So, they've re-written our national anthem, and they are trying to close down American cities.

obviously this is an attempt to take over America. You can't do either of the things listed above (let alone both) and logically argue this is anything less...

These are not attempts to become Americans, they are full blown attempts to destroy America...

Oh, for the record, the Spanish version of the anthem is NOT a translation. It's also been re-written. Lines include the following:

We are brothers in our anthem.

My people fight on.

The time has come to break the chains.

Which sounds more like a modern call to rial up those of who are not American English speakers. Which again is consistent with the take-over as sighted above...

This article contains one of the most hypocritical and self centered arguments I've seen quoted in a long time. Emily Villagrana made this statement, and it speaks for itself, though the rest of the article makes this statement look even worse. As a lead in the article is concerning a protest of getting Coke removed from UCLA because it employs workers in Columbia, where a civil war is going on.

For now, private corporations are subject to the political realities of whatever government they operate under. How are they expected to provide protection in a war-ravaged country such as Colombia?

'As far as I know, they haven't tried anything,' Villagrana said.

I suggested that her knowledge might be augmented by listening to Coca-Cola's defenders at the meeting, rather than attempting to physically silence their free speech. 'You're entitled to believe that,' she said.

Ya know, if you want to fight for something, try to have a logical argument before you do. Statements such as these make the argument more of a self centered attention grab than anything resembling a logical argument. And when the argument is made without giving opposers of the view the ability to even speak, it pretty much means they have NO basis what-so-ever.


I tend to find people resort to chanting over those with differing views only do so because they honestly know their argument couldn't hold ice, let alone water...

Delta-S is now available on iTunes!  I highly recomend buying this CD, and that recomendation has little to do with the fact that I personally know the artist.  It's sort of an electronic type style, which is a form of music I personally don't listen to, but for some reason this album sounds great.  It's just an emotion filled CD, and the music is very enjoyable overall.  If you're in to exploring new forms of music, by all means give this album a try!

This article has a nice little quote:

We're saying it's not OK to recruit on high school campuses, it's not OK to recruit on university campuses.

That's nice, but how about this: I believe it's not OK for Students Against War to spread their propoganda on university campuses... You probably think my view is wrong but as far as you're concerned, you've already decided your own correct. So as long as you hold your own view, you are in no position to tell me mine is wrong... Doing so would mean you are being Hypocritical, which by default invalidates any claim you try to make.

But it's your choice -- you can either validate my statement by saying nothing, or invalidate your own by saying something... The comment link is below...

Well, there are more illegal immigrant rallies today, and yes, there do appear to me more American flags. Unfortunately I fully expected the extra flags, and it has little to do with what they are protesting for...

It was said last week that in future rallies, organizers would be sure to encourage the use of American flags, not because of what they symbolize or mean, but simply to appease people (such as myself) who were asking for a display representing what they say they are fighting for.

Being that the public outcry is the ONLY reason for the increase in the American flag count, I personally am not appeased. You see, if illegal immigrants want to become Americans, they should have been holding American flags from the get go. The lack of doing so seems to represent that their goal is in fact not to become part of the American society, but to get the full rights Americans get without becoming citizens.

I did read a story that said the use of Mexican flags only represented a union of society, such as the use of Irish flags on St. Patrick's Day. There is only one problem with this analogy: They weren't using the flags on Cinco De Mayo, they were using them on Tres de Abril, which to my knowledge is NOT a Mexican holiday...

I've got absolutely no problem with the use of Mexican flags to represent a Mexican holiday. In fact, if you come by my website on May 5th (EST), you will see my "The Torgo Homepage" graphic on top of every page (except my main page) will in fact be representative of Cinco de Mayo (not a Mexican flag per-se, but a graphic representative of the culture). I actually spent some time cleaning up the found graphic so it looked halfway decent on the page.

BUT, if you are demonstrating in relation to become Americans, then a Mexican (or other nationality) flag is NOT representative of your goal. Or at least the goal you publicly claim to be shooting for... And of course none of this even goes into the reports of Hispanic students attempting to destroy American flags that other students were holding, of which I did hear at least one case of, and possibly more.

Unfortunately the bottom line at this point is that I, and many others, are going to see any attempt for the illegal immigrant demonstrators use of American flags as being disingenuous. Too little, too late... Satisfying public outcry doesn?t mean so much when the original expression seemed to echo a much different message.

It's interesting to note that a new study shows Red Light Cameras Increase Accidents.

So why use them, because they bring in more money, period...

Any time you hear any member of any enforcement board or officer stating they are there for safety, note that they are lying, and studies such as this prove it.

Red light cameras are for making money, anybody who says otherwise is lying and disrespecting you while they do it.

If a hospital were to implement something to save more lives and 41% more people died, you would expect the hospital to stop doing that wouldn't you?

Apparently when it comes to red light cameras, the money is more important than a reduction of accidents...

My only question is how those involved in implementing them can stand there and say they still increase safety???