're becoming so beligerant that they shout to the world that they won't leave the USA.

Here's a better idea: If you don't like the conditions of your job here in the States, go back home. Until these workers learn English and/or learn a skill which the economy values at more than $6/hour, then they'll be employed at $6/hour. No amount of civil disobedience nor beligerant chanting can change this simple economic fact.

Wednesday, November 01, 2006

Iranian Vacation

No, it's not the latest Chevy Chase movie. But if the Iranian tourism agency has their way, more Americans will be vacationing in Iran. Apparently, the nation is offering travel agencies monetary incentives to lure westerners to tour Iran. Your everyday Anglo is worth $10 a head, while Americans actually fetch $20 per head (hold the decapitation jokes, please).

So I'm left to wonder: Will Americans be lured by this offer? What would a tour of Iran encompass? Here's USANow's suggested itinerary:

  • The US Embassy: Spend a morning touring the spot where 66 Americans were kidnapped and held hostage by a group calling themselves the "Muslim Students Following the Line of the Imam". 52 of the hostages were held for 444 days, beginning on November 4th, 1979.

  • Tehran Sidewalk Tour: Take an afternoon stroll of the city, and play a nice game of "Find the scorched spot on the pavement where the American flag was burned". 5 points for every scorch spotted, and 10 points for fresh burns where flag remnants remain.

  • Attend a Special Unit of Martyr Seekers in the Revolutionary Guards Parade!!: This special unit consists of 40,000 trained suicide bombers who are "ready for action" to strike British and American targets if Iran's nuclear infrastructure is attacked.

  • Spend a day touring Tehran's Palestine Contemporary Art Museum: See cartoons featuring Ariel Sharon dressed as a Nazi, sketches of a Jewish man drinking 'Palestinan blood', and more than 200 other cartoons which mock the Holocaust and support Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's contention that the Holocaust really didn't happen.

    By this time, I'm sure you and your family will be worn out by all the thrills that Iran has to offer. And you'll be thankful for that $20 incentive which helped you avoid boring destinations like Rome, southern France, and London.

    Have fun, and don't forget your hijab. After all, you wouldn't want to miss out on all the fun Iran has to offer because you (or your wife) gets kidnapped for exposing her hair.
  • Monday, October 23, 2006

    1 Down, 3 to Go!!

    Homefield advantage is lost heading into St. Louis, but my predicion remains:

    Monday, September 25, 2006

    THE News of the Day

    Pope Benedict's meeting with Muslim leaders? Nope. Falling crude oil prices? No way.

    THE news story of the day? After a 19 year wait, only 3 years removed from an American League record 119 losses, the Detroit Tigers are playoff bound!!!!!!!!

    Friday, September 22, 2006

    Thursday, September 21, 2006

    Charlie Rangel!!!

    By now, everybody has heard about Hugo Chavez's ridiculous screed at the United Nations in which he called George Bush "the Devil", and incessantly ridiculed the United States.

    Is this accepted practice at the United Nations? Will anybody step up and defend Bush and the USA against this lunatic?

    Well, help has come from an unlikely source, Charlie Rangel. I've never agreed much with his politics, but he's always struck me as a reasonable guy, certainly worth listening to when he's a guest on Fox News.

    Thank you, Charlie, for stepping up to the plate. I wish more of our leaders (Democrat and Republican) shared your non-partisan approach to defending our nation, and our nation's leaders. Here's what Charlie had to say:

    "You do not come into my country, my congressional district, and you do not condemn my president. If there is any criticism of President Bush, it should be restricted to Americans, whether they voted for him or not. I just want to make it abundantly clear to Hugo Chavez or any other president, do not come to the United States and think because we have problems with our president that any foreigner can come to our country and not think that Americans do not feel offended when you offend our Chief of State"

    You're a good man, Charlie Rangel.

    Monday, September 18, 2006

    Response from Western Muslims

    Check out the pictures from Catholic Londoner who attended Sunday Mass yesterday at Westminster Cathedral. Apparently hateful, venemous, and violent tendencies aren't limited to the various shura councils, cave-dwelling terrorists, and mujahadeen.

    Take a look - Muslims in downtown London outside the Cathedral:

    Here's a link to Catholic Londoner's blog.

    More Islamic Lunacy

    So enraged that Pope Benedict XVI referenced an ancient quote that claimed Muhammed advocated conversion "by the sword", Islamic groups are again hitting the streets. Effigies of the pope are being burned in Iraq, Muslims are striking and burning tires in Kashmir, and Indonesians are protesting outside the Vatican Embassy claiming the Pope is building a religion based on "hatred". People, look in the freaking mirror!

    But the most outlandish response came from the Mujahedeen Shura Council, which is a Sunni Muslim umbrella organization. Claimed this "council", "We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

    Are these people pure imbeciles, blood thirsty vermin, or both? They're so enraged that the pope referenced a 14th century quote about Mohammed converting "by the sword", that they're now claiming they'll convert Christians "by the sword". Hello, morons! If that's really you're method of spreading Islam, then it seems that the 14th century quote was 100% accurate. Perhaps the Mujahadeen Shura Council should simply say "Thank You" to the pope for accurately characterizing their preferred evangelization technique.

    Bloody Irony

    Last week Pope Benedict XVI made an address at the University of Regensburg, devoting a portion of his talk to the early spread of Islam. Quoting 14th-century Byzantine emperor Manuel II Paleologus, the pope stated: "God, is not pleased by blood -- and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature." The pope went on to quote the emperor: Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.

    As one would expect, the Muslim world is outraged. Specifically, 6 Catholic churches have been attacked and a Catholic nun serving the poor in Somalia has been shot in the back and killed. Sheikh Abubukar Assan Malin, an Islamic cleric in Somalia, has stated that the Muslims should "hunt down" and kill the pope for his comments. Furthermore, anybody who offends the prophet Muhammed "should be killed on the spot by the nearest Muslim". Can we characterize this response from the Muslim world as "peaceful", or do the descriptions "evil, inhuman", and "by the sword" paint a more accurate picture? The bottom line is that some Muslim clerics and militants are so angry for Muhammed's teachings being labeled "evil and inhuman" that they shoot nuns in the back, call for the pope's assassination, and call for Muslim to immediately kill any person who merely offends Muhammed. I assume this irony is lost on much of the Muslim world.

    In one of the more peaceful responses, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, who's chairman of the Muslim Brotherhood, claimed the statements show the West and it's "politicians and clerics are hostile to Islam". Gee Mohammed, who's terrorizing whom in this global jihad? Who has been kidnapping and murdering Christians for the past 25+ years, going back to the Iranian Islamic revolution? Which religion was behind 9/11? Which religion was behind the bombings in Spain? England? The failed airline attack recently uncovered in the UK? The murder and kidnap of Israeli soldiers in northern Israel? Pssst, Mohammed, I don't think you understand what the word "hostile" means. Furthermore, if the West is hostile, what do you call all your jihadi buddies? Evil and perhaps inhuman?

    Are all Muslims violent wagers of jihad? Of course not. But it sure would be nice if Muslim leaders would, at the very least, recognize that extremist members of their religion are the cause of widespread violence, and 100% of the world's terrorist acts. More importantly, clerics like Malin should be condemned for advocating murder. Looking inward to resolve those problems would be far more productive than worrying about the pope quoting a 14th century emperor.

    CNN story here.

    Monday, September 11, 2006

    America Hypnotized

    Congratulations "progressives", your incessant insults of Bush, your hysterical claims of conspiracy theories, and your propensity to blame America for all the world's problems have basically hypnotized 45% of Americans to take the following absurd position: President Bush is either to be blamed a "great deal", or a "moderate amount", for the attacks of 9/11.

    How proud liberal America must be. Whatever it takes to gain power, I guess.

    CNN story here.

    Friday, September 01, 2006

    Survival of the Fittest?

    CBS recently announced that their hit reality show, Survivor, will feature a new twist this season. In the past, contestants have been divided up into tribes, and those tribes competed for various awards such as food, fishing gear, etc. The show has divided contestants by gender, by age, and through random processes over the years.

    This year contestants are divided by race. There will be four teams of five contestants, including white, black, latino, and Asian teams. As a longtime Survivor fan, this is a great twist on the show. I'm often times fascinated by the behavior of contestants as they battle for a single twinkie, or as they plot to vote out a member perceived to be the strongest. Throwing race into the mix may add some new wrinkles, but then again, it may not.

    But the real story in all of this is the criticism being heaped on the show. Some say the racial division is a gimmick intended to boost ratings. Wow! Can you believe network executives want to boost ratings? There's a shocker. Others chastise the show creators because we shouldn't divide up people by race. But what's amazing to me is that race-based political advocates are crying about the show.

    In New York, the Black, Latino, and Asian Caucus (BLAC) (otherwise known as Anybody But Whitey) is demonsrating today in protest of the show. Apparently BLAC believes it's OK to divide people up by race when you are handing out government contracts (whites to the back of the line), and it's OK to divide people up by race when you're handling college admissions (bonus points for blacks and latinos only!), but it's not OK to group people by race for a meaningless TV show. Does anybody else see the double standard here?

    Story on NY City Council and BLAC's hypocritical response here.

    Tuesday, August 15, 2006

    Fool's Victory

    A fragile peace has taken hold over southern Lebanon and northern Israel. More than 1 million refugees are cautiously returning to their homes. Nearly 1,000 people have been slaughtered in the conflict, and damage to property is sure to cost hundreds of millions of dollars to repair.

    History will never forget that Hezbollah, backed by Syria and Iran, started this conflict. Hezbollah has played the role of war-mongering pests, while Israel has been the stern victims of Hezbollah's murderous antics. Meanwhhile, the Lebanese people have suffered immensely. They have endured the most casualties, and it is their communities which have been leveled by Israeli artillery.

    The goal of Hezbollah and Iran is to wipe Israel off the map. The goal of Israel is to defend itself against the aggression of it's jihadi neighbors, who are hell-bent on terrorizing civilians. Clearly, Israel accomplished their objectives of defending their borders and punishing Hezbollah for the initial attack on Israel.

    But who is claiming victory? Said lunatic Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad: "Those who said our army is unbreakable and undefeatable (Israel) and (vowed to) create major destruction within 30 days were defeated against the power of the young people. And these young people managed to raise the flags of victory across Lebanon."

    Said Hezbollah's leader, Hassan Nasrallah: "We are today before a strategic, historic victory, without exaggeration. We emerged from the battle with our heads high, and our enemy is the one who is defeated."

    Iran and Hezbollah pretend to support Lebanon in their "struggle" against Israel. But the recent conflict has made it clear Ahmadinejad and Nasrallah care nothing for Lebanese civilians if they think 900 dead and widespread destruction in Lebanon constitutes victory. Let's hope the people of Lebanon wake up to the fact that Hezbollah and Iran are cancers, whose presence and influence must be eliminated.

    Thursday, August 10, 2006

    I Woke Up a Liberal!!

    Last night intelligence authorities revealed the terrorist plot to blow up as many as 10 transatlantic flights. Somehow, I woke up a liberal this morning, and had these thoughts:

    One of the big tragedies in all this is that those 21 were probably identified with one of those nasty and illegal intelligence programs. I just wonder how many people's civil liberties were trampled upon, just to stop those 10 planes from blowing up? I shudder to think that some innocent people have their phone numbers stored in a government database!!!!! What have we become?

    And I think of the poor people getting searched in England and in the USA today. I'm convinced that anybody of Arab descent is getting a longer look, as racial profiling rears its ugly head. Better for a plane to get blown up than for 1 innocent Arab to get profiled. I can only rest better knowing that the airports are probably teeming with ACLU attorneys, making sure that as many whitebread grandmas get searched as do young Arab men.

    And who knows how much evidence Scotland Yard really has? You just know they're busy trying to figure out how to keep these guys locked up as long as possible, when in fact none of them were caught with a bomb in their hands. Personally, I won't rest easy until I'm convinced these 21 won't spend 1 day longer in jail than is permissable by law.

    Finally, it's pretty clearl these guys were all victims of oppression at the hands of America and its only neocon ally. It's no wonder these guys wanted to make a statement. We MUST find away to make these misunderstood and oppressed people of the world like us!

    OK - I'm done. I've recovered those 50 points missing from my IQ, and I'm now back to being a thinking man. Lock up these 21 scummy, murderous vermin and throw away the key. Get serious about profiling Muslims in the west. And whatever we do, do not play nice with states that sponsor terrorism.

    Sunday, June 25, 2006

    $Billions Against Babies

    Warren Buffet has announced his philanthropic intentions this weekend. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is the winner, and unborn babies are the losers.

    Buffet has pledged a series of annual gifts (in the neighborhood of $1.5 billion) to the Gates foundation, which works towards the prevention and treatment of diseases around the world, such as AIDS and malaria. The Gates foundation also contributes significantly to improving graduation rates in US high schools, to college scholarships (for attendees to Cambridge and for minority applicants), and to the building/improving of libraries in low income and disadvantaged communities.

    Buffet is also giving $2.5 billion to the Susan Thompson Buffett Foundation, whose principal focus is on "reproductive health, family planning, and pro-choice causes". Certainly Buffet's generosity is to be admired, but do pro "choice" causes really need $2.5 billion? The nation's abortion industry is slaughtering roughly 1.5 million unborn babies per year in the USA, so I for one am at a loss as to why Buffet thinks pro "choice" causes need more money.

    So to summarize the results of Buffet's plan:

    Some of the Winners:
  • Third world nations
  • Minority high school students
  • Attendees to Cambridge
  • Low income children in the Pacific Northwest
  • Homeless people in the Pacific Northwest
  • Libraries in low income communities

  • Unborn babies

    To reiterate, Buffet (and Gates) is to be commended for his generosity. But it's clear Buffet is making a social statement with his giving. He is not building a world class business school, he's not helping the US scientific community, he's not offering seed money to promising entrepreneurs, and (fortunately), he's not giving his money to political causes. Rather, Buffet is attempting to improve the conditions for the worlds most needy and vulnerable. Unfortunately, unborn children don't meet Buffet's criteria as the most needy and vulnerable. So not only does he fail to give a penny to save an unborn child, he donates $2.5 billion dollars to better fund America's abortion industry. What a sick irony the Buffet fortune has become.

    Story here.
  • Thursday, June 22, 2006

    Why Can't USA Compete in Soccer? Title IX

    The US just lost their final World Cup match to tiny Ghana by a score of 2-1. In 3 games against the Czech Republic, Italy, and Ghana, the US managed only 1 goal (the goal against Italy was scored by the Italian team).

    Why is it a sports crazed nation of 300,000,000 people can't beat the Czech Republic nor Ghana? To put this into perspective, the USA has lost soccer matches to these two nations:

    Ghana - about the size of Michigan with the population of NY City metro area.

    Czech Republic - about the size of South Carolina with the population of LA metro.

    We all know that soccer is far down on the list of favorite US sports. Baseball, football, and basketball surely top soccer. But in my experience, you have more youth playing soccer today in the US than either basketball or football. Young kids love the game, and we have countless leagues devoted to developing talented young players. Why can't we compete globally? Title IX.

    Title IX is the provision that requires colleges to award as many athletic scholarships to women's sports as they do men's sports. On the surface, this sounds great. Women should have the opportunity to compete at the college level. But we should all quit pretending that women are just as likely to make a career out of sports as are men. Why the need to ensure equality of scholarships if it's the male athlete who is 10 times more likely (an understatement) to pursue a career in professional sports?

    More importantly, football programs provide for 85 full ride scholarships. As a result, athletic programs offer a wide array of scholarships for women athletes, including soccer, to meet Title IX requirements. On the other hand, you will be hard pressed to find a university which offers scholarships to play soccer. As of last year, there were only 21 Division 1 programs playing men's soccer, including traditional collegiate powers Akron, Winthrop, Niagra, and Birmingham Southern.

    The implications are clear. Our very best male athletes have very little incentive to pursue soccer in high school, other than for the pure love of the game. Soccer players who are skilled in multiple sports drop soccer in favor of the sport in which collegiate scholarships are available. Those that do stick with soccer will graduate with limited, if any, opportunities to become world class soccer athletes. Furthermore, many are faced with the dilemma of attending a school such as Missouri State, which offers soccer scholarships, or attending a major university such as Michigan or Texas A&M, which do not.

    The bottom line is that to fix US soccer, we need major universities to create soccer programs and to offer full ride scholarships. For that to happen, we either create new women's sports programs to meet Title IX requirements, or we modify Title IX in a manner that better meets the demands for male athletes.

    Thursday, June 15, 2006

    Now for something completely different....

    .....what you get when you combine Mentos and Diet Coke. Press the play button in the player below...that's the little triangle for the technology-impaired. No, not the one pointing down, the one pointing to the right. ;-)

    Thursday, June 01, 2006

    Thank You, Palestinian Style

    As posted on Little Green Footballs today, here's the latest example of political cartoons coming from the Palestinian government:

    Can anybody help me understand why the United States sent these vermin $274 million last year? To put this into perspective, the budget of the Palestinian Authority last year was $1.8 billion, so the United States financed over 15% of the entire cost of running the Palestinian government. Part of this funding was a result of George Bush using his congressionally authorized waiver to redirect $50 million of USAID funding directly to the Palestinian Authority. The cartoon above does a great job in conveying the gratitude of the Palestinian government. (Details of Palestinian funding can be found in this Congressional report.)

    As we consider whether or not to continue financial support of the Palestinan government, let's remember that these are the same people who:
  • Called for the death of anyone who published Mohammed cartoons
  • Send children armed with toy guns to the border fence of the Gaza strip hoping to promote a violent (and presumably deadly) response from Israeli security forces
  • Use suicide bombers as a primary diplomacy tool with Israel
  • Will not recognize Israel's right to exist.

    It's time to end this charade of pretending the Palestinians will ever be partners in peace. It's time to end all financial support for the Palestinian government, and let nature take its course in Gaza and the West Bank.
  • Tuesday, May 30, 2006

    Italian-American Catholic Values

    Check out this great article from the NY Times about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi.

    In addition to pointing out Ms. Pelosi's public speaking deficiencies, the article (inadvertently) highlights the unmitigated hypocrisy in her political beliefs. Said Pelosi recently on Meet the Press: "I am an Italian-American Catholic grandmother," she said, "very traditional in terms of values." Pelosi went on to repeat this phrase 3 times, as if repetition breeds the truth.

    In what comes as little surprise, Pelosi's version of "traditional values" is widely divergent from the values of my mother-in-law, who also happens to be an Italian-American Catholic grandmother. Furthermore, her politic ideology bears little resemblance to the dozens of other Italian-American Catholic grandmothers in our extended family.

    Let's examine "traditional values" of Italian-American Catholic grandmothers. The Catholic church explicitly states that abortion is wrong. Most practicing Catholics are in agreement with the teaching of the Church. Pelosi, on the other hand, is rabidly pro choice (against partial birth abortion ban, against parental notification, etc.) and has spent a good part of her life working to ensure mothers have the right to destroy their unborn children. Clearly she's deviating from traditional Italian-American Catholic grandmother values on this front.

    Pelosi also favors homosexual marriage. The Church and the majority of Catholics oppose homosexual marriage. I suspect that even Catholics of the "Italian-American grandmother" variety oppose homosexual marriage. Again, Pelosi is out of step with her Italian-American Catholic grandmother peers.

    During her time in the US House of Representatives, Pelosi has voted against every single tax cut initiative that's ever been put to a vote. Obviously I have no idea where the majority of Italian-American Catholic grandmothers stand on the issue of tax reform, but I think it's safe to say that most could find at least one tax cut proposal to their liking. Pelosi, on the other hand, wants our money in government coffers for the purposes of redistribution.

    Somehow, I don't think there are too many Italian-American Catholic grandmothers who think their money is better served if it's handed out for the liberal causes of Nancy Pelosi. More importantly, I'm sure most Italian-American Catholic grandmothers would prefer that Nancy Pelosi refrain from labeling her extreme liberal values as "traditional" within her peer group.

    Friday, May 19, 2006

    Is Entering a Nation Illegally a "Human Right"?

    Yes, according to Mexico's president, Vicente Fox. Said Fox, in response to the US Senate's proposed 370 mile border fence:

    "Building walls, constructing barriers on the border does not offer an efficient solution in a relationship of friends, neighbors and partners. We will go on defending the rights of our countrymen without rest or respite. With passion we will demand the full respect of their human rights."

    Hey Vicente, how about demanding the full respect of the laws of the United States of America? And while you're at it, tell me when it became a "human right" to ignore a nation's sovereignty? And if you're really after "efficient solutions" to our immigration problem (let's be clear, this is America's problem, and Mexico's welfare solution), how about doing something in your own nation so that it's not such a miserable place to live for millions of Mexican people?

    Seriously, think how out-of-touch Vicente Fox must be to stand there and criticize United States immigration policy, when it's his government's incompetence and corruption that are causing his citizens to evacuate Mexico by the millions.

    Story here.

    Tuesday, May 16, 2006

    Catch Us Breaking Your Laws and We'll Sue!

    So says the Mexican government.

    In a radio interview today, Mexican Foreign Secretary Luis Ernesto Derbez told a radio station "If we see the National Guard starting to directly participate in detaining people ... we would immediately start filing lawsuits through our consulates."

    Wow. So Mexico will file lawsuits against the United States if Mexicans entering our nation illegally are apprehended by the National Guard? And I thought I had lousy neighbors! (just kidding Chris)

    Here's the full story.

    Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks the government in Mexico is as incompetent as they are corrupt. The liberal Mexican presidential candidate, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, spoke out today about Mexico's role in the current crisis. Said Obrador about the Vicente Fox administration: "They are the ones mostly responsible for what is going on because there is no employment, there are no jobs in Mexico so people need to emigrate." At last, somebody south of the border gets it. Story from Reuters here.

    Friday, May 12, 2006

    Proponents of US Immigration Laws Branded "Racists"

    Today the Minutemen demonstrated in Washington DC. Unfortunately, the Minutemen, unlike recent Hispanic demonstrators, were greeted with slanderous counterprotestors playing the same old race card. Let's be clear: The Minutemen are not singling out Hispanics in this debate, they're just asking that immigrants obey the laws of the United States.

    Question: What do race activists call any white person who cares about border security?
    Answer: A racist

    Question: What do race activists call any white person who thinks immigrants should obey our immigration laws?
    Answer: A racist

    Question: What do race activists call any white person who thinks illegal immigrants should not be granted citizenship?
    Answer: A racist

    Can't these race baiting activists ever, once in their lives, separate race from arguments and make an argument that goes farther than skin deep? Can't they at least demonstrate an iota of respect for the laws of this nation? It appears the answers are no. These guys would rather come to this nation illegally, consume our educational and health care resources for little or no cost, then label as racists any US citizen who expect our laws to be followed.

    Do you think Guatemalans who enter Mexico illegally behave this same way? Doubtful.

    Thursday, May 04, 2006

    "The Border Crossed Us!" - Say What?

    Perhaps you've seen the signs and/or heard the rhetoric from immigration activists looking to legalize 12,000,000 illegal aliens (which by the way, is NOT a racist term). One of their latest slogans has become "We didn't cross the border, the border crossed us". This little catch phrase is so absurd it's a wonder that immigration activists haven't seen holes in their logic.

    Unless you were born before 1848, when the US acquired the 4 border states after the Mexican-American War, I can assure you the border has not moved. And if you were born after 1848, then the chance that you were born in the USA is actually greater, since the border moved south. People crying that the border moved don't seem to understand the fact that if you were born in Mexico, the acquisition of Texas, California, New Mexico, and Arizona is completely irrelevant. Yes, Mexico would have a larger land mass, but Mexican land mass is not the issue. The issue is US citizenship, and those born south of the current border would lack US citizenship regardless of the national affiliation of the border states.

    Let's assume for a moment that the US never acquired the border states. Does anybody believe that Texas, New Mexico, Arizona, and California would be as free and prosperous as it is today? Of course not - they'd have the standard of living equivalent to the Mexican states of Chihuahua and Sonora. Rather than crossing Rio Grande like they do today, Mexican immigrants would be crossing the Red River to get into Oklahoma.

    In conclusion, the only people whose citizenship has been impacted by the 1848 land acquisition are US citizens who were born in a border states, and don't have the luxury of Mexican citizenship. Quite honestly, I suspect we could poll every resident of the 4 border states and use my right hand to count the people upset because they're US citizens rather than citizens of Mexico.

    Tuesday, May 02, 2006

    What We Learned Yesterday

    Uno de Mayo has come and gone, and we're all a little wiser about the realities of the current US immigration crisis. Here is what we've learned:
  • Some businesses were impacted, and had to work with smaller staffs. A few businesses even shut down plants entirely for the day.
  • The economic impact of Latino's efforts to boycott all things Gringo seems to have been minimal.
  • The thousands of protestors still seem to love their mother country of Mexico.

    Michelle Malkin's Site has many pictures that you won't find in your local paper, so go take a look. You won't see any images of a people's desire to become Americans. But what you will see are Hispanics who would toss Old Glory in the garbage, Hispanics who follow the teachings of madman socialist Che Guevara, Hispanics who hate Bush (even though he supports their cause - so much for being informed), a dimwit who things "USA" means the United States of Mexico, and a host of other Mexicans who seem to have such a great love for their mother country (leaving one to wonder why the heck they're over here in the first place).

    In the midst of all this debate, let's not forget that of all the nations surveyed recently in an opinion poll about their opinions of other countries, Mexico had the least positive view of the United States out of all nations surveyed. Only 10% of Mexicans had a favorable opinion of the United States, vs. 55% who have a negative opinion. Basically, Mexicans hate the United States of America more than any other group of people on earth, moreso than the Iranians and the French. Don't believe me? Why are we listening to them? Why are debating granting amnesty to lawbreakers who hate our nation?

    Let's get sane about immigration, and let hard working Hispanics register to enter our country to work. Let's expand the number of work visas we grant to Hispanics to meet current labor market demands. But by all means, let's deport those who won't obey our laws and who don't respect the sovereignty of the USA.
  • Friday, April 28, 2006

    Nuestro Himno

    It's been widely reported that a new Spanish language National Anthem is in the works. I'm just wondering which nation this anthem will honor....Mexico? Honduras?

    Anyway, the song itself doesn't seem too problematic to me assuming the lyrics are translated accurately, and the song retains it's original purpose: to honor the United States flag and everything else for which it stands.

    Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be the case. Hip hop record producer Adam Kidron is behind this new rendition, and it's clear the objective is to politicize the US immigration debate as opposed to honor Old Glory.

    First of all, Kidron is urging Hispanic radio stations to play the song at 7 pm on Monday, May 1. That is the day Hispanics hope to "shut down" major US cities by walking out on their jobs and demonstrating in the streets. Apparently they're also going to refrain from purchasing anything from evil American gringos. Quite constructive, indeed. So Kidron is jumping on the bandwagon, perhaps hoping his production will be the anthem for Hispanics seeking change in American immigration laws.

    That's just what we need - a "national" anthem that caters to just one ethnic group. So much for the melting pot. But if you need any further proof that the aim of this song is political, check out the lyrics from the remix:
  • "These kids have no parents, cause all of these mean laws ... let's not start a war with all these hard workers, they can't help where they were born."

    There you have it - open borders propaganda with poor language and rhetoric meant to stir the masses. Who would have thought that the United States, with a 200 year history of welcoming immigrants from all nations, would have our immigration laws labeled "mean". Would be interesting if these fools got their way and 50,000,000 million Chinese came to the states and took all of their jobs. Still think they'd be open borders proponents? Me neither.

    Story here.
  • Saturday, April 22, 2006

    Life is Good, Thanks be to God

    No politics today. Only a few moments to comment on life's blessings. It's a beautiful morning in Houston. The Honeysuckle is in bloom, and their fragrance is permeating the entire back yard. There must be 10,000 blooms surrounding the 40 foot telephone pool. One Hibiscus bush has 15 blooms, and my Gardenias are just beginning to bloom.

    I've got the waterfall turned on in my new pool, and my two youngest boys are having a blast in the pool. Our dog Astro is still fighting the streams of water falling over the hot tub into the pool. Poor fool doesn't understand it's a battle he'll never win, until I turn the pumps off, that is.

    And I've even managed to turn some bad news into good. My oldest son and daughter, who are both in big-time trouble for grades, have been put to work cleaning out the garage. So I'm left here to enjoy some good Jamaican Blue Mountain coffee on my back patio, and just soak in the morning.

    Of course, these are all small blessings in the big picture. We all live in the greatest nation on earth, and our nation's promises of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness seem secure for generations to come. High gas prices, illegal immigration issue, and the war in Iraq are just a few more challenges which are sure to be overcome by our great nation. God bless America.

    Tuesday, April 18, 2006

    A Day Without a Gringo

    Proponents of illegal alien rights are planning a boycott for May 1. They hope to shut down the Los Angeles airport and the port of Los Angeles. Michelle Malkin's blog today offered some insight into the rallying cries of the boycott, and it should be no surprise that these groups are the recipients of organizational emails:
  • layouthcollective@lists.riseup.net
  • dope_x_resistancela@yahoogroups.com
  • la-anarchists@lists.mutualaid.org
  • copwatch@agitatorindex.org
  • anarchist-poc@yahoogroups.com
  • socalicollectivenetwork@lists.riseup.net
  • lalaborcollective@lists.mutualaid.org

    So you have a bunch of anarchists, anti-law enforcement types, and socialists rallying together. This should be good. Even Mexican citizens are calling for a boycott of all things "gringo".

    It seems organizers want to live the premise of the movie "A day without a Mexican", which attempts to show what would happen to the USA if one day we woke up and no more Mexicans were living in our midst. Turning the tables for a moment, let's consider what it would be like for Mexicans if they woke up one day and there were no more Americans.

    A Day Without a Gringo
  • Most of the 12,000,000 hispanics living in the US illegally would be unemployed and would likely head back to Mexico seeking federal aid.
  • Mexico would miss out on $20,000,000,000 in cash every year from the newly unemployed workers, triggering a huge recession.
  • The price of oil would plummet, further damaging Mexico's economy.
  • There would be no market for 90% of the goods currently exported by Mexico. Mexican fishermen, farmers, and employees of firms like CEMEX would find themselves unemployed overnight.
  • Over $50,000,000,000 would disappear from the Mexican stock market, triggering a market crash.
  • The poverty rate, currently at 40% in Mexico, would likely hit 60% or 70%.
  • Over half of all US doctors and roughly 80% of teachers would be gone.
  • Say adios to future technical advances from IBM, Apple, Intel, and Microsoft. Hasta la vista to medical advances from Johnson & Johnson, Pfizer, and Merck.
  • Mexican youths living in the US would have nobody to kick around in soccer.
  • Wall Street, State Street, and pretty much all of corporate America would shut down.
  • You think corruption is bad in Mexico today? Take away the USA and you'll find out what real anarchy is all about.

    In sum, it might be prudent for Mexicans (and all Hispanics for that matter) to step back and consider for a moment what a jewel the United States of America is. We employ, teach, and cure millions of Hispanics who otherwise would have no such opportunity in their home countries. To top it off, the wealthy classes in Mexico and Central America prosper because the USA buys their goods and services by the billions. Rather than economic extortion, how about a simple "Thank You"?
  • Tuesday, April 11, 2006

    Racism - ACORN Style

    Yesterday thousands of Hispanics demonstrated in Houston. The demonstrations were peaceful, and for the most part productive save for the call for a worker strike beginning May 1 by Teodoro Aguiluz

    But at the rally, Toni McElroy somehow managed a place at the microphone. McElroy is president of Texas ACORN, which is an organization working for social justice for low and moderate income families. McElroy, who is black, said to the crowd: "We as black and brown have more in common than the oppressors would have us believe. Traditionally, the Man has played one community against the other."

    Let's step back for a moment and consider the absurdity of McElroy's comments. Over 10,000,000 people have broken laws just to get a chance to live in the USA. Many of these people are now demonstrating to help promote their cause - that is to maintain the right to live and work in this great country, and to be afforded a path towards citizenship.

    So how does demonizing white people serve to further the cause of immigrants? And does McElroy really believe that thousands of hard working Hispanics will buy for a moment that white people are "oppressors"?

    Hispanic immigrants are desperately seeking the American Dream, while the likes of Tonyi McElroy are desperately trying to sell an image of an American Nightmare. Adios Toni, I don't think anybody's buying your story of racism and oppression.

    Here's the story from the Houston Chronicle.

    Wednesday, April 05, 2006

    American Flag Cause for Suspension in Colorado

    As a result of tensions at a Colorado middle school related to the ongoing immigration reform debate, the incompetent administration at Shaw Heights Middle School has put a ban on all patriotic clothing!

    Let's examine the facts:
    • The USA is such a great nation, and Mexico is so limited in economic opportunities, that millions of Mexicans break laws to move here.
    • These lawbreakers are now demonstrating in the USA about the "greatness" of Mexico and the unfairness of United States immigration laws.
    • Fearing a controversy, bureaucrats in the USA muzzle American youth?

    What is wrong with this picture (besides everything)? Myla Shepherd, the principal at Shaw Heights Middle School, said she banned all patriotic clothing because she wanted to avoid confrontations. So basically she punished everybody in the process.

    Let's follow Shepherd "logic" to solve other problems:
  • To prevent deaths by drunk drivers, sober people can no longer drive after dark.
  • To eliminate inequities caused by tax invaders, nobody will have to pay taxes.
  • To reduce arrests related to sexual assault, all sexual activity will be labeled consensual.

    Wake up, Myla! You don't solve a problem by silencing law abiding citizens! You don't remove immigration controversy by outlawing patriotism!

    Here's the story.
  • Monday, April 03, 2006

    Miriam McCreary - Arrogant Grandmother

    CNN has a story today about a grandmother who flies from Minneapolis, Minnesota to Sioux Falls, South Dakota once or twice a month. Why does this 70 year old woman make this flight so frequently? Perhaps her grandchildren live in South Dakota?

    Believe it or not, she flies into South Dakota to destroy unborn babies. Says Dr. Miriam McCreary: "I want every child that's born, to be born into a family that wants a child. I don't want children to be born into a family where they are not wanted and can't be cared for carefully. That's the tragedy."

    Wow! McCreary apparently has the ability to judge whether or not an unborn child will be "wanted" and determine whether or not a child will be cared for "carefully". I know plenty of people who weren't cared for "carefully" as children, but I'd be willing to bet they'd much prefer their lives over having been dismembered en utero by the likes of McCreary. How unfortunate that 50+ lives a month are ended by this woman, who claims to know that these exterminated lives would not have been worth living.

    Full story here.

    Thursday, March 30, 2006

    Can Mexican Flag Wavers Influence American Policy?

    CNN has a report today about Los Angeles teachers discussing the effectiveness of recent pro-immigration (anti US border?) student walkouts. See the story here..

    First of all, why is this newsworthy? Since when is American policy driven by the whims of thousands of 16 year old truants? Since when does prancing around a city with the flag from a foreign nation serve to influence the US political agenda? Am I the only one who sees the absurdity of TV commentators stating "Washington is sure to take notice" when they see thousands of high school kids waving the Mexican flag and skipping school?

    In what's sure to be a typical response, one boy waxed poetic on why walking out of school Monday was a good thing: "Because we let them know what's up". Really? By walking out of your high school you showed American politician's what's up? In what way? Do you think law makers are unaware of the fact that 10's of millions of Hispanics live in our nation? Do you think waving the Mexican flag will cause politicians to change US borders? Maybe I'm the ignorant one, but I don't see how student walkouts showed anybody "what's up". Gee, the 11,000,000 Hispanics living in the US illegally want amnesty? Big surprise there.

    The more likely result of the student walkouts and demonstrations is that Americans are angry. It's perhaps an odd thing about Americans, but we respect the American flag. We respect our borders. Our ancestors came to this nation and learned the English language, and they came here legally. Most of us work with residents from China or India who are in the 6 year process of obtaining a green card. We respect their tenacity, and appreciate that they respect our laws. No amount of Mexican flag waving will make people believe that Mexicans should jump to the front of the immigration line.

    More importantly, the student protests have confirmed suspicions that Mexican immigrants are not here to become Americans. The resistance to learn English is real, not imagined. The propensity to root for the Mexican national team when they play the US team is not a short-term by-product of recent immigration, it's a systemic attribute of the Mexican community. The goal appears to be to establish the Mexican culture and an allegiance to the Mexican nation within the borders of the United States. This of course begs the question of why they came to the US in the first place.

    Just to be clear, nobody is stating that Mexicans residing in the US should change their culture, their food, their customs, nor their religion. Mexican citizens are welcome to jump in our melting pot as fast as the INS can process the paperwork. But if they sincerely want to become Americans, they should abide by our immigration laws, learn our language, put away their Mexican flags and pledge allegiance to the American flag. If on the other hand they want to remain Mexicans and retain their allegience to Mexico, then they should go back home.

    Wednesday, March 22, 2006

    Hillary Clinton the Hypocrite

    Hillary Clinton spoke out today about a recent immigration reform proposal which would criminalize illegal entry into the United States. The bill would make illegal entry into the United States a felony, whereas today the crime is considered a civil offense.

    Clinton said that the bill was "mean spirited". She further stated:
      "It is certainly not in keeping with my understanding of the Scriptures," Clinton said, "because this bill would literally criminalize the Good Samaritan and probably even Jesus himself."

    This coming from a woman who's "understanding of the Scriptures" makes it OK to dismember an unborn child? Are you kidding me? If criminalizing the criminal entry into the United States is "mean spirited", what is partial birth abortion Hillary?

    Monday, March 06, 2006

    Soccer News from Houston, Mexico

    I've reported previously on the muchos problemos caused by Houston's new soccer team name, 1836. This name was soooooo offensive to local Mexicans, that the team president, Oliver Luck (Olivar Suerte), has changed the name to the Houston Dynamo. See the latest.

    I'm sure this comes at a tremendous relief to all of the Mexican residents of Houston. I'm sure they've been awake at nights, shuddering at the prospects of seeing the year "1836" emblazoned on soccer jersies. After all, that was the year Texas won her independence from Mexico. How could gringos be so insensitive as to rub that year in their faces! Forget the fact that 1836 was also the year Houston was founded - how could the city be so mean-spirited? How did Texas get to be so racist that she continues to celebrate the year she gained independence?

    In all seriousness, I suspect maybe 2% of Mexican-Americans were offended by the team name. Perhaps 10% of the Mexican citizens living in Houston were offended (which begs the question - why is the team owner of Houston's soccer team trying to please the citizens of Mexico?). But as is usually the case when a few politically correct wingnuts start crying in the press - insanity rules.

    University of Houston professor Raul Ramos, writing a guest editorial in the Chronicle, wondered if the name meant "the team wants Latino [fans] but only on their terms … leaving your heritage, identity and family at the door." This guy is a professor at the University of Houston (note to self - never send a child to U of H)? The name "1836" means Latinos have to leave their heritage and identity at the door? Does the moron Ramos think Americans of Japanese descent cry about V-J day commemorations? Does this fool think Americans of British ancestry "leave their heritage" at the door when they go see the New England Patriots play? Or is it only Hispanics who cry at every perceived "injustice"? Or maybe Ramos thinks that because Houston is now a majority Hispanic, the city is better served functioning as Houston, Mexico than Houston, Texas?

    As for Senor Suerte and his soccer team, he's doing a great job keeping me and my insensitive gringo family away from Major League Soccer.

    Tuesday, February 28, 2006

    Major Pro-Life Supreme Court Victory!

    Today the Supreme Court ruled (by a vote of 8-0 with Alito abstaining) against the National Organization of Women (NOW) in their fight to bring Racketeer-Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) charges against pro-life activists.

    In a bitter press release, NOW stated:
      "Today the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling that could add to the increasing difficulty women face in obtaining reproductive health services. If the Court's 8-0 decision in Scheidler, et al., v. National Organization for Women (NOW), et al. and Operation Rescue v. NOW, et al. ushers in a return to clinic violence in the United States, NOW stands ready to fight in every jurisdiction.

    First of all, it should be noted that only the most ardent pro-infanticide activists of NOW believe the dismemberment of a living human being constitutes "reproductive health services". Secondly, the fact that the Supreme Court voted 8 to 0 against them illustrates just how far from the mainstream NOW has become. Relying on RICO statutes which where put in place in response to organized crime, and on the Hobbs Act which bans extortion, NOW achieved a "victory" in 1998 when a federal judge issued a nationwide injunction against pro-life demonstrators. Today's ruling makes it clear that organized pro-life demonstrations are not criminal acts. NOW's desperate and bitter press release reveals that perhaps they're on the outside looking in on mainstream political debate, so rapid in their desire to protect infanticide that they miss the entire free speech aspect of the case.

    Of course, ever reliable CNN frames the issue in an ultra liberal fashion, stating in their headline "Court Deals Setback to Abortion Clinics". Does CNN really believe that abortion clinics should stand above other American enterprises, and remain free from all opposition and protests? Only CNN could take a look at a major victory for free speech and label it a setback to abortion clinics.

    Friday, February 17, 2006

    Bryant Gumbel: White Bad, Black Good

    In what has made barely a ripple on the national news scene outside talk radio, Bryant Gumbel recently gave a commentary on HBO about the Winter Olympics. Said Gumbel:

      "Count me among those who don't care about them and won't watch them. So try not to laugh when someone says these are the world's greatest athletes, despite a paucity of blacks that makes the Winter Games look like a GOP convention"

    The messages are clear: White athletes are only at the Olympics because blacks are not competing. How can an athlete possibly be considered among the world's greatest if he's white? Worse yet, Gumbel's implication is that blacks are somehow prevented from playing. If this were a simple matter of blacks choosing not to compete, wouldn't Gumbel's message be delivered to the black community? Wouldn't he encourage all races to participate in speed skating, snowboarding, etc.? And why would he feel the need to bring in the GOP if he wasn't trying to paint a mental image of racist white men running the show?

    Gumbel is a fool and should be fired today. Since when is it acceptable to state that an event is not worth watching because the participants are of a certain race? Had a white man stated "I have no interest in watching the NBA because it's blacker than an NAACP convention", do you think he'd keep his job? Of course not.

    But HBO's decision to keep Gumbel on staff, and the national media's failure to report this story are just two more indications of our national culture of reverse discrimination. White bad, black good.

    Here's another take on the story from the Sporting News:

    Wednesday, February 15, 2006

    Houston 1836 Name Deemed "Offensive"

    Houston has a Major League Soccer franchise. The team used an internet poll to select the new name, and fans selected 1836, which was the year in which the city of Houston was founded. In European soccer leagues, incorporating years into team names is quite common, so this name seemed to have appeal due to it's distinctiveness and similarity to big time soccer in Europe.

    Unfortunately, some Mexicans (apparently these folks wouldn't want to be considered Mexican Americans) don't seem to like the name. They're offended because 1836 was also the year that the battle of the Alamo was fought. It was the year that Sam Houston's troops defeated Santa Anna (just outside Houston), and the year Texas declared their independence from Mexico.

    Fast forward 170 years (yes, 170 years), and some Mexicans seem to still be bitter. Some say the name signals a "lack of respect". Others say they won't go to games if the team is named 1836. In a recent Times interview, Tacho Mindiola, director of the Center for Mexican-American Studies at the University of Houston stated "It's unfortunate because sport is an integrating mechanism in society, and unintentionally or not this is a blunder. Do they think we're going to wear a T-shirt with the year 1836 on it?"

    Yes Tacho, I do. It suspect sane Mexicans aren't carrying a 170 year old grudge. If he has such a disdain for the United States of America and our history, then he certainly has other options regarding his place of residence. How anybody could reach the conclusion that it's insensitive or inappropriate to recognize US victories in the USA is beyond me.

    Am I some insensitive racist? Well consider the city of Philadelphia for a second. Their basketball team name is the 76'ers, after our declaration of independence from England in 1776. Do you see any Brits crying over that name? Do we have to listen to Americans of British descent cry about our July 4th celebrations? Of course not, because they're not hyper-sensitive morons accustomed to racial coddling.

    Unfortunately, the word today is that the Houston franchise will change the name. Once again, Americans adapt to please a few outspoken immigrants. Something is backwards in all this.

    Thursday, February 09, 2006

    Does News Travel to Syria?

    Condoleeza Rice yesterday accused Syria and Iran of fanning the flames of violence in the middle east in response to cartoons of Muhammed. Said Rice: "Iran and Syria have gone out of their way to inflame sentiments and to use this to their own purposes, and the world ought to call them on it."

    So what is Syria's response? Syria's US ambassador Imad Moustapha told CNN: "We in Syria believe anti-Western sentiments are being fueled by two major things -- the situation in Iraq and the situation in the occupied territories, the West Bank and Gaza. We believe that if somebody would tell Secretary Rice that Syria is not the party that occupies Iraq and is not the party that occupies the West Bank and Gaza, then probably she would know it is not Syria who is actually fueling anti-Western sentiments."

    Maybe somebody should tel Ambassador Moustapha that nobody but Palestinians occupies the Gaza strip. Perhaps the news did not make its way to Syria, but Israel pulled out of the Gaza strip months ago. Also, it might help if somebody told Moustapha that Americans have no interest in staying in Iraq. When Syria stops supporting the insurgency in Iraq, American troops will back their bags and head home.

    CNN story here.

    Tuesday, February 07, 2006

    Buy Danish!!

    Show your support, and render the Arab world's boycott of Danish goods irrelevant. Need some top of the line home electronics? Check out the BeoCenter2 at Bang and Olufsen's homepage. Very cool.

    How about some toys for your kids?
    Lego Homepage

    How about some great coffee for you? Check out the Gevalia Homepage

    Mexicans Like Americans the Least

    Check out the results of this poll on world public opinion.

    Some of the highlights.
  • Of all 31 nations surveyed, Mexicans likes America the least. Only 10% of Mexicans have a favorable view of teh United States. Quite a strange position for a citizenry who flocks to our borders looking for a better life. Why are they in such a hurry to get here if they have such a disdain for the USA?
  • In Europe, we are liked most by the Poles. This was my experience at World Youth Day in Germany this past summer. The Poles were a great people, eager to get to know us and eager to trade for USA flags and pins. To top it off, they sang and danced all night, so they must be a great people.
  • South Korea has a mainly negative view of the USA. Hmmm, I wonder what would happen if we stopped supporting Seoul. Do you think Kim Jung Il would want to make a "visit"? I do too. It's a pretty sad state of affairs when a nation owes their very existence to you, and they still don't like you.
  • The Philippines has the most favorable view of America, with 85% having a positive view of our nation? Is this due to our common religion?
  • 72% of those in Afghanistan have a favorable view of the USA, but only 27% of those in Iraq share that view.
  • 62% of Chinese have a mainly negative view of the USA. Don't the Chinese people have any concept of "customer appreciation"?
  • Finally, notice the support for the USA in Africa. All 8 nations survey have a more positive than negative view of the USA. Finally, a people who truly appreciate humanitarian assistance. A dollar spent in Africa is clearly money well spent.
  • Great Gift Idea!

    Send a message of support to Denmark (and a message of disdain to Islamo-fascists), buy a box of Royal Dansk cookies.

    Thursday, February 02, 2006

    Unrest over Cartoons

    Tempers flared today throughout the Islamic world. Students marched in Pakistan shouting "Death to Denmark" and "Death to France". Masked Palestinian gunmen shut the European Union office Thursday in Gaza City, writing on the door that the office would remain closed until the Europeans apologize to Muslims. The Palestinian men, from Islamic Jihad and the al Aqsa Martyrs Brigades fired bullets into the air and one of them read their demands. In Gaza, gunmen threatened to kidnap European workers unless the European Union apologized. The rational new government will certainly restore order to the West Bank, right? Check that - Hamas is the new Palestinian government. So much for law and order.

    Why all the threats of violence? Why the intimidation of EU workers in the West Bank? A cartoon. Yep, a political cartoon published in Denmark initially which depicted Muhammed. Said outgoing Palestinian Prime Minister Ahmed Qureia about the pictures: they "provoke all Muslims everywhere in the world."

    Wow - so the beheading of westerners doesn't provoke Christians? 9/11 didn't provoke Christians? The claims that Israel has no right to exist and the holocaust is a myth don't provoke Jews? Once again, the hypocrisy of the Muslim world is on center stage. This could be the new radical Muslim motto: "We'll kill you for your religious beliefs, but don't you dare even write a cartoon about ours!"

    Who is CAIR?

    Bill Handel is the talk show host in Los Angeles who has recently come under fire from the Council on American-Islamic Relations for his comments about Muslim pilgrims who were killed in a stampede this year. Apparently Handel made some light of the situation, stating that perhaps better traffic management should be employed at Mecca during the pilgrimmage. CAIR is insisting he apologize, and Handel has stated he will gladly apologize as long as CAIR does the following:

    • CAIR must denounce all bombing or attacks where intended victims are innocent citizens
    • Acknowledge Israeli sovereignty
    • Verify that the group has never had connections with any terrorist group or sponsor.

    This should be easy right? After all, isn't CAIR merely a US based organization intent on improving relations between America and the Islamic world? Think again. CAIR does not want to improve relations, they don't simply want to protect the rights of Muslims, they don't want to simply encourage Americans to convert to Islam. They want Islam to become the ONLY religion in the United States. CAIR wants an Islamic theocracy in America.

    Witness this quote from the founder of CAIR, Omar Ahmad:
    ""Those who stay in America should be open to society without melting, keeping Mosques open so anyone can come and learn about Islam. If you choose to live here, you have a responsibility to deliver the message of Islam ... Islam isn't in America to be equal to any other faiths, but to become dominant. The Koran, the Muslim book of scripture, should be the highest authority in America, and Islam the only accepted religion on Earth."

    So the next time you hear about CAIR in the news, don't think "peaceful group trying to help Muslims integrate into America". Think radical Muslims who are spending all their time and resources trying to bring and Iranian style theocracy to our nation. As such, trust nothing they say, and understand everything they do is only done to further their agenda.

    Monday, January 30, 2006

    Kerry, Clinton, and Kennedy: Out of Touch Again

    A few desperate neoliberal Senators dropped a bomb on Senate proceedings today in attempt to filibuster the nomination of Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court. Fortunately America was spared the mind numbing misery of having to listen to the likes of John Kerry, Hillary Clinton, Ted Kennedy, Harry Reid, Joe Biden, and Dick Durbin drone on and on for hours. By a 72-25 vote, the Senate voted to abort the attempts of the extreme left wing to stop democracy in its tracks. Word on the street is that this is the first time these senators had opposed an abortion of any kind.

    Fortunately, many Senators in the Democrat party took the high road and voted to end the filibuster. A disappointed Kerry stated the nomination posed a threat "to the balance that the Supreme Court has upheld in all the years that Justice O'Connor has served there." Kerry further droned "This nomination is an extraordinary circumstance. What could possibly be more important than an entire shift in the direction of the Supreme Court of the United States?"

    Wow. Basically Kerry is saying "I want a liberal court. If I don't get it, then I say we obstruct senate proceedings indefinitely." Can you say Sore Loser?

    Monday, January 16, 2006

    MLK Day Reflection

    Today we remember the great civil rights leader, Martin Luther King Jr. King is remembered and honored for many things, but his biggest legacy is his "I Have a Dream" speech, made August 28th, 1963. Of course, the highlight of King's speech was this line:
      "I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."

    I wonder what Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and other proponents of race-based college admissions, affirmative action, and minority set-aside government contracts would have to say would King give that speech today? "Pssst. Hey Martin....let's not get carried away here. We're trying to rig the system so that race does matter. It's just going to matter in our favor! So if you're going to talk this nonsense, you better register Republican!"

    In any event, it's worth all of our time to say a prayer of thanks for the work of Dr. King. Clearly America is a better place with respect to race relations than it was in 1963. Full text of MLK's speech is here.

    Friday, January 13, 2006

    Aunt Jemima the Protestor?

    What does the city's "small business" law have to do with minorities?


    Thursday, January 12, 2006

    Robin Hood Alive and Well

    The state of Texas has used a school funding system that takes money from wealthy schools and school districts, and passes the funds along to other schools. The goal is to balance school fundings so that all students have an equal opportunity for a good education. Although this is just a little socialistic, I can understand the need to adequately fund schools with low tax bases. I would have no problem if the goal were simply equality.

    Unfortunately the state of Texas has gone overboard. Equality is apparently not enough. Wealthy schools must give up so much money that they end up below average with respect to school funding. I just received our annual Texas Education Agency Report Card for our school. Although the tax base for our school is well above average (median home price of school neighborhoods exceeds $250,000), our school receives only $3,951 per student. The average for our "school group" (whatever that is) is $5,067, and the average for all schools in the state of Texas is $5,323. Does anybody else find it odd that my kids are the recipients of over 20% less funding because they attend a wealthy school? Doesn't this seem to cause cries of "limited opportunity" and kids getting "failed by the system" to ring hollow? What more are Texans supposed to do to balance the scales?

    It seems that even Robin Hood didn't go this far.

    Tuesday, January 10, 2006

    More Katrina Fallout

    Another Houstonian is dead at the hands of a Katrina evacuee. Very sad, especially in light of the fact that evacuees receive free housing, free meals, $2,000 debit cards, and a general outpouring of support from the community. While most of the storm victims are using federal benefits to get back on their feet, New Orleans criminals have simply brought their ways to the streets of Houston.

    It seems that this unplanned sociology experiment is proving that throwing money at criminals is not an effective method of reducing crime.

    Story here.

    Monday, January 09, 2006

    35% of CNN Readers Confirmed NeoLiberals

    Today's poll asked whether the Senate should filibuster Samuel Alito's confirmation vote. As we all know, a filibuster is a tactic designed to short-circuit democracy, and essentially prevent an issue from even coming up for a vote. Who in their right mind, outside of a career politician in Washington, would prefer that Democrat congressmen filibuster as opposed to debate the merits of an Alito confirmation head-on?

    It what comes as little surprise, 35% of CNN respondents advocate a filibuster. The surprising aspect of these results is that the poll also included the option to "decide after the confirmation hearings". So basically, these lemmings (35% of respondents) say categorically "we don't want to hear anything Alito has to say, just short circuit the process so the Senate can't vote on Alito".

    CNN Poll Results

    Belafonte the Traitor

    Harry Belafonte and Danny Glover were the noteworthy members of a "delegation" of US activists who spent 6 hours with Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez. Recall Chavez is the lunatic leftist hell-bent on alienating himself from the democracies of the world and inciting a socialist revolution in the Americas.

    In a perverted sort of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" move, Belafonte coddled up to Chavez this weekend, stating that George Bush is the "world's biggest terrorist". In what might be the most ludicrous and ill-informed statement ever made, the pinhead Belafonte actually said to Chavez: "No matter what the greatest tyrant in the world, the greatest terrorist in the world, George W. Bush says, we're here to tell you: Not hundreds, not thousands, but millions of the American people ... support your revolution." I don't know about you, but if I were to make a list of people I'd let speak for me, Harry Belafonte wouldn't even sniff the top 100 million.

    Harry and Danny, there are many one way flights from the US to Venezuela. How about purchasing a one-way ticket, and tranferring all of your wealth to the Venezuelan state in your sign of support for the "revolution"? Oh wait, you don't want to give all your money away? You really don't support the revolution - you just want to bring some attention to yourselves? Hypocrites.

    Here's the story.