Pakistan Again, The BNP, and Pahrump, Nevada.
Three Pakistani thugs have been jailed for life for the “savage and barbaric” racial murder of teenager Kriss Donald in Glasgow, Scotland. They gouged out this boys eyes, cut off his testicles, stabbed him 13 times and then set him on fire. He was still alive by then, and burned to death. Just as I said in my previous post, we are known by the friends we keep, and these are the sort of “friends” we’ve been allowing into our countries. The Pakistanis are so racist they’ve literally created No-go areas in the city of Glasgow where white people dare not go. Watch it on Youtube, and a Hat Tip to Dazzerman.
In the British Isles, the British National Party, which all the other political parties and the government-owned BBC repeatedly describe as racist, is the only party willing to call the Pakistanis racist and demand action. You can join them here. The BBC and other media always refer to Pakistani criminals as “Asians”, very PC. Only the BNP has the courage (and they do get persecuted for it by the British government) to call the Pakistanis what they are.
“Kriss’s mother Angela Donald cried: “You bastards,” as the verdicts against her son’s killers were delivered. Outside court she thanked those who had helped bring about the convictions for the “hellish murder”. “Justice has been done,” she said, while clutching her daughter Samantha. “Thank you. It is over”, while the big, burly murderers of a small boy took turns grinning into the television cameras as they entered a police van.
Lord Uist said Kriss was selected as their victim only because he was white and walking in a certain part of Pollokshields.”
Lee Rowland, an ACLU staff lawyer from Las Vegas, has responded to my post on Pahrump, NV, which passed an ordinance directly against illegal aliens, in which he’s named in a news article as threatening the town with a lawsuit. He claims that he was just being nice, advising them “in good faith” that they’ll be sued if they enact the law. You can read it all here.
Lisa Rasmussen, a board member of the Nevada ACLU. says “There’s no doubt about it, People have a right, as much as we don’t like it, to fly … any flag they wish.” She goes on to comment that the people of Pahrump are “totally nuts”.
Does anyone besides me think that it’s totally nuts for the Nevada ACLU to be wasting its resources on this flag issue that the Pahrump town council itself says won’t be enforced, instead of suing the U.S. Government to enforce border security and protect our borders as our Constitution requires? Lee Roland says that I raise an “interesting issue” that the Civil Rights of American citizens are being infringed by leaving our borders unprotected, resulting in a great increase in crimes against us by the illegal invaders. An “interesting issue”? But not as interesting as making sure illegals can fly Mexican flags over ours?
We have a President and members of Congress who are in favor of leaving our borders unguarded in violation of their constitutional oaths, allowing monsters like the 3 Pakistanis to enter unannounced, and the ACLU is leaping to their aid on the pretext of defending America. Our cousins in Great Britain have Tony Blair and the E.U. doing the same thing there.
It’s almost as if they want things to reach the point of war.
November 17th, 2006 at 1:15 am
Tell me again about the love….. the peace…….
*:-.,_,.-:*’“’*:-.,_,.-:*’“’*:-.,_,.-:*
Blessings
http://patriotfiles.org/
*:-.,_,.-:*’“’*:-.,_,.-:*’“’*:-.,_,.-:*
November 17th, 2006 at 1:21 pm
You forget that with the ACLU the civil rights of everybody else comes before the rights of the majority U.S. citizens. They are anti-American and PC to the point of being dangerous to this country. And yes I agree with you, if they were doing the job that they supposedly were set up to do, they would be suing the government for border control. But with the ACLU the rights of the ‘poor immigrants who just want to come here to work’ comes before U.S. citizens. I hate that organization. They are more concerned with taking down crosses an any sign of the Christian religion in the United States. Do you ever see they complaining about a Jewish symbol of an Islamic symbol? Pahrump! Nope.
November 18th, 2006 at 9:16 pm
Debbie, towns don’t often put up Islamic symbols on public property. Otherwise I guess you probably would.
The real question is how passing a law that says that legal, non-immigrant Americans (like you and me) aren’t allowed to fly, let’s say, a British flag over their home on Guy Fawkes Day. Or a French flag on Bastille Day. Looking at this website, I see pieces of the flags of five different different countries (Nazi Germany, Turkey, the United Kingdom, Denmark and Israel) posted and not a single American flag. Should that be illegal as well?
Pahrump’s law does nothing to impact illegal immigration and merely would prevent legal Americans from flying flags on their own property, should they want to. This sort of law has the taste of big government intruding into what I do on my own land with my own money. As a conservative, I find it exceedingly distasteful.
What are the benefits of this law?
November 18th, 2006 at 9:29 pm
Bah, the first sentence of my second paragraph didn’t make sense. I never proofread and this, of course, is the result. It should read something like this:
The real question is how passing a law that says that legal, non-immigrant Americans (like you and me) aren’t allowed to fly (let’s say, a British flag over your home on Guy Fawkes Day, or a French flag on Bastille Day) helps anyone?
November 18th, 2006 at 11:44 pm
You guess Debbie would put up an Islamic symbol on public property? What? You don’t know her very wel.
It would help if you’d read things through. That law doesn’t stop anyone from flying any flag. It just says that if you want to fly a foreign flag, you have to fly the U.S. flag above it. The law will probably be found unconstitutional. That’s not the point. It’s a reaffirmation of American values, of America First when you’re in America. It’s a small town standing up and saying Don’t Tread On Me.
I can’t find any fault with that. The ACLU obviously finds enough fault with it to threaten and raise hell. I find fault with the ACLU for doing that. If that were the only issue facing America today, that would be fine. It’s not. There are so many far more important ways in which the ACLU should be defending America. Instead they choose to jump on silly crap like this.
About your comment on “The friends we keep”, you find the stats on sexual assaults in Pakistan “without merit” because they don’t indicate a worse problem than we have here? Why must their problem be worse to achieve merit? Just asking.
I’m beginning to wonder if you just like to argue.
November 19th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Ha, I don’t know Debbie, I was responding to the last line of her post. She said: “Do you ever see they [the ACLU] complaining about a Jewish symbol of an Islamic symbol?” To this I responded: “towns don’t often put up Islamic symbols on public property. Otherwise I guess you probably would [see them complaining].” I’ve added some words to make my response clearer. Again, that lack of proofreading tends to get me in trouble.
“The law will probably be found unconstitutional.”
This is the reason that they should “raise hell.” Laws that are unconstitutional are a threat to our entire governmental system. Unconstitutional laws should be removed from the books as quickly as possible. It’s hardly worth having a Constitution if we’re going to pass laws that aren’t in accordance with it and then leave them lying around. I’m happy when anybody complains about any unconstitutional law, ACLU or otherwise. Generally the fewer laws that we have, the better.
You keep saying that the ACLU should be focused on bigger targets, but I’m not really clear on what those targets should be. The ACLU tends to do exactly what they’re doing here, going after laws and actions that are unconstitutional. You want the government to stop more people at the border? So do I, I’m with you. Let’s quadruple the border guard. Let’s put up a fence the entire length of the border, BOTH borders. These are political issues. Not putting up a fence isn’t unconstitutional. Not hiring more border guards isn’t unconstitutional. These are things that we can vote for, but that can’t be accomplished through lawsuits. The ACLU has nothing to do with these political decisions. We do, through elections.
“I’m beginning to wonder if you just like to argue.”
I get the feeling that we both do.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:24 am
Arguement only works well when both parties have done their footwork first. By that I mean statements like this: “You keep saying that the ACLU should be focused on bigger targets, but I’m not really clear on what those targets should be.”
Printed all through the original posts on this subject are the things the ACLU should be focused on. The ACLU is promoting the Islamic agenda and it’s moved to the Far Left so badly that a good portion of it’s membership has either left it or is demanding a change in leadership or both. As I said, it helps to read things through.
“The ACLU has nothing to do with these political decisions. We do, through elections.” I’m sorry. That’s just flat out bullshit. Read the posts again.
You are clearly a supporter of the ACLU. I’m clearly not. My concern is with the very real threat of Islam and anything that helps them along, like the ACLU. All anyone has to do is look at the causes the ACLU supports, the methods it uses to support them and the specific groups it targets as well as those it supports. If you can do that and still stay a supporter of that corrupt organisation, there’s no point in further discussion between us.
November 19th, 2006 at 1:56 am
Ha, the ACLU has supported all sorts of awful organizations. Most people point to the Neo Nazis in Skokie as the most objectionable thing they’ve done. You’re more concerned about Islamofascism, so it’s unlikely that you’ll agree with that.
Anyway, this all comes back to my basic question for you. I’m a conservative. I assume that you are as well. As a conservative, I try to prevent the government from telling me what to do, especially on my own property. I just have an exceedingly difficult time coming up with any reason why the government should be able to tell me what sort of flag I can fly over my own home that I purchased with my own money. This is the sort of liberal meddling into how we run our own homes that I lobby against.
As an American who thinks the government should stay out of my business, this sort of law is truly ugly to me. Why isn’t it ugly to you? Do you really like the government telling you what you can put up on your own land at your own home?
November 19th, 2006 at 2:47 am
I WATCHED THAT VIDEO FROM SCOTLAND ABOUT THAT POOR KID. SICKENING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THE MORE I SEE OF THIS SHIT, THE MORE I REALIZE OUR GOVERMENTS IN THE WEST ARE LACKING THE FORTITUDE TO DO THE RIGHT THING. WHATS LEFT? DO WE THE PEOPLE HAVE TO ENFORCE THE LAW? IF THIS KIND OF CRAP KEEPS GOING ON, WE WILL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
November 19th, 2006 at 3:54 am
Osons, that is happening. Local governments, meaning communities of PEOPLE, have been taking action on their own. The Minutemen for example. Various towns and cities. Gatherings of concerned citizens. Our central government has gotten too old, large and cumbersome and it moves too slowly most of the time now.
And Pick Up, since you insist on being specious, this is my last comment for you. Nice try, and have a great weekend.
November 19th, 2006 at 5:50 am
Sadly, I’m not being specious. You are, of course, welcome to not respond.
November 20th, 2006 at 2:55 am
For general consumption…. Pick Up is NOT a conservative. Conservatives uniformly HATE the ACLU, which is well known to be a Left-Wing organization that wants to stomp out any hint of Christianity anywhere in public. They don’t bother with other religions, just Christianity.
You won’t find a Conservative anywhere who would object to that Pahrump flag law that requires Old Glory to be flown ABOVE or LARGER than the flag of another nation if one is publicly displayed.
He wants a government that will stay out of his business? Why? What is he up to? The whole point in having governments is to be monitored by them. This is where police come from.
It was the police in Scotland who caught the murderers of that poor kid. Would anarchy be a better way?
You know what they say about bullshit. It makes the grass grow green.
November 20th, 2006 at 9:39 pm
Before you start reading this, the words in italics are inserted by yours truly, Rastaman. Try not to vomit on your keyboard. Carry on….
Those of you who agree with this Pahrump ordinance make me nervous. The ordinance does NOT just stop “the illegals” from flying their favorite flags– it stops EVERYONE.
Bah humbug. It does NOT. The ordinance clearly states that the American Flag comes before those of other nations, here in America, and if you want to fly the Fwench fwag, go ahead, but the US flag goes with it, higher and larger. In reality, the creators of this ordinance readily admit that the flag part is very likely unconstitutional and that they have no intention of trying to enforce it, and this has been publicised in every single article on this law that I can find, and you’ve read this the same as I have. They only did it to wake people up to the need for more American Patriotism and you know it.
Why do I, as a patriotoc American citizen, BULLSHIT have to be compelled by my Government to fly one flag above another? Are you ACLU-haters that insecure in the motives of your countrymen that you must have laws mandating the means of everyone’s patriotic expression? I’m an American citizen, same as you, and I have a Constitutionally-protected right to express myself. If I want to fly a Canadian flag on Canada Day, who are you to tell me I can’t? Sounds more like Nazi Germany than the good ol’ US of A.
This person sure sounds suspiciously like our friend Pick Up.
And here’s another part of the Pahrump ordinance you may have missed. The law makes it illegal to give money to an illegal immigrant. Now, this is SERIOUS bullshit Let me say that again– illegal to GIVE money. If I see a homeless person on the street, here in my (supposedly) free country, and I want to give that person a couple of bucks for a hot meal, I risk being charged with a crime. BULLSHIT We’re talking about my individual choice to “commit an act of charity”… Tell me again, how are you ACLU-haters more patriotic than me?
Well, at least we don’t spout more bullshit than you. You lie. Provide links to verify or shut up. The law denies any town benefits to illegals, that’s all. You can give money to anyone in Pahrump. Go run over there and give some wetback your firstborn, no one cares.
Another aspect of the Pahrump ordinance makes it a crime to provide city services to illegals. Well, Pahrump does not offer much in the way of city services that an illegal immigrant might use, and the ringleader of the ordinance was asked what kinds of services might fall under the ordinance. He listed “parks”, and a few other unlikely services as falling within the ordinance. So, by my reckoning, this means that the Pahrump government will be empowered to sweep the parks, scanning for those of darker skin, or those speaking Spanish, and asking to see their “papers”. Those found wanting can be arrested right on the spot. How do you say Kristallnacht in Spanish?
Bullshit, Senor? Toro poo? Esta uno Jackass Liberal?
What’s next for you people? Arrests for NOT displaying Old Glory? Legalized warrantless searches of your home by the military (hey, if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to be afraid of, right?)? Mandatory membership in the Nazi (er,… Republican) party?
WOOOPS! There it is, right there! Left-Wing Liberal ACLU lover, kissy kissy. Doesn’t it hurt your back being bent over like that all the time? How many Korans do you own now?
The purpose of this blog is to wake people up to the global threat of Islam. It would be good to stay on the subject. There are plenty of other blogs which would love to host long rants about the awfulness of people who want to promote patriotism and awareness. Share your feelings with them.
December 7th, 2006 at 5:45 pm
Asian in my experience is a generic term used to describe all “brown” people, introduced by the Pakistani community when they realised that to be known as “Pakistani” inevitably was to be known as a “Paki” which was used in a derogatory manner. Therefore it seemed a good idea to associate themselves with the rest of the sub-continent due to the higher status of India.
I have noticed a growing number of Christian, Hindus and Sikh Indians who do not want to be associated with Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslims and want this to be acknowledged by the British in a separate manner as they see themselves as totally separate to the ‘inferior’ uneducated Muslim community.
The politically correct, liberal elite media and the Blair government usually use the term “Asian”, when something bad happens like the recent bombings and terrorist suspects, as they’ll never say its the Muslims, as they feel they might offend them. Which I find stupid, as the rest of the so called Asian community will also fit in with that category, obviously its not fair on the other law abiding brown skinned citizens. You simply cannot refer to Islam which is so ethnically diverse as Asian. That is why I as reasonable person can support the Hindu forum and Vishwa Hindu Parishad (UK) in wanting to be called Hindu and not Asian. The Pakistanis simply don’t have a monopoly on the word ‘Asian’ I mean Israelis, Russians, Koreans and Sri Lankan’s also are technically ‘Asian’ and yet once again the Islamic loving media use the term when they have clear information that the perpetrators are Pakistani or Bengali, what does tell us of whose sensibilities they are trying to protect!
Again, the murder of Kriss by 3 Muslim (Pakistani decent) individuals again was reported as “Asian youthsâ€. Can’t the press see how clearly inaccurate this is and potentially racist?
Here is an interesting comment I saw on a BBC forum which for me highlights the growing dissatisfaction of the media’s bias towards Islam:
Brown people up North = Muslim. brown people down South = Sikhs & Hindus. Totally different. But some people need to lump them all together so they come up with a term for it = Asian. Those whites from up north then get jobs in London in media & politics. The Sikhs and Hindus then have to listen to news broadcasts about how the ‘Asians’ suffer high unemployment, do badly in schools, family marriage (totally distasteful to Sikhs who search surnames going back 3 generations on prospective brides & grooms to ensure there is not even a minute distant chance of being related in any way), make up a high percentage of the prison populations and live in overcrowded housing. Obviously the Sikh and Hindu down south, who officially have Britain’s highest rate of home ownership, highest academic achievement rate, highest affluence rate, can’t help but wonder what connection he/she has to the so-called ‘Asian’ identity, of up north.