Posted at 12:08 AM in Crime, Current Affairs, Economy, Education, Employment, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Medicine, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Racial, Religion, Talk Radio, Taxes, Television, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (2)
"Peter" has some thoughts on Obama's speech before the cadets at West Point.
West Point Class of 2014 Commencement, May 30, 2014
The West Point graduating class of 2014 "spoke" volumes as their commencement speaker, BarakObama, used the speech NOT to laud them for their accomplishments and their sacrifice to serve in the U.S. Military, no, instead he chose to use that precious time to tell them how effective his foreign policy has been, how the military role in foreign policy going forward (paraphrasing) "ain'twhat it used to be" and is no longer a leading line of defense. At times he stumbled over the words on the teleprompter to the point of embarrassment but he didn't seem to be in the least bothered by it.
To top off his narcissistic ramblings in which he claimed successes in Syria and Ukraine for God's Sake and bragged about ending the war in Iraq (and as every cadet sitting there knew, his actions of pulling all troops on a date certain, handed Iraq right back to Al Qaeda linked terrorist groups as if the sacrifices our military made was of no consequence and stood for nothing). Believe me, every one of those intelligent, well informed cadets knew the sacrifice this president flushed down the toilet and for what; political gain.
As if that wasn't bad enough, he then lectured the cadets that they must focus on the progressive social policy of GLOBAL WARMING!He told them they must be prepared to help the government enforce the legislation. The looks on the cadets' faces said it all!!! I could read their minds. "Since when has ANY of our military been used to enforce social policy? How 'bout NEVER! And for good reason, Mr. president, that kind of use of the military only happens under DICTATORS, you ass. We studied long and hard to learn how to lead troops to defend our country from enemies both foreign and domestic, not enforce domestic and social policy at a president's whim!"
The cadets, as is the custom, were prompted to applaud at designated intervals throughout the speech. At first, the majority of the cadets clapped on cue (out of respect for the office I would imagine) but there was no enthusiasm in it. Not even at the beginning. As the speech progressed, fewer and fewer cadetsclapped. Many chose to stare at the ground. By the end there were only five or six clapping when prompted. Did the president seem to notice the cadets' silent protest? Oh hell no. He was so enthralled by the sound of his own voice he stood there and beamed like the cat that swallowed the canary.
Here's the topper; as the president handed out the diplomas to the West Point cadets; each one very accomplished, intelligent and dedicated to serving their country, their Commander-in-Chief BOPPED AROUND on the stage CHEWING GUM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Disrespectful? Yeah, I'd say. He is clueless six years in to his presidency. There again, the expressions on the cadets faces told it all. Contrasts don't get much more stark than that.
"Peter" has some thoughts on extremism.
The word "extreme" is being bandied about quite liberally these days.
Muslim radicals are called "extreme" because they want to kill all infidels, especially Americans, in their Jihad. But a recent poll in Iraq disclosed that 80% of the population there considers Americans to be legitimate targets of Jihad. And you may recall that after 9-11 there was dancing in the streets and celebrations in virtually all of the countries with predominantly Muslim populations. So the Muslim radicals are merely those Muslims who are carrying out the wishes of the majority of Muslims who want you dead, but don't want your blood on theirhands.
The word "extreme" has also been liberally applied to the TEA Party by democrats and even some Republicans. Upholding the Constitution is "extreme"? Wanting smaller government is "extreme"? Proposing that the federal government have a balanced budget is "extreme"? Securing the borders is "extreme"? Insisting that government officials be held accountable for their actions/inactions is "extreme"? Being pro-life is "extreme"? Being patriotic is "extreme"? Standing up for your Constitutional rights, like the 2nd Amendment, is "extreme"? I don't think so...and that's all the TEA Party is about!
The word "extreme" is hurled by democrats at political opponents frequently, when the democrats can't think of anything specific to criticize. It has become their "go to" word because it has worked for them. Apathetic or just plain ignorant voters (the apparent majority) seem to cringe at the word "extreme" and readily accept the inappropriate and false allegation as fact without any further explanation or corroboration. They just don't care. The most corrupt government in my long lifetime is still getting 30+ percent of the voters approval. Ignorance is bliss...
Until America wakes up to the threats facing us and the voters educate themselves, we will continue this downward spiral the country is in, economically, diplomatically and ethically.
Posted at 05:28 PM in Abortion, Courts, Crime, Current Affairs, Domestic Spying, Economy, Education, Employment, Gun Rights, Health Care, Illegal Immigration, Media, Middle-East, Military, Politics, Religion, Terrorism | Permalink | Comments (3)
"Ernie" has some thoughts on Scott Walker.
"Legion" has some thoughts on student loans.
"Peter" has some thoughts on the Gitmo prisoner exchange.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) authorizes Obama to declare martial law and scoop up untold numbers of citizens without legal cause. But, it does NOT authorize Obama to negotiate with terrorists or release terrorists from GITMO.
Emails Sgt. Bergdahl is said to have sent to his parents suggested he was disillusioned with America’s mission in Afghanistan, had lost faith in the U.S. Army’s mission there and was considering desertion. He walked off his assigned base without authorization and disappeared. Was he truly a prisoner, or has he been cooperating and assisting the Taliban all along? No one can say...but it's evident that he deserted. Did he convert to Islam?
Bergdahl told his parents he was “ashamed to even be American.” Bergdahl, who mailed home boxes containing his uniform and books, also wrote: “The future is too good to waste on lies. And life is way too short to care for the damnation of others, as well as to spend it helping fools with their ideas that are wrong.” Sounds like he converted to Islam...
Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagle said that it COULD be determined that Bergdahl has more than paid the penalty for deserting – “if that’s what really happened – and there’s every indicator that he did.”
So, this "negotiation" provides considerable "aid and comfort" to the enemy, makes Obama look good politically (because the press aren't following up on the apparent treason aspect of the story), lets Bergdahl off the hook for deserting to the enemy and further weakens U.S. foreign policy by - once again - unlawful conduct by Obama and his cadre in violating our own law against negotiating with terrorists.
The Taliban wins by getting back their leaders. Obama wins by distracting the public from his many scandals and giving the false appearance that he cares about someone other than himself. Bergdahl wins because he probably won't face charges for desertion or treason - and he'll be free at home to further assist the terrorists when needed. The media wins because they can once again ignore the scandals and create a public relations bonanza for Obama and the democrats. No doubt the world-wide media will create a public relations bonanza for the Taliban and Islamic terrorism in general.
"Rook" has some thoughts on our oil reserves.
Hidden 1,000 feet beneath the surface of the Rocky Mountains lies the largest untapped oil reserve in the world. It is more than 2 TRILLION barrels. We have more oil inside our borders, than all the other proven reserves on earth.
Here are the official estimates:
8 times as much oil as Saudi Arabia
18 times as much oil as Iraq
21 times as much oil as Kuwait
22 times as much oil as Iran
500 times as much oil as Yemen, and it's all right here in the Western United States!
That's more than all the proven oil reserves of crude oil in the world today!
HOW can this BE? HOW can we NOT BE extracting this?
Because environmentalists and "others" have blocked all efforts to help America become independent of foreign oil! Again, we are letting a small group of people dictate to us regarding our economy. WHY?
Could those "others" helping the environmentalists be the members of OPEC? It stands to reason because OPEC would suffer financially if the price of oil plummeted...and that's exactly what would happen if we extracted and exported our available oil. Have you seen any dramatic drop in the price of oil? Of course not! Obama has refused to issue drilling permits on any federally controlled land, which is most of the Western U.S. Just like with the Keystone XL Pipeline, Obama is holding down our production of oil and natural gas to profit his cronies and his friends in the world of Islam at our expense?
Obama is doing more damage to the U.S. than Al Qaeda ever dreamed of doing!
"Legion" has some thoughts on Marxist economics.
"Legion" has some thoughts on the Internet.
By Matt Barber
Albert Einstein once said, “Never do anything against conscience even if the state demands it.”
He was right.
In the aftermath of the Arizona religious freedom skirmish, I have a few questions for those who would presume to compel religious business owners, under penalty of law, to “provide goods and services” to homosexuals in a way that violates that business owner’s conscience.
If you said no to any of the above, and you opposed Arizona’s cowardly vetoed SB1062, then you’re logically inconsistent and need to re-evaluate your position.
To clarify – liberals, I know you have a difficult time understanding the “Constitution” with its outdated “Bill of Rights” and all – I’m not talking about refusing business to someone just because he appears effeminate or she appears butch, or even when that someone is an “out and proud” homosexual.
I’ve never even heard of a case where a Christian baker randomly refused to provide baked goods – such as a birthday cake – to any homosexual, absent a scenario in which those goods endorsed a message the baker finds repugnant (rainbow “pride” cupcakes, “gay wedding” cakes and the like). I’ve never heard of a single instance in which a Christian business owner arbitrarily said to a homosexual: “We don’t serve your kind here.”
And neither can the left provide such an instance. Because it doesn’t happen. If it did happen, it would be front-page news for a month.
No, I’m specifically referring to scenarios that have occurred – and continue to occur – with alarming frequency. Situations in which Christian business owners are being sued, fined or even threatened with jail time for politely declining to apply their God-given time and talent to create goods or services that require they violate deeply held – and constitutionally protected – religious beliefs.
It really is that black and white. This was never about the person. It was always about the message. It was never about “discrimination.” It was always about liberty.
While from a constitutional standpoint it’s not even necessary, that’s all the drafters of SB1062 and similar such bills have endeavored to do. Because government has begun alienating unalienable rights at a level unparalleled since passage of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, legislators have attempted to merely re-affirm the already existing right for religious business owners to live out their faith without fear of persecution or government reprisal.
Seriously, unless you’re fascist, who could disagree? Nobody should ever be forced to spend their time and talent to endorse – whether directly or indirectly – a message or event that he or she finds repugnant. I don’t care if you’re Christian, pagan, black, white, “gay” or straight. That’s your God-given right as an American.
As a constitutionalist, I’ll remain consistent – will you? If you’re a homosexual photographer, for instance, and, for whatever reason, you oppose natural man-woman marriage, and you choose to exercise your right to only photograph “gay weddings,” then knock yourself out. If I come knocking and want you to photograph my wedding, and you tell me to pound sand, I’ll suck it up and take my business down the street.
And I won’t even demand you be thrown in jail for it.
See how easy that was? I mean, you’re a liberal. You’re “pro-choice,” right?
Starting to get it?
Well, let me be clear so there’s no misunderstanding. If I’m a business owner and someone comes in requesting goods or services that would require me to violate my conscience – especially my biblically-based, sincerely held religious beliefs – I will not, under any circumstances, provide those goods or services. This is my absolute, non-negotiable, constitutionally guaranteed right.
No debate. No question. No compromise.
Martin Luther King Jr. once said, “An individual who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust, and who willingly accepts the penalty of imprisonment in order to arouse the conscience of the community over its injustice, is in reality expressing the highest respect for the law.”
Those are wise words from a wise man. For purposes of today’s debate, however, those words require a slight contextual modification. No “anti-discrimination” law that presumes to remove the constitutional right of business owners to operate their business according to conscience is worth the paper it’s written on.
Poo paper for puppy.
So, liberals, knock off the Alinskyite obfuscation and conflation. Quit throwing around all this “Jim Crow” crap. It belittles the legitimate civil rights struggle and makes you look stupid. You’ve created an ugly and offensive straw man and beat the stuffing out of him.
I rarely agree with “gay” activist Andrew Sullivan, but on the subject at hand, he at least has a remedial understanding. Gloss over all the obligatory “homophobe” and “bigot” nonsense, and he recently made a few good points on “The Dish”:
I favor maximal liberty in these cases. The idea that you should respond to a hurtful refusal to bake a wedding cake by suing the bakers is a real stretch to me. … There are plenty of non-homophobic bakers in Arizona. We run the risk of becoming just as intolerant as the anti-gay bigots [read: Christians], if we seek to coerce people into tolerance. If we value our freedom as gay people in living our lives the way we wish, we should defend that same freedom to sincere religious believers and also, yes, to bigots and haters. You do not conquer intolerance with intolerance. … I’m particularly horrified by the attempt to force anyone to do anything they really feel violates their conscience, sense of self, or even just comfort.
And besides, as constitutional law expert Jan LaRue recently observed in an email: “If they believe their own rhetoric, that we’re hateful bigots, why would they even risk eating our cakes?”