Thursday, November 09, 2006

"Hooter Girls Thinking" won Nov. 7 election for Dhimmicrats

I was listening to the Joel Riley show on 610 WTVN, election night. Apparently, because they delivered some tasty wings over to the station Tuesday evening, Joel invited two Hooter Girls into the studio for a political discussion.

He asked about their opinions on the state issues, namely gambling, smoking and minimum wage, and the candidates.

Gambling: " We might as well have it here, since everyone just goes to other states to gamble. They're going to gamble anyway. Might as well get an education." No mention of the monopoly the gambling companies would have, the negative effects on society of gambling, and the fact the Ohio Lottery really hasn't done much for funding Ohio schools.

Minimum wage: "Yeah, I'd like to make more money. And I think the poor people who work for minimum wage should get a raise. They haven't had one in a long time." She obviously had no idea of the real impact of raising the minimum wage: higher consumer prices, inflation, unemployment.

Smoking: "I don't really like to work in smoke. It makes my hair all yucky, so I'd vote for the ban." At least she got one right.

The only thing they knew about the candidates was what they saw on television commercials.

The interesting thing about this discussion: neither of these bimbos was registered to vote, and neither planned to vote. Thank God for small favors.

Reminds me of this photo:

"United 93": Let's Roll

I recently received a free copy of United 93 from Progress for America.

PFA is the group, supported by Todd Beamer's Dad, that's produced the "These People Want to Kill Us" ads that have been appearing on television lately. See examples here and here. They've been distributing free DVDs of the film, encouraging us to show it to as many people as we can.

I recently rented it from Blockbuster, but I have a child in my household and it was difficult to find time to watch it. So it went back to the store unviewed.

I watched it today. I wish I had seen it sooner.

The movie is a powerful dramatization about United Airlines Flight 93, the only jihadi-hijacked flight on 9-11-2001 that didn't reach its destination. There's no 'up close and personal' dramatization like a movie of the week -- it's shot documentary style, as if we're casual observers on the day of this attack on America.

I felt myself wanting to punch the hijackers myself during the scene when they passengers rushed the cockpit. It really gets your anti-jihadi blood flowing.

In my mind, this movie puts the hijackers in their place: it shows them as insecure, violent psychopaths; their leader was weak and unsure. Accurate or not, I like it when the propaganda works for the side of good.

Every American needs to see this movie. It'll rile your blood and make you think twice about voting Dhimmicrat ever again.

My favorite line from the movie: "We have to do it now, because we know what happens if we just sit here and do nothing."

God bless the families of the true American heroes who sacrificed their lives to prevent another islamic atrocity.

Fighting Shariah - Bush fantasy speech

From the Washington Post, H/T to Michelle Malkin:

Fighting Shariah
By Diana West
August 25, 2006

What President Bush should say to us, Part 2.
Last week in this space, I presented the first half of the speech President Bush should give to re-direct the war on terror. Here is the second half:

At home, the line of defense is clear. It is our border. My new strategy calls on us to think of our border as more than just a line on a map. We need to see the border as a cultural line also, a defining line of freedom against proponents of Shariah, which, I cannot emphasize enough, poses a direct threat to our founding principles of liberty and equality. It is that simple. There is a crucial military component to the anti-Shariah defensive, which I will outline momentarily. But without taking civil precautions at the border, even a decisive military victory abroad could be nullified by non-violent means at home.

How? Through largely unregulated immigration of peoples from "Shariah states" — those regions whose governing traditions derive, wholly or in some important part, from the edicts of Islam. If such an influx continues, Islamic law will be accommodated, adopted and even legislated, at least in some jurisdictions, according to majority will. We know this to be true because such a "Shariah shift" is already transforming what sociologists call post-Christian Europe into an increasingly Islamic sphere. If we do not want to see such changes here, we must act. Accordingly, I am asking Congress to amend our laws to bar further Islamic immigration, beginning with immigration from Shariah states.

This, the most crucial domestic component of my anti-Shariah program, will undoubtedly be regarded as the most controversial because it necessitates making a definitive judgment against the laws promulgated by Islam, a religion. This may appear to go against our cherished tradition of religious tolerance, not to mention good manners. But if the laws promulgated by Islam directly threaten freedom of conscience, freedom of expression and religion, women's rights, and key concepts of equality — and they do — it is a sign of intellectual rigor mortis not to say so. And I do say so, but, again, not to launch a transformative military or cultural offensive against Islam, but to initiate the mobilization of a defensive movement to prevent the Islamization of American law and liberty.

And what about Iraq? Thanks to American-led coalition troops, a Ba'athist dictatorship has been dismantled, and Iraq is a parliamentary democracy under a new constitution. It is a matter of increasing significance, however, that this new constitution, ratified by the people of Iraq, enshrines Islamic law above all. This means that when the new Iraq joined the ranks of democratic nations, it simultaneously joined the ranks of Shariah states. This may help explain widespread Iraqi sympathy for Hezbollah, for example, the Iranian-supported Shi'ite terrorist group that not only attacks American and Israeli interests, but also seeks the expansion of Shariah. It also begs the question about long-term American support: How, in the war on terrorism, can we uphold a partner that feels solidarity with terrorists?

We cannot — certainly not as a realistic war strategy to safeguard the liberty of the Free World. Once, I saw the war that began on September 11 as dividing the world between those countries that were with us, and those that were against us. I have now come to define the crisis, both cultural and military, as occurring between the Free World and the Shariah World. The centrality of Shariah in Islam is not something Americans can or should try to change. But it is not something we can ignore, either.

With this centrality in mind, our goals in the Middle East should change from, in effect, promoting Shariah-democracy to preventing the export of Shariah and terrorism to advance Shariah. Accordingly, I have directed our military to formulate a plan to redeploy American troops from Iraq's cities, where they have been operating at great risk to attain stability for the Iraqi government, to bases in the north. From there, they may assist as needed in our mission to neutralize the terrorism — and Shariah — exporting capabilities of freedom's enemies in the region. These would include nuke-seeking Iran and Syria, without whose support Hezbollah would not exist, and Saudi Arabia, from whose coffers comes global jihad.

What we call the war on terror now moves into a more focused phase, which better defines our mission and makes it more attainable. The road ahead is long and difficult, but our next steps are clear.

God bless the United States.

Yeah, right. I could see El Presidente giving this speech. When Pigs fly.

He's too much in bed with the domestic jihadists, AKA CAIR, because of Carl Rove's buddy Grover Norquist (who is engaged to a muslim woman, and probably converted to islam). He's the one inside the White House pushing the islamic agenda on Bush & Co.