ENGLOPHOBIA

Yesterday, as I was commuting home on the train, I wound up in a disgreement with another commuter, and that argument got me thinking, which of course, led me to the latest installment of my blog. Our disagreement centered around the State of New Jersey, and the recent ruling from Supreme Court regarding "civil unions" (the PC term for homosexuals marrying one another). It ended abruptly when he said that I was "homophobic". It appears to me, that if you disagree with the agenda of "Queer Nation", your automatically labeled as homophobic. Although homophobia and homophobic may be "real words", it seems that nobody ever uses those terms correctly.

Thus, begins my little English lesson. When the suffix -phobia or -phobic is added to a word, it means that you have an intense and abnormal fear of *something*, i.e. aquaphobia is the fear of drowning. So, when my "friend" called me homophobic, he is asserting that I have an intense and abnormal fear of homosexuals. And in my own defense, that is not the case. I know when to duck when they are trying to hit me with their purse. If you TRULY suffer from homophobia, you will spend your days locking your doors and windows hoping that fairies -- male fairies -- won't break in and touch your bottom. Suffering from homophobia, you fear that while walking down the street, you would be kidnapped by homosexuals, and turned into a homosexual at some homosexual ranch.

Contrary to the opinion of the Washington Post and New York Times, disagreeing with the agenda "Queer Nation" does not make you homophobic.

ENGLOPHOBIA therefore, thus, and ipso-facto is the intense and abnormal fear of speaking ENGLISH. Many of us seem to have acquired it.

Permit me to offer some examples.

1. Homosexuals. Since I started this blog entry with them, might as well use it again here. When did homosexuals start referring to themselves as "gay" or "gays" and not homosexuals? In every current dictionary, gay is defined as happy, elated, joyous. The term homosexuals comes from the Greek root word homos which means the same. Isnt that what homosexuals are? They are sexually attracted to the same gender. How did the term "gay" come to mean the same thing?

Lets have another example, shall we..?

2. Relief. Not to long ago, relief was monetary aid given to people who were in need of financial help and who had suffered some sort of catastrophic incident, and needed the relief. These people were said to be "on relief". Relief evolved into welfare. But, eventually that had such a negative stereotype, they changed the word again. Do you know what welfare is called today? C'mon. Take a guess. Okay, I will tell you. It's called entitlement [insert uncontrollable chuckle here]. Entitlement. Can you believe that? These people now think that they are ENTITLED to your money! By using that term, these slobs now believe they have a right to YOUR money although they are physically capable of working and choose not to. While your working hard supporting your family, these slobs are sitting at home eating Doritos, drinking beer, and watching "Judge Judy" after having attached themselves to the nipple on your wallet. How do you like that? YOU owe THEM. Pretty soon, entitlement and entitled will wear out its welcome. What then will be their new term? "Profit Sharing"?

How about...

3. WetBack. Wetback is used to characterize an illegal immigrant. Where does wetback come from? It's a descriptive and factual term about someone who is wet because they had to forge the Rio Grande River to enter this country illegally. But now, wetback has become "Undocumented Guest Worker" [another chuckle].

What's next? Since our country and mainstream media have come down with a case of Englophobia, and we have to use other words and languages to communicate. Whats next?

Will the term "rape" become "Unencouraged Physical Affection"
Will "bank robbery" become "Unauthorized Cash Withdrawal" or perhaps, "Armed Unauthorized Cash Withdrawal"
Will "kidnapping" become "Unexpected Detention Travel"

This is political cancer and we need to cure it..NOW!

Remember, ignorance is curable. STUPID is forever!

8 Reasons The Clintons Will Be Back In The White House

Let's cut right to the chase: Hillary Clinton is running for the United States presidency in 2008. She has been running for nearly ten years now. She's always been running. And though it makes me physically ill to consider a Hillary presidency, she's got a damn good shot at winning. She's already a lock for a sizable portion of the Democrat base. The Left adores her. Her word is gospel. Even if she were speaking Martian, her paragraphs at any Democrat fundraiser could well be punctuated with the crowd rejoicing, "Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!" If only it weren't already trademarked by the Bush-loving, right wing, Jesus-freak propaganda machine! Oh, and Halliburton.

But she must turn her attention to the only niche demographic that matters - the Undecideds. The white, Independent, middle to upper-middle class swing voters. From Eleanor Clift of MSNBC: Not offending party regulars while courting independents is the key to winning, a balancing act requiring more skill than conviction.

Translation: For Hillary to succeed, she must continue to excite her base at party fundraisers with the constant, baseless chatter about the Bush administration's lies, etc. etc., while at the same time ensuring that she can effectively bullshit her way to the politically safe middle-ground on touchstone issues. Meaning: She's not going to take a stand on anything.

And she'll do just that. And she'll win. For these reasons:

1. She's a woman. The argument here among left to middle voters is that, "It's time for a woman." What the hell this means, I have no idea. But Hillary can and will appeal to the novelty quotient of swing voters. Though this notion of building one's initial voting decision on the pretense of a candidate's gender is both ludicrous and dangerous, many registered Independents will find novelty purely in the fact that Mrs. Clinton pees sitting down.
2. She's a victim. Hillary is a survivor. Independent women will side with the scorned woman. She weathered the storm of a cheating husband (Bonus: somehow he emerged as a victim too!). Hillary is viewed as tough for her commitment to her marriage through the most heinous of marital wrongs - infidelity. Though I personally view this as ideologically moronic and nothing more than a stunt to further her political career, she will pull at the heart strings of white, middle class, Desperate Housewives-loving women (and panty-wearning men) who have been victims or, in their eyes, might as well have been.
3. She has star power - a marquee name. She's a Clinton. Much like the Kennedy's, the Clinton's possess an immense amount of invincibility in their name alone. Conversely, the most notable and famous of Republicans include the mere likes of Guiliani and McCain. Not exactly household names.
4. She has the entire establishment media on her side. Again, like the Kennedy's, the establishment media - ABC, NBC, CNN, et. al. - will not hold her accountable or call her to task for anything. Ever. In the quote-unquote press conference that Patrick Kennedy held just after his (ahem!) vehicular malfunction several months ago, whereby no conferencing was conducted and no questions asked or answered, Mr. Kennedy deftly established a basis by which any future media scrutiny about said event could be quickly deflected with a terse, "I've already answered those questions." Likewise, Mrs. Clinton's press conferences are nothing more than diatribes to lay a similar foundation for defense against any future media inquiry.
5. She's immune from having a position on anything. You cannot be a viable presidential candidate without being vague, says Matt Bennett, of the Democratic centrist (oxymoron alert!) group Third Way. For a Republican, this advice couldn't be more wrong. For the Left, it's genius. Without the establishment media holding her to account for anything she's said, done, or voted on, she can't be pigeon-holed into this position or that. Brilliant! Without taking a definitive side on anything, she's effectively a moderate.

   Is she for or against abortion? Well I think she said she's for women's rights and that sounds nice.

   Is she for or against higher taxes? Um ... I think she said she's investing in our future ... which is good, right?

   What's her stance on Iraq and ensuring our country's safety? Well she's for the troops - she's definitely proud of the troops. I know that much. And that's good enough for me.

6. Her husband is a beloved, ex-president ... The Left views Hillary's presidency as an encore to Bill's eight years in office (grab the your toilet or garbage can now, please). His post-presidential gallivanting around the world, with more than a few unkind words to spout off about the Bush administration has garnered him praise predictably from the left, but from the center as well. He's charming, charismatic, and able to talk across party lines with frightening ease.
7. ... and a brilliant political strategist. Eleanor Clift also notes that, [Bill] is her best strategist, with a fingertip feel for the electorate that is unrivaled. Slick Willy resonates well not only with his base, but with the registered middle as well. And if he's out stumping for his wife, be assured, there'll be many an eager ear to listen. Well if Bill's personally telling me to vote for her ... who am I to argue?
8. She's not a Republican. The Democrats' challenge is to do one of two things. What they are going to try to do, what they should do, is say nothing except "Had enough?", said Newt Gingrich in a recent TIME magazine interview. Many independents have had enough. The anti-Bush crowd has done too good of a job demonizing the Bush administration. And with a seemingly neverending stream of scandals to boot, Republicans as a whole have taken a lot of collateral damage.

There is no viable Republican candidate who holds a single one of these advantages. The Republicans are imploding. With the war in Iraq gone horribly wrong, the Democrats likely coup of Congress next month, and Bush struggling to successfully deliver the Right's message to the American people, they're fighting just to keep their base. And to gain the approval of an increasingly jaded, inquisitive, well-educated moderate electorate.

The Democrat base is a lock for Hillary. The only piece of the voting pie over which she's fighting is the Independent, swing vote.

It's a tough row to hoe for the Right and barring some inexplicable cosmic event in the next two years, get used to the phrase, "President Hillary Clinton".

The Terrorists and Their Best Friends - Democrats

The Democrats claim they want to treat terrorism as a criminal law problem, but when we give them an American citizen convicted of aiding terrorists — as happened last week — a Democrat judge gives her a slap on the wrist. Let me correct myself. He was going to give her a wrist slap until someone told him that wrist-slapping was banned under the Geneva Conventions, so he let the wrist off with a warning.

Last year, a New York jury found Lynne Stewart guilty of helping her former client, Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman, communicate with his Egyptian-based group of murderous terrorists, appropriately known as "the Islamic Group." The blind sheik needed to instruct his followers to abandon a truce and resume murdering innocents, but he couldn't get the message through because, by sheer coincidence, he was in prison for conspiring to murder innocents here in America by plotting the first World Trade Center bombing. So Stewart and a "translator" met with her former client in prison and took his messages for transmission to his followers in Egypt.

With the full constitutional protections Democrats want for terrorists in Guantanamo, Stewart was convicted by a New York jury last year. This week, Judge John Koeltl — appointed to the bench by President Bill Clinton in 1994 — spurned the prosecution's request for a 30-year sentence and gave Stewart 28 months for being a terrorist's mule.

Now she'll clog up the criminal justice system with endless appeals for the next several years — using procedures that liberals also want for Guantanamo detainees. At Stewart's sentencing, the judge noted that the defendant's actions had not resulted in any deaths.

I'll have to remember that in case I'm ever on trial for attempted murder. "Hey, your honor, did I mention that the guy lived? Yeah, the darn gun jammed on me. Go figure, huh?"

In rejecting a 30-year sentence in favor of a 28-month sentence, the judge commended Stewart for her "public service, not only to her clients, but to the nation" for representing members of the Black Panthers and the Weather Underground. In a sane world, that would have justified a longer sentence, not a shorter one.

If only Democrats could turn the entire war on terrorism over to the courts, they could release terrorists and terrorist sympathizers with wild abandon — and Nancy Pelosi or Hillary Clinton would never have to take a position. When Americans are allowed to vote, a fireman's vote counts as much as George Soros' vote.

But if liberals can just get terrorists into the judicial system, a Clinton-appointed judge can rule on a defense funded by George Soros — precisely what happened in Stewart's case. Note that even in liberal New York City, average citizens on the jury voted to convict Stewart, despite her Soros-funded defense. Democrats run apparently sane candidates for office, like James Webb here in Virginia and Bob Casey in Pennsylvania, who can puff up their chests and pretend they want to pursue terrorists — while carping about any and all military action in the terrorists' general direction. Instead, let's turn terrorists over to courts full of Clinton and Carter judges!

Democratic candidates get to look tough, and the terrorists go scot-free. It would be frightening enough to treat terrorism as a criminal law problem if it were Republicans saying it. But these are Democrats. Their idea of a major criminal case is Tom DeLay's campaign treasurer accidentally depositing a campaign contribution into a checking account rather than a savings account.

By contrast, terrorists imprisoned in Guantanamo for trying to kill Americans must be treated as innocent little lambs. Oh, to be there when Sheik Omar Abdel Rahman is exonerated due to previously unavailable "DNA evidence"! After President Bush signed a law this week providing for military tribunals for terrorists being held at Guantanamo and prohibiting their torture, Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin said, "We will look back on this day as a stain on our nation's history." (Note to Democrats: It's still too soon to use "stain" as a metaphor for a White House brouhaha.) Democrats stood outside the White House shouting "Torture is a crime!" and "Bush is the terrorist!" Yep, these are the people who claim they're going to keep us all safe, America. Is everybody O.K. with that?

Gen. George Washington tried Major John Andre, Benedict Arnold's British co-conspirator, by military tribunal and ordered Andre hanged within 10 days of his capture. Nazi saboteurs, including an American citizen, captured on U.S. soil during World War II were tried in secret by military commission and promptly executed by President Franklin D. Roosevelt.

The Nuremberg trials were a form of military tribunal. But Democrats think military tribunals aren't good enough for the terrorists plotting to kill Americans today. Liberals are going to make the terrorists love us! What better way to start than with criminal trials in front of judges like John Koeltl?