A message from one angry mom

This has been going around for a while, but it's worth repeating.

*******************

By "Anonymous"

"Are we fighting a war on terror or aren't we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001?

Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan, across the Potomac from our nation's capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania?

Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn't they?

And I’m supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was "desecrated" when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet? Well, I don't. I don't care at all.

I'll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.

I'll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the holy bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia.

I'll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for chopping off nick berg's head while berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.

I'll care when the cowardly so-called "insurgents" in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.

I'll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide.

I'll care when the American media stops pretending that their first amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the united states constitution's bill of rights.

In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don't care.

When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don't care.

When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don't care.

When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed "special" food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being "mishandled," you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don't care.

And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it's spelled "Koran" and other times "Quran." well, jimmy crack corn and-you guessed it: I don't care!!

If you agree with this viewpoint, pass this on to all your e-mail friends. Sooner or later, it'll get to the people responsible for this ridiculous behavior!

If you don't agree, then by all means hit the delete button. Should you choose the latter, then please don't complain when more atrocities committed by radical Muslims happen here in our great country! And may I add:

"Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the marines don't have that problem" -- Ronald Reagan

I have another quote that I would like to add and I hope you forward all this.

"If we ever forget that we're one nation under God, then we will be a nation gone under" – Also by Ronald Reagan.

One last thought for the day:

In case we find ourselves starting to believe all the anti-American sentiment and negativity, we should remember England 's Prime Minister Tony Blair's words during a recent interview. When asked by one of his Parliament members why he believes so much in America, he said:

"A simple way to take measure of a country is to look at how many want in, and how many want out."

Only two defining forces have ever offered to die for you:

1. Jesus Christ.

2. The American G.I.

One died for your soul, the other for your freedom.

You might want to pass this on, as many seem to forget both.

And God Bless America!!

Guess Who's Writing The Ballot Argument Against Villaraigosa's Tax Hike Proposition?

By Walter Moore, Candidate for Mayor of Los Angeles, http://www.waltermooreformayor.com/

Mayor Villaraigosa hopes to dupe voters into approving an unnecessary tax hike in a special election in February 2008. That's the bad news.

The good news is that your favorite candidate for mayor was officially selected yesterday to write the ballot argument against the proposed tax hike, which will be called "Proposition S."

This is terrific news, because it means our fellow voters will receive up to 300 words of truth about Proposition S. It should also translate into some great publicity for my campaign, insofar as I will be the "point man" for the opposition to Villaraigosa's tax hike. Plus, if we can stop Villaraigosa's well-funded political machine from passing this tax hike in February 2008, it will be that much easier to win the Mayoral election in March 2009.

Villaraigosa calls his tax hike, "The REDUCTION of Tax Rate and Modernization of Communications Users Tax ballot measure." In fact, however, Proposition S would INCREASE our taxes two ways:

First, Proposition S would restore an illegal phone tax hike the City imposed in 2003. The Superior Court struck down that tax hike in 2005 because the City imposed it without getting voters' approval, which is required under the State Constitution. Rather than comply with the law and the Superior Court's order, Villaraigosa kept collecting the illegal tax and spending the proceeds, and appealed the ruling. In May 2007, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Superior Court's decision. Voting "yes" would thus restore the illegal tax hike that the courts struck down.

Second, Proposition S would impose NEW taxes on Internet usage, wireless communications and any other telecommunications not already taxed. That's what they mean by "modernization:" tax you for using the Internet. So when you "fire up" that laptop at Starbucks, or you download that file from your work computer to your home computer, get out your checkbook, because Villaraigosa wants you to pay him for the privilege.

The City, by the way, does not need the money. Revenues have skyrocketed for each of the past several years. We don't need a new tax. We need a new mayor -- one who won't squander your money. More about that later.

For now, we can chalk this up as a big victory. Without having to spend a dime of your generous contributions, we will be able to reach every single registered voter in the City of Los Angeles. That almost -- but doesn't quite -- make up for Villaraigosa's having spent $5 million of your tax money to add Proposition S to the special presidential primary election in February, rather than waiting for the next regular election in November.

"Liberal" Animal Control

By Rose Pedenko and Tanya Simon

They are now coming after our four-legged companions.

Blue state after blue state is now engaged in mandating forced neutering and spaying of our pets -- and with a Dr. Strangelove fanaticism that should instead be directed at improving school systems or providing clinics with the necessary means for lessons on birth control for illegal aliens and unwed pregnant teenagers.

It began quietly in 1990 in San Mateo County, in Northern California. The Board of Supervisors approved the nation’s first law requiring all pets in that region ‘go under the knife.’

“We took a first step toward solving the animal overpopulation problem,” said Supervisor Tom Nolan, the instigator of the San Mateo ordinance. It grants authority to impose a $500 fine on violators who fail to neuter and spay their dogs.

Similar laws passed in New York, New Hampshire and Washington State. While the majority of states fund spay/neuter clinics through license fees, the blue states make it “mandatory” for dog and cat owners to neuter their pets. Nowhere in these proposals are there substantial fines or misdemeanors solely for irresponsible pet owners.

The most recent proposal blossomed the week of April 9, 2007 in Southern California: the “California Healthy Pets Act” (AB1634), which is a thin disguise to exterminate pets. Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa -- the illegal alien’s best friend and leader of the largest Sanctuary City in the country -- has, to no one’s surprise, jumped like a bean with both feet into the fray as a partner to the legislation. He is the new king of finding ways to increase revenues without calling it a tax.

Proponents claim that this ordinance will raise proceeds via license/registration fees and fines to defray the cost of euthanasia, including other animal control services. The only accomplishment this new law will offer is the halving of registration and licensing compliance by pet owners who will go underground to protect their natural rights.

Doctors of Veterinary Medicine are not held to the same doctor/patient confidentiality agreements with a dog or cat, as is the ruling with human beings. Under AB1634, however, DVMs will be placed in the unappealing position of informant: to turn in pet owners whose un-neutered or un-spayed pet has been brought in for treatment.

How is this different from Hitler’s Eisantzgruppen? Will physicians become the states’ Gestapo-like task enforcers so that man’s best friends can be sterilized against their owners’ will (and ultimately vanish ‘for the greater good’)? Will this be the ‘Final Solution’ for some of God’s perfect creations whose only crime is that they were not born human?

On the one hand, curbing the birthrate of cats and dogs to 50% or less is, in and of itself, not a bad idea (unless you own shares in companies like Friskies, Science Diet, or Alpo). On the other hand, demanding without recourse that conscientious pet owners have their pets mutilated, particularly expensive purebred dogs and cats, is another example of the outrageous ideas that bounce up like a Pop Tart from the Liberal Think Tank toaster, such as with their exploitation of late-term abortions as a “progressive” idea.

Like so many other ideas that begin with seeds of sensibility, this one has grown into a morass of liberal logic. The people who dream up these foolish ideas are the same mindless obstructionists who don’t lose a minute’s sleep over the insurmountable problems imposed on society by, as a salient example, illegal immigrants: They overcrowd our hospitals giving birth to anchor babies; their offspring crowd our schools and run roughshod in gangs. They represent an inordinate number of the prison population, and too many, of late, have been caught driving drunk, without a license or documentation, after they killed innocent men, women and children. One of these illegals has been deported 17 times. How many animals are captured and set free 17 times?

We digress to make a specific point, which follows in a side-by-side comparison that shows what is sensible and what is preposterous:

Dogs and cats are not, and were never, a threat to our social infrastructure.

Illegal aliens are a problem that is straining to the breaking point American taxpayer resources, our legal system, our safety and our patience.

Dogs and cats do not purposefully cross state lines to steal, maim or kill for pleasure or gain.

Criminal illegal immigrants commit these offenses every hour of every day.

Dogs and cats expect nothing except a good rub behind the ears, a $3 toy, and one square meal a day.

Arrogant illegal immigrants demand immediate amnesty and equal rights of legal citizens, and offer nothing in return except a cheaper Big Mac.

Dogs and cats don’t roam avenues and boulevards in packs numbering in the hundreds of thousands.

Illegal immigrants force the lock-down of city streets to protest en masse American policies while waving their home countries’ flags, or American flags in faux patriotism at the behest of Spanish talking heads.

Dogs and cats are loyal and trustworthy.

Non-English speaking, rule-busting and intoxicated illegal immigrants are neither willing nor capable of being either.

Dogs and cats provide joy and unconditional love.

Self-seeking illegal immigrants bleed the American taxpayer unconditionally, and without conscience.

So, why are liberal politicians persistently pressing forward like Rommel’s panzer divisions to force pet owners to bring in their canines and felines to be anesthetized and sterilized, and at no later than four months of age? It’s a question that demands sober, logical, and credible answers. It presents the slippery slope of a liberal agenda that has quietly infiltrated American thought via educators and the media.

In the end, as always, the real victims are those who cannot speak for or defend themselves. They are being threatened with arbitrary rules composed by out-of-control liberals and their equally uncontrollable agendas. Clearly it seems that the ‘unborn’ are a menace to liberals: human fetuses and late-term babies allowed to be aborted with impunity, and now the attempt to eliminate conception amongst dogs and cats -- to wipe them out.

The Lefties of the 60s that scared everyone with the idea of over-population are still at it. It is not enough that we are faced with an extremist foreign agenda whose aim is to exterminate westerners. We are systematically being reduced in number, both human and animal inside our own borders. Imagine if the whole of America was placed into the efficient hands of the liberals: In less than two generations there would be no one remaining, except, of course, illegal aliens.

The question is, who will get there to finish the job first?

"A Time to Reap," by William Rivers Pitt

William Rivers Pitt writes:

"There is something happening today in America. With the right kind of ears, you can hear it in the sound of millions of brows slowly furrowing in anger and disgust..."

Read the full article at the link, below.

Be amazed. Be a proud American.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/062007A.shtml

I am Loyal Democrat

I went to Townhall.com this morning to read Michelle Malkin's superb commentary, titled "I am John Doe."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/MichelleMalkin/2007/03/28/the_john_doe_manifesto

In the comments section, the first one came from an unknown individual, who I hope will forgive my posting their response here.

This is not my writing, so I take no credit whatsoever for it.

* * * * * * *

I am Loyal Democrat.

I will take the side of any entity that declares itself to be an enemy of the United States. I will consider any action taken by my government to be improper, and defend the position of any nation that opposes my own. I will not stand by while the concepts of freedom and liberty are allowed to infect the thoughts of repressed peoples. Rather, I will combat such efforts and convince the slaves of dictatorships that they have it better than anyone else.

I am Loyal Democrat.

I will tell all Americans that they had 9/11 coming as retribution for all of our evil deeds inflicted upon members of the most peaceful religion on earth. I will work to undermine any effort to destroy the Islamic tidal wave of terror that has vowed to wash onto our beaches. I will strive to weaken our military as it attempts to carry out its mission overseas. I shall encourage total surrender to any foe that threatens us.

I am Loyal Democrat.

I shall stir up domestic unrest by separating my fellow citizens into groups, and then I will encourage each group to distrust the next, and convince each that I am their one true friend. Through this magnificent deception, I will rule them all. I will convince minorities that they are inferior, and that they need my special help to succeed in life. Once I have them suspicious of others and fully demoralized, I will keep them down, and make their every gain dependent on what I decide to let them do. I shall oppress minorites worse than any avowed racist could ever hope to.

I am Loyal Democrat.

I will make every effort to criticize people that achieve, to hinder those that aspire, and ridicule those that display self-worth. In spite of my lack of personal merit, I will elevate myself in the eyes of others by bringing people with actual character down. I will prey on people's envy of others' success, and I will gain undeserved power as a result. I will take from those that earn until they lose the motivation to build up mankind any longer.

I am Loyal Democrat.

I will promote the tyranny of socialism, and crush the only economic system that has advanced mankind. And when we are all financially destitute and controlled by an omnipotent government, I shall laugh at the destruction I have wrought, for I truly hate mankind.

I am Loyal Democrat.

Give the Iraqi Police a Chance

By Tim Kilbride
Special to American Forces Press Service

WASHINGTON, Feb. 7, 2007 - Despite ongoing violence and intimidation around the country, Iraq's police forces are steadily growing in numbers and professionalism, the U.S. Army general who oversees Iraqi police training said today.

U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Kenneth Hunzeker, who previously served on the Joint Staff and commanded the 1st Infantry Division as it returned to the United States from Germany, assumed control of Multinational Security Transition Command Iraq's Civilian Police Assistance Training Team in October.

During a telephone question-and-answer session with bloggers and online journalists today, Hunzeker explained that his organization is working to help the Iraqi government, specifically the Ministry of Interior, assume sole control of the Iraqi National Police, the Department of Border Enforcement, and the chiefs of police and forces of Iraq's 18 provinces.

"We've trained and equipped them, and now we're trying to go to the next level with different training programs and different initiatives," Hunzeker said. "What I see on a daily basis is great leaders, great 'shertas' (police officers), putting their lives on the line and truly becoming a more professional force."

Recruitment figures among police forces have climbed throughout most of the country, Hunzeker said. In a televised briefing earlier in the day he noted, "We have trained more than 200,000 policemen and women, more than 19,000 above our target goal." However, he said, the effort is affected by underlying stability in each province.

"In the troubled areas -- it's those six provinces you hear about all the time where there's a lot of violence and the like -- that's truly your challenge as you go through this. Recruiting there is not at the numbers we would like," he told the online journalists, but, he noted, "we're still fairly successful."

Recruitment numbers in Anbar province have jumped recently, a change Hunzeker credited to increased rallying efforts by Marine expeditionary forces in the region and provincial sheiks, whose attitudes by way of insurgent violence he described as "I'm not going to take it any more."

Hunzeker said coalition forces are working with Anbar police chiefs to rapidly build the capacity to support and utilize the new strength, with results quickly becoming manifest.

"I think you're seeing the effects of it on the ground," he said. "I think we have turned the corner in al Anbar in many ways."

In Iraq's 12 mostly peaceful provinces, the general pointed to steady progress in institutionalizing law and order. "We're beginning to establish the rule of law, and the prisons and the courts are catching up, and the policemen are the action arm there," he said.

Enabling an effective, loyal and independent police force at the provincial level is essential to standing up the national government, Hunzeker explained.

"When you talk about the 18 different provinces and the 18 different police chiefs that exist out there, ... they clearly are in charge," he said. "They sit as the police chiefs for those provinces based upon the provincial councils that exist, so they have the ability to hire and fire out there. And it becomes their province and their police, which is so powerful when you talk about a unity government and the 18 different provincial governments underneath it."

Hunzeker extended his support for the Iraqi police in his description of Iraqi Interior Minister Jawad Bolani.

"He clearly gets it, and he's part of the solution, and he is the future of Iraq when it comes to what we're doing for Iraqi security forces," Hunzeker said. "He's dedicated; he's honest; and he doesn't take any nonsense when it comes to misbehavior."

Relaying a statement from Bolani about the forces under him, Hunzeker said, "Every day they make sacrifices for their country, where they are on duty serving and protecting their citizens despite all the challenges facing them."

Responding to allegations of militia infiltration within Iraqi police forces, Hunzeker framed the problem more as one of "intimidation" than infiltration, calling it a "gray area." He explained the difference in the Iraqis' perspective between "good militia and the bad militia."

"It's clearly a challenge," he added.

Hunzeker said that militias historically stand up to fill a security void. "Once the security forces are up and the numbers, and they have the faith and confidence of the electorate and the people of Iraq, then those militias will go away," he predicted.

The general admitted the pace in Iraq can be frustrating, likening it to "turning the aircraft carrier into the wind a little bit in some cases," but added, "Change is taking place."

Hunzeker explained that Iraq does not have a culture of immediacy and that the police force is standing up against a history of corruption and neglect under Saddam Hussein. However, he cautioned, "If it's going to be an Iraqi solution, it's got to be their way, and it's got to be their solution."

In spite of the challenges, Hunzeker expressed optimism that the Iraqi police will continue to grow in strength and professionalism.

"They are absolutely so positive, so incredibly upbeat, recognizing that, you know, they are the future of Iraq," he said. "They get it, so we better get it."

(Tim Kilbride is assigned to American Forces Information Service.)

[Web Version: http://www.defenselink.mil/News/NewsArticle.aspx?ID=2969]

2007 Beer Study

Sad news about beer.

You have to hope that this study is flawed, but the evidence seems irrefutable.

Yesterday, scientists suggested that the results of a recent analysis revealed the presence of female hormones in beer, and suggested that men should take a look at their beer consumption.

The theory is that drinking beer makes men turn into women.

To test the theory, 100 men were each fed 6 pints of beer within a one-hour period. It was then observed that 100% of the men:

a. Gained weight.
b. Talked excessively without making sense.
c. Became overly emotional.
d. Couldn't drive.
e. Failed to think rationally.
f. Argued over nothing.
g. Had to sit down while urinating.
h. Showed no interest in sex.
i. Refused to apologize when wrong.

No further testing is planned.