Ok,
Small doings on Tuesday with some elections. The Republicans won a couple of governor spots while the Democrats won a couple of House seats. Which was more important?
As much as I hate to agree with the idiots over at DailyKos, I think that the Democrats came out bigger nationally, at least in the short term.
As far as I'm concerned, Corzine losing in New Jersey wasn't terribly surprising. I think that results were more anti-Corzine than it was pro-Republican. And time will tell whether Chris Christie will actually be conservative (my immediate guess is no).
As for Virginia, come on, it's...Virginia. We should be whuppin' ass in Virginia. The fact that the Democrats have done as well as they have kinda scary.
But these are mostly local issues. Governors don't really have any power to influence national aspects. But the House of Representatives does.
I think there was a seat in California that was won by Democrats...no shocker there. From what I understand, Democrats heavily outnumbered Republicans in that district and it traditionally sends the former to represent them.
NY-23, however, is a much different story. Once again, the RINOs decided that they're going to suck Democrat balls rather than even try to reconciliate with conservatives. That race made me sick because I really do think Hoffman should have been the winner there, particularly since about 5% voted for Scozzafava anyway. But then, that's the RINOs for you. If they don't get their way, they just vote Democrat (funny how everyone always portrays us conservatives as being narrow-minded). Congrads RINOS, you just added another "yes" vote to radical health care.
I mean, with "friends" like the Scuzzy backers, the Maine sisters and a host of other "let's toss salad the Democrats" RINOs, who needs enemies? Seriously, why don't the RINOs just slap a fucking D next to their name and be done with it? It's obvious that you guys agree very much with Democrats, so just take the next logical step and switch parties. And yes, I'm not afraid to say that I want to see the Republican purified a bit. If purified means getting rid of backstabbers and Meghan "like oh my god" McCain twits, is that necessarily a bad thing?
Purify the party and improve on the message (and yes it needs improving) or at the very least make it clearer. In the long term we'll be better for it.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Monday, May 11, 2009
Fighting in Pakistan and Afghanistan news...
I haven't really written on the war up to this point, but I've been following it since it started in 2001. I've been getting particularly interested in what was going on in Pakistan over the last couple of months, primarily through an excellent site, The Long War Journal. If you haven't seen this site yet, I strongly suggest you do, since it's an invaluable information tool to get daily events on what's going on with the War on Terror (I refuse to use the terminology by the current jackass administration).
One thing that caught my attention was what has been going on in the Northwest Frontier region of Pakistan. From what I've seen in the mainstream media, they aren't covering this important news anywhere near the level that they should. In a nutshell, Pakistan is much worse than what is reported, and it's not improving. The media makes a point to herald various Pakistani army offensives against the Taliban, and then leaves it hanging. What generally happens is that the army or security forces move against the Taliban, take a town or a small amount of territory, declare victory and then withdraw. That's assuming that they aren't thrown out of their gains by Taliban counterattacks, which has happened frequently.
Even the US military is skeptical about Pakistani military claims in its latest offensive, which is spanning the Northwest Frontier districts of Buner, Shangla, Dir and Swat. If our own military is saying that the Paks are full of shit, I think it's time to get worried. God help us if the Taliban actually gets ahold of some of the nuclear weapons.
And from Afghanistan, there's this "cute" article about the Afghan lawmakers (I use that term loosely) wanting to restrict our soldiers there. Yeah, anything to help the Taliban out...
In a nutshell, these guys are pissed off that civilians are getting killed by our soldiers (which may or may not be true, since they could easily be getting killed by their own people) and so they want to put restrictions on our troops to make sure no civilians are hurt in the future. They say that if it doesn't happen, there will be uprisings.
Well, my call on this to pull that quote out by William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is all hell." People do get killed in war, it's unavoidable. Our soldiers are being put between a rock and a hard place. They're told to fight a war, then have restrictions put on them telling them how they can fight, where they can go, etc. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the "winning of hearts and minds" mindset of warfare. I think it's bullshit. The way to win is to smash the enemy up and do as much damage as possible. Beat them into submission. In the long run, you take much less casualties. But of course we won't do that, and I'm sure there are many people who would tell me that I'm full of shit. Perhaps, but we'll see what the national mindset will be when (not if) the enemy sets off a nuclear or biological device in this country and coldly exterminates thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of American citizens. Unfortunately, that's the enemy we're up against. Ignore it at your peril.
One thing that caught my attention was what has been going on in the Northwest Frontier region of Pakistan. From what I've seen in the mainstream media, they aren't covering this important news anywhere near the level that they should. In a nutshell, Pakistan is much worse than what is reported, and it's not improving. The media makes a point to herald various Pakistani army offensives against the Taliban, and then leaves it hanging. What generally happens is that the army or security forces move against the Taliban, take a town or a small amount of territory, declare victory and then withdraw. That's assuming that they aren't thrown out of their gains by Taliban counterattacks, which has happened frequently.
Even the US military is skeptical about Pakistani military claims in its latest offensive, which is spanning the Northwest Frontier districts of Buner, Shangla, Dir and Swat. If our own military is saying that the Paks are full of shit, I think it's time to get worried. God help us if the Taliban actually gets ahold of some of the nuclear weapons.
And from Afghanistan, there's this "cute" article about the Afghan lawmakers (I use that term loosely) wanting to restrict our soldiers there. Yeah, anything to help the Taliban out...
In a nutshell, these guys are pissed off that civilians are getting killed by our soldiers (which may or may not be true, since they could easily be getting killed by their own people) and so they want to put restrictions on our troops to make sure no civilians are hurt in the future. They say that if it doesn't happen, there will be uprisings.
Well, my call on this to pull that quote out by William Tecumseh Sherman: "War is all hell." People do get killed in war, it's unavoidable. Our soldiers are being put between a rock and a hard place. They're told to fight a war, then have restrictions put on them telling them how they can fight, where they can go, etc. Personally, I'm not a big fan of the "winning of hearts and minds" mindset of warfare. I think it's bullshit. The way to win is to smash the enemy up and do as much damage as possible. Beat them into submission. In the long run, you take much less casualties. But of course we won't do that, and I'm sure there are many people who would tell me that I'm full of shit. Perhaps, but we'll see what the national mindset will be when (not if) the enemy sets off a nuclear or biological device in this country and coldly exterminates thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of American citizens. Unfortunately, that's the enemy we're up against. Ignore it at your peril.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Souter's out as US Supreme Court Judge; left-wing replacement likely
David Souter was probably one of the oddest judicial nominations by any president. He was chosen by George H.W. Bush in 1990 in what should have been a relatively conservative addition to the United States Supreme Court. In fact, the opposite happened, and while Souter was not a left-wing nut, he was center-left, which shocked most people. On Friday, May 1st, Souter announced that he would be retiring from the Court, which enables Obama to choose a judge more pliable to his liking (not that Souter was horrible for the Messiah...).
" 'In addition, the president said he will seek "somebody with a sharp, independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity.' That person must honor traditions, respect the judicial process and share Obama's grasp of constitutional values, he said."
So essentially, it'll be a left-wing fruit-loop that'll replace Souter (who will probably look downright rightest compared to his successor). The last part in the above statement is pretty much the only thing that counts. Obama's "grasp of constitutional values" means that someone who believes the Constitution is an activist document will be placed on the Court. And given the situation in Congress right now, it's a certainty that the candidate will sail through with no problems.
"The president said he intends to consult with people in both political parties as he makes his choice to replace Souter."
Yeah, I'm sure he'll fete good RINOs who just want to get along. Of course, if Republicans get too feisty, he can just say "I won."
"Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Republican who led the Senate Judiciary Committee when President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to the court, said Republicans needed to be fair and not seek 'a big fight that is ideological.' "
This coming from a guy who has no problems pissing all over the Constitution a couple of months ago regarding making the D.C. representative a voting member of Congress. The Constitution is quite explicit about the District of Columbia being a distinct and separate entity from the other 50 states. This is mainly due to the idea that the center of federal government should not be directly involved in political decisions. Now, Hatch was a big supporter of this because it added another representative (temporarily) to Utah (which Hatch represents). However, when the Census is finished next year, then Utah could very well lose that representative again, which means that Hatch's scheme will fail dismally. Once again, short term interests trump the long term. By the way, the way things are going, it had better damn well be ideological because the Democrats see this battle as nothing but. But of course, the RINOs still haven't figured it out yet. They're too busy trying to make nice.
Here's the overall situation. Souter was center-left already, so this does not change things much. He'll most likely be replaced by a much more leftist judge, but that doesn't really change the equation for the Court, which is roughly 4 liberal, 4 conservative and 1 fence-sitter. And given the Democrats' hold on both Houses of Congress, there will not be any real problems in the nomination process. Oh, I'm sure a few Republicans will piss and moan about it, but for the most part I expect that the RINOs will act like they always do and help the Democrats in order to be "cooperative." Of course, the RINOs are still irrelevant since the Democrats don't really need them.
In fact, the next two eldest judges are both liberals: Ruth Bader-Ginsburg (76) and John Paul Stevens (89). Steven Breyer, also a liberal, is 70. The former two are the most likely judges to leave the Court. Since these two are both leftists anyway, replacing them will not change the balance in the short term. What it will do is keep several leftists in the Court for a long time. Three of the four conservative judges are relatively young: John Roberts (54), Samuel Alito (55) and Clarence Thomas (60). Only Antonin Scalia is getting on in years (73). That leaves one judge that teeters constantly back and forth: Anthony Kennedy, who is 72.
However, as Souter has shown, age isn't necessarily the only factor in determining when a judge will leave the court. However, consider this. If Obama wins re-election in 2012, he could conceivably nominate as many as five judges before he's out, based on the age criteria. The average SCOTUS nomination number for presidents has been two per administration. With Souter leaving, Obama is halfway to that average and he's just over 100 days in. That is significant to say the least.
" 'In addition, the president said he will seek "somebody with a sharp, independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity.' That person must honor traditions, respect the judicial process and share Obama's grasp of constitutional values, he said."
So essentially, it'll be a left-wing fruit-loop that'll replace Souter (who will probably look downright rightest compared to his successor). The last part in the above statement is pretty much the only thing that counts. Obama's "grasp of constitutional values" means that someone who believes the Constitution is an activist document will be placed on the Court. And given the situation in Congress right now, it's a certainty that the candidate will sail through with no problems.
"The president said he intends to consult with people in both political parties as he makes his choice to replace Souter."
Yeah, I'm sure he'll fete good RINOs who just want to get along. Of course, if Republicans get too feisty, he can just say "I won."
"Sen. Orrin Hatch, the Republican who led the Senate Judiciary Committee when President Bill Clinton nominated Ruth Bader Ginsberg and Stephen Breyer to the court, said Republicans needed to be fair and not seek 'a big fight that is ideological.' "
This coming from a guy who has no problems pissing all over the Constitution a couple of months ago regarding making the D.C. representative a voting member of Congress. The Constitution is quite explicit about the District of Columbia being a distinct and separate entity from the other 50 states. This is mainly due to the idea that the center of federal government should not be directly involved in political decisions. Now, Hatch was a big supporter of this because it added another representative (temporarily) to Utah (which Hatch represents). However, when the Census is finished next year, then Utah could very well lose that representative again, which means that Hatch's scheme will fail dismally. Once again, short term interests trump the long term. By the way, the way things are going, it had better damn well be ideological because the Democrats see this battle as nothing but. But of course, the RINOs still haven't figured it out yet. They're too busy trying to make nice.
Here's the overall situation. Souter was center-left already, so this does not change things much. He'll most likely be replaced by a much more leftist judge, but that doesn't really change the equation for the Court, which is roughly 4 liberal, 4 conservative and 1 fence-sitter. And given the Democrats' hold on both Houses of Congress, there will not be any real problems in the nomination process. Oh, I'm sure a few Republicans will piss and moan about it, but for the most part I expect that the RINOs will act like they always do and help the Democrats in order to be "cooperative." Of course, the RINOs are still irrelevant since the Democrats don't really need them.
In fact, the next two eldest judges are both liberals: Ruth Bader-Ginsburg (76) and John Paul Stevens (89). Steven Breyer, also a liberal, is 70. The former two are the most likely judges to leave the Court. Since these two are both leftists anyway, replacing them will not change the balance in the short term. What it will do is keep several leftists in the Court for a long time. Three of the four conservative judges are relatively young: John Roberts (54), Samuel Alito (55) and Clarence Thomas (60). Only Antonin Scalia is getting on in years (73). That leaves one judge that teeters constantly back and forth: Anthony Kennedy, who is 72.
However, as Souter has shown, age isn't necessarily the only factor in determining when a judge will leave the court. However, consider this. If Obama wins re-election in 2012, he could conceivably nominate as many as five judges before he's out, based on the age criteria. The average SCOTUS nomination number for presidents has been two per administration. With Souter leaving, Obama is halfway to that average and he's just over 100 days in. That is significant to say the least.
Thursday, April 30, 2009
Hey, let's start a panic...or Hoof in Mouth Biden's comments concerning swine flu
I guess my reaction to this is mixed. Does anyone really take this drooling twit seriously or do they look at the vice-president and say, "wow, the VP said it, so we should really be worried (in which case one has to question peoples' intelligence)."
I'm referring to our glorious Vice-President's remarks last night regarding the swine-flu epidemic. This is part of what he said.
" 'I would tell members of my family -- and I have -- I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. It's not that it's going to Mexico in a confined aircraft where one person sneezes, that goes all the way through the aircraft,' Biden said on NBC's 'Today' show."
Ok, let's look at the absurdity of this sentence. He won't go anywhere in confined places. Now, for example, a bathroom is a pretty confined area. Does this mean that Biden will start using diapers because he won't go into a restroom? Yeah, that would be a real interesting image... I also guess that Amtrak option is a no-go now...
" 'I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway,' he said. 'From my perspective, this relates to mitigation. If you're out in the middle of the field and someone sneezes, that's one thing. If you're in a closed aircraft, a closed container, a closed car, a closed classroom, that's another thing' "
Who the hell would be in a closed container? Ok, so if Americans were to actually follow this mental giant's advice, we would not be driving to work, kids wouldn't be going to school (although it seems like schools are starting to overreact as well), or traveling. Now, let's really think about that for a moment. Kids would not be going to school, which impedes their education (and given the way public schools are now, kids need all the education they can get). But more serious is how not driving (or taking the bus or subway) to work or traveling would impact the economy. If you're not going to work, then you're not getting paid. If you're not getting paid, then how can one stimulate the economy? Same thing with traveling. If people aren't traveling and going to see places, then they aren't spending their money, which also impacts the economy. So essentially, if Americans were to take Hoof in Mouth's advice, the American economy would come to a screeching halt in a matter of weeks. Super brilliant there, Joe.
Of course, in the following paragraphs, the travel industry essentially made the same argument as I, probably because they understand more about economics than our esteemed VP.
"When asked by ABC New, press secretary Robert Gibbs replied: 'I think ... what the vice president meant to say was the same thing that again, many members have said in the last few days, that is, if you feel sick, if you are exhibiting flulike symptoms -- coughing, sneezing, runny nose -- that you should take precautions, that you should limit your travel.'
Gibbs apologized if anyone was 'unduly' alarmed but did not elaborate.
'Jake, I'm telling you what he meant to say,' he said to laughter."
No Gibbs, I'm pretty sure that Biden opened his mouth without thinking, which is generally par for the course. Gibbs last line was kind of bizarre. He replied to laughter? It conjured up a mental image from one of the Glen Larson shows I used to watch back in the 80's (Buck Rogers, the original Battlestar Galactica) when at the end of each show, someone would tell a joke, and the end would freeze up in the middle of them laughing and then the credits would come out. I kinda imagined Gibbs making that comment, and then all of the press started to laugh, the screen freezes and then the credits would start rolling out. It pretty much shows how chummy our 4th estate has gotten with the Obama Administration.
Probably the most surrealistic moment came when Nancy "Bimbette" Pelosi remarked on Slow Joe's advice.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also had a different message. She said she would not tell her family to stay off planes and public transportation, but would recommend to them the 'common-sense' approach, washing hands and covering sneezes or coughs.
'They are living their lives and, again, practicing common sense, good practices. And so it's not a question of not encouraging, not to travel. It's also a question of encouraging them not to leave home ... just because their states ... are the most, shall we say, suspicious in this case,' Pelosi told reporters."
You know, when Pelosi sounds like a comparative fountain of wisdom, the world has truly turned upside down.
You want to know the kicker? This swine flu epidemic has been blown completely out of proportion. It's actually milder than most forms of the flu. The reason why people are dying of this (cough, Mexico) is because of abyssmal hygiene levels. If you take basic precautions like washing your hands (which should be an automatic anyway, especially in this country), you should be fine. However, the administration and the media, has good reasons to keep this story going. The media loves to put people into a panic over the dumbest things (remember SARS?). The administration loves the political cover that this flu gives, because they can quietly push more crap legislation through Congress and no one would notice. And since the media is essentially acting like Pravda to this administration, it's a double bonus for them. They get a good story that they can trumpet to the heavens while giving political cover to their Messiah. As Rahm Emanuel said, never let a crisis go to waste.
I'm referring to our glorious Vice-President's remarks last night regarding the swine-flu epidemic. This is part of what he said.
" 'I would tell members of my family -- and I have -- I wouldn't go anywhere in confined places now. It's not that it's going to Mexico in a confined aircraft where one person sneezes, that goes all the way through the aircraft,' Biden said on NBC's 'Today' show."
Ok, let's look at the absurdity of this sentence. He won't go anywhere in confined places. Now, for example, a bathroom is a pretty confined area. Does this mean that Biden will start using diapers because he won't go into a restroom? Yeah, that would be a real interesting image... I also guess that Amtrak option is a no-go now...
" 'I would not be, at this point, if they had another way of transportation, suggesting they ride the subway,' he said. 'From my perspective, this relates to mitigation. If you're out in the middle of the field and someone sneezes, that's one thing. If you're in a closed aircraft, a closed container, a closed car, a closed classroom, that's another thing' "
Who the hell would be in a closed container? Ok, so if Americans were to actually follow this mental giant's advice, we would not be driving to work, kids wouldn't be going to school (although it seems like schools are starting to overreact as well), or traveling. Now, let's really think about that for a moment. Kids would not be going to school, which impedes their education (and given the way public schools are now, kids need all the education they can get). But more serious is how not driving (or taking the bus or subway) to work or traveling would impact the economy. If you're not going to work, then you're not getting paid. If you're not getting paid, then how can one stimulate the economy? Same thing with traveling. If people aren't traveling and going to see places, then they aren't spending their money, which also impacts the economy. So essentially, if Americans were to take Hoof in Mouth's advice, the American economy would come to a screeching halt in a matter of weeks. Super brilliant there, Joe.
Of course, in the following paragraphs, the travel industry essentially made the same argument as I, probably because they understand more about economics than our esteemed VP.
"When asked by ABC New, press secretary Robert Gibbs replied: 'I think ... what the vice president meant to say was the same thing that again, many members have said in the last few days, that is, if you feel sick, if you are exhibiting flulike symptoms -- coughing, sneezing, runny nose -- that you should take precautions, that you should limit your travel.'
Gibbs apologized if anyone was 'unduly' alarmed but did not elaborate.
'Jake, I'm telling you what he meant to say,' he said to laughter."
No Gibbs, I'm pretty sure that Biden opened his mouth without thinking, which is generally par for the course. Gibbs last line was kind of bizarre. He replied to laughter? It conjured up a mental image from one of the Glen Larson shows I used to watch back in the 80's (Buck Rogers, the original Battlestar Galactica) when at the end of each show, someone would tell a joke, and the end would freeze up in the middle of them laughing and then the credits would come out. I kinda imagined Gibbs making that comment, and then all of the press started to laugh, the screen freezes and then the credits would start rolling out. It pretty much shows how chummy our 4th estate has gotten with the Obama Administration.
Probably the most surrealistic moment came when Nancy "Bimbette" Pelosi remarked on Slow Joe's advice.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., also had a different message. She said she would not tell her family to stay off planes and public transportation, but would recommend to them the 'common-sense' approach, washing hands and covering sneezes or coughs.
'They are living their lives and, again, practicing common sense, good practices. And so it's not a question of not encouraging, not to travel. It's also a question of encouraging them not to leave home ... just because their states ... are the most, shall we say, suspicious in this case,' Pelosi told reporters."
You know, when Pelosi sounds like a comparative fountain of wisdom, the world has truly turned upside down.
You want to know the kicker? This swine flu epidemic has been blown completely out of proportion. It's actually milder than most forms of the flu. The reason why people are dying of this (cough, Mexico) is because of abyssmal hygiene levels. If you take basic precautions like washing your hands (which should be an automatic anyway, especially in this country), you should be fine. However, the administration and the media, has good reasons to keep this story going. The media loves to put people into a panic over the dumbest things (remember SARS?). The administration loves the political cover that this flu gives, because they can quietly push more crap legislation through Congress and no one would notice. And since the media is essentially acting like Pravda to this administration, it's a double bonus for them. They get a good story that they can trumpet to the heavens while giving political cover to their Messiah. As Rahm Emanuel said, never let a crisis go to waste.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Speaker Pelosi proves she's a first class idiot or "Republicans, take back your party!"
Wow, just when you thought "Bimbette" Pelosi couldn't get any dumber, she launches this plea out...
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi marked President Barack Obama's 100th day in office with some unsolicited advice for Republican voters, telling them to "take back" their party."
Yeah, because the GOP needs more Democrat-Lites to infiltrate the party...I'm assuming she's been emboldened by Specter's defection.
"The California Democrat offered her own analysis of the political environment for her political opponents, asserting Republicans across the country are more willing to work with Democrats than their leaders on Capitol Hill."
Uh, I don't know what she's looking at, but I saw Republicans mostly trying to fight the Democratic initiatives. But let's break this sentence down. She said that Republicans are more willing to work with Democrats. The same people who are pushing huge government and massive debt through massive spending. True Republicans are really willing to work with these initiatives? Really? Republicans may be unwilling to work with GOP leaders on Capitol Hill because the leaders in the Beltway have no idea what they stand for. I would say that the opposite is true. RINOs are wanna-be Democrats. They're not really Republicans. They certainly aren't conservative.
" 'Yes, there is -- shall we say -- a 'radical right-wing' element with whom they identify. But by and large, I say to Republicans in America: Take back your party. The party of protecting the environment. The party of individual rights. The party of fairness. This is not the Grand Old Party.' "
Yes, we should say it. We conservatives are right-wing, but hardly radical. The Republican Party is not the party of environmental-nuts. Those are your peeps, the leftists, Nancy. And we're not the party of fairness. We'll leave the uber-egalitarianism/socialism with you guys. You're the lockstep Marxists, remember? What is really fair in nature? Nothing. People move up in station in their lives because they're capable, not because of some overarching idea of "fairness." And speaking of lockstep, Bimbette is right about one thing. We are the party of individual rights. I do believe that the individual should be allowed to develop themselves to the best of their ability. But not by enacting laws designed to supposedly level a playing field by giving groups special rights and privileges. And that's really the heart of the matter. Republicans stand for the individual. Democrats stand for the group, or community, which is where Communism comes from. BTW, how would Nancy know what the GOP is and isn't? She should stick to worrying about what her own party does.
"Pelosi concluded her long riff about the GOP by saying, 'Our country needs a strong, diverse Republican Party.' Without missing a beat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chimed in, saying 'not too strong.' "
Yuk, Yuk, Yuk, those Democrats, what a bunch of comedians... What they mean by diverse is a party that is either tied to the asinine values of the Democratic Party (hence the RINOs) or one that is so multi-dimensional that it stands for nothing. With enough "diversity," one eventually finds the substance lacking because it's been so watered down. And of course Reid comes in with his comment. I'm still laughing it up here. Ok, no I'm not...
"As Pelosi, Reid and other Democratic leaders ticked off a list of legislative accomplishments passed largely without Republican support, the speaker insisted she's tried to reach out to Republicans in Congress, but said it hasn't been easy."
Wow, they really got the mutual admiration society down pat, don't they? Yeah, as McCain said in one of the presidential debates last year, 'it's hard to reach out when you're that far to the left.' So let me get this straight: after patting yourselves on the back for all of the "wonderful" legislation passed in the last 100 days, you then get contrite about getting Republican support? Wow, talk about ballsy...
"Republicans in the House of Representatives 'are difficult to deal with, let's put it that way,' she said.
Asked about Pelosi's comment, House Republican Leader John Boehner responded curtly, 'She hasn't tried.' "
Yeah, because Republicans are such retards that they can't possibly understand your level of sophistication, eh, Nancy? Here's an idea. Perhaps lose the "tude," and maybe you'll find Republicans more responsive, assuming that was ever your intention to begin with. I'd agree with Boehner. She never tried to. But then, since she has the House locked up, she doesn't really need to.
Overall, I think Nancy tried to get cutesy, but it doesn't really come out that way. What it does look like is blatant patronizing. "Oh, if only you stupid Republicans could be as awesome as we are..." The fact is that Nancy, like Obama has a nasty inferiority complex. She didn't like it one bit when the Republicans are in control, and for the next two years (probably more than four), she's going to rub the Republicans in the shit as much as she can. How...mature...
Let me reiterate. Republicans are not losing because they are becoming right-wing extremist. They're losing because they still, at this late hour, have no coherent message. There is a conservative message and there's a RINO message. One eventually has to dominate the arena. Given how RINOs have done in the last decade, I'd rather it be the conservative message that wins out. It may take a while for the message to resonate, but it can win elections. Case in point, Barry Goldwater was unabashedly conservative and got utterly hammered in the 1964 presidential election. It was the worst presidential defeat until Mondale in 1984. But then, that's my point. Sixteen years after Goldwater's defeat and the "death of conservatism," the conservative movement won big in 1980 with Ronald Reagan. The key to victory is to embrace conservatism, not Democrat-Lite.
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi marked President Barack Obama's 100th day in office with some unsolicited advice for Republican voters, telling them to "take back" their party."
Yeah, because the GOP needs more Democrat-Lites to infiltrate the party...I'm assuming she's been emboldened by Specter's defection.
"The California Democrat offered her own analysis of the political environment for her political opponents, asserting Republicans across the country are more willing to work with Democrats than their leaders on Capitol Hill."
Uh, I don't know what she's looking at, but I saw Republicans mostly trying to fight the Democratic initiatives. But let's break this sentence down. She said that Republicans are more willing to work with Democrats. The same people who are pushing huge government and massive debt through massive spending. True Republicans are really willing to work with these initiatives? Really? Republicans may be unwilling to work with GOP leaders on Capitol Hill because the leaders in the Beltway have no idea what they stand for. I would say that the opposite is true. RINOs are wanna-be Democrats. They're not really Republicans. They certainly aren't conservative.
" 'Yes, there is -- shall we say -- a 'radical right-wing' element with whom they identify. But by and large, I say to Republicans in America: Take back your party. The party of protecting the environment. The party of individual rights. The party of fairness. This is not the Grand Old Party.' "
Yes, we should say it. We conservatives are right-wing, but hardly radical. The Republican Party is not the party of environmental-nuts. Those are your peeps, the leftists, Nancy. And we're not the party of fairness. We'll leave the uber-egalitarianism/socialism with you guys. You're the lockstep Marxists, remember? What is really fair in nature? Nothing. People move up in station in their lives because they're capable, not because of some overarching idea of "fairness." And speaking of lockstep, Bimbette is right about one thing. We are the party of individual rights. I do believe that the individual should be allowed to develop themselves to the best of their ability. But not by enacting laws designed to supposedly level a playing field by giving groups special rights and privileges. And that's really the heart of the matter. Republicans stand for the individual. Democrats stand for the group, or community, which is where Communism comes from. BTW, how would Nancy know what the GOP is and isn't? She should stick to worrying about what her own party does.
"Pelosi concluded her long riff about the GOP by saying, 'Our country needs a strong, diverse Republican Party.' Without missing a beat, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid chimed in, saying 'not too strong.' "
Yuk, Yuk, Yuk, those Democrats, what a bunch of comedians... What they mean by diverse is a party that is either tied to the asinine values of the Democratic Party (hence the RINOs) or one that is so multi-dimensional that it stands for nothing. With enough "diversity," one eventually finds the substance lacking because it's been so watered down. And of course Reid comes in with his comment. I'm still laughing it up here. Ok, no I'm not...
"As Pelosi, Reid and other Democratic leaders ticked off a list of legislative accomplishments passed largely without Republican support, the speaker insisted she's tried to reach out to Republicans in Congress, but said it hasn't been easy."
Wow, they really got the mutual admiration society down pat, don't they? Yeah, as McCain said in one of the presidential debates last year, 'it's hard to reach out when you're that far to the left.' So let me get this straight: after patting yourselves on the back for all of the "wonderful" legislation passed in the last 100 days, you then get contrite about getting Republican support? Wow, talk about ballsy...
"Republicans in the House of Representatives 'are difficult to deal with, let's put it that way,' she said.
Asked about Pelosi's comment, House Republican Leader John Boehner responded curtly, 'She hasn't tried.' "
Yeah, because Republicans are such retards that they can't possibly understand your level of sophistication, eh, Nancy? Here's an idea. Perhaps lose the "tude," and maybe you'll find Republicans more responsive, assuming that was ever your intention to begin with. I'd agree with Boehner. She never tried to. But then, since she has the House locked up, she doesn't really need to.
Overall, I think Nancy tried to get cutesy, but it doesn't really come out that way. What it does look like is blatant patronizing. "Oh, if only you stupid Republicans could be as awesome as we are..." The fact is that Nancy, like Obama has a nasty inferiority complex. She didn't like it one bit when the Republicans are in control, and for the next two years (probably more than four), she's going to rub the Republicans in the shit as much as she can. How...mature...
Let me reiterate. Republicans are not losing because they are becoming right-wing extremist. They're losing because they still, at this late hour, have no coherent message. There is a conservative message and there's a RINO message. One eventually has to dominate the arena. Given how RINOs have done in the last decade, I'd rather it be the conservative message that wins out. It may take a while for the message to resonate, but it can win elections. Case in point, Barry Goldwater was unabashedly conservative and got utterly hammered in the 1964 presidential election. It was the worst presidential defeat until Mondale in 1984. But then, that's my point. Sixteen years after Goldwater's defeat and the "death of conservatism," the conservative movement won big in 1980 with Ronald Reagan. The key to victory is to embrace conservatism, not Democrat-Lite.
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Not really surprising...Pennsylvania Senator Arlen Specter changes from a passive to an active Democrat
Well, it's not like I didn't see this coming eventually.
"Veteran Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties Tuesday with a suddenness that seemed to stun the Senate, a moderate's defection that pushed Democrats to within a vote of the 60 needed to overcome filibusters and enact President Barack Obama's top legislative priorities."
This was hardly stunning. Specter has been essentially liberal for a long time. This move simply changes Specter from a pseudo-Democrat to an actual one. And with Franken gaining the Minnesota Senate seat with near certainty, it will give the Democrats the magical 60 votes needed to "bust" the filibuster. This will also unfortunately make the Republican Party essentially irrelevant until at least late next year. I certainly hope the RINOs are satisfied now.
"Specter, 79 and seeking a sixth term in 2010, conceded bluntly that his chances of winning a Pennsylvania Republican primary next year were bleak in a party grown increasingly conservative. But he cast his decision as one of principle, rather than fueled by political ambition as spurned GOP leaders alleged."
Yeah, and Specter is pretty much full of shit. His entire career has been one of political ambition. This is the jackass who gave us the "magic bullet" theory when JFK was assassinated. This guy was a Democrat until he switched parties in 1965 (running for the attorney general). Interestingly enough, he switched because he was about to lose in the Democratic primary. Specter has always been a total douchebag and this pretty much reinforces it. Of course he's doing it to stay in power! He's 79 years old, what else can he do with his life?
"Specter called the White House on Tuesday to notify Obama of his decision to switch. The president called back moments later, according to spokesman Robert Gibbs, to say the Democratic Party was 'thrilled to have you.'
Several officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said discussions of a possible switch had reached into the White House in recent days, although Gibbs said he had no details."
From what I read in other articles, VP 'Hoof in Mouth' Biden had a major hand in bringing Specter over. The idea of Obama "calling back" reinforces that, since if Specter called the White House, don't you think the President would talk to him? Again, this goes against the 'bolt from the blue' statement uttered elsewhere in this article. And why wouldn't Obama be thrilled to have Specter? After all, he just gave Obama a literal filibuster instead of one in the hands of a few RINOs.
"At his news conference, Specter grew animated as he blamed conservatives for helping deliver control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006, making it impossible to confirm numerous judicial appointees of former president George W. Bush.
"They don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don't understand it, but that's what they said," he added."
Huh? How is it that conservatives are to blame? The RINOs have been running this party for almost a decade now. They pushed their candidates in 2004, 2006 and 2008. And what was the outcome? A party that had no message whatsoever, increased spending and a party that was essentially Democrat-Lite. And we're to blame? Please Arlen, do a better job of covering your ass.
"Ironically, Specter had spoken recently about the importance of a strong Republican presence in the Senate.
'If we lose my seat they have 60 Democrats, they will pass card check, you will have the Obama tax increases, they will carry out his big spending plans. So the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter, is vital to stopping tax increases, passage of card check and the Obama big spending plans.' "
So... let me get this straight. To deny the Democrats the magical 60th Senate seat, you decided to head over and become the 60th seat. Wow, Arlen, you really are a fucking numbnut, if you actually believe anything you say, which is doubtful. After all, you did go along with the big spending plans and you are for the budget (i.e. tax increases) so how is keeping you as a RINO Republican going to change that? However, I will say that you answered your own question by speaking of yourself in the third-person by somehow being the savior of the GOP. So it's not really about the Republicans so much as really helping yourself (wow, talk about narcissism).
Well, I have to admit I have mixed feelings about this move. To be honest, Specter was essentially a Democrat and he will continue to vote that way in the future. Therefore, I don't believe that this is as big a loss as many might fear. Yes, this gives the Democrats the filibuster-proof Senate that they've been drooling over for several months now and I do think that he will beat Toomey in the general election next year. If anyone still thinks Pennsylvania is a battleground state, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It's a blue state, so let's just acknowledge that fact.
Secondly, I really do have to wonder how this will play out for other "moderate" Republicans? Firstly, Specter's defection really makes the Maine sisters irrelevant, and in fact I think they realize it .
" 'You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words about how [the GOP] views moderates,' said Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate. "
Uh, that's because you moderates are essentially spineless and worthless. You "moderates" are closet Democrats, so you might as well openly acknowledge that. After watching the 2008 election results and how the RINOs destroyed the Republican Party, I don't feel all that warm and fuzzy either. And Lindsay Graham, a GOP Senator, didn't make much sense either.
" 'I don't want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.' "
Um, yeah...vibrant like, what, 2006 and 2008? Yeah, the GOP looked like a friggin' juggernaut then, didn't it? It seems your idea of center-right is to act Democrat-Lite. That's not center-right. It's not even center. It's left, so just admit it.
" 'I happened to win with 74 percent of the vote in a blue-collar state, but no one asked me, 'How did you do it?'” [Snowe] said. “Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican Party to find out so we could avoid further losses.' "
Hey Olympia? You won because Maine is a northeastern liberal state and elects liberals. That's why no one asks you. When you vote like a Democrat for big budgets and even bigger government, then conservatives could care less how you won. You whored yourself out to the left, end of story. But I'll let you in on a little secret, ok Ms. Snowe? We'll avoid further losses if the GOP grows a spine, gets a clear message to counter the leftist-Democrats and actually practices what it preaches. See, pretty simple, wasn't it?
Senator Snowe is indeed worried, as is her state counterpart Susan Collins (I don't think I'm too far off here). And they have good reason to be. With Specter's defection, their bargaining power just diminished considerably. With Franken coming in and Specter basically playing along, the Democrats will have little need of courting these two in upcoming votes. Will the Maine sisters continue to vote Democrat? Probably, since their state is pretty liberal and they have to represent them. But they won't be getting any future goodies (well, at least not as much) that they probably got when they voted for the other Democratic packages earlier in the year (I'm really interested to see how Maine benefited from their votes).
So now the Republicans really are politically irrelevant until at least 2010. I hate to say it, but a third party built entirely around conservatives is looking better every day (which means the GOP will dissolve).
So now the RINOs really have to make a decision with regards to their "party." Either they can join in with the conservatives in at least symbolically opposing the Socialist Democratic agenda (in which case, they may regain some of their honor) or they can continue the way they have. If the former, welcome back. If the latter, then just follow Specter's lead. We conservatives don't want the RINOs. Now if only we could get those pesky Maine sisters to switch now...
"Veteran Republican Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania switched parties Tuesday with a suddenness that seemed to stun the Senate, a moderate's defection that pushed Democrats to within a vote of the 60 needed to overcome filibusters and enact President Barack Obama's top legislative priorities."
This was hardly stunning. Specter has been essentially liberal for a long time. This move simply changes Specter from a pseudo-Democrat to an actual one. And with Franken gaining the Minnesota Senate seat with near certainty, it will give the Democrats the magical 60 votes needed to "bust" the filibuster. This will also unfortunately make the Republican Party essentially irrelevant until at least late next year. I certainly hope the RINOs are satisfied now.
"Specter, 79 and seeking a sixth term in 2010, conceded bluntly that his chances of winning a Pennsylvania Republican primary next year were bleak in a party grown increasingly conservative. But he cast his decision as one of principle, rather than fueled by political ambition as spurned GOP leaders alleged."
Yeah, and Specter is pretty much full of shit. His entire career has been one of political ambition. This is the jackass who gave us the "magic bullet" theory when JFK was assassinated. This guy was a Democrat until he switched parties in 1965 (running for the attorney general). Interestingly enough, he switched because he was about to lose in the Democratic primary. Specter has always been a total douchebag and this pretty much reinforces it. Of course he's doing it to stay in power! He's 79 years old, what else can he do with his life?
"Specter called the White House on Tuesday to notify Obama of his decision to switch. The president called back moments later, according to spokesman Robert Gibbs, to say the Democratic Party was 'thrilled to have you.'
Several officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said discussions of a possible switch had reached into the White House in recent days, although Gibbs said he had no details."
From what I read in other articles, VP 'Hoof in Mouth' Biden had a major hand in bringing Specter over. The idea of Obama "calling back" reinforces that, since if Specter called the White House, don't you think the President would talk to him? Again, this goes against the 'bolt from the blue' statement uttered elsewhere in this article. And why wouldn't Obama be thrilled to have Specter? After all, he just gave Obama a literal filibuster instead of one in the hands of a few RINOs.
"At his news conference, Specter grew animated as he blamed conservatives for helping deliver control of the Senate to Democrats in 2006, making it impossible to confirm numerous judicial appointees of former president George W. Bush.
"They don't make any bones about their willingness to lose the general election if they can purify the party. I don't understand it, but that's what they said," he added."
Huh? How is it that conservatives are to blame? The RINOs have been running this party for almost a decade now. They pushed their candidates in 2004, 2006 and 2008. And what was the outcome? A party that had no message whatsoever, increased spending and a party that was essentially Democrat-Lite. And we're to blame? Please Arlen, do a better job of covering your ass.
"Ironically, Specter had spoken recently about the importance of a strong Republican presence in the Senate.
'If we lose my seat they have 60 Democrats, they will pass card check, you will have the Obama tax increases, they will carry out his big spending plans. So the 41st Republican, whose name is Arlen Specter, is vital to stopping tax increases, passage of card check and the Obama big spending plans.' "
So... let me get this straight. To deny the Democrats the magical 60th Senate seat, you decided to head over and become the 60th seat. Wow, Arlen, you really are a fucking numbnut, if you actually believe anything you say, which is doubtful. After all, you did go along with the big spending plans and you are for the budget (i.e. tax increases) so how is keeping you as a RINO Republican going to change that? However, I will say that you answered your own question by speaking of yourself in the third-person by somehow being the savior of the GOP. So it's not really about the Republicans so much as really helping yourself (wow, talk about narcissism).
Well, I have to admit I have mixed feelings about this move. To be honest, Specter was essentially a Democrat and he will continue to vote that way in the future. Therefore, I don't believe that this is as big a loss as many might fear. Yes, this gives the Democrats the filibuster-proof Senate that they've been drooling over for several months now and I do think that he will beat Toomey in the general election next year. If anyone still thinks Pennsylvania is a battleground state, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you. It's a blue state, so let's just acknowledge that fact.
Secondly, I really do have to wonder how this will play out for other "moderate" Republicans? Firstly, Specter's defection really makes the Maine sisters irrelevant, and in fact I think they realize it .
" 'You haven't certainly heard warm encouraging words about how [the GOP] views moderates,' said Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, one of the few remaining moderate Republicans in the Senate. "
Uh, that's because you moderates are essentially spineless and worthless. You "moderates" are closet Democrats, so you might as well openly acknowledge that. After watching the 2008 election results and how the RINOs destroyed the Republican Party, I don't feel all that warm and fuzzy either. And Lindsay Graham, a GOP Senator, didn't make much sense either.
" 'I don't want to be a member of the Club for Growth,” said Graham. “I want to be a member of a vibrant national Republican party that can attract people from all corners of the country — and we can govern the country from a center-right perspective.' "
Um, yeah...vibrant like, what, 2006 and 2008? Yeah, the GOP looked like a friggin' juggernaut then, didn't it? It seems your idea of center-right is to act Democrat-Lite. That's not center-right. It's not even center. It's left, so just admit it.
" 'I happened to win with 74 percent of the vote in a blue-collar state, but no one asked me, 'How did you do it?'” [Snowe] said. “Seems to me that would have been the first question that would have come from the Republican Party to find out so we could avoid further losses.' "
Hey Olympia? You won because Maine is a northeastern liberal state and elects liberals. That's why no one asks you. When you vote like a Democrat for big budgets and even bigger government, then conservatives could care less how you won. You whored yourself out to the left, end of story. But I'll let you in on a little secret, ok Ms. Snowe? We'll avoid further losses if the GOP grows a spine, gets a clear message to counter the leftist-Democrats and actually practices what it preaches. See, pretty simple, wasn't it?
Senator Snowe is indeed worried, as is her state counterpart Susan Collins (I don't think I'm too far off here). And they have good reason to be. With Specter's defection, their bargaining power just diminished considerably. With Franken coming in and Specter basically playing along, the Democrats will have little need of courting these two in upcoming votes. Will the Maine sisters continue to vote Democrat? Probably, since their state is pretty liberal and they have to represent them. But they won't be getting any future goodies (well, at least not as much) that they probably got when they voted for the other Democratic packages earlier in the year (I'm really interested to see how Maine benefited from their votes).
So now the Republicans really are politically irrelevant until at least 2010. I hate to say it, but a third party built entirely around conservatives is looking better every day (which means the GOP will dissolve).
So now the RINOs really have to make a decision with regards to their "party." Either they can join in with the conservatives in at least symbolically opposing the Socialist Democratic agenda (in which case, they may regain some of their honor) or they can continue the way they have. If the former, welcome back. If the latter, then just follow Specter's lead. We conservatives don't want the RINOs. Now if only we could get those pesky Maine sisters to switch now...
Tuesday, April 14, 2009
While brown-nosing all Muslim extremists, Obama declares that those who disagree with him are a national security threat
The road to tyranny can be slow or quick. In this country, it's starting slow, but will undoubtedly gain momentum as the Messiah's first term continues. I don't even want to think about what will happen if this guy gets re-elected. However, I'd bet money that some congressperson after 2012 will probably think it's a swell idea if we got rid of those pesky presidential term-limits...
I have stated before that I believe this president will do anything to stay in power and that includes overstepping the boundaries of the Constitution. The bill for an expanded "youth corps" has essentially passed through Congress. Among other things in this bill, the youth corps also includes a shadowy "National Service Reserve Corps" whose only function is to deal with national emergencies or crisises (which is generally the territory of the National Guard).
And apparently, he has taken the next step. The Department of Homeland Security has issued this cute little report on "right wing extremists."
"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment."
Now bear in mind that this Office has no actual evidence that anything will happen. Of course, Hitler and the Nazis kinda thought the same thing about the Jews. Although the report initially specifies white supremists and anti-government groups (probably militia), there is a disturbing footnote at the bottom of page 2 attached to these examples.
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
Ok, I can understand the hate-oriented stuff, but antigovernment? So the idea that I'd like to see a reduced federal government suddenly makes me a terrorist? This is a key question because the note puts an "or" instead of an "and". You may be a terrorist if you are rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority OR rejecting government authority entirely. I love the last sentence. I admit that the abortion issue isn't really high on my list of priorities, but you're telling me that I can't say anything about an illegal immigration problem without being connected to terrorism? And the left said Bush Jr. was bad???
"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement."
Newsflash, people are buying tons of guns because they're afraid that Obama will eliminate the right to bear arms. They're also afraid that if the country does go south (literally and figuratively), they have some way of protecting themselves. So all of a sudden, these people are now right-wing extremists and terrorists.
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities."
And of course since the military isn't particularly flipped about the Messiah, they're thrown into the mix as well. After all, when one who has served the country honorably through military service, he/she can look forward to being seen as a potential terrorist. Who said the left has reneged on their Vietnam-era hatred of the military? After all, they're just "baby-killers" waiting to overthrow the government, right? Of course, if you look at the fine print of the Obama Youth act, there are several references to wanting "veterans" in the NSRC. Kinda intriguing...
"DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are
driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.
Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small
terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of
an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a
driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization."
Now, is this "rightwing extremist recruitment" meaning (partly, of course) increased enrollment in the Republican Party? If so, I'm guilty as charged. I liked the touch about the "historical election" of an African American president. Did MSNBC write some of this report? The next paragraph is fun.
" A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing
extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction
reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment
conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a
Jewish-controlled “one world government."
Ah yes, one incident and it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy. Of course, the report is strangely silent about the five cops who were killed by an African American in Oakland several days previously. I believe there was a march supporting the killer there. But apparently, the Chosen One missed that headline...
"Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception
that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to
work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that
these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico."
I have stated before that I believe this president will do anything to stay in power and that includes overstepping the boundaries of the Constitution. The bill for an expanded "youth corps" has essentially passed through Congress. Among other things in this bill, the youth corps also includes a shadowy "National Service Reserve Corps" whose only function is to deal with national emergencies or crisises (which is generally the territory of the National Guard).
And apparently, he has taken the next step. The Department of Homeland Security has issued this cute little report on "right wing extremists."
"The DHS/Office of Intelligence and Analysis (I&A) has no specific
information that domestic rightwing* terrorists are currently planning acts of violence,
but rightwing extremists may be gaining new recruits by playing on their fears about
several emergent issues. The economic downturn and the election of the first
African American president present unique drivers for rightwing radicalization and
recruitment."
Now bear in mind that this Office has no actual evidence that anything will happen. Of course, Hitler and the Nazis kinda thought the same thing about the Jews. Although the report initially specifies white supremists and anti-government groups (probably militia), there is a disturbing footnote at the bottom of page 2 attached to these examples.
"Rightwing extremism in the United States can be broadly divided into those groups, movements, and
adherents that are primarily hate-oriented (based on hatred of particular religious, racial or ethnic groups),
and those that are mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or
rejecting government authority entirely. It may include groups and individuals that are dedicated to a
single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration."
Ok, I can understand the hate-oriented stuff, but antigovernment? So the idea that I'd like to see a reduced federal government suddenly makes me a terrorist? This is a key question because the note puts an "or" instead of an "and". You may be a terrorist if you are rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority OR rejecting government authority entirely. I love the last sentence. I admit that the abortion issue isn't really high on my list of priorities, but you're telling me that I can't say anything about an illegal immigration problem without being connected to terrorism? And the left said Bush Jr. was bad???
"Proposed imposition of firearms restrictions and weapons bans
likely would attract new members into the ranks of rightwing extremist groups,
as well as potentially spur some of them to begin planning and training for
violence against the government. The high volume of purchases and
stockpiling of weapons and ammunition by rightwing extremists in anticipation
of restrictions and bans in some parts of the country continue to be a primary
concern to law enforcement."
Newsflash, people are buying tons of guns because they're afraid that Obama will eliminate the right to bear arms. They're also afraid that if the country does go south (literally and figuratively), they have some way of protecting themselves. So all of a sudden, these people are now right-wing extremists and terrorists.
"Returning veterans possess combat skills and experience that are
attractive to rightwing extremists. DHS/I&A is concerned that rightwing
extremists will attempt to recruit and radicalize returning veterans in order to
boost their violent capabilities."
And of course since the military isn't particularly flipped about the Messiah, they're thrown into the mix as well. After all, when one who has served the country honorably through military service, he/she can look forward to being seen as a potential terrorist. Who said the left has reneged on their Vietnam-era hatred of the military? After all, they're just "baby-killers" waiting to overthrow the government, right? Of course, if you look at the fine print of the Obama Youth act, there are several references to wanting "veterans" in the NSRC. Kinda intriguing...
"DHS/I&A assesses that a number of economic and political factors are
driving a resurgence in rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization activity.
Despite similarities to the climate of the 1990s, the threat posed by lone wolves and small
terrorist cells is more pronounced than in past years. In addition, the historical election of
an African American president and the prospect of policy changes are proving to be a
driving force for rightwing extremist recruitment and radicalization."
Now, is this "rightwing extremist recruitment" meaning (partly, of course) increased enrollment in the Republican Party? If so, I'm guilty as charged. I liked the touch about the "historical election" of an African American president. Did MSNBC write some of this report? The next paragraph is fun.
" A recent example of the potential violence associated with a rise in rightwing
extremism may be found in the shooting deaths of three police officers in
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on 4 April 2009. The alleged gunman’s reaction
reportedly was influenced by his racist ideology and belief in antigovernment
conspiracy theories related to gun confiscations, citizen detention camps, and a
Jewish-controlled “one world government."
Ah yes, one incident and it's all a vast right-wing conspiracy. Of course, the report is strangely silent about the five cops who were killed by an African American in Oakland several days previously. I believe there was a march supporting the killer there. But apparently, the Chosen One missed that headline...
"Rightwing extremists were concerned during the 1990s with the perception
that illegal immigrants were taking away American jobs through their willingness to
work at significantly lower wages. They also opposed free trade agreements, arguing that
these arrangements resulted in Americans losing jobs to countries such as Mexico."
Wow, so not being flipped about illegal immigrants pouring over our southern border constitutes extremism? I guess I'm guilty as charged there. Do I hate Mexicans? Nope. Do I ask that they not turn this country into a Greater Mexico, with all of the problems inherent in their politics and society? Yes. Sorry, that's not racism.
"DHS/I&A notes that prominent civil rights organizations have
observed an increase in anti-Hispanic crimes over the past five years.
— (U) In April 2007, six militia members were arrested for various weapons and
explosives violations. Open source reporting alleged that those arrested had
discussed and conducted surveillance for a machinegun attack on Hispanics.
— (U) A militia member in Wyoming was arrested in February 2007 after
communicating his plans to travel to the Mexican border to kill immigrants
crossing into the United States."
Ok, while this is serious stuff, how about the Americans who are killed by Mexicans? They're saying it doesn't happen? There's incidents along the border virtually every day that most Americans don't even hear about. How about La Raza, whose Hispanic organization constantly calls for a militant takeover of the Southwest by their brethren? I hear crickets chirping...
" Rightwing extremist views bemoan the decline of U.S. stature and
have recently focused on themes such as the loss of U.S. manufacturing capability
to China and India, Russia’s control of energy resources and use of these to
pressure other countries, and China’s investment in U.S. real estate and
corporations as a part of subversion strategy."
Well, tell me none of that is the truth. We have lost a large amount of manufacturing capability in this country. That's a reality that we'll have to deal with. Our unionized industries cannot compete against global competitors. I hardly think voicing that truth is "extremist." As far as Russia is concerned, I'm not as concerned about their energy sources as I am, say, the Middle East. Russia lives or dies on its energy industry. Right now, they're economy is crippled because of low oil prices. As for China, they are investing in real estate. They hold a royal shitload of our government and personal debt. If they decide to cash in, it would ruin us since we don't have the money to pay it back. We're sinking further and further into debt and sooner or later the party will end. That's not extremism, that's pragmatism.
Of course I "bemoan" a lack of American stature. Being a superpower has enabled us to live the good life for so many years. We don't have the luxury of Europe in having someone else to protect us while we live high on the hog. Our economic strength has enabled us (with backing of our military) to wield tremendous influence globally to the point where American culture is world reknown. The Department of Homeland Security seriously thinks that me voicing this absolute fact makes me an extremist? Hey Janet, listen up! Once we lose our superpower status, China will take over in that status, whether we like it or not! Simply putting your fingers in your ears and humming loudly does not change that fact one iota. Without our economic power, we will not influence anyone. And without economic power, we will not be able to field the type of powerful military that we've enjoyed for over 60 years. China will call the shots the way it wants to and I can guarantee you that we won't like some of those calls. It's not extremist, it's called the future. Get used to it. Yeah, it irritates me.
The rest of it deals with white supremist groups. While I have no love for those groups I do wonder why only they are being targeted. So, once again, only whites are capable of violent behavior? Everyone else is a victim. Newsflash, that attitude will unfortunately give these idiots more rhetorical ammunition to use to attract whites. To conclude, I sometimes wonder if the Obama administration is actually trying to provoke a response from some of these people.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)