11 April 2009

OK, it's been a long day

and I'm in a foul mood. So allow me a brief moment of sarcasm, will you?

I saw this title of a story about Obama's administration and couldn't help but add a word:

Obama Administration Still Full Of (ass)Holes
Ok, I feel better now.

We now return you to your regular broadcast.

10 April 2009

I admit it

I giggled. A lot. After reading this article.... So much for Obama uniting the world behind us, eh? I thought the whole point of the O-messiah's new tone was to unite our European allies behind us??

Barack Obama: President Pantywaist - new surrender monkey on the block
President Barack Obama has recently completed the most successful foreign policy tour since Napoleon's retreat from Moscow. You name it, he blew it. What was his big deal economic programme that he was determined to drive through the G20 summit? Another massive stimulus package, globally funded and co-ordinated. Did he achieve it? Not so as you'd notice.
Then came the dramatic bit, the authentic West Wing script, with the President wakened in the middle of the night in Prague to be told that Kim Jong-il had just launched a Taepodong-2 missile. America had Aegis destroyers tracking the missile and could have shot it down. But Uncle Sam had a sterner reprisal in store for l'il ole Kim (as Dame Edna might call him): a multi-megaton strike of Obama hot air.
"Rules must be binding," declared Obama, referring to the fact that Kim had just breached UN Resolutions 1695 and 1718. "Violations must be punished." (Sounds ominous.) "Words must mean something." (Why, Barack? They never did before, for you - as a cursory glance at your many speeches will show.)
President Pantywaist is hopping mad and he has a strategy to cut Kim down to size: he is going to slice $1.4bn off America's missile defence programme, presumably on the calculation that Kim would feel it unsporting to hit a sitting duck, so that will spoil his fun.
Watch out, France and Co, there is a new surrender monkey on the block and, over the next four years, he will spectacularly sell out the interests of the West with every kind of liberal-delusionist initiative on nuclear disarmament and sitting down to negotiate with any power freak who wants to buy time to get a good ICBM fix on San Francisco, or wherever. If you thought the world was a tad unsafe with Dubya around, just wait until President Pantywaist gets into his stride.
I really don't know that I could have said that any better myself.

Setting the tone

So we've got a hostage situation off the coast of Somalia. An American flagged ship was attacked and boarded by pirates, something that has been a rarity in the past.

However, I can promise you those days are over. For you see, dear readers, the Obama administration's refusal to do anything but "monitor" the situation is telling other folks who might be inclined to hurt American interests that it's a freebie.

Think about it. We have a lifeboat without power, floating in the sea. Nearby is an American Man-O-war - the destroyer USS Bainbridge - "observing".

You basically have an unarmed lifeboat holding off one of the most powerful ships in the world in the middle of the ocean. Can someone tell me why?

I'll tell you. It's the same thing we saw from Carter and Clinton when they were in power. We dare not make any agressive movement for fear of hurting someone else's feelings around the world. You should think about that the next time you plan an overseas trip. Because the American government is telling the world that it will not get involved and come to the rescue.

And in the meantime, the American hostage is on his own. He's already tried to swim away, only to be recaptured.

Bill Clinton did the same thing in the same part of the world with the infamous Blackhawk Down. Commanders on the ground called in for armored support and the Clinton administration turned it down. Didn't want to appear too agressive.

And this is only going to be the beginning, because Obama is proving himself to be quite weak, and afraid to take action. The only question left now is how many American lives Obama's inaction will cost us.

08 April 2009

More Goebbels

I've blogged a couple of times on our new propaganda ministry coming out of the White House. Keeping that theme alive, the Obama White House has come out with a statement claiming that Obama's bow to the Saudi King wasn't a bow at all.

"It wasn't a bow. He grasped his hand with two hands, and he's taller than King Abdullah," said an Obama aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
This is a flat out lie. Period, end of story, full stop.

Watch the video for yourself:

At 54 seconds into the video, the King extends ONE hand. At 55 seconds into the video, Obama is CLEARLY bowing to the King. Both men are shaking hands with one hand each. You can see the King's left hand at his side and glimpse Obama's hand by his leg. Obama's head is lower than the King's, and the King is looking DOWN at Obama. At 58 seconds into the video, Obama steps closer to the King, apparently grasps the King's hand with both of his, and lowers his head in a friendly nod.

Interestingly, a columnist in the Saudi-backed Arabic paper Asharq Alawsat also took the gesture as a bow and appreciated the move.

I'm sure we'll see more out of the propaganda ministry as Obama's term in the White House continues. If they will lie about something as ridiculous as this, what else are they lying about?

It was a freaking embarrassment to have Bush holding hands with the Saudi King, but at least the Bush White House didn't try to range lawyer their way out of it.

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

06 April 2009

Texas Legislature mulls bill to allow concealed handguns on college campuses - SMUDailyCampus.com

Submitted for your consideration: the pussification of the college student, proliferated by the liberal college newspaper and the likewise predictable college professor.
Professor Rick Halperin said he was most concerned with the educational classroom environment for students.

"Classrooms are not a place people should live in fear of deranged classmates breaking in and shooting or even their fellow classmates holding weapons on them," Halperin said. "Classrooms are not target ranges."
Here's the problem: liberal college professor is scared of guns. It then (il)logically follows that guns are bad. People who have guns, by extension, are also bad.

It makes my head hurt to have to reiterate, but here it goes. Again.

The facts about concealed handgun licensees: they're educated regarding concealed carry laws, and they're carrying handguns LEGALLY, with full knowledge of the consequences of doing otherwise. They are fingerprinted and on file with the State and Federal government. They're held to a higher standard by law enforcement by virtue of this. They're law-abiding citizens who are capable of defending themselves. In short, they are the least likely members of society to risk incarceration by acting irresponsibly with a firearm.

Criminals disregard laws - that's pretty much the definition of "criminal." The lunatic at Virginia Tech was a criminal. He was not deterred by a no-gun policy on campus. Quite the contrary, in fact - it's what allowed him to conduct his insane rampage. The police arrived too late, because they can't be everywhere. Who's ultimately responsible for your safety? That's right - you, and nobody else.

The anti-gun logic? Ooh - that's an oxymoron. Let's just appeal to emotion, because, well - guns are scary. Don't take responsibility for protecting yourself? Goodness, I hope you don't have one of those dangerous fire extinguishers in your homes. In the wrong hands, they can put an eye out.

I earnestly loathe those who would try to convince you that your safety lies in the hands of someone else. It's disingenuous at best, and downright criminal at the worst.