Archive for the ‘Politics’ Category

 Well, since the “Cap-n-Trade” Bill, code named H.R. 2454: American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009, aka the Waxman-Markey contribution to national decline has passed into law, thanks quite literally to the eight Republicans who voted for it, Republicans who it will be shown, I’m sure, to have some sort of financial interest to gain, I thought it my duty to sully the shiny venier of this thing a bit by giving you some of the background of the philosophy behind this movement.

It’s called “Agenda 21.” As early as 1992, the UN passed a resolution called the Rio Declaration on Environment and Development.  This was the framework around which the much more detailed and ambitious “Agenda 21” was constructed.  Though it is the form of an “advisory” resolution, bearing no legal weight with non-signatories, its content and verbiage are clearly reflected in a great deal of the “green” legislation still being forced on American citizens over 15 years later.

Below are some of the “Principles” of the Agenda in which I think you might be interested (all emphasis mine):

Principle 2

    States have, in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations and the principles of international law, the sovereign right to exploit their own resources pursuant to their own environmental and developmental policies, {{and here’s the “but”}}and the responsibility to ensure that activities within their jurisdiction or ontrol do not cause damage to the environment of other States or of areas beyond the limits of national jurisdiction.

Which can, of course, be taken to mean almost anything, because under current definitions, any “greenhouse gas” emissions affect global climate, and so anything you “emit” affects “other states.  So this clause is in effect, self-nullifying.  You can can do whatever you want as a nation, as long as you can guarantee that your pollution won’t cross national boundaries. Right.

Principle 5

    All States and all people shall cooperate in the essential task of eradicating poverty as an indispensable requirement for sustainable development, in order to decrease the disparities in standards of living and better meet the needs of the majority of the people of the world.

Because the “disparities” in standard of living are somehow “unfair.”  What this fails to consider is that one absolutely essential elements of eradicating poverty is dragging people kicking and screaming into the 21st century, not returning us to the stone age through misguided and counterproductive environmental do-goodedness!  You notice it says, “decrease the disparities.”  I doesn’t mention which direction you should move to close the gap!  Make the poor rich by making the rich poorer, and we’ll meet somewhere in the middle.  Doesn’t this sound like Obama’s “spread the wealth around” idea? Gee, I wonder where he got it?

Principle 13

States shall develop national law regarding liability and compensation for the victims of pollution and other environmental damage.

Look at that for a sec.  We are encouraged/required to codify into national law procedures for compensating “victims of pollution.”  How delightfully vague!  So now we move beyong hate crimes, to environmental crimes.  Or maybe that’s now redundant, eh?

Principle 15

    In order to protect the environment, the precautionary approach shall be widely applied by States according to their capabilities.  Where there are threats of serious or irreversible damage, lack of full scientific certainty shall not be used as a reason for postponing cost-effective measures to prevent environmental degradation.

BINGO!  Lack of scientific certainty shouldn’t stand in the way of passing a whole boatload of environmental policies designed not so much to save the environment, as to generate cash for social programs and politicial agenda setting.  Is this sounding oh so vaguely familiar, when our POTUS appoints an “environmental” czar with no scientific training, but lots of financial experience?  With the “global warming” scare being debunked by more and more of the scientific community, and yet still being ramrodded into law by a compliant legislative branch?

Principle 21

    The creativity, ideals and courage of the youth of the world should be mobilized to forge a global partnership in order to achieve sustainable development and ensure a better future for all.

AmeriCorps anyone?  Mandatory service in exchange for tuition?  This ringing any bells?

Here’s a nice one:

4.22. They should also encourage the emergence of an informed consumer public and assist individuals and households to make environmentally informed choices by:

 (a) Providing information on the consequences of consumption choices and behaviour so as to encourage demand for environmentally sound products and use of products;

 (b) Making consumers aware of the health and environmental impact of products, through such means as consumer legislation and environmental labelling;

Think about how everything you hear these days is about “being green.”  It’s green construction, and green products, and green this and green that.   It’s not merely a reflection of a growing social consciousness about these issues, it is a carefully managed and orchestrated campaign to INSTILL this “consciousness” in society.  What, don’t you care about the environment?  Well, then, give up phosphates in your dishwashing detergent, hater!

In short, we are being brainwashed.  According to a plan, and a schedule.

The clincher is right here in paragragh 4.25, labelled “Moving towards environmentally sound pricing.”  And I quote:

4.25. Some progress has begun in the use of appropriate economic instruments to influence consumer behaviour. These instruments include environmental charges and taxes, deposit/refund systems, etc. This process should be encouraged in the light of country-specific conditions.

Cap & Trade, as billed and promised, is a mechanism whereby we force consumers to consume less by imposing “environmental charges & taxes” on both products and the means of production.  Obama wasn’t kidding around when he said, quite clearly, that he intended to destroy coal-based electricity in this country.  Captain Trade is certainly powerful enough to do it!

You owe it to yourself to read up on Agenda 21, and the other UN-”mandated” programs that are behind all this green mania.  If it doesn’t shock you, then you are one of “them.”

Bill Clinton tried to push through the Kyoto Protocol, but Congress was at least semi-conscious enough at the time to see what a nightmare that thing would have been economically for our country.  Now Pres. Obama has managed to push through the Waxman Cap & Trade nightmare, which will accomplish much the same thing.

If your realize nothing else from this post, realize that all that is being promoted under the auspices of “enviromentalism” has, at its core, the goal of compliance with global mandates designed to bring us more and more under the authority of organizations like the UN. 

Locally, as in, in this country, it’s also about using a mechanism against which they’ve already made it hard to argue, and nearly impossible to oppose, in order to generate new revenue streams for funding socialist welfare programs like the “health care plan” and all the other things rolled up in the stiumulous packages.

You were wondering how they were going to pay for all that?  Here ya go.

These people care far less about preserveing the environment than they do about getting their hands on your money.  What little they will leave you.

THIS IS NOT ACCIDENTAL.  This is a premeditated, long-running agenda.   And it is Euro-style marxist dialectic to its core.

To sum up:  It is the stated intention of the marxist environmental movement which is slowly ruining this country to pass legislation and impose fees and fines to the point where goods and services become so expensive that you are forced to use less.  The money made from all these extortion schemes will then be funnelled to the “poor” countries via mechanisms such as, you guessed it, the United Nations…the very organization pushing these agendas.  A rather suspicious conflict of interest, wouldn’t you say?

And all those companies poised to make millions trading in carbon offsets.

This is what a Democratically controlled congress gets you.

Cap and Trade in all it’s glory. Hello $5 a gallon for gas, and double or triple your electricity bill in the next 10 years.

Bastards.  We are so phuq’d.

In betwixt and between all the impassioned outcrys both from within and without Iran regarding their most recent “election,” I find that all the intensity and furor suddenly begs the question:

Why all of a sudden do we see such a fervor from the voting public in Iran?

More importantly, why are we HEARING about it, from within what has traditionally been a country with a very tight hold on not only its media, but its people?

My personal opinion is that this is the result of the very kind of “domino theory” that Iran and the other countries of the Middle East feared would result from a successful Iraq.

There was more at stake than meets the eye for Iran, Syria, Jordan, and yes, even our “ally” Saudi Arabia.  There was a reason that a large (disproportionately so) number of the “insurgents’ we were capturing or killing in Iraq were from these countries.   They saw very clearly the threat posed in the Middle East by a stable, US-friendly democracy.  And it wasn’t because of the oil.

As Pres. Bush and his advisors correctly surmised, in the context of the “Long War” perhaps the best way to defeat the violence of militant Islamic extremists — despite the hardships we might face in the relative short term — was to establish a country where freedom, not fear, ruled the day.  To show that the “Great Experiment” could even work within the context of Islam. (more…)

Listening to the radio on the way to work this morning, I heard something that chilled me to my very core.  I literally got a chill down my spine.  I quite literally spoke out loud, “Oh, shit.”

It was a “top of the hour” news blurb about how the push for Hate Crimes legislation is gaining steam, being pushed through Congress to bring harsher penalties to those who commit crimes motivated by hate.  You know, rather than the much nobler greed, anger, disinterest, or predatory exploitation.  It’s HATE that we have to watch out for, right?  I mean, in addition to all those “love crimes” we’ve got on the books.  But I digress.

What really rocked me back on my heels was one sentence that came across towards the end of the sound bite.  Some mouthpiece promoting the legislation spoke of trying to keep better track of “bias motivated events.”

Bias. Motivated. Events.  Think about that fer just a sec.

In one swift and subtle movement, we knocked the edges off the definition of “hate crime” and squishy-coated it down into “bias motivated events.”

Can you see the inherent, insidious danger here?

If someone mugs a pedestrian, say, man dressed up in women’s clothes, does this constitute a hate crime?  What is the burden of proof to say that the alleged criminal  didn’t target this person because of their “lifestyle”.  What if the crook took the dude’s predilections for frills and lace to suggest he might be an easy target.  Not because the crook hated the tranny, but because he figured he/she might be an easy mark.  Too effeminate to fight back, who knows?

Instead of 6 months, suspended, for attempted robbery, our felon gets 5 years because it’s a “hate crime.”

But wait.  This goes back to prosecuting intent, rather than actions.  If I further dumb this down to say that any “bias-motivated event” can be prosecuted, ANYTHING I DO that is motivated by my personal bias or worldview, can now become prosecutable.

Anything.

Say a church decides that since Sally has decided to become Sam, that maybe we don’t want him/her teaching Sunday School anymore.  Is that my right as a private institution, or is it now a hate crime, because it was motivated by a religious bias against Transgendereds?  Not that we hate them, but just that we don’t want them teaching our sunday school class.  That’s not hate, it’s bias.  Instead of just being unfaaaaaaaair, is it now also a hate crime?

If I choose not to rent to a couple of guys because they look, act, and sound like belligerent gang bangers, can I be prosecuted for my “bias” against thugs who will likely wreck my rental?

If a pastor speaks out against men preying on boys for sexual exploitation, can I be prosecuted for a hate crime because of my BIAS?

This is an incredibly dangerous area, a slippery slope that, in the name of protecting rights, will end up destroying them.  I mean, short of a diary, a blog post, or a text message, etc., how can you prove INTENT behind an individual’s action?  Do gays, or blacks, or hispanics have special protections against crimes that others don’t?  Shouldn’t all be equal under the law?

Robbery, murder, rape, arson.  They are crimes.  They are illegal.  They shouldn’t be MORE illegal because of who the victim is.  WHY I committed the crime might make me an asshole, a reporbate, a truly descpicable human being.  Sadly, or thankfully, there’s no law (yet) against being an asshole.  It is only the CRIME I commit which makes me a criminal, regardless of my motivations for it.

Isn’t that what this trend in hate crimes suggests?  That eventually, what you THINK about a situation will have as much legal weight as what you actually DID about it?

Scary stuff.  Beyond even 1984.  Madness.

So, I have determined that it is only appropriate to focus on a person’s race or gender if you are “heralding” it.  Judge Sonomayor is being “heralded” as the first hispanic Supreme Court Justice.  Barack Obama is “heralded” as the first black president.  Every month is some sort of minority appreciation month where we “herald” the contributions of blacks, pacific islanders, native americans, women, children, those with a cleft palate, the tone deaf and wiccan transgendered performance artists.  Okay, I might have made up those last few.

So, lemme get this straight.  Basing your decision on whether or not to pull someone over for a traffic stop or to give them “extra screening” at the airport based on their race or gender is BAD, profiling, ptooie, but basing your decision on whether or not someone should sit on the Supreme Court of the United States in large measure because of their race and gender is GOOD?  Hoookayyyy….

If you believe that, by nature  of her gender or her ethnicity, Judge Sonia Sonomayor has some unique and/or unmatchable ability to perform her job as Supreme court justice, you are a racialist.  She certainly seems to think so, as per her much quoted sentiment:

I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.

Did she mean in general, or merely with respect to women’s issues, or Latino issues?  Which, of course, then begs the question, why do we need a special set of rules or a unique viewpoint to properly and impartially apply the law to women and/or Latinos?  How is suggesting that a latino woman is somehow inherently more capable of making the correct decision than a white man at its core any different from barring blacks from military service because they aren’t “smart enough?”

Answer:  No difference whatsoever.

There is of course that touchy-feely, squishy-guishy idea that a minority woman should be cherished and protected because of her unique perspective based on her upbringing and challenges.  Bollocks.  That’s called “coddling,” and it promotes all sorts of enabling behaviors that cause us to overlook clear and present concerns with the performance and methods of an individual or group out of some misguided sense that we should not “quell their voice.”  

Sure, let ‘em talk.  Just don’t let them make “policy” from the bench!

So, lemme ask.  Whyizzit that a white South African man who emigrated to the US last week is on his own, has to compete in the marketplace just like everybody else, and is lucky if he can avoid paying out-of-state tuition at a college, but a black man whose ancestors came to this country 185 years ago is an “African-American minority” who deserves special consideration in hiring, academic scholarships, and other  quota-based entitlements?   How long until “minorities” are required to just be “Americans,” and compete on an equal and impartial basis with the rest of us genetic misfits, especially when a lot of them would be hard-pressed to find Africa on a map?!

There is NO EQUALITY where there is PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT.

If all men (and women) are created equal with respect to the law, then they MUST be treated equally.   NOT given undue priviledge based on a real or perceived injustice now divorced from their present situation by several generations.

One would hope that the selection for a Supreme Court justice would be completely blind to race, skin color, gender or taste in music.  One would HOPE that we would simply chose the most qualified individual for the job, REGARDLESS of the nature of the adjectives one might ascribe to their appearance!

But no, it would appear that we still have a LONG way to go in the area of equal rights in this country. 

If Sonia Sonomayor is qualified for that seat on the Supreme Court, good on ‘er.   BUT.  She must be qualified because of her experience as a judge, her demonstrated performance as a jurist, and her proven and demonstrable committment to upholding the principles of established Constitutional law.

Not because she’s a latina chic.

Well, on CNN, the Tea Party protests got only one link, but amazingly enough, the article was balanced, fair, and by no means a hit piece.  I encourage you to read it.  It lays out the basics of what the protests are about, and even seems to paint them in if not a positive light, then at least in neutral terms.

Nationwide ‘tea party’ protests blast spending

However.

Let us compare that article to this one from that bastion of journalistic objectivity, MSNBC.

 Anti-tax ‘tea parties’ being held across U.S.
Obama aims to ease dread of deadline day, vowing ‘simpler tax code’

Notice how they manage to toss a puff for Obama into the Headline?

Also notice that the Page Title in the HTML actually says, “Anti-tax ‘tea parties’ vent anger across U.S.”  The anger part becomes important pretty quickly. I’ll just highlight in bold all the fun, inflammatory terms and polarizing language:

Whipped up by conservative commentators and bloggers, tens of thousands of protesters staged “tea parties” across the nation

Whipped up. As in, into a frenzy.  At least they didn’t downplay the numbers, got to give them that.

Protesters even threw what appeared to be a box of tea bags over the fence onto the White House grounds, causing a brief lockdown at the compound before the package was declared not dangerous.

The assumption being, of course, that something the protestors threw over the fence would be dangerous.  Which, if it “appeared to be tea bags”  would, I propose, be a bit of stretch, wouldn’t you think?  Unless of course it fits your narrative.

Shouts rang out from Kentucky,

Looks a bit like “shots rang out,” doesn’t it?

“Frankly, I’m mad as hell,” said businessman Doug Burnett at a rally at the Iowa Capitol, where many of the about 1,000 people wore red shirts declaring “revolution is brewing.”

That’s right.  Angry, red-shirted Iowans warning of revolution.  Hey, maybe that DHS report was right!?

Texas Gov. Rick Perry fired up a tea party at Austin City Hall with his stance against the federal government, as some in his U.S. flag-waving audience shouted, “Secede!”

Not just revolutionists, but successionist as well!  The way this is worded, does it not give the impression that Texas Gov. Rick Perry might tacitly approve this sentiment, as it is “HIS” flag-waving audience?  Not THE audience, but HIS audience.  A subtle but grammatically significant difference.

Other protesters also took direct aim at Obama. One sign in the crowd in Madison, Wis., compared him to the anti-Christ.

Don’t forget rabid, fundie Christians.   “Taking direct aim” at Obama.  I believe they use to call this sort of thing “yellow journalism.”  Now they just call it, well, MSNBC.

Jim Adams of Selma carried a sign that showed the president with Hitler-style hair and mustache and said, “Sieg Heil Herr Obama.”

Must have changed the name on one of the Code Pink signs, I guess.

To be honest, I can’t tell if the penner of this AP piece was simply trying to present a sense of the moral outrage of the participants, but I doubt it.    The use of such charged terms as “whipped up” and “shouts rang out” do more than convey intensity…the suggest a frenzy, the possibility of violence.  Which is at odds with the vast majority of other reporting on the events out there.

The movement attracted some Republicans considering 2012 presidential bids.

Really?  Like who?

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich planned to address a tea party in a New York City park Wednesday night. Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal sent an e-mail to his supporters, letting them know about tea parties throughout the state. South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford attended two tea parties.

These three have all expressed interest in running in 2012?  Who knew?

To me, giving cherry-picked statements from isolated firebrands equal time with the more common tone of frustrated but motivated political activism in the name of “balance” really isn’t.  It makes it appear that this undercurrent of revolutionary fervor was a common theme, which it is not.

The TEA Parties are really just about getting the government back on track, under control, and accountable to the people again.  Rather than the other way around.

Folks, all you have to do is look at the pictures from the various Tea Party rallies, and then compare and contrast the pictures over at ZombieTime from a series of Lefty proteests, to see what a fallacy it is to be so cautionary against “conservative” activism.  The Radical Left long ago cornered the market on crazy.

Found this quote over at Carin’s place:

 it is wrong to give them (ed. – that would be YOU) unilateral power to decide whether their taxpayer-subsidized donations should go to, say, well-heeled operas or lavish care of pets rather than to organizations that meet more pressing communal needs (my emphasis)

And that, ladies and gentlemen, is Liberal Political Theology in a nutshell.  It is WRONG to allow wage earners to be the sole determiners of how their income is spent, because at some point, some where, they utilized a government funded resource or utility in the earning of it, and thus they “owe” that “taxpayer-subsidized” money back to….someone.

And since you can’t be trusted to spend that money wisely, you know, like buying a pedicure for Fifi instead of shoes for a homeless guy, it is the responsibility, nay, the OBLIGATION of the government to step in and make those kinds of sticky decisions for you.

Because, you know, the Government is so much wiser, so much more altruistic, and so much more caring than you are.  Just remember that the next time you are waiting in line at the DMV.

This is the mindset against which we struggle:  That people can’t and shouldn’t be trusted with how to spend their own money, because they will inevitably make the “wrong” decisions, and so the more of that money that the Government takes, then the better off everyone will be.  Until, one glorious and liberating day, every freakin’ cent you make goes right into the government coffers to be wisely and graciously distributed as handled by the benificent Higher Beings knows as “Politicians” and “Civil Service Workers.”  You know, the ones running the Post Office and the IRS.  Can’t you just see the clouds parting and the light shining down now?  What a utopia, no?

You know what happens when you arbitrarily decide that as long as there are poor people, then discretionary spending on things like pedicures or facials, or latte’s or pinstriping on your car or a new TV in the game room is “irresponsible?” 

Pretty soon the pet salon and the latte stand and the electonics store and the auto detailing shop GO OUT OF #$%@&* BUSINESS!!!!

And TADA, now you’ve got more unemployed homeless people for the government busybodies to take care of.  Do people really not understand this?

These are the people who aren’t raising more of a stink about what Obama is doing, because they agree with what he is doing and how he’s going about it.  They genuinely want our economic system to fail and be completely retooled into textbook Marxist socialism.

Stupid, meddling bastards.

UPDATE:

RightWingSparkle has the proof in the puddin’.

And Patterico.

We all seem to understand the perils of this trend.  Those that don’t, fail to do so because they want it to happen, not based on any practical understanding of the issues or long term consequences, but rather, because they are operating out of emotive idealism liberally intermixed with a dash of retribution and “revenge thinking” promoted by the vocal, hard-left Alinsky-ites who seem to get most of the press time in this country lately.  The “hate the rich” meme that has become the social buzz, even among the Lefty rich!  Bizzarro world.

I think I lived in Coeur d’Alene long enough to legitimately claim status as an “Idahoan.”  My oldest son spent the first four years of his life there, and I worked and payed taxes and lived there.  Went to the Fourth of July Parade every year for almost eight years running, even after I moved across the border to Spokane.    But more than residency, that place just got into my blood.  It will always be “home” to me, no matter where else I happen to live at the moment.  I WILL move back there someday, even if it’s only to retire.  But this has led me to now, and forever, when people ask where I’m from, to only give the answer “Idaho!”

HOUSE JOINT MEMORIAL NO. 4
BY STATE AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the members of the First Regular Session of
the Sixtieth Idaho Legislature, the House of Representatives and the Senate concurring therein, that the state of Idaho hereby claims sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government by the Constitution of the United States.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that this serves as notice and demand to the federal gov2
ernment, as our agent, to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all compulsory federal legislation that directs states
to comply under threat of civil or criminal penalties or sanctions, or requires states to pass legislation or lose federal funding, be prohibited.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chief Clerk of the House of Representatives be,
and she is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Memorial to the President of the United States, the President of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives of Congress, and the congressional delegation representing the State of Idaho in the Congress of the United States.

That’s what we call silk-lined ass-whuppin.  Or, in more genteel terms, “Reminding the Federal Government Just Who Exactly It Is They Work For.”

We The People are not pleased, and will be heard.  Bitches.

Found Via Four Right Wing Wackos.

If the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, then abortions would be illegal.

True or False?

UPDATE:

Too good not to post.  From one of those “Might Be Related” links below, comes this cogent, erudite, well-reasoned defense of Roe V. Wade:

Roe v Wade is a Surpreme Court of US case on abortion rights. Roe (not her real identity, though you could wiki her and discover she’s now a pro-life lady. The idiot)

Yeah. Nice.  Go prof-life.  Want to preserve unborn children.  It means you’re an idiot.  Pot meet kettle.

was raped (ed. – no she wasn’t – that part was completely fabricated, as in a big fat stinkin’ LIE.

and wanted to get an abortion but the state she lived in (I can’t remember what and I’m to lazy to wiki it) forbid abortion. They brought the case in the Supreme Court and the Court decided that there should be a right to choose or something along that line,

No, you ignorant douche.  They mythicalled up a never-before-seen-or-heard-of, “Right to Privacy” inherent in the 4th Amendment, which essentially meant that under the protections of the Fourth Amendment, the government was specifically prohibited from preventing what was essentially a “private” action, at least without a search warrant.  Come on, chica.  I don’t even SUPPORT abortion, and I know that much.

and if a State makes a law contrary to that, it would be unconstitutional. To be honest, I can’t remember the judgment, really; we were studying the 14th Amendment more than the right to privacy (even though all the cases were on right to privacy; a right that is not guaranteed in the US Constitution)

Uh, mkay.  Soooo then, uhm, tell me again how the decision in Roe V. Wade IS Constitutional, if the foundational premise supporting it IS NOT?!

 14th Amendment is how the Supreme Court make up their own bunch of Bill of Rights that weren’t guaranteed by the people of the 1700s (since the US Constitution is really the will of the people of the 1700s; it is not at all the will of the people who are currently living in the US. The last amendment was in 1992. It’s horrible; though not as bad as Australian’s, I suppose…).

Ah yes.  The “living document” defense.  Yes, yes.  Standard Lefty talking point:  Our Constitution is an archaic throwback reminiscent of the besotted musings of a bunch of old elitist white guys in wigs.  No application to our modern life whatsover.  Except, you know, for that whole right-to-privacy thing, which of course is so, like TODAY, you know?  And needs to be defended to the last breath. Provided you ever get a chance to TAKE a breath, that is.

One would suppose that for this individual to open her ignorant suck and expound on the virtues of a certain piece of legislation (ed.- No, that wasn’t a typo), one would hope she would at least know what the bloody freakin’ hell she is talking about!  But it’s more along the lines of, “Yeah, there was this case, by these guys, about this stuff, for this one girl, from this place.  And, uh, ABORTION ROCKS, DUDE!  GO OBAMA!”

The only plus is apparently, this abortion survivor can’t vote.  So, yeah, we got that going for us.

Terror Group Leader Takes Control of Somalia- Obama Approves

Ask Britain how trying appeasement worked out with Hitler.  Ask the Israelis how appeasement worked out with Hamas, or the Syrians.  Ask the Marines how appeasement worked out in the initial stages of Fallujah.

All appeasement does is give your enemies more time to arm and equip.  Giving the Shariaists of the world what they want only emboldens them to demand more.   Trying to make friends with militant Islamicists does two things:  1) Convinces them that you are an idiot, and 2) Proves them right.

There can be no “dialogue” with these people.  They are not interested in rational discourse.  The are interested only in subjugation, the rule of Sharia, and the expansion of Islam to every corner of the globe, through influence, coercion, deceipt, or force of arms.

And if you haven’t figured this out, you ain’t been listening.  To them.  To their own rhetoric. 

I simply do not understand people who can listen to the fervent, frothing intensity of these virulent, caustic leaders of Islam who freely and unabashedly state that they want nothing less than the deaths of those who refuse to follow Islam, the destruction of countries who refuse to bow to their demands…people who then turn around and propose with naivete’ and incredulity, “Well, they can’t really MEAN that.  It’s just because they don’t understand us.  If we try really hard to be friends, to make nice, well, I’m sure we can make them see the light.”

Folks, the only light that will help Islamic fasicsts “understand” the realities of a 21st century world is the flash just before the boom.  Remember, these are people who profess to hate technology so much that they refuse to develop any themselves…and yet have no compunctions about selling heroin to buy weapons technology from countries they one day hope to destroy.

These….THESE are the people with whom Pres. Obama want’s to “open a dialogue?!”   In this uncertain day and age, with the influence of a barabaric and reactionary islamic fundamentalism gaining increasing sway throughout large swaths of Europe, Asia, the pacific rim, and even the United States, the willful ignorance, the deluded naivete, and the misguided idealism of the current administration towards the threats we, as a country, face from our enemies, gives Barack Obama the potential to be the single most damaging President this country has endured in our history.

Between his fiscal irresponsiblity, his rampant expansion of government powers, his embracing of bellicose antagonists as “respected” world leaders, and his fumbling inability to appoint a cabinet not plagued by controversy and scandal, one has to wonder what else is in store for us?

Hope and Change, eh?

UPDATE:

Ooooh.  Looky Looky.  Geert Wilders agrees with me.  I must be, like, famous our smart or something.