Category: Obama

College Student to Obama “Hey, Why not legalize drugs and Prostitution to help the economy?”

Posted on

A pretty funny follow up to my last posting. (and now for my next magical trick.. *chuckle* *snicker *grin*)

Here’s the video, which comes via AllahPundit:

Of course, if the United States was Governed by Libertarians; this would already be the case. But as long as we have the nazi fascist religious right running things, there will always be drug laws. But eh, those are the breaks I suppose. Got to give the kid credit, he does have guts, I would have never asked anything like that to a teacher — much less the President! šŸ˜Æ

John Stewart mocks Obama’s speech

Posted on

As much as I hate to admit it. John is kind of right here. (H/T American Glob)

The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon – Thurs 11p / 10c
30,000
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show
Full Episodes		Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

Exit Question #1: Is this the beginning of the left’s mocking of Obama?
Exit Question #2: Anyone else, besides me hear that dude with the silly laugh? He stuck out, I’m sure you did.

Sarah Palin has lost it and her chances of being elected

Posted on1 Comment

Just when you think, that Sarah Palin could not get any lower on the level of stupidity. Something like this comes along. I know many people are wondering why that I wrote the entry earlier about the far right and me; it is stuff like this here.

The Video:

The Transcript:

Humphries: Sarah Palin here on the Rusty Humphries Show. One of the questions Jason asks is would you make the birth certificate an issue if you ran?

Palin: I think the public rightly is still making it an issue. I donā€™t have a problem with that. I donā€™t know if I would have to bothered to make it an issue because I think there are enough members of the electorate that still want answers.

Humphries: Do you think itā€™s a fair question to be looking at?

Palin: I think itā€™s a fair question just like I think past associations and past voting records. All of that is fair game. You know, Iā€™ve got to tell you too, I think our campaign, the McCain-Palin campaign didnā€™t do a good enough job in that area. We didnā€™t call out Obama and some of his associates on their records and what their beliefs were, and perhaps what their future plans were, and I donā€™t think that was fair to voters to not have done our job as candidates and a campaign to bring to light a lot of things that now weā€™re seeing manifest in the administration.

Sarah Palinā€™s God-awful grasp of the English Language aside, the woman has veered into territory that even I do not care to defend anymore. I am glad to see that I am not the only one that feels the way. It appears that even Theocratic Blogs like this one agree with me:

The most charitable possible reading of this interview is that Palin is saying ā€œturn about is fair playā€ and if irrational questions are going to be asked about the birth of her baby, then she will ask irrational questions about the birth the president.

First, President Obama did not ask those questions and so it would not similar for the Republican nominee to ask ā€œbirtherā€ questions of him.

Second, for a Christian two wrongs not only donā€™t make a right, but actually are just more wrong. There is the whole issue of, well, the Golden Rule as well.

Third, asking whether Obama is born in the United States is not a ā€œfair question,ā€ because there is no credible evidence he was not born in the United States. You cannot ask a fair question when your questions is based only on a desire to do damage equal to that done to you by another.

The conservative movement must reject a populism that amounts to mob rule. Our founding fathers believed in reason and hated demagoguery. The notion that it there is any fair way to questions the Presidentā€™s place of birth is beyond the pale.

Birtherism is insanity and if embraced by our nominee destroy the party of Lincoln, McKinley, Roosevelt, Coolidge, and Reagan.

Palin should clarify this quote quickly, repudiate birtherism, and birtherism as a tactic, or I predict she will be finished as a serious presidential candidate. And she should be.

I agree with the above wholeheartedly. The only people that still believe that Obama is not a citizens are people like Oraly Taitz; who is, by the way, a rabid Zionist and a person who hates anything remotely Arabic; not to mention an conspiracy theorist. This was proven when MSNBC tried to send a driver for her interview with that network and she told the driver to leave, because he had an Arab sounding name.

If Sarah Palin wants to go this road, she is finished with the Republican Party, because that party has no patience for this sort of idiotic nonsense. President Barack Obama is many things, but he is not a terrorist, nor is he an illegal alien. Anyone who still believes this is a damn fool. I think Sarah Palin needs to either issue an apology or leave the political scene for good. If she does not, she will not be even remotely considered a contender for the 2012 election, which, as for as I concerned would be a very good thing. We just do not need a theocratic candidate in the White House at all.

Update: Hmmmmmmm…..

Chris Matthews walks the cat backward

Posted on

Good on Chris Matthews, He quickly realized his gaffe and corrected it.

The Video via News Busters:

Far be it from me to be the one to praise a liberal; but sometimes, it is due. Matthew realized what he has said and the possible implications for it and quickly corrected himself. Honestly? I do not think he meant any sort of malice, it was just a way of putting something; but a way that someone could possibly get offended at. So, he fixed it and good on him for doing so.

On the President’s Speech

Posted on

Okay, I finally am able to get around to writing about the speech and announcement gave by the President on the new troop levels in Afghanistan. First off, in the interest of full disclosure; I did not listen to the entire speech. I was doing something else and realized the speech was on and I turned it on, when the President was giving his speech. I heard over half of the speech; but I heard enough to tell you what I think about it, without in partisan spin or Republican talking points.

First off, it seemed to me that the President was selling the idea of the additional troops to the left. Barring the standard talking points of the far right and of the Fox News/Sean Hannity crowd; that there was not enough of them, that he was dithering and so forth, I really did not have an issue with what was being proposed. My feeling is this — We will simply have to wait and see. Iraq was cut and dry, Afghanistan is very different horse of a different color. There are more issues at hand and I suspect that this mission is going to be a bit more difficult. There are some on the right, which think we should just roll up, pull out, and not make the same mistake as Russia made in that area back in the 1980ā€™s. That way, when the Taliban takes back over and Al-Qaeda hits America again, the Republican Party will be able to blame the Democrats; thereby destroying their credibility. Personally, I believe that is a sick mentality, but there are those on the right that feel that way, I know, I have read the comments sections of their blogs.

As for the people of Afghanistan; they were less then impressed by the bluster of the President:

Thirty thousand more U.S. troops for Afghanistan? Esmatullah only shrugged.

“Even if they bring the whole of America, they won’t be able to stabilize Afghanistan,” said the young construction worker out on a Kabul street corner on Wednesday morning. “Only Afghans understand our traditions, geography and way of life.”

[ā€¦.]

Shopkeeper Ahmad Fawad, 25, said it would not help.

“The troops will be stationed in populated areas where the Taliban will somehow infiltrate and then may attack the troops,” he said. “Instead of pouring in more soldiers, they need to focus on equipping and raising Afghan forces, which is cheap and easy.”

For many, the prospect of more troops meant one thing: more civilian deaths.

“More troops will mean more targets for the Taliban and the troops are bound to fight, and fighting certainly will cause civilian casualties,” Ahmad Shah Ahmadzai, a former Afghan prime minister, told Reuters.

“The civilian casualties will be further a blow to the U.S. image and cause more indignation among Afghans.”

“It was a very wonderful speech for America … but when it comes to strategy in Afghanistan there was nothing really new which was disappointing,” she told Reuters from her home.

“It seems to me that President Obama is very far away from the reality and truth in Afghanistan. His strategy was to pay lip-service, and did not focus on civilians, nation-building, democracy and human rights.”

Other Afghans, hardened by decades of war and wary of foreign forces whom have for years fought proxy battles in Afghanistan, were skeptical of the United States’ intentions.

Kabul money changer Ehsanullah wondered why U.S. forces had managed to find former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, but had yet to locate Al Qaeda head Osama bin Laden or Taliban leader Mullah Mohammad Omar, who both fled U.S. troops in Afghanistan in 2001.

“This is part of America’s further occupation of Afghanistan,” he said. “America is using the issue of insecurity here in order to send more troops.”

There is no two ways about it; President Obama is got his work cut out for him for the next year. He does make a very decent salary as President. Do not be deceived to think that he will not be working for it. Because now the President is out of the frying pan and into the fire, this is where his job is going to get very interesting.

I just hope, for Americaā€™s sake, that the President knows what he is doing.

Guest Voice: Homeland Security Or Homeland Enslavement? by Chuck Baldwin

Posted on

By now, most readers are familiar with the story of how a Virginia couple, Michaele and Tareq Salahi, crashed the White House State Dinner last Tuesday evening. President and Mrs. Obama were entertaining Indian Prime Minister
Manmohan Singh in the first official State Dinner of the new administration. The Salahis were not on the invited guest list, but were still allowed to walk right into the White House. They even had face-to-face conversations with both President Obama and Vice President Joe Biden. Photographs of the Salahis with the President and Vice President have been published in numerous newspapers and on hundreds of web sites.

I wonder if the American people are thinking this episode through? Think of it: in the post-9/11 world, a world that has invented the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), body scanners, retina readers, the Patriot Act, hundreds of laws and regulations restricting the freedoms and liberties of the American people, thousands of cameras photographing our public movements, and satellite spy devices, a couple can walk right into the White House and meet the President and Vice President without being invited!

Is there something wrong with this picture, or what?

I well remember what I had to go through when I was an invited guest of then-Vice President George H. W. Bush at the White House. My wife and I joined several others for a luncheon with Vice President Bush and his wife, Barbara. Later that day, we were in a crowd of several hundred who got to meet President Ronald Reagan. Needless to say, security was tight.

Upon arriving, we had to show the proper credentials to White House security, along with a photo ID and the personal invitation that had been sent to us ahead of time. I remember how some of the folks who had actually received invitations were denied entrance due to bureaucratic mix-ups or unintentional lapses in proper protocols. And these were people who really did have an invitation to be there. I can tell you this: there was absolutely no way that an uninvited person could have gained access to the White House that day. And remember: that was nearly two decades BEFORE 9/11!

That an uninvited couple could be granted access to the President and Vice President in this day and time is more than a “fluke.” It betrays something much deeper.

For the last 8 years, the American people have been told they must sacrifice certain liberties in order that the federal government might protect them. And for the most part, the American people have been happy to accommodate
this incessant intrusion into their personal liberties. They know the feds are monitoring their emails, personal phone conversations, and even their personal letters when received from overseas. They have sat silently as their banking institutions have monitored and reported virtually any and all financial transactions to the federal government. In today’s super-security world, one cannot even cash a check without showing the bank teller his or her driver’s license, which is recorded and made available to the feds. Sometimes, we are even required to provide our thumbprints. Beyond that, even certain service personnel that must come into our homes to provide in-home repair services, home inspections, or general services are oftenrequired to report what they see to various law enforcement authorities. All
of this is done in the name of “national security.”

All the while, America’s federal buildings today more resemble castles of ancient Europe than they do buildings that house the people’s servants. Concrete barriers along with super-reinforced, “bomb proof” structures remind one of castles of old, with their guard towers and crocodile-filled moats. Today, people must walk through metal-detectors and surrender their pocketknives to even visit their local supervisor of elections office (or just about any other public office, for that matter). Again, this is all done under the rubric of “homeland security.”

In the name of “national security,” veterans who have been accused of some kind of domestic disturbance or who have affirmatively answered an ambiguous question on a VA form regarding whether they have feelings of “anger” or “depression” are having their right to keep and bear arms stripped away.That’s right, in the name of “homeland security,” some of the very men who were entrusted with lethal weapons to fight America’s wars are now being told they are not fit to purchase or possess their own firearms.

Yet, in spite of all of the above, an uninvited couple is allowed to calmly walk right past Secret Service personnel and have personal audiences with the President and Vice President of the United States in what is ostensibly the most heavily-guarded, tightly secured building in the country: the White House.

Furthermore, this story comes on the heels of the mass shooting on what one would think would be a rather secure location: the US Army base at Fort Hood, Texas. And, have we forgotten the fellow who brought a gun into the
Capitol Building (the home of the US Congress) in Washington, D.C., a few years ago and killed two police officers?

Dear Reader, ask yourself this question, Do you really think those schmucks in Washington, D.C., actually believe that protecting you and me is moreĀ  important than protecting American soldiers, US congressmen, and especially the President of the United States? “Are you serious?” (To quote Nancy Pelosi.) The truth is, to the elites in DC, you and I are expendable commodities. In fact, to some of the soulless creatures running things, you and I are worth more dead than alive (but that’s a topic better discussed at a later date).

The point is, all this talk about “national security” is simply a ruse for Big Government elitists to steal our liberties and make slaves out of us. They don’t care about security; all they care about is POWER.

So, the next time you are required to be strip-searched by an airport screener, or to surrender your pocketknife at your local county commissioner’s office, or to show your driver’s license to your bank teller, or to submit to a random police checkpoint; the next time you make a phone call that you know is monitored by a federal agent (and they all are), or drive under a video camera, or visit these castle-esque federal buildings, remember Michaele and Tareq Salahi. And, if you are old enough, remember the time in America when we really were the “land of the free.” And also remember that it’s not security they seek–it’s the abolition of our liberty.

(Source)

Was the Election in Honduras a referendum on Socialism?

Posted on1 Comment

The question that many are asking today; is what this election actually means, or what it is to the people of Honduras and more broadly, the rest of the world — The answer is quite apparent and could be a bit painful, not to mention a foreshadow of the things to come here in America.

Via The Wall Street Journal:

Unless something monumental happens in the Western Hemisphere in the next 31 days, the big regional story for 2009 will be how tiny Honduras managed to beat back the colonial aspirations of its most powerful neighbors and preserve its constitution.

Yesterday’s elections for president and Congress, held as scheduled and without incident, were the crowning achievement of that struggle.

National Party candidate Porfirio Lobo was the favorite to win in pre-election polls. Yet the name of the victor is almost beside the point. The completion of these elections is a national triumph in itself and a win for all people who yearn for liberty.

The fact that the U.S. has said it will recognize their legitimacy shows that this reality eventually made its way to the White House. If not Hugo ChĆ”vez’s Waterloo, Honduras’s stand at least marks a major setback for the Venezuelan strongman’s expansionist agenda.

The losers in this drama also include Brazil, Argentina, Chile and Spain, which all did their level best to block the election. Egged on by their zeal, militants inside Honduras took to exploding small bombs around the country in the weeks leading to the vote. They hoped that terror might damp turnout and delegitimize the process. They failed. Yesterday’s civic participation appeared to be at least as good as it was in the last presidential election. Some polling stations reportedly even ran short, for a time, of the indelible ink used to mark voter pinkies.

The elections in Honduras were, in fact, an extremely large poke in the eye to the socialist movement of the World. The message is clear; Freedom is popular. Freedom is a God-Given right for all of humankind; and Governmental control is an aversion to this concept. The people of Honduras knew the type of Government that Venezuela has and knew that the people of Venezuela are not truly free and did not want it in their Country. This is to be commended and shows that the people of Honduras still have a backbone.

The more broad scope is this; our tepid and incompetent President, Barack H. Obama did not have the guts to stand up for Freedom of the people. This was evidenced by his handling of the situation of Honduras and the civil uprising in Iran. This is because Democrats totally despise total and unfettered Freedom of the people; in favor of a big Government socialist society — President Barack Obama actions in both of these recent situations are an embodiment of this mentality.

My hat goes off to the people of Honduras and I pray Godā€™s blessings upon them, as they return to a Government of Freedom and I pray for the safety of those people from the evil menacing socialists, who would give anything to overthrow that Government. I also pray Godā€™s Protection from the evil dictator in Venezuela, who wants nothing more than to destroy the Freedom of the people of Honduras.

President Barack Obama should take note and see that Socialism is become quite unpopular — everywhere.

Others:Ā  Fausta’s Blog, Gateway Pundit, Commentary, Right Wing Nut House, QandO, , Wake up America, Hot Air, and Atlas Shrugs

Living Proof that Socialist Liberals are Classless Assholes

Posted on

Cindy Sheehan and her band of code pink thugs attacked a Elderly Decorated Military Vietnam War Veteran!

The Video: (H/T to Gateway Pundit)

Gateway Pundit has more on this, including the parts NOT reported by the media.

CBS 13 in California has more:

An unidentified military veteran was involved in a tense confrontation with anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan and the group Code Pink at a rally at Travis Air Force Base on Saturday, November 28, 2009.CBSA Saturday rally led by anti-war activist Cindy Sheehan at Travis Air Force Base nearly ended in a brawl when a military veteran physically confronted the protesters.

Anti-war group Code Pink demonstrated at the military base Saturday morning in the first of six planned protests against unmanned military drones currently in use in overseas war zones.

Sheehan, a well-known anti-war activist whose son was killed while serving in Iraq in 2004, was leading the demonstration with a megaphone when a man dressed in a formal military uniform stepped up to her and berated her.

Videotape of the incident shows that Sheehan yelled “Get out of my face” through the megaphone at the man, who slapped the device away. Other protesters immediately joined Sheehan and traded insults with the man, and a shoving match broke out.

Military police quickly pulled the two sides apart.

What a disgrace to America!

But, that’s Obama’s America….. šŸ™„

Home of the sheep and the slaves!

Remember this come 2010 and 2012. We must take our Government back from this America-Hating fascists!

Hmmmmmmmmmmmm: White House Gate Crashers Friends with Obama?

Posted on8 Comments

Now this adds an interesting twist to the story:

While the big gun media and American Secret Service are out there investigating ā€œparty crashersā€ Tareq and Michaele Salahi, no oneā€™s telling the truth: Obama knew the Salahis when he was still an Illinois senator.

Polo Contacts Worldwide could make it easy for the investigating Secret Service by brown-enveloping them this picture:

Hey Secret Agent Man, hereā€™s Obama, the senator flashing his pearly whites with Randy Jackson, better known as a judge on American Idol. ā€œOthers pictured are Black Eyed Peas Rock Band; Tareq Salahi the President of the Americaā€™s Polo Cup; President Elect Obama, Fergie from Black eyed Peas and Michaele Salahi, posing this time as a former Miss USA and SuperModel.

Interesting little detail for White House gumshoes: As the above photo was published in June 2005, Barack Obama was still Senator Obama and not the President Elect.

And with Michaele Salahi yesterday having been caught outā€”Facebook pompoms notwithstandingā€”as a bogus cheerleader for the Washington Red Skins and not a model for Victoriaā€™s Secret as claimed, Canada Free Press (CFP) leaves it to FoxNews.com to find out if she ever was a ā€œformer Miss USAā€.

We do know for a fact that among the slew of memberships on charitable boards, Tareq Salahi is a former member of The American Task Force on Palestine (ATFP). The only way to know for a fact is because even though ATFP scrubbed all references to Salahi as a board member, he can still be found on Google cache.

via ā€œParty Crashersā€ had five-year relationship with Obama before state dinner.

Now if the Main Stream media had any sort of integrity; they would investigate this. But we both know, that they do not. So, I shall not hold my breath.

Who wants to bet that the “Gate Crashers” get off with little or nothing more than a slap on the wrist?

Obama send in 34,000 more troops with ‘Offramps’ to Afghanistan

Posted on

Last night I wrote, in some not-so politically correct words, that the President is not interested in fighting the war in Afghanistan. It appears that this news article confirms what I have believed all along.

Quote:

WASHINGTON ā€” President Barack Obama met Monday evening with his national security team to finalize a plan to dispatch some 34,000 additional U.S. troops over the next year to what he’s called “a war of necessity” in Afghanistan, U.S. officials told McClatchy.

Obama is expected to announce his long-awaited decision on Dec. 1, followed by meetings on Capitol Hill aimed at winning congressional support amid opposition by some Democrats who are worried about the strain on the U.S. Treasury and whether Afghanistan has become a quagmire, the officials said.

The U.S. officials all spoke on condition of anonymity because they weren’t authorized to discuss the issue publicly and because, one official said, the White House is incensed by leaks on its Afghanistan policy that didn’t originate in the White House.

They said the commander of the U.S.-led international force in Afghanistan, Army Gen. Stanley McChrystal, could arrive in Washington as early as Sunday to participate in the rollout of the new plan, including testifying before Congress toward the end of next week. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates and Adm. Mike Mullen, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and U.S. Ambassador to Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry also are expected to appear before congressional committees.

As it now stands, the plan calls for the deployment over a nine-month period beginning in March of three Army brigades from the 101st Airborne Division at Fort Campbell, Ky., and the 10th Mountain Division at Fort Drum, N.Y., and a Marine brigade from Camp Lejeune, N.C., for as many as 23,000 additional combat and support troops.

In addition, a 7,000-strong division headquarters would be sent to take command of U.S.-led NATO forces in southern Afghanistan ā€” to which the U.S. has long been committed ā€” and 4,000 U.S. military trainers would be dispatched to help accelerate an expansion of the Afghan army and police.

This all sounds nice and pretty; that is until you read down further…:

A U.S. military official used the term “decisional” to describe Monday evening’s meeting among Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, Gates, Clinton, National Security Adviser Jim Jones, Eikenberry and senior U.S. military commanders.

The administration’s plan contains “off-ramps,” points starting next June at which Obama could decide to continue the flow of troops, halt the deployments and adopt a more limited strategy or “begin looking very quickly at exiting” the country, depending on political and military progress, one defense official said.

“We have to start showing progress within six months on the political side or military side or that’s it,” the U.S. defense official said.

It’s “not just how we get people there, but what’s the strategy for getting them out,” White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said Monday.

The approach is driven in part by concerns that Afghan President Hamid Karzai won’t keep his promises to root out corruption and support political reforms, and in part by growing domestic opposition to the war, the U.S. officials said.

HotAir.com’s Ed Morrissey is not impressed at all:

The increase in troops is a good decision, but the off-ramps almost completely undermine it.Ā  The point in extending our footprint is to win the trust of the local communities and prove our reliability in providing them security, which is the central thrust of McChrystalā€™s COIN strategy.Ā  By getting them to trust our commitment, we can get them to help fight the Taliban themselves, as we did with the Anbar Awakening in Iraq against al-Qaeda, and greatly improve the intel we get from the locals. Ā  If we send 34,000 more troops but give ourselves a six-month time frame for success or bug-out, the locals will veryĀ  quickly come to the realization that allying with us will be suicide.Ā  The COIN strategy only worked in Iraq because George W. Bush was adamant that we would stay until we won.

A Commander in Chief doesnā€™t need ā€œoff-ramps.ā€Ā  Any President can call an end to a deployment based on his own judgment.Ā  Putting these conditions into the American strategy signals weakness ā€” a desire to pull out without getting blamed for the decision.Ā Ā  Obama wants to be off the hook for an eventual withdrawal by claiming that heā€™s forced to do it because of these benchmark failures.Ā  And if Obamaā€™s that keen to retreat, he should just do it now.

Ed Morrissey hit the nail square on the head. President Barack Obama was never, at any point, interested in fighting the so-called good war in Afghanistan. President Barack Obama knew that he was inheriting the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; and he knew that if he continued them, that he would also inherit the backlash from the left that goes with them. Therefore, he is devising a way of getting out that region and making himself look like the saint and President George W. Bush look like the bad person. Ā This was the plan all along; never at any point was there a plan to fight this war until victory; but rather a plan of stealth defeat.

There are many reasons why the Democrats will not fight the war on terror. Namely, it is because to a certain degree the Democrats actually sympathize with the terrorists. The Democrats have always had a disdain for Israel and its right to exist; many Democrats have always felt that President Harry Truman royally screwed up when he decided to formally recognize Israel as a sovereign Nation. It is due to the frosty relationship towards Israel that sparked the attack of the U.S.S. Liberty by a rogue faction within the Israeli Defense Force. Many people who are of the hatemonger class, like to blame Israel and the Jews for that attack; the problem is, they are blaming the wrong people, they should be blaming the Democrats for it.

Not only this, but you also have about sixty percent of the Democrats who actually blame Bush for the attacks on 9/11. They actually believe that Bush knew the attacks were coming and actually allowed them to happen. This is why Eric Holder and the justice department are having civilian trials for a few of the 9/11 conspirators. They desire to drag out of the stuff that happened in the months after 9/11, as to make a mockery of them. Ā The remaining people within the Democratic Party and those who are of the far-leftist mentality actually have the audacity to believe that the United States of America actually deserved the attacks on 9/11, because of our capitalistic society and because of our past treatment of blacks; because we do not give enough hand-outs to poor people and so forth . President Barack Obamaā€™s former Pastor even said as this very thing, and now President Barack Obama is allowing them to have civilian trials; ponder that scary thought for a moment.

In closing, I simply will offer this sober note. Elections have consequences. The American people elected a man, who was supposed to be a stark contrast to President George W. Bush, someone who could lead. What the American people received was an out of touch, dithering liberal elitist, who in all honesty could not even lead his own household, if the truth were told. President Barack Obama is more interested in shoving his rather idiotic social agenda, of wealth redistribution and outright class warfare onto the American people, than a fighting a war that will ultimately decide Americaā€™s success or demise. We should remember this come the elections of 2010 and of 2012 and decide wisely our choices for those we plan to put in office.

President Barack Hussein Obama, The Surrender Monkey

Posted on

Oh, this is just wonderful. Sounds like we are gearing up for a big time concession to the enemy.

An Afghan source in Kabul reports that U.S. Ambassador in Afghanistan Karl Eikenberry is holding secret talks with Taliban elements headed by the movement’s foreign minister, Ahmad Mutawakil, at a secret location in Kabul. According to the source, the U.S. has offered the Taliban control of the Kandahar, Helmand, Oruzgan, Kunar and Nuristan provinces in return for a halt to the Taliban missile attacks on U.S. bases.

via The MEMRI Blog – Full Blog Entry.

…and they say that this was the “good war” and they wanted us to win it. I call bullshit. The Democrats never gave two shits about this war. In fact; they want us to LOSE this war, Just like they did Iraq, god-damned bastards. Vietnam 2.0 all over again…. šŸ˜”

Others: Nice Deb, The Sundries Shack, Atlas Shrugs, ThreatsWatch, The Anchoress, protein wisdom, BLACKFIVE, Wizbang, American Power, Mudville Gazette, Wake up America and Weasel Zippers

Obama’s Magic Act falls flat in Asia

Posted on

Looks like the ā€œMagic Oneā€ is not so magical:

There were only a few hours left before Air Force One was scheduled to depart for the flight home. US President Barack Obama trip through Asia had already seen him travel 24,000 kilometers, sit through a dozen state banquets, climb the Great Wall of China and shake hands with Korean children. It was high time to take stock of the trip.

Barack Obama looked tired on Thursday, as he stood in the Blue House in Seoul, the official residence of the South Korean president. He also seemed irritable and even slightly forlorn. The CNN cameras had already been set up. But then Obama decided not to play along, and not to answer the question he had already been asked several times on his trip: what did he plan to take home with him? Instead, he simply said “thank you, guys,” and disappeared. David Axelrod, senior advisor to the president, fielded the journalists’s; questions in the hallway of the Blue House instead, telling them that the public’s expectations had been “too high.”

The mood in Obama’s foreign policy team is tense following an extended Asia trip that produced no palpable results. The “first Pacific president,” as Obama called himself, came as a friend and returned as a stranger. The Asians smiled but made no concessions.

via US Foreign Policy: Obama’s Nice Guy Act Gets Him Nowhere on the World Stage – SPIEGEL ONLINE – News – International.

Looks like the magic of President Obama is gone; the foreign Governments know a weak leader when they see one. We Conservatives have been saying all along, that President Barack Obama was nothing more than an over marketed empty suite and it now appears that the rest of the World knows it too. It was good while it lasted it. This should serve, as a warning to the United States, be much more careful of whom or what you elected to be your leader. It also should serve as a warning as to why you do elect a man, because upon his ethnicity.

It just strikes me as highly ironic that Obama is now finally getting the critical press from the Liberal overseas and mainland media. We Conservatives were saying all of these things during the election and were derided as racist bigots and backward. Now it seems that the rest of America and abroad have realized it too. It is about time, maybe now we can expect some objectivity in the media; however, I shall not hold my breath, least I turn blue and die.

Uh-oh: Howard Dean: Dems ‘In Deep Trouble’ On Health Care

Posted on

Here we have one of the textbook examples of why you do not overreach in your campaign promises. It looks like the Democrats are in deep trouble over Healthcare:

One of the leading progressive champions of health care reform is pessimistic about the state of the debate in the Senate, saying he sees virtually no path to passing strong legislation and predicting potential congressional losses for Democrats as a consequence.

Former DNC Chair Howard Dean told the Huffington Post on Monday that Senate Democratic leadership was “in deep trouble” on health care, even after Majority Leader Harry Reid cobbled together over the weekend the 60 votes needed to get legislation to the floor. The problem was as much about politics as policy.

“I think if you passed the Senate bill tomorrow it would be OK. But then the problem is they don’t have any defense for their members in 2010,” Dean said, noting that the public option would not become operational until 2014. “On the other hand, if they drop the public option [to placate moderate members], I think they lose seats.”

“So this is really tough. I didn’t anticipate being in this position. I thought it would pass. Maybe Harry has some magic up his sleeve. But I don’t see how he gets those four votes [Sens. Joseph Lieberman (Conn.), Mary Landrieu (La.), Blanche Lincoln (Ark.) and Ben Nelson (Neb.)] without compromising the bill,” Dean concluded.

via Dean: Dems ‘In Deep Trouble’ On Health Care, The Only Options Are A Bad Bill Or 2010 Losses.

This situation here is what happens when a Political Party gets extremely arrogant and thinks that there will be no opposition to their plans. The Democrats thought that because of the screw-ups of George W. Bush and the Republicans in Congress that the Democrats would be able to run rough shod over everything and everyone and get their agenda fulfilled. They have since discovered that plan is not going to work. That is because not everyone is on board with the far leftist socialism of the White House. What we are seeing here is a repeat of 1994. When the Democrats lost control of congress; and the sitting President got moderate fast.

However, this time, I believe the Democrats have much more to lose. Such as credibility, I say that because the Democrats horrifically oversold this President and themselves in general. The Democrats had many people thinking lots of crazy stuff; and now, it seems that the honeymoon is over and many on the left are realizing that the sell job was nothing more than a well-fabricated lie. I knew this well before anyone else. In fact, I said as much on this blog, back when Obama first started gaining in popularity, that they were totally over marketing the President as a messianic figure to the Democrats and to the far-left; and it was nothing more than over-zealous marketing.

This healthcare debacle could spell the end or at least a marginalizing of that Party for a long time to come. Howard Dean knows the score; he has people on the ground. If he says the Democrats are in trouble, call the ambulance, because there is a serious problem.

Chris Matthews finally decides act like an objective journalist

Posted on

NewsBusters is treating this like a shocking moment; but I am not buying that at all. Chris Matthews must have finally figured out that President Barack Obama is much like his old boss Jimmy Carter. Because it seems that Matthews is finally climbing out of the tank and is finally going to report the truth about the President. This is no shocker to me, unlike some here on the right, I do not have a short term memory; back before President Obama was elected, Matthews was getting in trouble with the left for stuff that would come out of his mouth, mostly about Hillary Clinton.

The Video:

Transcript:

CHRIS MATTHEWS, HOST: Welcome back. The word these days is optics, visuals, signals. In the Carter presidency, the optics were not exactly robust, and Ronald Reagan rode that to a big victory in 1980. Is the Obama White House sending some Carteresque signals these days? Some see that in the deep bow to the Emperor of Japan, an unforced error say critics. Then there was, there was what happened in China: Obama got nothing in the way of concessions over there in spite of playing the polite visitor. And his effort to speak directly to the Chinese was jammed by the government. Third, that decision to try the terrorists up in that federal court in New York City. Again, nothing that had to be done, and critics say it shows that Obama, his team doesn’t understand this is a war we’re in. David, that’s the question. These optics are everything in a president. Carter used to carry that garment bag over his shoulder. This president is he making mistakes like in China like in Japan?

DAVID IGNATIUS, WASHINGTON POST : I think he is coming across as stiff. He is talking too much sometimes and communicating too little. So the opposite of what we saw during the campaign. Although the decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York apparently was Eric Holder’s, it strikes me that it really is a mistake. I mean, there are too many bad things that could happen. There is no reason to have to have done this. And, you know, it’s a political feel for decision-making. That wonderful thing you just did about President Johnson’s feel for the moment. That’s what I think is missing now with this group in the White House. I don’t know where it’s gone. They certainly had it during the campaign. Maybe they’ll get it back. But it’s missing now.

MATTHEWS: It’s the political touch. You were in China. You just got back. Tell me about that. The president tried to speak to the Chinese people and apparently it was jammed. Tell me about that.

ANNE KORNBLUT, WASHINGTON POST: This was the big moment of the whole trip to Asia in fact, eight days in Asia he was going to speak to Chinese students in Shanghai unfiltered at least in his answers, and in fact the Chinese government, you know, they allowed the event to take place, but it was only shown locally on Shanghai television. People didn’t see it. The one piece of news he made in it saying that the internet should be free and people should have access dribbled out to the Chinese public and then started being deleted from all the Chinese websites. So, then, the following day he held a quote unquote press conference with the Chinese President Hu Jintao in which there were no questions and they read statements. Now, this is of course, this is the Chinese, it’s their home turf. They were allowed to do what they wanted to. That was the White House’s argument. And the White House haggled with them to get it more open.

MATTHEWS: The White House got jammed here. Did they know this was coming, that it wouldn’t get to the people?

KORNBLUT: Sure. They knew, previous presidents had been allowed to reach the Chinese public. They knew that it might or might not. It did. But they didn’t have to stand there at a press conference, call it a press conference, and not answer questions. And I think they’re expect, they may have raised expectations a little for how much they were going to be able to do.

Again, I am glad to see that Chris Matthews is actually starting to do his job and being an objective journalist and not some ā€œIn the Tankā€ apologist for the President. While doing so might not endure him to many on the far left; it will in fact possibly earn him some respect from some of us on the right. I have always viewed Chris Matthews as a ā€œLeft of Centerā€ Bill Oā€™Reilly and I respected him for not letting the far right or the far left come on his show and spout talking points. Chris always held their feet to the fire and made them look like idiots, if said people were programmed spokespersons. In short, I am glad to see that Chris Matthews is actually playing hardball again and no longer playing the DNCā€™s game of softball.

The Democratic Party is scared to death of Sarah Palin

Posted on2 Comments

Lookie what bounced into my inbox:

Right now, Sarah Palin is on a highly publicized, nationwide book tour, attacking President Obama and his plan for health reform at every turn.

It’s dangerous. Remember, this is the person who coined the term “Death Panels” — and opened the flood gates for months of false attacks by special interests and partisan extremists.

Whatever lie comes next will be widely covered by the media, then constantly echoed by right-wing attack groups and others who are trying to defeat reform.

As we approach the final sprint on health reform, we can’t afford more deception and delay. We need to be ready for anything — and have the resources to respond with ads, events, and calls to Congress when the attacks come.

So we’re setting a big goal: $500,000 in the next week to help push back against Sarah Palin and her allies. Please chip in $5 or more to help reach our goal.

Please donate

Earlier this month, Palin publicly said that she hopes health reform will be “dead on arrival.” And since then, she’s been working fiercely toward that goal.

On Tuesday, Palin went on Rush Limbaugh’s radio show where she outrageously — and falsely — suggested that Americans could “face jail time as punishment” if they don’t buy insurance.

Palin has many more interviews scheduled on Hannity and other conservative shows in the next few weeks, with more platforms to go after the President. As soon as she does, the rest of our opponents will likely parrot those attacks.

We need to be prepared. And we’re counting on you help. Can you chip in $5 or more?

http://my.democrats.org/SarahPalin

Thanks,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart

Director

Organizing for America

Oh Yeah, they are scared out of their minds.

Breitbart to AG Holder: Do your job douche nozzle or we will burn the Democrats come 2010!

Posted on

Oh Man, there’s gonna be many a Democrat singing the blues, if Eric Holder does not do his job before 2010.

The Video:

Breitbart: Thereā€™s a lot of hypocrisy and the dust has settled for ACORN and at the end of the day theyā€™ve recognized that Eric Holder, the Attorney General, has not initiated an investigation into ACORN after we now have seven tapes. There were five initially that came out, ACORN was defunded by the Senate, was defunded by the House, lost itā€™s link to the Census; while all that damage occurred, Congress didnā€™t come in to investigate them, obviously not the Attorney Generalā€™s office, and theyā€™ve now realized letā€™s get back into business because they realized that the dust settled and they were not being investigated, it was Hannah, James, and me who were being investigated, thatā€™s why weā€™ve been forced to offer this latest tape.

Hannity: Are you saying, Andrew, that there are more tapes?

Breitbart: Oh my goodness there are! Not only are there more tapes, itā€™s not just ACORN. And this message is to Attorney General Holder: I want you to know that we have more tapes, itā€™s not just ACORN, and weā€™re going to hold out until the next election cycle, or else if you want to do a clean investigation, we will give you the rest of what we have, we will comply with you, we will give you the documentation we have from countless ACORN whistleblowers who want to come forward but are fearful of this organization and the retribution that they fear that this is a dangerous organization. So if you get into an investigation, we will give you the tapes; if you donā€™t give us the tapes, we will revisit these tapes come election time.

Hannity: This is a blockbuster, what youā€™re saying here. You guys have more tapes, youā€™ll release them before the election, that could have a big impact on the election, obviouslyā€¦

via Big GovernmentĀ  – Breitbart to AG Holder: Investigate ACORN or Weā€™ll Release More Tapes Just Before 2010 Election.

Needless to say; this election cycle coming in 2010 is going to be an extremely interesting one.Ā  šŸ˜Æ If I were holder, I would be contacting Andrew and pronto. Because if there is something huge that Andrew is sitting on, like a corruption tape, involving say, The President. The fall out would be huge; As in Richard Nixon kind of huge.

Others: Townhall.com, Moe Lane, Top of the Ticket, Stop The ACLU and YID With LID

Major Nidal Hasan to radical cleric: “I can’t wait to join you” in the afterlife

Posted on

Unbelievable.

United States Army Major Nidal Hasan told a radical cleric considered by authorities to be an al-Qaeda recruiter, “I can’t wait to join you” in the afterlife, according to an American official with top secret access to 18 e-mails exchanged between Hasan and the cleric, Anwar al Awlaki, over a six month period between Dec. 2008 and June 2009.

“It sounds like code words,” said Lt. Col. Tony Shaffer, a military analyst at the Center for Advanced Defense Studies. “That he’s actually either offering himself up or that he’s already crossed that line in his own mind.”

Other messages include questions, the official with access to the e-mails said, that include when is jihad appropriate, and whether it is permissible if there are innocents killed in a suicide attack.

“Hasan told Awlaki he couldn’t wait to join him in the discussions they would having over non-alcoholic wine in the afterlife,” the official said.

via Major Hasan’s E-Mail: ‘I Can’t Wait to Join You’ in Afterlife – ABC News.

But yet, our feckless idiotic President will not call this what it is; the worst act of terrorism since 9/11. Could it be because our President secretly sympathizes with this crazy mans actions? Sometimes I wonder.

Countdown to Liberals crying rAAAAcism in 5…4….3…2

Others: The Jawa Report, YID With LID, The Strata-Sphere

The victimization of Sarah Palin by the MSM

Posted on1 Comment

Normally I would not use Gawker as a place to quote from on Politics; but this right here is dead on.

On Hardball last night, when asked about Sarah Palin’s potential strengths as a presidential candidate, 538.com’s Nate Silver genuinely cited her perpetual victim status and frequent faux-outrage as a factor that makes her difficult to run against.

via Upstate Conservative Decides He Won the Election Really – Gop – Gawker.

This sums up my anger towards those on the true conservative side that are swooning over her. Now it seems that because Barack Obama’s polices are failing, the Main Stream media feels the need to give Sarah Palin a second look and will most likely portray her as a poor victim of the mean old “Man Club” in politics; Hence her appearance on Oprah this week. Sarah Palin may be a great deal of things; but she is no victim. Sarah Palin made the choice to take the Vice President pick that John McCain offered her; she could have said no, but she chose to take the job; and because of the poorly ran campaign and possibly because of her, John McCain lost the run for the President. There was no victimization at all. Yes, she was held up to the microscope by the liberal Main Stream Media, it happens in politics, either you deal with it or you get out. This whole assertion by the far conservative right that Sarah Palin was treated unfairly was and still is a load of dung.

Further, the assertion that Sarah Palinā€™s children were singled out and President Obamaā€™s were not is a load of bunk too. First, President Barack Obama did not ride in on the white horse of Social Conservatism all the while trying to hide the fact that his daughter was pregnant; Sarah Palin did. That in itself is abject hypocrisy. In addition, President Barack Obamaā€™s children are Pre-teens; Sarah Palinā€™s daughter was 17 years old. She was old enough to have sex; there is a huge difference there and anyone that does not see that, is most likely too stupid to be involved in politics. This is serious politics and not 8’th grade school yard nonsense; so the “girl power” crowd needs to seriously get real. Besides,Ā  the only difference between the “Girl Power” crowd and the “White Power” crowd; is the gender and political parties involved.

Quote of the Day

Posted on

Douglas MacArthur, who ranked above mere heads of state in his own mind, once invented his own protocol on greeting Emperor Hirohito. The emperor, the father of Akihito, wanted to meet MacArthur soon after he arrived to become the military regent of Japan in 1945, perhaps to thank him for saving the throne at the end of World War II. When the emperor invited MacArthur to call on him, the general sent word that the emperor should call on him – speaking of breaches of custom – and the two men were photographed together, astonishing the Japanese. The emperor arrived in full formal dress, cutaway coat and all, and MacArthur received him in summer khakis, sans tie, with his hands stuffed casually in his back pockets. Further astonishing the Japanese, he towered over the diminutive emperor.

But Mr. Obama, unlike his predecessors, likely knows no better, and many of those around him, true children of the grungy’s, are contemptuous of custom. Cutting America down to size is what attracts them to “hope” for “change.” It’s no fault of the president that he has no natural instinct or blood impulse for what the America of “the 57 states” is about. He was sired by a Kenyan father, born to a mother attracted to men of the Third World and reared by grandparents in Hawaii, a paradise far from the American mainstream.

He no doubt wants to “do the right thing” by his lights, but the lights that illumine the Obama path are not necessarily the lights that illuminate the way for most of the rest of us. This is good news only for Jimmy Carter, who may yet have to give up his distinction as our most ineffective and embarrassing president.


Conservative Bloggers ask “What on earth is Obama doing?”

Posted on

Smitty over at R.S. McCain’s blog asks “What if he really wants to be impeached?”

I submit that the continued provocations such as the KSM trial, the obsession with the previous administration, the wrenching changes from spendthrift to fiscal hawk could, if he’s a committed con man, be deliberate provocations towards impeachment.

I’m throwing out the idea that the ultimate Blame America piece will be when, pushed beyond all tolerance, there is a serious demand for impeachment. The con has reaped all of the desired financial rewards, and needs to exit the stage before the bankruptcy of the domestic policy meets the bankruptcy of the foreign policy somewhere around his head. The shiny factor of being POTUS is all drained away, leaving more disgruntled voters than W ever faced.

This is a bizarre possibility. I’d laugh at it, if not for the series of bizarre incidents that form 2009.

Jimmie Bise at the Sundries Shack says:

the trial does give the President a chance to make the pouty lip about the sins of America, which the world could love if only sheā€™d throw off the bleak cloak of Bushism, while promising that heā€™ll put everything. But thatā€™s his go-to and Iā€™m pretty sure thatā€™s heā€™s practiced that routine enough to do it whether KSM is standing tall before a judge in Manhattan or a military tribunal in Gitmo.

Shannon Love over at Chicago Boyz says:

For over two hundred years we were careful to keep a firewall between civil and martial law. We did so because civil and martial law are polar opposites. Civil law is focused on protecting the rights of the accused against the overwhelming power of the state. When there is doubt, the accused walks free. Martial law is focused on imposing a minimal order on bloody chaos. It was focused on allowing the military to complete its mission and win wars. When there is doubt, the accused is presumed guilty.

Now, Obama wants to bring martial law into a civil court room in Manhattan. In order to let a civil conviction of KSM stand, the higher courts will have to overturn almost all the current constitutional protections of the accused.

The Neo-Neo Con Says:

…Obama has some of the qualities of the best con artists. That’s not to say that Obama is literally a con man; he’s not pulling the old Spanish Prisoner scam. But he shares more than a few of their attributes.

Obama held himself out to be one thing during the election (a bipartisan moderate), and on taking office became quite the opposite. Cons, like Obama, are ordinarily out to deceive people as to their true purposes. But it’s an error to think they come across as sleazy. The most effective ones are unusually likeable and charming, even as they pull off their scams. This likeability is not a tangential characteristic of con artists, either; it is a central one.

“Con”, after all, is short for “confidence”. The con artist works by gaining the victim’s confidence and trust. The successful con artist is so very likeable, in fact, that he seems especially credible, and people who might otherwise be wary and cynical drop their guard around him. They don’t examine him too closely, so great is their desire to believe.

Contradictions are waved away. Acts that would arouse suspicion if they were committed by someone else are excused. Important omissions go unnoticed. Inconsistencies are rationalized. Shady company is defended or ignored. Sound familiar?

The con artist is able to gain trust by using the right vocal inflections to fit the mark (or, in Obama’s case, the audience), changing accents and speech patterns to match. In addition, a con doesn’t usually stay in one place very long (it has been remarked how often Obama changed jobs) because, although people may not catch on to his game all that quickly, he is afraid that if he sticks around they eventually will.

President Barack Obama Flip Flops again

Posted on1 Comment

This comes via BreitBart TV:

Way to go Barry…..

Others: Scared Monkeys, LeĀ·gal InĀ·surĀ·recĀ· tion, Stop The ACLU, Macsmind, Atlas Shrugs and Redhot

Oh My: More Carrie Prejean Sex Tapes?

Posted on6 Comments

Carrie Prejean - A disgrace to Christianity!

Carrie Prejean - A disgrace to Christianity!

AllahPundit and Ace have been all over this like a fly on Doo doo… (Phew!)Ā  Which is not entirely surprising seeing that it is a pretty crappy subject. Bump da bump bump…ching! šŸ˜›

I have blogged about this woman before; and now, I am doing it again. Which proves that it is a slow news day. I, like many other Conservative Bloggers, gave this gal the benefit of the doubt. I see now, that this was a big mistake.

It seems that little miss “Polly Pure Bright” has made more than one sex tape and naked Photo in her day. Now, keep in mind, the source for this info has given some bogus info before. So, buyer beware!

AllahPundit Remarks:

On the contrary, itā€™s the fact that theyā€™re imperfect and prone to ā€œstray from the path,ā€ as we all are, that draws them towards redemption in the faith. There does, however, come a point where you stray so far from the path or so frequently that your commitment to it comes into question. For example, an atheist in a foxhole might be forgiven for saying a prayer in a moment of panic, while heā€™s being shot at. An atheist who prays any time heā€™s in a tough spot ā€¦ simply ainā€™t much of an atheist. Has CP reached that point (yet) in Christian/conservative opinion or is her line of credit essentially limitlessā€?

Ace just sets it out like it is:

My problem, instead, is that she has enlisted supporters, such as myself, to support her in her legal/PR campaign, on the theory that the California pageant had nothing legitimate to boot her out on, and that only anti-Christian animus could explain their behavior, when in factā€¦ well, first the photos, which were racy, but I excused and defended. And then, well, the masturbation tape, which I kept quiet about.

And nowā€¦ the other seven masturbation tapesā€¦

She knew all this stuff was out there, she knew it was coming out, etc., and yet I and many of her supporters have been impressed into duty as her defenders through deception.

Because it wasnā€™t ever true that there was no reason, save anti-Christian animus, to kick her out of the pageant organization. A masturbation tape is, well. Iā€™m not really offended by it but other pageant-hopefuls have gotten the boot for the same thing, and even a lot less.

So what do I feel about her? I feel she chumped me in order to advance her own legal interestsā€¦

Whether she has anything more interesting to say is up to her. But the Perez Hilton/pageant stuff? I really donā€™t care to hear how unfair it all was anymore. It was unfair, and a book deal was gotten out of that; thatā€™s enough. A book deal can bandage up a lot of wounds.

What really made me want to blog about this, when I saw it last night; was this right here, which is over on the Radar Online story:

In her newly released book Carrie wrote, ā€œGod gave us our bodies, and itā€™s perfectly right that we use them in ways where we can give glory to God by making our bodies, our temples of the Holy Spirit, strong and fast.ā€

Sorry Miss Prejean; but making multiple tapes of yourself, rubbing yourself is NOT considered using your Body in a manner that is pleasing to God, nor is it considered making your body the temple of the Holy Spirit. The truth is folks Carrie Prejean played the “Jesus” card on us. She is nothing more than a two bit floozy, who would get naked to make a quick buck in a heartbeat. When asked about marriage, she gave the answer, that she knew damned well would cause a stink. If you think for one minute that this blond bimbo is truly a Conservative, much less a Christian, then I have a swamp to sell you in Texas; for cheap.Ā  Carrie Prejean is nothing more than a opportunist; she gave the answer that she knew darned well would cause a backlash against her; knowing full well that she had some very bad behavior in her closet.

Why do I say all that? This is why; because no true Born-Again Christian that I know or even had contact with in my entire twenty-six years of being a Christian, would ever expose they bodies in the manner that this gal has. Carrie Prejean is the text book example of the outright stench of compromise in the Evangelical Christian movement of the 21 century. I mean, not over dramatize this whole thing; but it is the type Christianity ofĀ  — “Why yes, I am Christian, now let me get my clothes on and pour you a drink”Ā  kind. It is sickening and reminds me why I left that bunch of compromising, watered-down type of Christianity. This is not to say that Fundamentalist Christianity is any different at all; we have our issues too. I can name a few — King James Only Cultism, Cult of personality, Pastoral Authority Abuse, and on and on. — But do we have Fundamentalist Baptists taking their clothes off and romping around in a Bikini; all the while praising Jesus Christ and making sex tapes? No. We do not!

The reason why this gets up my nose so much is this; as much as I know that I am not the perfect image of a Christian and at times, I say and do things that I know are not very becoming of a Christian, which is why I do not preach or even try and post things of a Christian nature on my blog, outside a newsletter that I like to read; it is quite hard to just sit here and do nothing, while some stupid idiot blond harpy takes a makes a mockery of Christian to the world. It makes me angry, sick and sad — all in one bundled up emotion inside. All the while smart mouthed beta males are getting their jollies off of mocking the Christian Faith. Quite bluntly, the stupid woman needs to be told, cut the stupidity or just farking disappear.

There, I said it and I feel better about it…

Updated: A Huge Blunder by the Obama Administration

Posted on2 Comments

Possibly one of the biggest blunders by the Obama Administration:

WASHINGTON ā€” Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the self-described mastermind of the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and four other men accused in the plot will be prosecuted in federal court in New York City, the United States attorney general announced Friday.

But the administration will prosecute another set of high-profile detainees now being held at the military prison at GuantĆ”namo Bay, Cuba ā€” Abd al-Rahim al-Nashiri, who is accused of planning the 2000 bombing of the Navy destroyer Cole in Yemen, and four other detainees ā€” before a military commission.

Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. announced those decisions in a news conference Friday at the Department of Justice. The arrangements would mean that civilian prosecutors would handle those detainees accused of the 2001 terrorist attacks, which killed nearly 3,000 people in New York, northern Virginia and Pennsylvania, while the 2000 attack against the Cole would remain within the military system.

via Key 9/11 Suspect to Be Tried in New York – NYTimes.com.

Here is why this is a big blunder; I’ll let William Teach‘s words say it for me, This is what he wrote in the comments section of Allan Colmes Blog:

Youā€™re forgetting one thing, Alan: KSM is NOT an American citizen, and not entitled to the protections of our Constitution unless we afford them to him.

The problem with “Affording” them to these guys is this, as Ed Morrissey writes:

That brings up a key question.Ā  What happens if the judge throws out key evidence over nitpicky technicalities?Ā  What happens if KSM and others get found not guilty because of gaps in the evidence chain resulting from national-security issues or ā€œevidentiary issuesā€?Ā  Will Obama let them walk away?Ā  If that happens, look for a massive amount of anger to overwhelm the naive Commander in Chief.Ā  And if Obama isnā€™t prepared to let them walk after a potential acquittal, then it makes a mockery of the criminal trial, and of the justice system itself.

These terrorists belong at a military tribunal, not the justice system employed for Americans to judge other Americans for civil criminal conduct.Ā  Instead of giving these men the oblivion they deserve, weā€™re incentivizing further attacks on the US by giving them the biggest possible PR platform.Ā  We may as well put them on TV and call it Dancing With the Terrorists, or So You Want To Be A Jihadist Martyr.

I have worse scenario than that; what if we happen to get a judge that is a Muslim? What happens if during that trial he begins to feel a twinge of sympathy for these terrorists and begins to nitpick at the evidence and ends up tossing the case out of court? I know it sounds far fetched; but it could happen.

Either way, is this massive blunder by the President and I look for Fox News to go on the attack over this. These guy should be tried in International Court. Just like the Nazi’s were. But because our President is a liberal; this will not be done. He is of the belief system that the terrorists were nothing more than common petty criminals and should be treated as such. This is the same mistake that President Bill Clinton made and it is why September 11’th happened in the first place. As long as the United States continues to make the same mistakes,when it comes to handling of terrorists, we will continue to see terrorists attacks on our soil. It is a fact of reality.

Update: Hell, Democrat Jim Webb even thinks that this is a bad idea! (H/T Ed at HotAir)

I have never disputed the constitutional authority of the President to convene Article III courts in cases of international terrorism. However, I remain very concerned about the wisdom of doing so. Those who have committed acts of international terrorism are enemy combatants, just as certainly as the Japanese pilots who killed thousands of Americans at Pearl Harbor. It will be disruptive, costly, and potentially counterproductive to try them as criminals in our civilian courts.

The precedent set by this decision deserves careful scrutiny as we consider proper venues for trying those now held at Guantanamo who were apprehended outside of this country for acts that occurred outside of the country. And we must be especially careful with any decisions to bring onto American soil any of those prisoners who remain a threat to our country but whose cases have been adjudged as inappropriate for trial at all. They do not belong in our country, they do not belong in our courts, and they do not belong in our prisons.

I have consistently argued that military commissions, with the additional procedural rules added by Congress and enacted by President Obama, are the most appropriate venue for trying individuals adjudged to be enemy combatants.

Update: It seems that my gay stalker Ed Brayton does not like what I wrote. Big surprise there, seeing he is a leftist libertarian/classic liberal;Ā  or as I like to call them small Government liberals. I guess he and his sheep that follow after him, did not bother to follow the links and see, that yes, in fact, I did refer to the International criminal court. Anyhow, my stalker says that Conservatives do not support that idea. To that I reply;Ā  Who says that I follow the Republican/Conservative talking points? I believe that these terrorists ought to be tried in international criminal court or at least in a Military trial and NOT in a civilian court on American soil. As Obama said HE felt they should be, back in 2006. But now has flip flopped on, now the he has been elected.