Tuesday, March 24, 2009

The Deliverer Speaketh

Well, the Deliverer held his second press conference tonight and all I can really say is, "Yawn!". This was one of the most boring things I've seen on tv in a long time. Anyone who thinks that Barack Obama is an innately charismatic speaker was disillusioned tonight. Unless it's written for him, the guy can't put two sentences together. And his charm bulb was out, too. The man definitely did NOT dazzle. Seeing the Chosen One tonight was like seeing a Hollywood starlet without her makeup. Ewwwwwwww!

Saturday, March 21, 2009

"If I Die Before You Wake"

Here's another tribute to our magnificent armed forces from another entertainer who gets it. I found this video when I went on YouTube to look for something completely different. This tribute to our fighting men and women was in the Recommended For You section when I logged in to the site. The title of the song intrigued me and I decided to give the vid a look see. Boy, am I glad I did! And you will be, too. The poignant song is by Dustin Evans. I don't know who he is but he gets a big thumbs up for this heartfelt musical tribute to the ones who keep us free and safe. Good on you, Dustin!

God bless America and God bless our troops!


Well, The Charmer has gotten a response to his let's-be-friends video overture to the Iranians. Essentially, it was, "Fvck you!".

Ok, the Iranians weren't THAT blunt, but they might as well have been. Their supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, retorted to the Big O that his words were hollow if there weren't any substantive changes in America's foreign policy, particularly our "unconditional support" for Israel. Khamenei and his corp of hardliners are committed to the principles of the Islamic Revolution. They're not giving them up just because Obama is a Black, winsome leftie.

Simply put, the Iranians weren't charmed by Obama's good looks, winning smile, or brown skin, which must have been quite unsettling to Dear Leader. After all, he is counting on his star quality to dazzle our foes into submission. Clearly, he's got his work cut out for him with the Islamic Republic of Iran. Those damn Persians!

What Will Sean Say?!

Barack Obama sent a video yesterday to the Iranian people on the occassion of their holiday Nowruz (spelling?). Obama was signaling a new direction in America's relationship with the Islamic Republic. Obama told the Iranians that his administration was committed to diplomacy and mutual respect with Iran. No word yet on the Iranian government's reaction but I'm waiting on reaction from Hollywood leftist and lover-of-America's-enemies, Sean Penn. Why? Well, it's like this.

Everyone knows about Sean's best actor win at the Academy Awards a few weeks ago. In his victory speech Sean gave a tongue lashing to opponents of gay marriage, saying they should be ashamed of themselves. Now, however, Sean's god, Barack Obama, wants to extend respect to a regime that executes gays. Obama wants to normalize America's relationship with a nation that doesn't allow gays to live. Just what is Sean Penn going to say about that?

Obama's diplomatic shenanigans put Penn and virtually every liberal in a bind. When it comes to American use of force, liberals like to act anti-war. For nearly eight years they denounced George W. Bush as a "war criminal" and religiously touted diplomacy as the answer to the world's problems. However, liberals also love to rail against "homophobia" and to act indignant about such things as Proposition 8 and the military's don't ask/don't tell policy. They act like these things are the worst atrocities on the planet. Now their Messiah is extending a friendly hand to people who actually KILL gays! What to do? What to do?

Liberals are neither consistent nor rational. Rather, they are profoundly Orwellian, willing to support or oppose anything or anyone if it's deemed necessary to advance their agenda. Obama's overture to Iran, then, will probably be hailed as an act of greatness by the Left, including the dimwits in Hollywood. They will simply ignore the contradiction between howling for gay rights while gushing over their Chosen One's "peace" initiative with one of the gay community's worst enemies.

Sean Penn loves gays. Sean Penn loves Obama. Obama loves people who murder gays. What will Sean Penn say about that? NOTHING!

Thursday, March 19, 2009

A President, Not A Celebrity

Barack Obama just keeps doing things that make it harder and harder for me to even think of respecting him. Schmoozing with a domestic terrorist. Hanging with an America hating preacher. Undermining the War on Terror. Grovelling to our enemies. Compared to those antics Obama's latest stunt may seem trivial, but it highlights what irks me about the man and his presidency. And what has Obama done now? He went on Jay Leno's The Tonight Show (TTS) tonight.

That's right. Barack Obama, sitting POTUS, hopped on a plane and landed his presidential arse on a vehicle for lightweight Hollywoodism. Now this would be a non-issue if Obama were still campaigning for president, but the campaign is over. Obama IS president now, and his appearance on TTS is highly unbecoming.

Tuesday night, Bill O'Reilly discussed Obama's upcoming appearance on Leno's show with journalist and author Bernard Goldberg. Goldberg opined that Obama going on The Tonight Show would be a totally win-win situation for him, but I disagree. While palling around with Leno might be a good idea for Obama in the short run it could cost him in the long run, especially as our economic situation continues to deteriorate.

Americans want a president, not a celebrity, in the White House. Launching a charm offensive on a tv show is NO way for the POTUS to handle the nation's problems, or the slipping poll numbers those problems are causing. This suggests that Obama really believes his own press and thinks his very presence is dazzling. Not hardly. It insults Americans for Obama to think he can just grin and joke on camera and we, the people, will go orgasmic and forget about his incompetence. No way. I'll go orgasmic over Russell Crowe, thank you very much. I have a very different take on politicians, especially the Chosen One. There will be no big o for the Big O from this girlie; just a blunt assessment of his job performance which, to date, is a joke. But you won't hear that on The Tonight Show.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

A St. Paddy's Day Wish

I know this is late as the day's almost over, but I got this from a kind store clerk tonight and I wanted to share it with everyone. This isn't just for St. Patrick's Day. The sentiments in this Irish wish are appropriate for any time. Spread them around, and God bless you!

A St. Paddy's Day Wish

May the road rise up to meet you.
May the wind be always at your back.
May the warm rays of the sun fall upon your home.
And may the hand of a friend always be near.

May green be the grass you walk on.
May blue be the skies above you.
May pure be the joys that surround you.
May true be the hearts that love you.

May you be poor in misfortune,
And rich in blessings.
May you know nothing but happiness
From this day forward.

Spread the love, God Bless, and Erin Go Bragh!

Saturday, March 14, 2009

What's With This Guy?

Crisis. Catastrophe. Worst since the Depression. These were the words and phrases Barack Obama used back in February when trying to scare us into supporting his GINORMOUS "stimulus" bill. If we didn't do something, we were told, the economy would collapse and our way of life along with it. There was no time to waste on debate or actually reading the "stimulus" bill, Obama warned; big and bold action was needed NOW! And with that fearmongering--and a Democrat controlled Congress--Obama got his quasi-socialist spending spree. Then Great Leader changed his tune.

Now Obama--the all-wise, all-knowing Obama--is saying that America's economy is basically sound. WHAT?! What happened to the economic catastrophe that was imminent just a few short weeks ago? It has vanished with the Chosen One's need to reassure the Chinese that their investments in the US are safe. You see people, Obama is expecting the Chinese to help pay for his porkulus package by buying US bonds. However, China is worried about the solvency of the 1 TRILLION dollars it already has invested in our national debt. Chinese Premire Wen Jiabao said that his country was "concerned about the safety of our assets." Obama sought to reassure Wen by insisting that China could have "absolute confidence" in the safety of its assets.

Absolute confidence? Oh, really? Since when? Where was Obama's absolute confidence in the US economy back in February? Certainly not in his desperate, panic-inducing speeches predicting doom if his "recovery" plan wasn't inacted. But once his plan became law and the Big O needed Chinese cash to fuel it, he suddenly discovered that America's economy was sound. Go figure. It seems that the only "change" Obama is really bringing to America is jangling in the pockets of the Chinese government. So, not only is the Great One spending our grandchildren's wealth, he's making them as well as us indebted to a nation that means us no good. Excuse me, Obama, but your inexperience is showing.

It's time for a "Don't blame me. I voted for McCain" bumper sticker.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

"I Certainly Hope He Doesn't Succeed"

Well, the liberal hypocrisy train just keeps on rolling. After the Dems/libs contorted themselves into fits of rage over Rush Limbaugh's now infamous statement hoping Barack Obama fails, we now have word that none other than Democratic strategist James Carville wished the SAME tidings on George W. Bush on, of all days, September 11, 2001. Yes, THAT September 11. It went something like this.

Carville was at a breakfast with Washington reporters when, just minutes before learning of the 9/11 attacks, he remarked regarding Bush, "I certainly hope he doesn't succeed." The words of Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who was also at the breakfast, were even more antagonistic. Greenberg said he wanted Americans "to turn against [Bush]", and was incredulous that they didn't want to. "They don't want him to fail," Greenberg whined. "I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."

There you have it folks. Two of the Dems' bigwigs drooling over the prospect of a Bush failure only a few months into his presidency. After that naked display of mean-spirited partisanship how can Dems/libs believe they are in any position to condemn Rush? Ah, but they do!

Shortly after his slur was exposed Carville tried to defend himself by saying that he told the gathered reporters to disregard his anti-Bush remarks immediately after he heard of the terrorist attacks. And that's true. After learning of the attacks, Carville DID tell the reporters, "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!". And I'm sure Carville meant that at the time. 9/11 shocked a lot of liberals back into patriotism but for most of them--not necessarily Carville included--that sentiment had evaporated within a year of the Towers falling. By the time the Iraq war started liberals were back into full we-want-Bush/America-to-fail/lose mode. Oh, yes they were.

Fast forward six years and now those same lefties are having a nervous breakdown over Rush hoping quasi-socialist Obamanomics fail. Rush didn't say he wanted Obama PERSONALLY to fail. He didn't call Obama a Nazi, a tyrant, a war criminal, or a chimpanzee as liberals were so fond of calling Bush. Rather, Rush limited his consternation strictly to Obama's POLICIES. He wasn't trading in mindless ideological hatred, which is more than can be said for his leftist critics.

The truth is, all those liberals who are now saying we should give Obama a chance and not criticize him so soon were itching for Bush to fail only a few months into his presidency. Well, what's good for the liberal goose is good for the conservative gander. Rush Limbaugh, or anyone else, is free to opine on Barack Obama's success or lack thereof. Obama is not entitled to support simply because he's president, a sentiment liberals would wholeheartedly agree with if Bush were still in office. Rush scrutinized Obama's policies and found them wanting, and he said so. Liberals, that is his American right. Get over it.

Sunday, March 08, 2009

33 Minutes, Part 2

The Big O is at it again. Putting his faith in the goodwill of the Russians and the Iranians wasn't enough, now the Brilliant One is going to save us by reaching out to the moderate Taliban. Yeah, I know. Moderate Taliban? That's like believing in moderate Nazis. But then again, British PM Neville Chamberlain DID believe in moderate Nazis and staked the security of his nation and the world on it. We all know how that turned out. And now we have Neville Chamberlain, Jr.

Obama's plan, which is supported by Afghan president Harmid Karzai, goes something like this. America and the Afghan government are to reach out to "moderate" Taliban folks, you know, the nice ones who really want to stop fighting but are too scared to just lay down their weapons and go home. We are to "engage" them and let them know they're welcome back into the fold, no hard feelings. After all, Afghanistan is complicated, explained Obama, and new approaches are needed. Whew! I thought the Sultan of Surrender was getting ready to, well, surrender. But no, he's just using new approaches to Afghanistan. Glad he cleared that up!

I guess this could be worse. At least the Taliban don't have nukes. But considering that they are sandwiched between nuclear armed Pakistan and nuclear wannabe Iran, I wouldn't be surprised if they got their radical hands on some WMDs sooner rather than later. And what would Mr. Diplomacy do then? Oh that's right, trust the Russians. What was I thinking? Silly me.

Saturday, March 07, 2009

33 Minutes

Barack Obama is either a clueless dolt, a traitor, or both. I'm leaning toward both. Why? Because, in this age of rapidly spreading nuclear ballistic missile capabilities, Obama wants to bargain away our nation's ability to defend herself against such a threat. That's right. The man who declared in his DNC speech, "Don't tell me Democrats don't want to defend this country!", is proving that they don't.

In a stunningly naive and dangerous move, the Chosen One has offered to forego America's missile defense shield in Eastern Europe if Russia, which vehemently opposes the shield, would convince Iran to abandon it's nuclear quest. Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, took this proposal to the Russians on, of all days, Friday the 13th. The Russians' reaction was, thankfully, lukewarm. Let's understand what's at stake here.

In our increasingly shrinking world, it takes a mere 33 minutes for a ballistic missile to reach America from just about anywhere on earth, including Iran. You read that right. 33 minutes. 33 minutes to find a bomb shelter. 33 minutes for our military to mount a non-shield defense. 33 minutes until thousands of Americans die. You'd think any president would jump at the chance to protect America from this danger, and you'd be wrong. Obama rejects that chance. Instead, he seeks to trust America's safety to the goodwill of the Russians and the Iranians. Gimme a break!

Today's Russia is an authoritarian state that kills it's dissidents, threatens its neighbors, and is led by a KGB man's protege. Iran is an Islamic tyranny that executes gays and rape victims and whose president calls for Israel's destruction and denies the Holocaust. These are the countries that the Brilliant One thinks are trustworthy. These are the countries he wants to trust our LIVES to.

Is this what Obama meant by "aggressive diplomacy"? Is this what Dems meant when they talked about "restoring America's image" abroad? That we give up our ability to defend ourselves in exchange for mere promises from tyrants? Frighteningly, this does indeed appear to be what Obama and the Dems meant. No need to invest in a missile defense system; the Russians will talk the Persians out of their nuclear ambitions. Diplomacy saves the day!

It is 33 minutes to midnight...on Obama's watch. Heaven help us.

Thursday, March 05, 2009

Hypocrisy Central

By now everybody and his grandmother knows about Rush Limbaugh's "notorious" statement hoping Obama fails. The resulting brouhaha has lasted for several weeks now and it's been a hoot watching the shamelessly hypocritical reaction of liberals. No sooner had Rush uttered his "infamous" opinion then the Left let out a howl of protest. How dare he, they fumed. How dare Rush hope that Obama fails. Why, that was the same thing as wanting America to fail. How could Rush be so unpatriotic?! Such outrage from the very people who trashed George W. Bush for eight years. Like I said, the liberals' hypocrisy is astounding.

Let's remember what actually happened here. Rush did NOT call Obama Hitler. He didn't call Obama a Nazi, a fascist, or a chimpanzee, all names liberals routinely called Bush during his presidency. Rush didn't question Obama's intelligence or his compassion as liberals did to Bush. Rush didn't engage in those sorts of personal attacks. No, what Rush DID do was proclaim his hope that Obama's policies fail. And he explained that he wanted those policies to fail because he believes they're bad for America. Yet you'd think Rush called Obama a nigger the way liberals have gone cuckoo over his remarks.

These are the same liberals, mind you, who spent eight years tearing George W. Bush apart. The same liberals who, almost from day one, hoped and worked for George W. Bush to fail. The same liberals who desperately wanted America to fail in Iraq (and, earlier, in Vietnam). The same liberals who convicted the Haditha Marines without benefit of a trial, and then never apologized when they were exonerated. The same liberals who, on websites, in movies, and in the streets, rooted for our enemies while smearing our troops as raping, murdering thugs. These are the liberals who are now outraged at Rush Limbaugh. Barf bag, please!

I thought liberals believed that dissent is the lifeblood of a democracy. I thought they believed that criticism is the highest form of patriotism and vital to improving the country. That's what they told us when engaged in their anti-Bush/anti-military/anti-American diatribes. Now the truth is out: liberals believe dissent and criticism are good ONLY when they're NOT directed at their guy. Trashing George W. Bush is legitimate dissent. Smearing our troops is legitimate criticism. Hoping Obama's odious economic policies fail is not. Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy!

But wait! Didn't conservatives chastise liberals for their harsh critiques of Bush? Didn't conservatives say such talk was unpatriotic? So, aren't they now being hypocritical for lambasting Obama? Unequivocally, no.

Conservatives criticized many of Bush's policies, especially his policy on illegal immigration. They also criticized Bush over his fiscal sloppiness, the Dubai ports fiasco, and Harriet Miers' nomination to the Supreme Court. And they criticized Bush's failure to correctly and boldly name the enemy in the War on Terror. Conservatives were never shy about disapproving of Bush's policies when they thought they warranted disapproval. What they rejected and condemned was the rabid hatred of Bush that the Left practiced, and continues to practice, like a religion. That hatred utterly disqualifies liberals from voicing any disapproval of anything any conservative might say about Obama.

So Rush Limbaugh said he hopes Obama fails in his plans to socialize America. Leftists said much, much worse about Bush. Now they're getting back some of their own medicine and they don't like the taste. Too bad.

Go Rush!!!!

Sunday, March 01, 2009

My Greenery

This post will be a change from what I've been writing about lately. It's not about politics or Obama, which I've been getting pretty tired of actually. Instead, I'm going to write about my views on a subject that can be made political and even spiritual, though it really shouldn't be. Since this is the first day of March, the month that spring begins, I'm going to write about the environment.

I am not, repeat NOT, an environmentalist. To me, that word has too many negative associations and connotations. When I hear the word "environmentalist" I immediately picture eco-freaks who chain themselves to trees, set fire to housing developments, throw paint on people wearing fur coats, and actually worship the earth. I picture people for whom nature is an actual god and "saving" it is their religion. That's NOT me!

Don't get me wrong. I don't believe in abusing nature. I don't believe in polluting the earth. I want clean air and clean water. I want a healthy food supply. I believe we should reduce, reuse, and/or recycle as much as we can. I believe we should diversify our energy sources and use fossil fuels less and less. In short, I want a clean earth, but I want it the way I want a clean bath tub. For me it's primarily a matter of practicality. And I think that's where I and most other conservatives part ways with the left on the issue of the environment.

For many left-wingers environmentalism is, as I've said, a religion. It's a kind of neo-paganism that is very antithetical to the Judeo-Christian worldview, which many leftists often blame for environmental destruction. Many leftists are militantly "secular" vis-a-vis Biblical monotheism, but they still have a spiritual hunger. They want a "god", though, that won't make the same demands on them that the Bible's God does. Leftists especially don't want a god who tells them how to live their sexual lives. They found such a "god" in Mother Nature.

I'm a conservative who cares about the environment. I'm not looking for a god. I already have one, thank you very much. Nevertheless, I understand people need to protect nature even as we use it to meet our needs. And I do believe that we humans have a right to use nature to meet our needs. We just need to be careful about how we do it. If we cut down trees for lumber, for instance, we need to make sure we replenish the forest. Planting two trees for every one we fell makes good sense. That will keep the forest growing, which means there'll always be lumber for us to use. Keeping the forest lush and healthy will certainly benefit wildlife, and that's a good thing, but the ultimate objective is providing for human need. And that's another place where I part company with the leftist, neo-pagan environmentalists.

I believe in taking care of the natural world, but I don't see that as an end in itself. The environmentalists do. Sure, I think we should keep many natural places unspoiled and pristine. Natural beauty is a gift from God. I mean that; it's not a platitude for me. However, the natural world also was meant to be the source for all that humans need to live. That, too, is a gift from God. And that's where the spiritual component of caring for nature comes in for me.

I don't see nature as a self-existing end in itself. I see it as God's creation. It IS God's creation. And so are people. We, nature, and animals are all "equal" in that we are all creations of God, but God has made us qualitatively different. Humans are superior to animals and nature. We alone are created in God's image. We alone have the ability to worship God and do His will. And His will is for us to take care of nature. People are to be good stewards of the natural world that God made for us. Stewardship, not environmentalism, is the word for me.

We are to take good care of this garden that is the earth because it belongs to God. We have a God-given right to use any and all natural resources to meet our needs. We don't have the right, though, to abuse or misuse the earth or anything on it. Felling trees for lumber to build homes is good; wantonly hacking down every tree in sight is not. Killing animals for food is good; hunting animals to extinction is not. We humans didn't create anything on the earth, including ourselves; therefore, we have no right to wipe any creature out. That is an affront to God's sovereignty. Caring for the natural world and using its abundance wisely is showing reverence for God and His sovereignty.

I say it again. I'm a conservative who cares about the earth as many other conservatives do. I care about it in both a practical and a spiritual way. I believe humans are the highest lifeform on the planet and have a God-given right to rule it, but not abuse it. We are subject to God's authority and will answer to Him for any unbridled misuse of His creation. That reality, more than any fear of some natural apocalypse or any belief that nature is divine, is what motivates me to do my small part to maintain the ecological balance. This is God's world; He expects nothing less.