President Barack Obama promised to change Washington and boy has he done just that.
Gone are the days when level-headed George W. Bush made sound decisions that kept America safe for seven and a half years; decisions that caused the extreme left wing media to criticize the then-President for making the world hate us.
Now far-left Commander and Chief Barack Obama makes crazy decisions that leave all Americans in danger; decisions that cause the extreme left wing media to applaud the current President for uniting the world in harmony.
Already President Obama has dropped all charges against USS Cole bomber Tariq Al-Nasir Rahaman. (Okay, that's not his name, but I bet most of you didn't even realize it and I don't feel like looking it up.)
And of course it's considered improper etiquette to criticize the President, especially if you once held a similar position.
Former Vice President Dick Cheney recently warned that the closing of Gitmo could have catastrophic consequences; a warning that has Democrats up in arms.
"How dare the Vice President break the unwritten rule that prevents former Presidents and Vice Presidents from admonishing their successors! I mean, if you don't include Bill Clinton, Al Gore and Jimmy Carter, no former Democrat President or Vice President has spoken ill of a Republican in the White House."
"It's especially insulting because Mr. Cheney said something as tawdry as, 'I don't think President Obama should make decisions that put the lives of Americans in grave danger.'"
The Democrats are throwing a hissy-fit over the equivalent of former Vice President Cheney saying, "I don't think it's a good idea" in response to President Obama allowing a group of Al-Qaeda members to enter the country with a nuclear weapon. (Is a group of Al-Qaeda members referred to as a "group" or a "herd"? We'll go with "gaggle" until we figure out the proper terminology.)
The major retort by liberals when asked, "How does releasing a gaggle of Al-Qaeda members into the wild make America safer?" is "It just will."
There is no rhyme or reason behind arguments made by liberals regarding National Security, so they attempt to get by with their version of, "Because I said so."
But why do they stop with terrorists? America has a problem with gangs; why are liberals not calling for the release of gang bangers from prison? I can picture Nancy Pelosi saying, "If we show them we are willing to let them get away with felonious assault, maybe they will stop committing felonious assault."
We could wipe out crime completely if we simply let all criminals get away with the crimes we're trying to stop them from committing!
Wow, these Democrats are smart!
Now that Obama is President, America will be transformed from a nation that refuses to negotiate with terrorists, to a nation that refuses to capture terrorists.
"What did you do?" a Federal Prosecutor will ask a man with dark skin. "I tried to kill innocent Americans in the name of Allah," the terrorist will respond. "Oh, you're free to go. That's a relief, for a second I thought you lied to a Federal Grand Jury about the use of performance enhancing drugs in professional sports. You stick with that killing innocent Americans thing, because steroids could get you in a lot of trouble."
I recently viewed a PSA regarding the dangers of steroids, perhaps President Obama is thinking about producing commercials to air on Al-Jazeera warning Muslims about the risks of getting involved with terrorism. He did do his first interview with Al-Jazeera after all.
The problem is, now that we're going to make it easy for terrorists to operate without fear of American resistance, there really is no danger in becoming a terrorist.
Ideally Democrats would like everyone to stop bringing up the annoying little fact that they're making America less safe while they continue putting innocent men, women and children at risk in an effort to appease their base.
After all, if there miraculously is no attack under Obama's watch the Democrats will have killed two birds with one (Nerf) stone.
Understanding Liberals and the Gitmo Controversy
A lot of times we conservatives try and make sense of the Democrats way of thinking.
We probably shouldn't, as the attempt usually leads to immense frustration.
But for some reason I am trying to figure out why Democrats are so hell-bent on closing Gitmo, the prison in Cuba where we house terrorist detainees.
The prisoners at Gitmo, who are determined to kill innocent men, women and children simply because said men, women and children don't believe in the exact same religion as they do, have a better life than most American prisoners currently serving in the U.S. penal system. In fact, we bend over backward making sure the needs of the prisoners are met.
You liberals, who support multiple organizations that go to great lengths to make sure Christians in America are bashed because of what you consider oppressive and antiquated viewpoints, are ready to stand up and fight for the rights of Muslims who kill innocent people who don't share their even more oppressive viewpoints!
You admonish Christians for not letting gays join the Boy Scouts, but you don't admonish terrorist detainees who murder those who simply tolerate gays.
That doesn't make any sense.
Because you care for these terrorist detainees, whose freedom of religion we must respect, you want them moved out of Gitmo so they can be treated worse in the American penal system!?
Let me give you an analogous situation. You love other people's rotten children more than your own children, who are by and large, good. Because of your undying affection for offspring not taken from your loins, you desire a better life for them, regardless of how much despair their immoral actions will cause society. Therefore you bitch and moan until the children are moved from their middle class home where they are being raised by parents who enforce somewhat strict rules as a survival mechanism and put into a dilapidated orphanage where they will be raised by a real life equivalent of Miss Hannigan from Annie who will simply turn her head as they're constantly being tormented by the their new brothers and sisters.
Perhaps the above scenario was a little too confusing, let me start over.
Your view of the Gitmo situation is the equivalent of you saying, "Even though Timmy has broken all of our rules, he deserves a reward. Let's spank him!"
I suppose I shouldn't complain, because in the end little Timmy gets disciplined for acting up, just like the Gitmo detainees will get what's coming to them when they're transferred to a maximum security prison somewhere in the United States.
Because you know what, Bubba, murdered of three, isn't beholden to the Geneva Convention. Neither is the United States Military when dealing with terrorists, actually, but I have a feeling Bubba cares even less about hearing criticism regarding his bad habit of ignoring conventions.
I just don't understand why you would condemn Cletus from Mississippi for saying the following (in a cartoon-like southern accent): "My religion teaches me that being gay is a sin. Therefore gays should not be allowed to get married," yet when you hear Abdul from Syria say the following (in a cartoon-like Middle Eastern accent): "My religion teaches me that being gay is a sin. Therefore gays should be hung by their necks until they were dead. Or stoned to death - I really don't have a preference overall, just depends on my mood, really. And women are beneath men. They should not be allowed to look at men or drive cars. If a wife is not obedient her husband has the right to beat her," you liberals respond, "What can we do to understand Abdul better. We've got to open up a dialogue."
Terrorists are nuts and therefore can't be reasoned with. I know that's been said many times before, so I'll try a different approach in hopes you liberals will finally catch on.
99% of all Muslims are not hell-bent on killing innocent people. But according to the 1% of Muslims who are hell-bent on killing innocent people, the Koran indicates the killing of innocent people is required of them. 99% of Muslims believe the Koran is telling them to act peacefully. 1% of Muslims believe the Koran is telling them to kill. The 1% is crazy.
Let's say a million people read Little Red Riding Hood. 99% of the readers think that while the book has a message, it doesn't call for violence against anyone, while 1% of the readers think the book is telling them to go kill everyone with the last name "Wolf."
Think you can talk sense into the 1%.
I don't, because you can't talk sense into crazy, no matter how many times you call crazy, "misunderstood."
We probably shouldn't, as the attempt usually leads to immense frustration.
But for some reason I am trying to figure out why Democrats are so hell-bent on closing Gitmo, the prison in Cuba where we house terrorist detainees.
The prisoners at Gitmo, who are determined to kill innocent men, women and children simply because said men, women and children don't believe in the exact same religion as they do, have a better life than most American prisoners currently serving in the U.S. penal system. In fact, we bend over backward making sure the needs of the prisoners are met.
You liberals, who support multiple organizations that go to great lengths to make sure Christians in America are bashed because of what you consider oppressive and antiquated viewpoints, are ready to stand up and fight for the rights of Muslims who kill innocent people who don't share their even more oppressive viewpoints!
You admonish Christians for not letting gays join the Boy Scouts, but you don't admonish terrorist detainees who murder those who simply tolerate gays.
That doesn't make any sense.
Because you care for these terrorist detainees, whose freedom of religion we must respect, you want them moved out of Gitmo so they can be treated worse in the American penal system!?
Let me give you an analogous situation. You love other people's rotten children more than your own children, who are by and large, good. Because of your undying affection for offspring not taken from your loins, you desire a better life for them, regardless of how much despair their immoral actions will cause society. Therefore you bitch and moan until the children are moved from their middle class home where they are being raised by parents who enforce somewhat strict rules as a survival mechanism and put into a dilapidated orphanage where they will be raised by a real life equivalent of Miss Hannigan from Annie who will simply turn her head as they're constantly being tormented by the their new brothers and sisters.
Perhaps the above scenario was a little too confusing, let me start over.
Your view of the Gitmo situation is the equivalent of you saying, "Even though Timmy has broken all of our rules, he deserves a reward. Let's spank him!"
I suppose I shouldn't complain, because in the end little Timmy gets disciplined for acting up, just like the Gitmo detainees will get what's coming to them when they're transferred to a maximum security prison somewhere in the United States.
Because you know what, Bubba, murdered of three, isn't beholden to the Geneva Convention. Neither is the United States Military when dealing with terrorists, actually, but I have a feeling Bubba cares even less about hearing criticism regarding his bad habit of ignoring conventions.
I just don't understand why you would condemn Cletus from Mississippi for saying the following (in a cartoon-like southern accent): "My religion teaches me that being gay is a sin. Therefore gays should not be allowed to get married," yet when you hear Abdul from Syria say the following (in a cartoon-like Middle Eastern accent): "My religion teaches me that being gay is a sin. Therefore gays should be hung by their necks until they were dead. Or stoned to death - I really don't have a preference overall, just depends on my mood, really. And women are beneath men. They should not be allowed to look at men or drive cars. If a wife is not obedient her husband has the right to beat her," you liberals respond, "What can we do to understand Abdul better. We've got to open up a dialogue."
Terrorists are nuts and therefore can't be reasoned with. I know that's been said many times before, so I'll try a different approach in hopes you liberals will finally catch on.
99% of all Muslims are not hell-bent on killing innocent people. But according to the 1% of Muslims who are hell-bent on killing innocent people, the Koran indicates the killing of innocent people is required of them. 99% of Muslims believe the Koran is telling them to act peacefully. 1% of Muslims believe the Koran is telling them to kill. The 1% is crazy.
Let's say a million people read Little Red Riding Hood. 99% of the readers think that while the book has a message, it doesn't call for violence against anyone, while 1% of the readers think the book is telling them to go kill everyone with the last name "Wolf."
Think you can talk sense into the 1%.
I don't, because you can't talk sense into crazy, no matter how many times you call crazy, "misunderstood."
I Hope Barack Obama Succeeds by Morphing into Ronald Reagan
For the past eight years Democrats not only rooted for George W. Bush to fail miserably in every aspect of his presidency, they also cheered for the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan to defeat our troops. Other than the lunatic fringe who consider our military personal to be the real terrorists, I don't believe they wanted harm to come to our brave men and woman fighting overseas, but were so desperate for Bush to be proven a failure; they couldn't help but cheer for a U.S. defeat in the Middle East.
Despite their wish that America fail, they don't understand why conservatives are unwilling to at least give Obama a chance to succeed.
Let me get this straight, you want conservatives to give Obama a chance to "turn the country around," yet were so desperate for Bush to fail that you not only openly wished we would lose two wars, you refused to admit it when Bush did succeed.
"The troop surge did not work," you said after the troop surge worked.
So if we acted like you, and Barack Obama turned around the economy, defeated Al-Qaeda and discovered a cheap alternative to oil, we would say, "Barack Obama did not turn the economy around, defeat Al-Qaeda, or discover a cheap alternative to oil."
But that's not the main problem with you admonishing us for not hoping President Barack Obama does a bang up job during his time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The problem is that we don't agree with Barack Obama!
Do you wish a verbally abusive father success in raising respectable children? "Sure I disagree with his method of constantly calling his child a 'worthless joke of a human being,' but I wish him nothing but the best in all his parenting endeavors."
You can't wish a president success when you believe his "success" will damage the country.
If Barack Obama takes $5 billion from Bill Gates and gives it to 50,000 people who have lost their jobs, you liberals would cry "success!"
But while you were screaming, "Hallelujah, he turned the economy around by helping the poor," we would say, "Number one, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is not right. And number two, that particular method of revitalizing the economy is not a long term solution; it will only work to ensure that future generations will never produce a Bill Gates because it removes incentive from those who aspire to achieve greatness."
So do I root for Barack Obama to succeed?
If your definition of a successful Obama presidency is, "President Obama morphing into a modern day Ronald Reagan by reducing taxes, increasing opportunity for entrepreneurs to succeed, and crushing our enemies throughout the world," then I say "Go Obama; get busy succeeding!"
Basically the Democrats view of success is "Turning the United States into a country opposite of what our forefathers envisioned."
Our view of success is, "Helping the United States once again resemble the country our forefathers envisioned."
So we conservatives do root for Mr. Obama to succeed, but in order for that to happen he would have to somehow obtain an entirely different system of beliefs, and despite your love for the man, I doubt such a transformation would make you Democrats very happy.
Despite their wish that America fail, they don't understand why conservatives are unwilling to at least give Obama a chance to succeed.
Let me get this straight, you want conservatives to give Obama a chance to "turn the country around," yet were so desperate for Bush to fail that you not only openly wished we would lose two wars, you refused to admit it when Bush did succeed.
"The troop surge did not work," you said after the troop surge worked.
So if we acted like you, and Barack Obama turned around the economy, defeated Al-Qaeda and discovered a cheap alternative to oil, we would say, "Barack Obama did not turn the economy around, defeat Al-Qaeda, or discover a cheap alternative to oil."
But that's not the main problem with you admonishing us for not hoping President Barack Obama does a bang up job during his time at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
The problem is that we don't agree with Barack Obama!
Do you wish a verbally abusive father success in raising respectable children? "Sure I disagree with his method of constantly calling his child a 'worthless joke of a human being,' but I wish him nothing but the best in all his parenting endeavors."
You can't wish a president success when you believe his "success" will damage the country.
If Barack Obama takes $5 billion from Bill Gates and gives it to 50,000 people who have lost their jobs, you liberals would cry "success!"
But while you were screaming, "Hallelujah, he turned the economy around by helping the poor," we would say, "Number one, taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor is not right. And number two, that particular method of revitalizing the economy is not a long term solution; it will only work to ensure that future generations will never produce a Bill Gates because it removes incentive from those who aspire to achieve greatness."
So do I root for Barack Obama to succeed?
If your definition of a successful Obama presidency is, "President Obama morphing into a modern day Ronald Reagan by reducing taxes, increasing opportunity for entrepreneurs to succeed, and crushing our enemies throughout the world," then I say "Go Obama; get busy succeeding!"
Basically the Democrats view of success is "Turning the United States into a country opposite of what our forefathers envisioned."
Our view of success is, "Helping the United States once again resemble the country our forefathers envisioned."
So we conservatives do root for Mr. Obama to succeed, but in order for that to happen he would have to somehow obtain an entirely different system of beliefs, and despite your love for the man, I doubt such a transformation would make you Democrats very happy.
You Couldn't Make This Global Warming Stuff Up!
As I read daily updates about states, counties and cities passing financially burdensome laws with the aim of curbing global warming, I become more and more amazed that the people who dreamed up the whole, "Man is creating global warming" theory actually got away with it.
They took two things that science can't prove have anything to do with each other and presented it as a fact that one was causing the other.
And people bought it.
Not only did they buy it, it's costing American citizens millions of dollars.
I find it hilarious when gullible morons get fleeced by politically correct do-gooders, but when laws that make everyone suffer financially are passed, it is cause for alarm. Especially in the trying economic times we face today.
Say I get together with a bunch of scientists who claim walking on Tuesday will eventually kill you.
Sounds far fetched, but because there is no evidence indicating man is causing global warming, those of you who believe it without question would surely believe something like walking on Tuesday is deadly.
Sure hundreds of scientists come out and say you can't link walking on Tuesday and death. But they can't prove it. No one has ever made a conscious decision to stop walking on Tuesday and everyone eventually dies.
Motorized scooters and padded mats that make crawling to your desk easy on the knees are just the beginning.
And of course everyone can't be expected to purchase their own motorized scooters and padded mats, therefore the bill will go the taxpayers, i.e., motorized scooters and padded mats are on the rich!
Also, each and every scientist who claims that walking on Tuesday is not detrimental to ones health faces tremendous scorn, and in some cases, receives death threats.
That really happens to scientists who conclude there is no correlation between man and global warming. The global warming freaks, who deride faith-based teaching in schools, also deride scientists who don't buy into the "Global warming is caused by man" theory; a theory based solely on faith.
So if you do accept the non-scientifically backed assertion that global warming is caused by man, you probably want to change your, "If you are of a certain ideology I will believe any words that come out of your mouth," stance, because the people you trust may eventually take advantage of your naiveté.
But don't worry; walking on Tuesday is perfectly healthy.
But I'm sure you'll still want to check with Al Gore.
They took two things that science can't prove have anything to do with each other and presented it as a fact that one was causing the other.
And people bought it.
Not only did they buy it, it's costing American citizens millions of dollars.
I find it hilarious when gullible morons get fleeced by politically correct do-gooders, but when laws that make everyone suffer financially are passed, it is cause for alarm. Especially in the trying economic times we face today.
Say I get together with a bunch of scientists who claim walking on Tuesday will eventually kill you.
Sounds far fetched, but because there is no evidence indicating man is causing global warming, those of you who believe it without question would surely believe something like walking on Tuesday is deadly.
Sure hundreds of scientists come out and say you can't link walking on Tuesday and death. But they can't prove it. No one has ever made a conscious decision to stop walking on Tuesday and everyone eventually dies.
Motorized scooters and padded mats that make crawling to your desk easy on the knees are just the beginning.
And of course everyone can't be expected to purchase their own motorized scooters and padded mats, therefore the bill will go the taxpayers, i.e., motorized scooters and padded mats are on the rich!
Also, each and every scientist who claims that walking on Tuesday is not detrimental to ones health faces tremendous scorn, and in some cases, receives death threats.
That really happens to scientists who conclude there is no correlation between man and global warming. The global warming freaks, who deride faith-based teaching in schools, also deride scientists who don't buy into the "Global warming is caused by man" theory; a theory based solely on faith.
So if you do accept the non-scientifically backed assertion that global warming is caused by man, you probably want to change your, "If you are of a certain ideology I will believe any words that come out of your mouth," stance, because the people you trust may eventually take advantage of your naiveté.
But don't worry; walking on Tuesday is perfectly healthy.
But I'm sure you'll still want to check with Al Gore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)