The minute that I heard about the Islamofacist assault on an upscale shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya, a movie came to mind.
That would be The Siege, a mid 1990s movie that is worth watching for it deals with Islamofacists (before 9/11) committing terror attacks in the United States.
It does go a wee bit off the rails because it implies that the president of the United States can declare martial law any time, anywhere in the United States. That is not true as it would take congress to approve such an action.
But I digress.
The movie deals with acts of Islamofacist terror at an escalating rate that culminates with the destruction of the New York City FBI headquarters and over 600 casualties.
And what happened in Nairobi?
An attack that engulfed an entire shopping mall and as of this writing is still possibly going on as information regarding the government soldiers and the terrorist fighting is still very confusing.
Remember another attack in Nairobi in the 1990s?
Yes that is when the United States embassy was bombed there as well as Dar es Salaam, Tanzania on the same day.
That caused 297 deaths and over 4,000 injuries.
But one of the attacks occurred in Kenya. Kenya is a Christian majority nation that borders Somalia, an apocalyptic land in which the majority are adherents to Islam. But, sadly, the overwhelming majority are the victims of the radical Islamics that have taken advantage of the anarchy that is Somalia.
One of those groups is al-Shabaab and it is believed that they took part in the attack.
Yes, al-Shabaab is just one of those misunderstood terror groups under Islam, aka the Religion of Peace.
This is not to indict all Islamic people. Not in the least. But to point out that there is a strain of the religion that is, how does one say it, militant and extreme that it will even take on it's fellow adherents if they are not Islamic enough.
Kenya invaded Southern Somalia to assist the latest fledgling attempt to empower a strong central government and rid the nation of such terrorists.
And of course, al-Shabaab is not happy with that at all. So what if these people are not just waging their jihad within Somalia proper? So what if they would wage their jihad within the borders of Christian Kenya? After all, they should not resist the wonders of the Religion of Peace, right? Especially those rules and laws under Sharia, right?
So why did this terrorist assault remind me of a movie?
Because of this.
A terrorist act occurred on United States soil. Some people were convinced that it was a one-time event, little if anything to worry about. Some saw a larger more sinister picture. And the latter group was correct. And the one event, the bombing of the FBI office in New York City, the president wanted to clamp down and get those responsible. And, unconstitutionally, declared martial law and pulled an FDR Islamic style and rounded up Islamic males and interring them in camps in Brooklyn, New York.
Or the way to look at it is that there were some that believed there was an enemy and we have to fight them.
And of course there were those that felt it was a police action and up to law enforcement and "the system" to take care of things.
And that is what is going on right now.
Because too few people actually listened to former President George W. Bush when he said over and over again that the War Against Islamofacist Terror would be a long one. That more than likely there would not be the parade down Broadway in Manhattan, New York as was the case at the end of World War II in Europe. And that there would be different ways to deal with different situations. To be blunt, these are the people that don't want to fight the terrorists. They believe that at best it is a law enforcement and court issue.
And does anyone really think that the events unfolding in Nairobi will not happen at some point here in the United States? How about Islamofacists running up and down Rodeo Drive in Beverly Hills, California asking people if they are Islamic and can recite a certain prayer and if so, they live but the others are shot to death? Or maybe any other upscale area in the United States?
I am here to tell you that it WILL at some point happen in the United States, It is only a matter of time.
The question is will you be willing to take the fight to the radical Islamics and kill them or treat such matters as a law enforcement situation and those that may commit the act live and get their day in court.
And somehow I thought of a movie because it is indicative of how it thinks about the War Against Islamofacist Terror.
Monday, September 23, 2013
Another Joy Of Obamacare: Primary Care Doctor Shortages
I'm sure that this is an unintended effect of the so-called Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act that there would be primary care doctor shortages, right?
I guess so since this article suggests that in the United States there needs to be 40,000 new primary care doctors just to maybe ease a shortage of said doctors as the implementation of Obamacare becomes a reality.
A little lesson in logic before I move on.
Again, you can not expand the pool of people that will be insured, offer supposed quality care without enough PCP (bad acronym, I know) to take care of said newly insured people.
Logic and liberal left Democrats, does not exist.
I guess that people who go to medical school should probably not bother to go into speciality fields where they may actually make money. That is probably what the liberal left Democrats will do next to make sure that there is not a shortage of PCP.
The PCP is the one that we just used to call the family doctor. You know if you are old enough that sometimes back in the day, many would actually come to one's home. Thus the expression about doctors making house calls.
Those days are long gone.
But the PCP today is what they are called. It is who we all go to when we have a medical problem to have an assessment. The PCP will do what he or she can and often refer patients to specialists that will be able to better treat said patients for long-term medical problems.
But there are not enough of these PCPs and one reason is simple.
They do not get good reimbursement from insurance companies and will more than likely get even less under Obamacare.
The PCP in the linked story, Dr. Reed Wilson, points this out.
The average debt for a PCP once they attain the necessary loans and complete their studies is a staggering $170,000 before they see one patient.
Thus a student needs to make a decision before they walk into medical school. And that is what field will they study. And now more than ever they are going into speciality fields because that is where the money is. And where the money is will pay off the loans that they had to take out to go to medical school in the first place.
So what to do about the problem?
Well, leave it to the liberal left Dems to come up with a solution in nurse practitioners being allowed a greater role in patient care.
That is the "solution" put forth by state senator Ed Hernandez, an optometrist.
As Dr. Wilson pointed out NPs are great for the basics. And I agree. Many nurses when it comes to the basics are very good. But for actually diagnosing patients the way that a PCP does, uh not so much.
To state Sen. Hernandez, don't address the real issue. And that is PCP shortages and or compensation, but throw out something that has a less paid, educated and trained person as a nurse practitioner to help, supposedly, ease doctor shortages.
If I went to Dr. Hernandez for eye care, would he let one of his assistants complete an eye exam and determine my eye-care needs?
I don't think so.
One aspect that the article did not address is that there is a growing amount of PCPs that are getting out of the insurance business and not accepting insurance patients. They are essentially seeing patients and only take cash for that. And a lot of people that can afford it are seeing these doctors. Is that a possibility as to why there are real doctor shortages in not just California but the United States as a whole?
So how much does a PCP make in comparison to specialists?
This link, while outdated by a year, illustrates that there is a serious divide.
Here is what the umbrella of PCPs made on average in 2012:
Pediatricians: $173,000 (up from $156,000 a year before)
Family medicine doctors: $175,000 (up from $158,000)
Internal medicine doctors: $185,000 (up from $165,000)
Oh, I know that sounds like a lot of money. But between repaying student loans and medical malpractice insurance and taxes, it is not all that much for someone fresh out of medical school. Remember this is an average and that a rookie PCP probably makes nowhere near this kind of money.
And specialists?
Here are what some specialists make in a year:
Dermatologists: $306,000
Plastic surgeons: $317,000
Urologists: $340,000
Radiologists: $349,000
Cardiologists: $357,000
Orthopedists: $405,000
So if I were thinking of becoming a doctor and looked at who makes what, I would more than likely consider a speciality over being a gatekeeper, which is what a PCP has become.
A PCP does a lot of work and really gets the shaft.
Yet they are the bulwark of the totally misnamed PPACA.
Dr. Wilson makes the obvious point that we will not attract good PCPs if there is not adequate compensation. And another fact that is truly disturbing is that only 30% of PCPs actually own their practice. In other words 70% of PCPs work for insurance companies and or medical groups.
And I let Dr. Wilson explain the obvious:
“I love taking care of patients. I’m in an area where I can take time with my patients. But how do you get the best and brightest if you don’t reward them?”
Yes, how do you do that? And how does Obamacare keep medical costs down while supposedly providing healthcare to all Americans?
It does not and it really counts on the PCP shortage to keep costs down.
And that is a scam if ever there was one.
I guess so since this article suggests that in the United States there needs to be 40,000 new primary care doctors just to maybe ease a shortage of said doctors as the implementation of Obamacare becomes a reality.
A little lesson in logic before I move on.
Again, you can not expand the pool of people that will be insured, offer supposed quality care without enough PCP (bad acronym, I know) to take care of said newly insured people.
Logic and liberal left Democrats, does not exist.
I guess that people who go to medical school should probably not bother to go into speciality fields where they may actually make money. That is probably what the liberal left Democrats will do next to make sure that there is not a shortage of PCP.
The PCP is the one that we just used to call the family doctor. You know if you are old enough that sometimes back in the day, many would actually come to one's home. Thus the expression about doctors making house calls.
Those days are long gone.
But the PCP today is what they are called. It is who we all go to when we have a medical problem to have an assessment. The PCP will do what he or she can and often refer patients to specialists that will be able to better treat said patients for long-term medical problems.
But there are not enough of these PCPs and one reason is simple.
They do not get good reimbursement from insurance companies and will more than likely get even less under Obamacare.
The PCP in the linked story, Dr. Reed Wilson, points this out.
The average debt for a PCP once they attain the necessary loans and complete their studies is a staggering $170,000 before they see one patient.
Thus a student needs to make a decision before they walk into medical school. And that is what field will they study. And now more than ever they are going into speciality fields because that is where the money is. And where the money is will pay off the loans that they had to take out to go to medical school in the first place.
So what to do about the problem?
Well, leave it to the liberal left Dems to come up with a solution in nurse practitioners being allowed a greater role in patient care.
That is the "solution" put forth by state senator Ed Hernandez, an optometrist.
As Dr. Wilson pointed out NPs are great for the basics. And I agree. Many nurses when it comes to the basics are very good. But for actually diagnosing patients the way that a PCP does, uh not so much.
To state Sen. Hernandez, don't address the real issue. And that is PCP shortages and or compensation, but throw out something that has a less paid, educated and trained person as a nurse practitioner to help, supposedly, ease doctor shortages.
If I went to Dr. Hernandez for eye care, would he let one of his assistants complete an eye exam and determine my eye-care needs?
I don't think so.
One aspect that the article did not address is that there is a growing amount of PCPs that are getting out of the insurance business and not accepting insurance patients. They are essentially seeing patients and only take cash for that. And a lot of people that can afford it are seeing these doctors. Is that a possibility as to why there are real doctor shortages in not just California but the United States as a whole?
So how much does a PCP make in comparison to specialists?
This link, while outdated by a year, illustrates that there is a serious divide.
Here is what the umbrella of PCPs made on average in 2012:
Oh, I know that sounds like a lot of money. But between repaying student loans and medical malpractice insurance and taxes, it is not all that much for someone fresh out of medical school. Remember this is an average and that a rookie PCP probably makes nowhere near this kind of money.
And specialists?
Here are what some specialists make in a year:
So if I were thinking of becoming a doctor and looked at who makes what, I would more than likely consider a speciality over being a gatekeeper, which is what a PCP has become.
A PCP does a lot of work and really gets the shaft.
Yet they are the bulwark of the totally misnamed PPACA.
Dr. Wilson makes the obvious point that we will not attract good PCPs if there is not adequate compensation. And another fact that is truly disturbing is that only 30% of PCPs actually own their practice. In other words 70% of PCPs work for insurance companies and or medical groups.
And I let Dr. Wilson explain the obvious:
“I love taking care of patients. I’m in an area where I can take time with my patients. But how do you get the best and brightest if you don’t reward them?”
Yes, how do you do that? And how does Obamacare keep medical costs down while supposedly providing healthcare to all Americans?
It does not and it really counts on the PCP shortage to keep costs down.
And that is a scam if ever there was one.
Sunday, September 22, 2013
October 1, 2013 The Date Of Infamy And The Begining Of Obamacare
October 1, 2013 is the big day for all the fans of socialized medicine, American style.
It it the day that Americans can begin the process of signing up for one of the programs in the exchanges that are supposed to insure all Americans one way or the other.
Remember the former speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-of course-Cal.) telling us that the bill, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, had to be passed so we can see whats in it?
Well, it has passed and the important milestone will begin on the a fateful Tuesday in October.
Of course this is if there is no funding for Obamacare.
But since it will happen more than likely, today my local fishwrap, the Pasadena Star-News, did a whole comprehensive section on the impact of this monstrosity will have and especially here in California.
In that special section is this chart that explains the four levels of the exchanges that will be offered to uninsured Californians.
Here is the chart:
It it the day that Americans can begin the process of signing up for one of the programs in the exchanges that are supposed to insure all Americans one way or the other.
Remember the former speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi (D-of course-Cal.) telling us that the bill, known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, had to be passed so we can see whats in it?
Well, it has passed and the important milestone will begin on the a fateful Tuesday in October.
Of course this is if there is no funding for Obamacare.
But since it will happen more than likely, today my local fishwrap, the Pasadena Star-News, did a whole comprehensive section on the impact of this monstrosity will have and especially here in California.
In that special section is this chart that explains the four levels of the exchanges that will be offered to uninsured Californians.
Here is the chart:
OK, now we have a chart and it shows four "metals" plans ranging from the low-end Bronze to the high end Platinum.
Here is something neat about these plans.
All still make the insured pay out of pocket costs as high as 40%.
So lets take a peek at this chart I made
- Bronze plan covers 60% of costs and the insured has to pay 40% of expenses.
- Silver plan covers 70% of costs and the insured has to pay 30% of expenses.
- Gold plan covers 80% of costs and the insured has to pay 20% of expenses.
- Platinum plan covers 90% of costs and the insured has to pay 10% of expenses.
Well, I suppose that sounds pretty good. In fact, much of that is what we have had now under different insurance companies and plans.
Look at the first chart because it is important to see what kind of coverage and costs one can attain.
If you are one that ends up with the Bronze, you will have a $5,000 deductible for medical and prescription medicine. And Silver is a little better with a $2,000 deductible. And speaking of medicines, the price of medications will be, after meeting the $5,000 in the Bronze and $250 in the Silver, will be $50 or $75. Oh yeah, and if you are on the low-income scale, you will still have to pay possibly $2,100 or $175 a month. That is after government assistance and or subsidy.
Uh, this is supposed to be affordable health care, right? I mean its not supposed to be quality healthcare for the uninsured or low income, right?
Because quite honestly, it is not.
Note that a lot of large companies are changing many employees hours to part-time status and they will not have to offer any kind of healthcare coverage whatsoever.
So if one works at a retail establishment, their once full-time jobs are now part-time jobs, minus that money is somehow supposed to pay the monthly premiums under even the least amount of coverage?
How does that work?
Well one of the big business making the dump, Trader Joe's market is going to offer a one time assist of about $500 so that part-timers can transition into the government exchange. But after that year and said employee is still part-time and still working for TJ's?
Ever heard the acronyn SOL*?
That will be the case for many employees that will get hours cut and have to pay even after government assistance and or subsidies. And not all companies will be as generous as TJ's dumping their employees in government exchanges. Not all employees will get the kind of deal that TJ's is going to do to assist those part-timers into government exchanges.
The reality is that this whole scam is the bridge to the eventual goal of the statists.
And that, my friends, is going to fundamentally change everything about healthcare in the United States.
Not that this monstrosity will not do so.
Here is a huge problem that the advocates do not explain rationally.
In this article from the Star-News special section, what is being done is the biggest sales job to convince young people, 18 to 34 year-olds to sign up for one of the plans.
Hold the front door!
Under the dreaded PPACA, a young person can be covered under their parents health insurance. So if said persons 26 and under are already covered, why in the hell do they want to sign up for their own healthcare? They can live at home, take their time with college and maybe start working when they are 26. There is no incentive for them to do so. And thus more pressure falls on 27-34 year-olds to fund the whole scam to pay for the old people.
Get the point?
The whole balance is having the young and abled-bodied pay for the old and essentially everyone else. Yet the brain trust behind this abominable legislation set it up for failure by already taking a whole group of the young out of the picture.
It is what happens when government gets so involved in something that it knows not one damn thing about.
You can't ask group A to cover for group B when you take a large portion of group A out of the picture.
The most telling comment in all that I read in this special section today is the last linked article in which the gentleman in charge of selling Obamacare in California, Peter Lee, said this:
“If the Affordable Care Act doesn’t work in California, it won’t work in America.”
And it won't work in California. And it won't work in America.
*-SOL-S**t Out Of Luck
**Single-payer heatlth insurance- Socialized medicine.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
Let Obamacare Go Full Steam Ahead
Oh yes fellow conservatives, throw me off and under multiple buses for saying that this "fight" over Obamacare and funding is done for now and to let it all go into effect.
Now I have never and do not now or ever will support this abomination. This is a direct result on not just the free market, but it is and will affect the doctor-patient relationship in ways that no one ever imagined.
And that is just the whole point about Obamacare.
No one really gets the big picture and the fact that the whole program, not just what is currently positive, is an utter disaster.
So, why do people on my side, the conservative side, seem to want to save the Dear Leader, President Obama's rear end on this? By delaying it? By not funding it?
An old saying true as the day is long is this.
Elections have consequences.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, not only won election in 2008 but won reelection in 2012. The Democrat party has been in control of the senate the whole time. The Republicans have been in control of the House of Representatives since the 2010 mid-term elections. And in between all of this, an abomination called the so misnamed Affordable Health Care Act passed both houses and was signed by the president.
To quote the former Speakerette of the House, Congressman Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.), they had to pass the bill to see what was in it. Here is her now infamous line:
Yes, a Democrat-controlled congress passed the bill and a Democrat president signed it. And did so without one, not one Republican vote. Without any Republican input whatsoever.
Yet the American public, especially the voting public did not like it much then and does not like it now.
Somehow, the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama, managed to win reelection by barely bringing up this subject. He essentially won reelection by not touting this crowning accomplishment but saying the other dude, Republican nominee Mitt Romney, was going to be worse that he was.
The way the the AHCA was passed and to be phased in is over a period of time and a lot of it is to begin next year, 2014.
So what is happening in preparation for the beginning?
Many large American companies are preparing for it by cutting employee hours. Making full time employees part-timers.
Why you may ask?
So that they do not have to pay for health care coverage.
By making employees part-timers, the part-timers will be forced into the government-funded (primarily) health care exchanges. And said employees better damned well get some kind of health care coverage because if they do not, they will face a fine. Oh and fat chance that the employers will give some money to help those employees that hours get cut to attain health insurance. A big deal was made when the speciality market chain Trader Joe's cut employee hours and not offer them health coverage. They are one of the few companies that will actually assist paying for the new insurance coverage under the exchange system. But what happens after the federal subsidy and the employees trying to keep said insurance coverage?
No one knows.
And that is why so many good thinking people on the conservative side want to short-circuit this abomination now by any means necessary.
Did I mention anywhere in this post that elections have consequences?
Again, I think that this needs to not be stopped but to let go into effect as the Democrat congress passed and a Democrat president signed into law.
Oops! My bad!
Why the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself is kinda sorta allowing delays in full implementation of the abomination, which is actually against the law, right?
While there is the individual mandate, that all Americans must have health coverage or face a fine that many will not be able to afford, what about the employer mandate?
Delay!
And what about capping the patient out-of-pocket costs?
And the magic word is?
DELAY!
Delay again!
Didn't some lady, a former Speaker of the House, glowingly say something about you have to pass the bill to see what's in it?
And once we see what is in it, why are some groups being given a break while the rest of us are going to feel something not quite right?
See, I want to see it all implemented to the letter of the law.
Because only then will we all get to see the joys of Obamacare.
I mean, it might just work, right?
All government programs work just fine as they were written, right?
That is why we need to stop fighting but not helping implement Obamacare.
Let those who want it to be deal with it.
If we conservatives really want to get this abomination changed, we need to win a larger majority in the House and take the senate and by big numbers.
Only then can Obamacare be repealed and replaced. All the talk now is really kind of silly.
In other words, let Obamacare go full steam ahead.
Now I have never and do not now or ever will support this abomination. This is a direct result on not just the free market, but it is and will affect the doctor-patient relationship in ways that no one ever imagined.
And that is just the whole point about Obamacare.
No one really gets the big picture and the fact that the whole program, not just what is currently positive, is an utter disaster.
So, why do people on my side, the conservative side, seem to want to save the Dear Leader, President Obama's rear end on this? By delaying it? By not funding it?
An old saying true as the day is long is this.
Elections have consequences.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, not only won election in 2008 but won reelection in 2012. The Democrat party has been in control of the senate the whole time. The Republicans have been in control of the House of Representatives since the 2010 mid-term elections. And in between all of this, an abomination called the so misnamed Affordable Health Care Act passed both houses and was signed by the president.
To quote the former Speakerette of the House, Congressman Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.), they had to pass the bill to see what was in it. Here is her now infamous line:
Yet the American public, especially the voting public did not like it much then and does not like it now.
Somehow, the current occupant of the White House, the Dear Leader, President Obama, managed to win reelection by barely bringing up this subject. He essentially won reelection by not touting this crowning accomplishment but saying the other dude, Republican nominee Mitt Romney, was going to be worse that he was.
The way the the AHCA was passed and to be phased in is over a period of time and a lot of it is to begin next year, 2014.
So what is happening in preparation for the beginning?
Many large American companies are preparing for it by cutting employee hours. Making full time employees part-timers.
Why you may ask?
So that they do not have to pay for health care coverage.
By making employees part-timers, the part-timers will be forced into the government-funded (primarily) health care exchanges. And said employees better damned well get some kind of health care coverage because if they do not, they will face a fine. Oh and fat chance that the employers will give some money to help those employees that hours get cut to attain health insurance. A big deal was made when the speciality market chain Trader Joe's cut employee hours and not offer them health coverage. They are one of the few companies that will actually assist paying for the new insurance coverage under the exchange system. But what happens after the federal subsidy and the employees trying to keep said insurance coverage?
No one knows.
And that is why so many good thinking people on the conservative side want to short-circuit this abomination now by any means necessary.
Did I mention anywhere in this post that elections have consequences?
Again, I think that this needs to not be stopped but to let go into effect as the Democrat congress passed and a Democrat president signed into law.
Oops! My bad!
Why the Dear Leader, President Obama, himself is kinda sorta allowing delays in full implementation of the abomination, which is actually against the law, right?
While there is the individual mandate, that all Americans must have health coverage or face a fine that many will not be able to afford, what about the employer mandate?
Delay!
And what about capping the patient out-of-pocket costs?
And the magic word is?
DELAY!
Delay again!
Didn't some lady, a former Speaker of the House, glowingly say something about you have to pass the bill to see what's in it?
And once we see what is in it, why are some groups being given a break while the rest of us are going to feel something not quite right?
See, I want to see it all implemented to the letter of the law.
Because only then will we all get to see the joys of Obamacare.
I mean, it might just work, right?
All government programs work just fine as they were written, right?
That is why we need to stop fighting but not helping implement Obamacare.
Let those who want it to be deal with it.
If we conservatives really want to get this abomination changed, we need to win a larger majority in the House and take the senate and by big numbers.
Only then can Obamacare be repealed and replaced. All the talk now is really kind of silly.
In other words, let Obamacare go full steam ahead.
The American People Have Stopped Listening To The Dear Leader, President Obama
Yes, I think that it is true.
The American people, save for his base, has given up listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Same thing happened to former President George W. Bush. To a lesser extent to former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. There comes a point, usually about this time, that the people and or voters just stop listening.
And it does eventually come back to bite the incumbent president.
And sometimes a president will just get desperate and hope that there fulminations to the base will somehow get to those not listening.
Let me explain.
In 2006, most of us conservative and Republicans did not see the forest through the trees. We thought that somehow then President Bush will get his overall message across, especially on Iraq. The people overall were just tired of the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacist Terror. And no matter how hard he tried, the people just stopped listening. Coupled with a relentless assault by the liberal left of the Democrat party and the mid term election of 2006 was an utter disaster that saw the Republican control of congress end. And of course the election of the Democrat presidential candidate, then Sen. Messiah Barack.
It is exactly what is happening today.
I find myself on the other side now. I am not listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama. He can say the sky is blue and after a grunt under my breath, I just don't care.
It is the overall reason that the American people do not support the Dear Leader, President Obama, on his "policy" regarding the use of chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria. Besides having an absolutely incoherent approach to the issue, the vast majority of people just were not paying attention. They do not care. No, not that they don't care about the Syrian people but that there is not just a war weariness but just a thought that this president and the political class as a whole is just totally out of touch.
So while a gunman was going on a total rampage at the Washington Navy Yard this past Monday, the president made a passing comment about it while going on an uncontrollable rant of Republican bashing regarding budget issues and the funding of Obamacare.
While I personally loathe any president inserting themselves in the middle of an ongoing unfolding story, especially when a crazed gunman is involved, it was built up on all media he was going to comment on the situation. He did and continued on the rant without realizing how petty to most people it would come off being.
So much does the leader of the party, in this case the Dear Leader, President Obama, become a pariah that few if any candidates will want him to campaign for them openly in next year's congressional elections. For once people stop listening, they do not want to hear anymore. Those that vote are going to look for change.
Trust me my Democrat friends, this is going to happen.
I do not know if there is one issue in particular or just that now with the advent of the ever expanding social media landscape, but the overall populace just tunes out a president at this point in their presidency.
Now the Dear Leader, President Obama, gets a five point advantage because there is a segment of those asked in polls that they do not have a vile hatred. I know people do not like why I believe that to be the case, but even in a poll there are people that do not want to be branded as racist and thus will say that sure, they like the Dear Leader, President Obama, personally. But keep asking questions and the same people pretty much will not like any of his policies. And if you take that out of the equation and you are looking at borderline George W. Bush numbers at the same point in their presidencies.
Again, we see that he is playing totally to his base now. He long ago gave up on any Republicans and all but has given up on the middle-of-the-road voters. Now he is even not paying attention to a good part of his base, the low-information voters. No, it is all the base that he believes will be able to offset all the negativity.
It won't.
So what to do?
Not unlike George W. Bush, the Dear Leader, President Obama, will just keep things the way that they are and hope that somehow those that vote in the midterm congressional elections will be what got him reelected in 2012.
But his name is not on the ballot anywhere in 2014. And the same type of voter will just not show up. The motivation of that voter in 2012, reelecting the Dear Leader, President Obama, is not there. Many of those voters are probably disenchanted by what has happened under the second term. Some just liked him and could care less about anything else. And yes, whether we on the right want to admit it or not, we had the same kind of voters in 2004 for then President Bush. The Big Mo is on the other side. The people really unhappy with the Dear Leader, President Obama, is much more motivated than those that like the dude. Because again, there is less of that than in 2012 when everything was rainbows and unicorns.
But for us on the right, there is still that subculture of RINOs* that want nothing more to do than snatch victory that can be had in 2014. They constantly look for ways to try to save the Dear Leader, President Obama.
However, once again the Tea Party is getting back in groove and the issue that they have going their way is the implementation of Obamacare.
Again, the motivation is on the side of the outs, not the side of those already in.
Maybe it can be something called a six-year itch among voters.
But one thing is certain.
The American people have stopped listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama, and will continue to do so until the 2016 election.
*-RINO-Republican In Name Only.
The American people, save for his base, has given up listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama.
Same thing happened to former President George W. Bush. To a lesser extent to former President William Jefferson Blythe Clinton. There comes a point, usually about this time, that the people and or voters just stop listening.
And it does eventually come back to bite the incumbent president.
And sometimes a president will just get desperate and hope that there fulminations to the base will somehow get to those not listening.
Let me explain.
In 2006, most of us conservative and Republicans did not see the forest through the trees. We thought that somehow then President Bush will get his overall message across, especially on Iraq. The people overall were just tired of the Iraq theatre in the War Against Islamofacist Terror. And no matter how hard he tried, the people just stopped listening. Coupled with a relentless assault by the liberal left of the Democrat party and the mid term election of 2006 was an utter disaster that saw the Republican control of congress end. And of course the election of the Democrat presidential candidate, then Sen. Messiah Barack.
It is exactly what is happening today.
I find myself on the other side now. I am not listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama. He can say the sky is blue and after a grunt under my breath, I just don't care.
It is the overall reason that the American people do not support the Dear Leader, President Obama, on his "policy" regarding the use of chemical weapons in the civil war in Syria. Besides having an absolutely incoherent approach to the issue, the vast majority of people just were not paying attention. They do not care. No, not that they don't care about the Syrian people but that there is not just a war weariness but just a thought that this president and the political class as a whole is just totally out of touch.
So while a gunman was going on a total rampage at the Washington Navy Yard this past Monday, the president made a passing comment about it while going on an uncontrollable rant of Republican bashing regarding budget issues and the funding of Obamacare.
While I personally loathe any president inserting themselves in the middle of an ongoing unfolding story, especially when a crazed gunman is involved, it was built up on all media he was going to comment on the situation. He did and continued on the rant without realizing how petty to most people it would come off being.
So much does the leader of the party, in this case the Dear Leader, President Obama, become a pariah that few if any candidates will want him to campaign for them openly in next year's congressional elections. For once people stop listening, they do not want to hear anymore. Those that vote are going to look for change.
Trust me my Democrat friends, this is going to happen.
I do not know if there is one issue in particular or just that now with the advent of the ever expanding social media landscape, but the overall populace just tunes out a president at this point in their presidency.
Now the Dear Leader, President Obama, gets a five point advantage because there is a segment of those asked in polls that they do not have a vile hatred. I know people do not like why I believe that to be the case, but even in a poll there are people that do not want to be branded as racist and thus will say that sure, they like the Dear Leader, President Obama, personally. But keep asking questions and the same people pretty much will not like any of his policies. And if you take that out of the equation and you are looking at borderline George W. Bush numbers at the same point in their presidencies.
Again, we see that he is playing totally to his base now. He long ago gave up on any Republicans and all but has given up on the middle-of-the-road voters. Now he is even not paying attention to a good part of his base, the low-information voters. No, it is all the base that he believes will be able to offset all the negativity.
It won't.
So what to do?
Not unlike George W. Bush, the Dear Leader, President Obama, will just keep things the way that they are and hope that somehow those that vote in the midterm congressional elections will be what got him reelected in 2012.
But his name is not on the ballot anywhere in 2014. And the same type of voter will just not show up. The motivation of that voter in 2012, reelecting the Dear Leader, President Obama, is not there. Many of those voters are probably disenchanted by what has happened under the second term. Some just liked him and could care less about anything else. And yes, whether we on the right want to admit it or not, we had the same kind of voters in 2004 for then President Bush. The Big Mo is on the other side. The people really unhappy with the Dear Leader, President Obama, is much more motivated than those that like the dude. Because again, there is less of that than in 2012 when everything was rainbows and unicorns.
But for us on the right, there is still that subculture of RINOs* that want nothing more to do than snatch victory that can be had in 2014. They constantly look for ways to try to save the Dear Leader, President Obama.
However, once again the Tea Party is getting back in groove and the issue that they have going their way is the implementation of Obamacare.
Again, the motivation is on the side of the outs, not the side of those already in.
Maybe it can be something called a six-year itch among voters.
But one thing is certain.
The American people have stopped listening to the Dear Leader, President Obama, and will continue to do so until the 2016 election.
*-RINO-Republican In Name Only.
Thursday, September 12, 2013
Liberals Are Not Libertarians
To many, the headline is shocking because many really think that liberalism, the modern form which is really watered down socialism, is actually a form of libertarianism.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, can be further from the truth.
And leave it to Jonah Goldberg to hit the nail on the head with this wisdom.
Those of you that believe modern liberalism is a form of libertarianism need to understand that it is not all about whether or woman can or can not legally attain an abortion. Whether or not an adult can or can not spark up a joint in the privacy of their own domicile. Libertarianism is much more than that.
Libertarianism is not just as Mr. Goldberg notes a belief in live and let live. It is a set of beliefs that emphasize individualism, not collectivism. And it is not just in the realm of social policy but in form of government and especially economics. Although this link is Wikipedia, please read it whether you are confused about it or not.
Liberals like to present themselves as live and let live types.
The reality is that they are the parents that you kinda sorta think you escaped from.
What caught Mr. Goldberg's attention is the Washington, D. C. city council proposing regulating tattoo parlors and having potential clients wait 24 hours just to make sure they really, really want a tattoo in the first place. Now I have written my views on tattoos here so we do not need to go into that. The actual aspect of this action of a very liberal-left city council was this line from The Washington Post:
“The body art rules are the latest product of a city government that has occasionally struggled to reconcile its socially liberal sensibilities with a zeal for regulation.”
Well no kidding, Jonah! Being a social liberal means butting into everyone else's business.
Washington, D. C. is nanny state central. But so is Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City. And even little ol' towns like my hometown, Pasadena, California.
One of the most grievous examples of nanny stateism in Pasadena is if one is an apartment dweller or owns or rents a condo or a townhome, you can not smoke in your own home. Once again, I wrote about the issue here. And yep, it is in full effect in my townhome complex. However, because we do have detached garages, it maybe a place on the grounds we can take the occasional smoke. But hey, I thought you liberals wanted to leave me alone? Insert uproarious laughing-till-you-puke soundtrack here. And FTR, I smoke very occasionally a cigar. I should have the right to do in the townhome that I OWN, right?
Not to the so-called live and let live lib-left crowd.
Another local issue is private businesses and the use of plastic bags.
Today in Pasadena if you forget your reusable plastic bag at the market or even places like Target, you can get a paper bag. For 10c each. It ends up that it is a beautiful collusion between big government and big business. Big Business supposedly found it costly, I guess, to provide plastic bags to shoppers. Big government wanted to look environmentally correct and stop the carnage of plastic bags that are littered all over. And big business makes a little money on the side with the 10c charge. Shameful, but true.
OK, maybe you don't care for my examples. Maybe you so hate smoking tobacco that you see nothing wrong with taking away the rights of homeowners. Fine. But here are some examples that Mr. Goldberg provides to shoot-down the concept that liberals are really libertarians:
Seriously, who else do people think are behind efforts to ban big sodas or sue hairdressers for charging women more than men? Who harasses little kids for making toy guns out of sticks, Pop Tarts, or their own fingers? Who wants to regulate the air you breathe, the food you eat, and the beverages you drink? Who wants to control your thermostat? Take your guns? Your cigarettes? Heck, your candy cigarettes? Who’s in favor of speech codes on campuses and “hate crime” laws everywhere? Who’s in favor of free speech when it comes to taxpayer-subsidized “art” and pornography (so long as you use a condom, if liberals get their way) but then bang their spoons on their high chairs for strict regulations when it comes to political speech? Who loves meddling, finger-wagging billionaires like Michael Bloomberg when they use state power and taxpayer money to herd, bully, and nudge people but thinks billionaires like the Koch brothers who want to shrink government are the root of all tyranny?
Do you see any live-and-let-live in that? Do you not believe that? Well, wake up folks because it is true.
The Koch Brothers really don't want to take your liberty and freedom away. I know it is hard to believe but they would actually stay out of your personal business.
Not so for the liberal-left.
Even on the issues that they give the impression they are libertarian, same-sex marriage and abortion, they are doing everything in their power to force people to accept these two issues whether they agree with the concepts or not.
I will take this further as proof that the liberal-left is not only anti-libertarian but the most judgemental of all people.
Tell me, when you are around known liberal-lefties, what is something that will inevitably come up in conversation?
"I am not a judgemental person". Be very careful as you are biting your tongue. I know that I have to.
All of the nanny statism is based on judgementalism.
Obviously if you are a couple of say seven year-old boys playing cops and robbers and extending your fingers like a gun and saying "Bang! Bang! Bang!" to each other, you will probably grow up to be a future mass murderer.
Or if you use the words fag, faggot or gay in derisive terms, that makes you a bully. Funny how the liberal-left discovered bullys once homosexuals complained.
Understand that everything to the liberal-lefty is all about judgementalism that they so loathe.
FTR, yes you are damn right if you were to say I am judgemental. We are ALL judgemental. It is how we use and or abuse that judgement. The liberal-left abuses that judgementalism more often than not.
I do not want to leave the impression that conservatives do not on occasion practice similar nanny statism. Yes we do but often in regard to overall "community standards". An example unique to California is because medical marijuana is legal and not overly regulated. Conservatives care about whether there are dispensaries close to schools for obvious reasons.
One important aspect of libertariansim is the respect that people as individuals can work on almost all issues without interference from the government.
Liberal-leftists do not believe in that no matter how hard they try to cloud it that they and not conservatives are closer to that concept.
Liberals are not libertarians.
Nothing, and I mean nothing, can be further from the truth.
And leave it to Jonah Goldberg to hit the nail on the head with this wisdom.
Those of you that believe modern liberalism is a form of libertarianism need to understand that it is not all about whether or woman can or can not legally attain an abortion. Whether or not an adult can or can not spark up a joint in the privacy of their own domicile. Libertarianism is much more than that.
Libertarianism is not just as Mr. Goldberg notes a belief in live and let live. It is a set of beliefs that emphasize individualism, not collectivism. And it is not just in the realm of social policy but in form of government and especially economics. Although this link is Wikipedia, please read it whether you are confused about it or not.
Liberals like to present themselves as live and let live types.
The reality is that they are the parents that you kinda sorta think you escaped from.
What caught Mr. Goldberg's attention is the Washington, D. C. city council proposing regulating tattoo parlors and having potential clients wait 24 hours just to make sure they really, really want a tattoo in the first place. Now I have written my views on tattoos here so we do not need to go into that. The actual aspect of this action of a very liberal-left city council was this line from The Washington Post:
“The body art rules are the latest product of a city government that has occasionally struggled to reconcile its socially liberal sensibilities with a zeal for regulation.”
Well no kidding, Jonah! Being a social liberal means butting into everyone else's business.
Washington, D. C. is nanny state central. But so is Los Angeles, San Francisco, New York City. And even little ol' towns like my hometown, Pasadena, California.
One of the most grievous examples of nanny stateism in Pasadena is if one is an apartment dweller or owns or rents a condo or a townhome, you can not smoke in your own home. Once again, I wrote about the issue here. And yep, it is in full effect in my townhome complex. However, because we do have detached garages, it maybe a place on the grounds we can take the occasional smoke. But hey, I thought you liberals wanted to leave me alone? Insert uproarious laughing-till-you-puke soundtrack here. And FTR, I smoke very occasionally a cigar. I should have the right to do in the townhome that I OWN, right?
Not to the so-called live and let live lib-left crowd.
Another local issue is private businesses and the use of plastic bags.
Today in Pasadena if you forget your reusable plastic bag at the market or even places like Target, you can get a paper bag. For 10c each. It ends up that it is a beautiful collusion between big government and big business. Big Business supposedly found it costly, I guess, to provide plastic bags to shoppers. Big government wanted to look environmentally correct and stop the carnage of plastic bags that are littered all over. And big business makes a little money on the side with the 10c charge. Shameful, but true.
OK, maybe you don't care for my examples. Maybe you so hate smoking tobacco that you see nothing wrong with taking away the rights of homeowners. Fine. But here are some examples that Mr. Goldberg provides to shoot-down the concept that liberals are really libertarians:
Seriously, who else do people think are behind efforts to ban big sodas or sue hairdressers for charging women more than men? Who harasses little kids for making toy guns out of sticks, Pop Tarts, or their own fingers? Who wants to regulate the air you breathe, the food you eat, and the beverages you drink? Who wants to control your thermostat? Take your guns? Your cigarettes? Heck, your candy cigarettes? Who’s in favor of speech codes on campuses and “hate crime” laws everywhere? Who’s in favor of free speech when it comes to taxpayer-subsidized “art” and pornography (so long as you use a condom, if liberals get their way) but then bang their spoons on their high chairs for strict regulations when it comes to political speech? Who loves meddling, finger-wagging billionaires like Michael Bloomberg when they use state power and taxpayer money to herd, bully, and nudge people but thinks billionaires like the Koch brothers who want to shrink government are the root of all tyranny?
Do you see any live-and-let-live in that? Do you not believe that? Well, wake up folks because it is true.
The Koch Brothers really don't want to take your liberty and freedom away. I know it is hard to believe but they would actually stay out of your personal business.
Not so for the liberal-left.
Even on the issues that they give the impression they are libertarian, same-sex marriage and abortion, they are doing everything in their power to force people to accept these two issues whether they agree with the concepts or not.
I will take this further as proof that the liberal-left is not only anti-libertarian but the most judgemental of all people.
Tell me, when you are around known liberal-lefties, what is something that will inevitably come up in conversation?
"I am not a judgemental person". Be very careful as you are biting your tongue. I know that I have to.
All of the nanny statism is based on judgementalism.
Obviously if you are a couple of say seven year-old boys playing cops and robbers and extending your fingers like a gun and saying "Bang! Bang! Bang!" to each other, you will probably grow up to be a future mass murderer.
Or if you use the words fag, faggot or gay in derisive terms, that makes you a bully. Funny how the liberal-left discovered bullys once homosexuals complained.
Understand that everything to the liberal-lefty is all about judgementalism that they so loathe.
FTR, yes you are damn right if you were to say I am judgemental. We are ALL judgemental. It is how we use and or abuse that judgement. The liberal-left abuses that judgementalism more often than not.
I do not want to leave the impression that conservatives do not on occasion practice similar nanny statism. Yes we do but often in regard to overall "community standards". An example unique to California is because medical marijuana is legal and not overly regulated. Conservatives care about whether there are dispensaries close to schools for obvious reasons.
One important aspect of libertariansim is the respect that people as individuals can work on almost all issues without interference from the government.
Liberal-leftists do not believe in that no matter how hard they try to cloud it that they and not conservatives are closer to that concept.
Liberals are not libertarians.
Wednesday, September 11, 2013
9/11/01 Twelve Years Later
It is hard to believe that it has been 12 years since Islamofacist Terrorists took four passenger jets and committed the worst attack on American soil since the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941.
But it has been 12 years.
Nearly 3,000 people died when two jets hit both World Trade Center towers and the Pentagon on that fateful morning. And if it was not for the knowledge and thinking of some passengers, another plane, United Airlines flight 93 may have done the carnage and damage that it was suppose to do. But those passengers fought their hijackers and the caused the plane to crash in an open field near Shanksville, Pennsylvania, killing all on board. Yet their heroism no doubt saved more lives.
But I want to reflect on what was going on in my life that day. I probably have done this before, but so what? Maybe what I can remember now is different from past remembrances.
It was not really an average morning in the RVFTLC household.
Mrs. RVFTLC and our son were up very early that day. It was an exciting day. For on that day, our son was going to Los Angeles International Airport to fly on his way to Paris, France and a semester of study abroad. It was the beginning of his long time dream to go to France.
Yeah, I know that regular readers will note I am not a big fan of France. Well, put that aside for it was his dream and I was all for it.
I told them to make sure to wake me up even though they left about 5am for the airport. Even then one had to get to the airport early for an international flight. I was awakened and said good bye.
After getting a little more sleep, I awakened and was getting ready for work.
Oh, I was excited because our then cable system had finally got the Fox News Channel and I was trying to at least listen. I remember that they were talking about a plane that crashed into one of the World Trade Center towers. It seemed that it was an accident at first. After all, who in their right mind would intentionally fly a plane into a building, right? At the time I started to watch, the people reporting did not even know that it was a passenger jet that flew into the first tower.
I continued watching and then it happened.
The second plane flew into the south tower.
It was not an accident.
At this point I was both watching on television and listening to Hugh Hewitt on the radio. He had just started his talk show not long before that and at that time was on the air from 6-9am. It became more clear that there was something seriously wrong going on.
And then, it happened again.
There were reports that the Pentagon had been attacked. And as it turned out, it was not attacked but a passenger jet flew into the heart of the defense establishment of the United States.
I kept thinking to myself, what would be next.
And what was going on with Mrs. RVFTLC and our son.
I continued to get ready and eventually head off to work.
When I got to work, we did have a television set in the office. And then we turned it on to see more of what was going on.
And it was awful.
First the north tower came crashing down. Then the south tower finally buckled and fell. The people on television were talking about how many thousands of people would be dead.
And I kept wondering about my wife and our son.
This was before everyone could and had a cell phone. So I kept calling and calling home. No answer.
In between the reporters were talking about all passenger flights being grounded around the United States. I did not know if our son was on one of those flights. Many ended up landing not in the United States but in Canada. I knew that he was going to Charlotte, North Carolina and changing planes there for the rest of his journey to Paris. Had he already arrived there? Or is he someplace else? Had he already caught his connecting flight and now in Canada? So many thoughts were racing through my mind. And trying to work at the same time.
Eventually I was finally able to speak with my wife. It seemed like an eternity yet it was about 10am when we finally connected.
Our son never made it on the airplane.
It was a chaotic scene my wife reported. That they were basically told to get in whatever form of transportation they could and get out of the airport perimeter. And that while they were doing just that, a crazy idiot phoned in a bomb threat. Nothing says disaster better than a glory hog trying to pile on to the terror, right? I was so glad that he never left but realized that his dream could be something that would not happen.
While I was totally relieved that all seemed to work out on that, The work day just got worse. I was yelled at by a customer and finally I had to tell him maybe he did not realize that the United States was attacked and that no one seemed to have a handle on what was really going on. Well, not only did that not set well with the customer but made him even madder. Eventually I just had to hang up on him.
At that place of employment, our home office was in Basking Ridge, New Jersey, just over the Hudson River from New York City. Eventually around 1pm we were told to go home for the day. And ironically I had an appointment for a cat-scan as I was preparing to have a tonsillectomy and a small nose job. Before all this, my wife had the day off from work and had offered to take me. I met her at home and we drove the local hospital so I could have the test done. Of course our son was home and beyond disappointed and trying to find out what to do now. As we were driving, I broke down and cried. Cried for people that I did not know or would ever know. Cried because, yeah I was afraid. I just could not believe that what was happening did happen. It was scarier to me because it was a terrorist attack. And terrorists are trying to maximize their terror. Eventually I stopped crying, had my test and returned home.
There was little if any diversion at that point to the events of the day. And for a while, it appeared that rescuers, they were not first responders then, found someone alive. There was hope. And that hope eventually was dashed.
All planes were grounded in American airspace for the first time in history. And yet later in bed we both heard a plane. And were scared. I had the radio on quietly and there was an interruption to let us know that it was a fighter plane.
We all were beyond numb. The day was over and yet it was not for the next several days.
Eventually our son was able to get to Paris. It was about a week and a half later than planned, but better late than never getting there, right? I did have my operation later that year. Things did and always seem to get back to a normal.
But from that moment, when the first plane hit the first tower, things were not going to be the same. Normal would be different.
But it was a day that I will never, ever forget.
Dems Mad At Losing Colorado Recall Vote
The Democrats at all levels are upset that two state senators in Colorado were recalled for their endorsement of a slew of gun control legislation.
What a shock!
But the reason that they are giving is sooooo rich.
Colorado Democrats were clearly already worried that they were losing so they started the meme that it was voter suppression.
Voter suppression?!
So how was that done?
Well because for one, a court decision made the elections ones where one had to actually show up to an actual voting booth.
OH MY!
How awful! Awful if people really cared about the vote, they would have to actually show the hell up to vote. That they could not in between sparking up a doobie* vote and if in the right frame of mind mail the ballot.
Not that there is any possibility of voter fraud, right?
Do read the other link for even the dim DNC chair, Congressman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, is trotting out the voter suppression meme.
It was a recall election. And the voters that cared would have got off their rumps and voted. Whether early voting or on the actual election day, they would.
A clue here.
No matter how easy and slippery voting can be made, the reality is that there is still a wide swath of people that will just not vote no matter what.
So Dems, stop with suggesting the reason two Democrat state senators in Colorado lost their recall elections is because of some mythical voter suppression.
The reason that they lost is because voters did not like their votes on gun control. Some state citizens got enough signatures, per the Colorado state constitution, to launch a recall election. And they won the recall.
Gee, maybe it is the policies that got them in trouble. Maybe THAT is the reason that they lost.
*-smoking marijuana.
What a shock!
But the reason that they are giving is sooooo rich.
Colorado Democrats were clearly already worried that they were losing so they started the meme that it was voter suppression.
Voter suppression?!
So how was that done?
Well because for one, a court decision made the elections ones where one had to actually show up to an actual voting booth.
OH MY!
How awful! Awful if people really cared about the vote, they would have to actually show the hell up to vote. That they could not in between sparking up a doobie* vote and if in the right frame of mind mail the ballot.
Not that there is any possibility of voter fraud, right?
Do read the other link for even the dim DNC chair, Congressman Debbie Wasserman-Schultz, is trotting out the voter suppression meme.
It was a recall election. And the voters that cared would have got off their rumps and voted. Whether early voting or on the actual election day, they would.
A clue here.
No matter how easy and slippery voting can be made, the reality is that there is still a wide swath of people that will just not vote no matter what.
So Dems, stop with suggesting the reason two Democrat state senators in Colorado lost their recall elections is because of some mythical voter suppression.
The reason that they lost is because voters did not like their votes on gun control. Some state citizens got enough signatures, per the Colorado state constitution, to launch a recall election. And they won the recall.
Gee, maybe it is the policies that got them in trouble. Maybe THAT is the reason that they lost.
*-smoking marijuana.
Gun Grabbing State Senators Recalled In Colorado
They thought that they could ram multiple gun control measures in Colorado and not face consequence, but last night two Democrat state senators paid the price as they were recalled and replaced by gun-rights Republicans.
State senator John Morse, the Democrat president of the state senate and state senator Angela Giron were recalled for forcing through a slew of gun control measures that were clear over reactions to the movie theatre masacare in Aurora and the masacare of children in Newtown, Connecticut.
Even a fellow Democrat state senator, Lois Tochtrop, warned that the measures were too much.
Here is what she said, prophetically.
"I feel like all these gun bills have done-to quote the last words in the movie Tora! Tora! Tora!-is to awaken a sleeping giant."
And of course she was correct.
And here is the carnage for each candidate.
And here is the scary part for Democrats.
State Sen. Giron was in a more Democrat district than Sen. Morse. And she lost by a wider margin. I think Sen. Morse had the fact that he was the senate president going for him and thus it was a closer race.
But no matter, these two defeats made the Democrat hold on the state senate a tenous one at a one-seat majority. All it takes is one flip of party to have a tie and one more to put it in Republican control.
I do not think that either will happen.
But what will happen is that more than likely the Democrats will lose the state senate outright at the polling booth. As well as the state House of Represenatatives. And probably the governor's mansion as current Gov. John Hickenlooper, the worst named governor in the United States, is dropping in the polls and Republicans are falling all over themselves to run against the governor.
Much of the gun legislation of the past year throughout the United States was a reaction to each other. Some states tightened already strict laws while others made it easier to obtain a gun. A classic Blue-Red divide.
But Colorado has a long libertarian sreak and that was what made many surprised how the legislature and governor, who was cautious in the early days of the Aurora move house masacare, went after guns with a vengeance.
After all, this is one of two states that the voters okayed the essential legalization of marijuana.
But the one Democrat that respects her voters is Sen. Tochtrot. She voted against five of seven gun-grabbing laws.
The left-wing of the Colorado Democrat party, not so much.
Again, they basically suspended all legitimate debate and rammed the bills through. It is what Dems do when they want something badly about at all levels of government.
And this is the result of that kind of governing.
When the GOP does take back the legislature and the governor's mansion, they will roll back if not rescind much of the laws. After all, they can't run a recall that proved to be sucessful and just let it be.
A lesson for the Republicans nationwide is to fight and fight hard to win elections. Because while this recall and rhe election of two Republicans feels good, it was because the people said enough is enough.
The sleeping giant, the people, are awakened.
State senator John Morse, the Democrat president of the state senate and state senator Angela Giron were recalled for forcing through a slew of gun control measures that were clear over reactions to the movie theatre masacare in Aurora and the masacare of children in Newtown, Connecticut.
Even a fellow Democrat state senator, Lois Tochtrop, warned that the measures were too much.
Here is what she said, prophetically.
"I feel like all these gun bills have done-to quote the last words in the movie Tora! Tora! Tora!-is to awaken a sleeping giant."
And of course she was correct.
And here is the carnage for each candidate.
| Senate District 11, recall of John Morse | |
|---|---|
| Yes | 51% |
| No | 49% |
| Senate District 3, recall of Angela Giron | |
|---|---|
| Yes | 56% |
| No | 44% |
And here is the scary part for Democrats.
State Sen. Giron was in a more Democrat district than Sen. Morse. And she lost by a wider margin. I think Sen. Morse had the fact that he was the senate president going for him and thus it was a closer race.
But no matter, these two defeats made the Democrat hold on the state senate a tenous one at a one-seat majority. All it takes is one flip of party to have a tie and one more to put it in Republican control.
I do not think that either will happen.
But what will happen is that more than likely the Democrats will lose the state senate outright at the polling booth. As well as the state House of Represenatatives. And probably the governor's mansion as current Gov. John Hickenlooper, the worst named governor in the United States, is dropping in the polls and Republicans are falling all over themselves to run against the governor.
Much of the gun legislation of the past year throughout the United States was a reaction to each other. Some states tightened already strict laws while others made it easier to obtain a gun. A classic Blue-Red divide.
But Colorado has a long libertarian sreak and that was what made many surprised how the legislature and governor, who was cautious in the early days of the Aurora move house masacare, went after guns with a vengeance.
After all, this is one of two states that the voters okayed the essential legalization of marijuana.
But the one Democrat that respects her voters is Sen. Tochtrot. She voted against five of seven gun-grabbing laws.
The left-wing of the Colorado Democrat party, not so much.
Again, they basically suspended all legitimate debate and rammed the bills through. It is what Dems do when they want something badly about at all levels of government.
And this is the result of that kind of governing.
When the GOP does take back the legislature and the governor's mansion, they will roll back if not rescind much of the laws. After all, they can't run a recall that proved to be sucessful and just let it be.
A lesson for the Republicans nationwide is to fight and fight hard to win elections. Because while this recall and rhe election of two Republicans feels good, it was because the people said enough is enough.
The sleeping giant, the people, are awakened.
Friday, September 06, 2013
The More We Know About Syria, The Less We Need To Get Involved With Bombing Or Any Other Military Action
The more that I hear the Dear Leader, President Obama, and even conservative supporters regarding bombing Syria for the use of chemical weapons the less inclined I am to support such a mission and oppose it stronger each and every day and more so by the hour.
Today in a press conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, at the G20 summit, the Dear Leader, President Obama, may have said one of the most idiotic things in regard to the situation yet. Here is the quote:
"Over 1,400 people were gassed. Over 400 of them were children. This is not something we fabricated, this is not something we are using as excuse for military action . . .I elected to to end wars, not start them."
Oh Dear Lord, this is douchbrainery on steroids.
Lets take the estimate of those killed in the attack.
According to the Dear Leader, President Obama, the number is over 1,400. Yet even in this article many do not believe that number and in fact believe that the numbers are less than 1,400. Granted some of that skepticism comes from Russia, an ally of the current Bashar Assad regime in Syria. But again in the article it suggests many leaders have skepticism about the claims.
But the whopper is the left's always fall back position whenever "action" needs to be done.
It's because or for the children.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, cited a number of over 400 who died being children.
It is an awful way for children that are innocent victims to die. No matter who was behind the attack. But my question for the Dear Leader, President Obama is this. What about the 98,000 plus that died as a result of conventional warfare? And the second question is what about the many children who died out of that 98,000? What their lives were not important until one side or the other used chem weapons? That is sure the implication I get from such a comment.
And the real zinger is why the Dear Leader, President Obama, thinks that he was elected.
To stop wars, not start them.
UGH!
Really that is a sophomoric comment because he is not starting a war but becoming an active participant in a civil war. A war that not only the majority of Americans oppose but one that is not in our national interest.
Again, understand that everyone in Syria just plain sucks.
The current dictator, Bashar Assad, is certainly no friend to the United States. He is allied as noted with Russia and worse, Iran. Assad is an Alawite Islamic which is an offshoot of Shi'a Islam. Alawites are serious Twelvers and like some Christians who believe in the End Times, these people do to from a radical Islamic perspective. And many would have no problem speeding up the Islamic End Times.
Oh, but those that oppose Assad, from the Free Syria Army, the least objectionable group to the Al-Nusra Front, well they are primarily Sunni Islamics and even worse than what is in power now.
While some proponents of bombing Syria, such as Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, say the Free Syrian Army are pretty cool, they dismiss the other groups allied with the FSA as a minority. Well, like so many things Sen. "F--- You" McCain is wrong about, he is here too. In fact if you read this post I wrote and start adding the numbers, well they are roughly equal in numbers. The substantive difference is that the FSA were former members of the Assad armed forces.
And while both sides practice brutality, the rebels are really more brutal than people want to realize. Even the Ol' Gray Lady, The New York Times, reported on this yesterday when a former rebel smuggled video of an execution of seven Syrian soldiers. The following video does not show the actual execution but is graphic none the less. And it shows the dead soldiers being thrown in an unmarked grave.
Today in a press conference in St. Petersburg, Russia, at the G20 summit, the Dear Leader, President Obama, may have said one of the most idiotic things in regard to the situation yet. Here is the quote:
"Over 1,400 people were gassed. Over 400 of them were children. This is not something we fabricated, this is not something we are using as excuse for military action . . .I elected to to end wars, not start them."
Oh Dear Lord, this is douchbrainery on steroids.
Lets take the estimate of those killed in the attack.
According to the Dear Leader, President Obama, the number is over 1,400. Yet even in this article many do not believe that number and in fact believe that the numbers are less than 1,400. Granted some of that skepticism comes from Russia, an ally of the current Bashar Assad regime in Syria. But again in the article it suggests many leaders have skepticism about the claims.
But the whopper is the left's always fall back position whenever "action" needs to be done.
It's because or for the children.
The Dear Leader, President Obama, cited a number of over 400 who died being children.
It is an awful way for children that are innocent victims to die. No matter who was behind the attack. But my question for the Dear Leader, President Obama is this. What about the 98,000 plus that died as a result of conventional warfare? And the second question is what about the many children who died out of that 98,000? What their lives were not important until one side or the other used chem weapons? That is sure the implication I get from such a comment.
And the real zinger is why the Dear Leader, President Obama, thinks that he was elected.
To stop wars, not start them.
UGH!
Really that is a sophomoric comment because he is not starting a war but becoming an active participant in a civil war. A war that not only the majority of Americans oppose but one that is not in our national interest.
Again, understand that everyone in Syria just plain sucks.
The current dictator, Bashar Assad, is certainly no friend to the United States. He is allied as noted with Russia and worse, Iran. Assad is an Alawite Islamic which is an offshoot of Shi'a Islam. Alawites are serious Twelvers and like some Christians who believe in the End Times, these people do to from a radical Islamic perspective. And many would have no problem speeding up the Islamic End Times.
Oh, but those that oppose Assad, from the Free Syria Army, the least objectionable group to the Al-Nusra Front, well they are primarily Sunni Islamics and even worse than what is in power now.
While some proponents of bombing Syria, such as Sen. John "F--- You" McCain, say the Free Syrian Army are pretty cool, they dismiss the other groups allied with the FSA as a minority. Well, like so many things Sen. "F--- You" McCain is wrong about, he is here too. In fact if you read this post I wrote and start adding the numbers, well they are roughly equal in numbers. The substantive difference is that the FSA were former members of the Assad armed forces.
And while both sides practice brutality, the rebels are really more brutal than people want to realize. Even the Ol' Gray Lady, The New York Times, reported on this yesterday when a former rebel smuggled video of an execution of seven Syrian soldiers. The following video does not show the actual execution but is graphic none the less. And it shows the dead soldiers being thrown in an unmarked grave.
.
But if that is not enough for you, here is Abu Sakkar a rebel fighter and watch what he does.
Yes, this sick degenerate eats the heart of a dead Syrian soldier.
And the Dear Leader, President Obama, our illustrious secretary of state, John F. Kerry (Reporting for duty*), Sen. John "F--- You" McCain want to shed American blood and treasure to support these bastards.
Again, ALL SIDES in this civil war suck. Not one is in the interests of the United States to see in power. But in this case, you have to go with the Devil you know against the people that we do not know about or want to bury our collective heads in sand and ignore. It is not just the atrocities but what the rebels could do once the overthrow, execute Assad and his family and implement. Radical Islam right on the Mediterranean Sea.
Yet those that want to attack Syria are planning, adjusting and refining what action the armed forces of the United States will take. No doubt it will be the navy with warships and aircraft carriers, and the air force. For now.
And remember, we do not know for certain who committed the chem weapon attack. We are asked to believe Team Obama and the rebels that it was the forces loyal to Assad blindly. Remember these people did not want to and did not blindly follow former president George W. Bush and the much more verifiable evidence of WMDs in Iraq, And also the fact that Saddam Hussein used the weapons and invaded another nation, Kuwait, in 1990. Without more absolute verifiability, we can not do what our president is asking us to support.
The more we know about the Syrian civil war, the more that we should not get involved in the matter that the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his new allies such as Sens. "F--- You" McCain and Goober Graham. We need to continue to let our leaders know that We The People just say no to bombing or any other military action in Syria.
Wednesday, September 04, 2013
Why We Should Not Get Involved In Syria's Civil War
UPDATE:
To show that the opposition to bombing Syria is making for strange bedfellows, even The Ol' Gray Lady, The New York Times, is noticing that maybe the opposition may not be a bunch of Freedom Fighters seeking mom, falafel and democracy. Do read this article here. Although it describes a brutal act, it still does not top the brutality of the link I left you with at the end of the original post.
09-04-2013
I know that the few people totally with the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his new found love of the armed forces of the United States will say to me, "Why did you favor the war against Iraq? Because it was your guy, Bush? Don't you remember that Bush lied and people died?"
OK, I will address those legitimate points later.
But what is before us, now the congress of the United States, is whether or not to support the Dear Leader, President Obama, in his mission to use the air force of the United States to bomb Syria because allegedly the dictator, Bashar Assad, used some kind of chemical weaponry on his people in the two-year old civil war last month.
And absent absolute, compelling evidence and the willingness of the Dear Leader, President Obama, to want regime change with allies, not enemies, of the United States, I can not support that at this time.
Today the senate foreign relations committee voted to authorize the Dear Leader, President Obama, to use force in response to the use of chemical weapons. The vote was 10-7 with newly elected senator Edward Markey (D-Mass (of course)) voting present. And it was not a strict party line vote either as this break down shows. FTR, here is the vote by party:
YES
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz.)
NO
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.),
Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.)
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
The link above points out a lot of interesting political implications of this and the expected subsequent vote for the resolution next week.
But back to the point as to whether the United States should at this point become a player in this quagmire.
The link to Wikipedia shows that this is one helluva mess. The government has a coalition of forces that is about 341,000. The rebels also have a coalition of about 146,000.
Syria is supported by Iran with about 150 advisors as well as the Iranian puppet Hezbollah and about 1,500 to 5,000 fighters. It also has support in the international community from Red China and Russian. Most important, and the reason we may be getting involved is that they have the secret weapon of chemical weapons that they have already allegedly used on their people.
The rebels are a motley crew to say the least. The largest group is the secular Free Syrian Army with a strength of about 50 to 80.000. Then it gets mostly murky and more radical Islamic. The next largest group is the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front with about 37 to 40,000. Then there is the Syrian Islamic Front with a force of about 13,000. Oh of course they want to set up an Islamic state based on Sharia law, as does the former Islamic Liberation Front. Very important to keep these players separate I guess. And here comes another of the wonderful opposition fighters, the Al-nusra front. Oh these dudes are real charmers. They don't just want there 7,000 fighters to bring down the Assad government and set up an Islamic state under Sharia law but want it for the whole of the region. And just a point of note that these dudes will not protect Christians, a minority, as they beheaded a Roman Catholic priest after his monastery was destroyed by said fighters. Oh yeah, I am up for taking these dudes over Assad. And let us not forget the wandering band of Mujahideen that are about 7,000 Sunni Islamics and pretty much hate Shi'a Islamics and the Alawites, a Shi'a sect of which Assad is a part of.
As I wrote, the opposition groups are just more and more radical Islamic and now overshadow the Free Syrian Army.
And note that there is a lot of divisions within divisions that make who we should have been or are now supporting all the more difficult.
This civil war is a direct result of the so-called Arab Spring which saw uprisings against long-time mostly pro-West dictators and autocrats. The Arab Spring, hows that going? Er, not so well. Islamic regimes are now in power in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. But Egypt's military just said no and threw out the government of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya is totally ungovernable and Tunisia is ready to throw out their Islamics. And Syria is the most drawn out and longest of the wars of the Arab Spring.
The whole Arab Spring has turned into Islamic Winter. And the worst aspect is that that last hold out, Bashar Assad, is not even a remote friend of the United States. In fact he is as unsavory as they come. But if you look at the potential that can win this God forsaken civil war, Assad actually starts looking good.
First reason why the United States should not get involved in this dispute is that there is no discernible American interest in siding with either side. Assad is a brutal dictator that is in bed with the Iranians and radical Shi'a Islam. The opponents who want to dislodge Assad are a rogues gallery of radical Sunni Islamics. We blew our chance to actively support the Free Syrian Army straight away and they are being overtaken by the radicals. What is being proposed will not make a difference.
Second reason why we should stay out is we have no game plan beyond our navy firing off cruise missiles in the hope of maybe scaring Assad to not use chemical weapons. There is no plan to do anything to take out any of the possible chem weapon sites. Yes there is the risk of the weapons releasing and causing more death and mayhem. But if we are trying to stop Assad from using them, don't we want to get rid of them? And since we are not taking sides and seeking regime change then this is a recipe for disaster and embarrassment for the United States.
The third reason why we need to stay out is we really do not know for absolute certain what side did use the chem weapons in the first place. The specter of Iraq hangs very high on this. After all, we were told by many intelligence sources that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and yet none were found. Thus many who were for the invasion of Iraq felt that they were lied to and wanted to turn tail and run so fast. Many went so far as to suggest that Afghanistan was a "good" war and Iraq was a "bad" war not realizing that they are theatres in the War Against Islamicfacist Terror. So, in a nation at civil war and rebel forces holding a great deal of territory, one has to at least think that they have some access to chem weapons. And that they may, may have staged the whole event to get exactly the outcome of outrage against Assad and a little help with air power to get rid of him. Why should we believe the intelligence on this blindly if not even more blindly than we did in regard to Iraq? It is as if George W. Bush is still in the White House, right?
Forth reason is simple. We don't know what we want to happen in Syria. There is no one saying that there is a desired outcome of bombing Syria. Do we want the rebels to win? Eh, not really. Do we want to bomb Assad into submission? Maybe. If we do not have a total game plan, then forget it.
The reason that we are in this mess is simple. It is because we have blown the whole Arab Spring. By not guiding it away from the radical Islamics taking power in Tunisia, Egypt and held off in Syria, we tacitly accepted Islam beginning to unify and form an Islamic Crescent and the reinstitution of the Caliphate. To be blunt it is amateur hour in Washington from the Dear Leader, President Obama, on down.
The bottom line is that we, the United States, should not get involved in Syria unless we radically change course. And since we will not, lets work harder to verify who actually used chem weapons. And where are the chem weapons depots. That would be a good start. I leave you this link as to what we could be supporting, tacitly, by bombing Syria.
To show that the opposition to bombing Syria is making for strange bedfellows, even The Ol' Gray Lady, The New York Times, is noticing that maybe the opposition may not be a bunch of Freedom Fighters seeking mom, falafel and democracy. Do read this article here. Although it describes a brutal act, it still does not top the brutality of the link I left you with at the end of the original post.
09-04-2013
I know that the few people totally with the Dear Leader, President Obama, and his new found love of the armed forces of the United States will say to me, "Why did you favor the war against Iraq? Because it was your guy, Bush? Don't you remember that Bush lied and people died?"
OK, I will address those legitimate points later.
But what is before us, now the congress of the United States, is whether or not to support the Dear Leader, President Obama, in his mission to use the air force of the United States to bomb Syria because allegedly the dictator, Bashar Assad, used some kind of chemical weaponry on his people in the two-year old civil war last month.
And absent absolute, compelling evidence and the willingness of the Dear Leader, President Obama, to want regime change with allies, not enemies, of the United States, I can not support that at this time.
Today the senate foreign relations committee voted to authorize the Dear Leader, President Obama, to use force in response to the use of chemical weapons. The vote was 10-7 with newly elected senator Edward Markey (D-Mass (of course)) voting present. And it was not a strict party line vote either as this break down shows. FTR, here is the vote by party:
YES
Sen. Robert Menendez (D-N.J.)
Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.)
Sen. Benjamin Cardin (D-Md.)
Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.)
Sen. Christopher Coons (D-Del.)
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.)
Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.)
Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.)
Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.)
Sen. John "F--- You" McCain (R-Ariz.)
NO
Sen. Tom Udall (D-N.M.),
Sen. Christopher Murphy (D-Conn.)
Sen. James Risch (R-Idaho)
Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.)
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.)
Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.)
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)
The link above points out a lot of interesting political implications of this and the expected subsequent vote for the resolution next week.
But back to the point as to whether the United States should at this point become a player in this quagmire.
The link to Wikipedia shows that this is one helluva mess. The government has a coalition of forces that is about 341,000. The rebels also have a coalition of about 146,000.
Syria is supported by Iran with about 150 advisors as well as the Iranian puppet Hezbollah and about 1,500 to 5,000 fighters. It also has support in the international community from Red China and Russian. Most important, and the reason we may be getting involved is that they have the secret weapon of chemical weapons that they have already allegedly used on their people.
The rebels are a motley crew to say the least. The largest group is the secular Free Syrian Army with a strength of about 50 to 80.000. Then it gets mostly murky and more radical Islamic. The next largest group is the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front with about 37 to 40,000. Then there is the Syrian Islamic Front with a force of about 13,000. Oh of course they want to set up an Islamic state based on Sharia law, as does the former Islamic Liberation Front. Very important to keep these players separate I guess. And here comes another of the wonderful opposition fighters, the Al-nusra front. Oh these dudes are real charmers. They don't just want there 7,000 fighters to bring down the Assad government and set up an Islamic state under Sharia law but want it for the whole of the region. And just a point of note that these dudes will not protect Christians, a minority, as they beheaded a Roman Catholic priest after his monastery was destroyed by said fighters. Oh yeah, I am up for taking these dudes over Assad. And let us not forget the wandering band of Mujahideen that are about 7,000 Sunni Islamics and pretty much hate Shi'a Islamics and the Alawites, a Shi'a sect of which Assad is a part of.
As I wrote, the opposition groups are just more and more radical Islamic and now overshadow the Free Syrian Army.
And note that there is a lot of divisions within divisions that make who we should have been or are now supporting all the more difficult.
This civil war is a direct result of the so-called Arab Spring which saw uprisings against long-time mostly pro-West dictators and autocrats. The Arab Spring, hows that going? Er, not so well. Islamic regimes are now in power in Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. But Egypt's military just said no and threw out the government of Mohammed Morsi and the Muslim Brotherhood. Libya is totally ungovernable and Tunisia is ready to throw out their Islamics. And Syria is the most drawn out and longest of the wars of the Arab Spring.
The whole Arab Spring has turned into Islamic Winter. And the worst aspect is that that last hold out, Bashar Assad, is not even a remote friend of the United States. In fact he is as unsavory as they come. But if you look at the potential that can win this God forsaken civil war, Assad actually starts looking good.
First reason why the United States should not get involved in this dispute is that there is no discernible American interest in siding with either side. Assad is a brutal dictator that is in bed with the Iranians and radical Shi'a Islam. The opponents who want to dislodge Assad are a rogues gallery of radical Sunni Islamics. We blew our chance to actively support the Free Syrian Army straight away and they are being overtaken by the radicals. What is being proposed will not make a difference.
Second reason why we should stay out is we have no game plan beyond our navy firing off cruise missiles in the hope of maybe scaring Assad to not use chemical weapons. There is no plan to do anything to take out any of the possible chem weapon sites. Yes there is the risk of the weapons releasing and causing more death and mayhem. But if we are trying to stop Assad from using them, don't we want to get rid of them? And since we are not taking sides and seeking regime change then this is a recipe for disaster and embarrassment for the United States.
The third reason why we need to stay out is we really do not know for absolute certain what side did use the chem weapons in the first place. The specter of Iraq hangs very high on this. After all, we were told by many intelligence sources that Saddam Hussein had WMDs and yet none were found. Thus many who were for the invasion of Iraq felt that they were lied to and wanted to turn tail and run so fast. Many went so far as to suggest that Afghanistan was a "good" war and Iraq was a "bad" war not realizing that they are theatres in the War Against Islamicfacist Terror. So, in a nation at civil war and rebel forces holding a great deal of territory, one has to at least think that they have some access to chem weapons. And that they may, may have staged the whole event to get exactly the outcome of outrage against Assad and a little help with air power to get rid of him. Why should we believe the intelligence on this blindly if not even more blindly than we did in regard to Iraq? It is as if George W. Bush is still in the White House, right?
Forth reason is simple. We don't know what we want to happen in Syria. There is no one saying that there is a desired outcome of bombing Syria. Do we want the rebels to win? Eh, not really. Do we want to bomb Assad into submission? Maybe. If we do not have a total game plan, then forget it.
The reason that we are in this mess is simple. It is because we have blown the whole Arab Spring. By not guiding it away from the radical Islamics taking power in Tunisia, Egypt and held off in Syria, we tacitly accepted Islam beginning to unify and form an Islamic Crescent and the reinstitution of the Caliphate. To be blunt it is amateur hour in Washington from the Dear Leader, President Obama, on down.
The bottom line is that we, the United States, should not get involved in Syria unless we radically change course. And since we will not, lets work harder to verify who actually used chem weapons. And where are the chem weapons depots. That would be a good start. I leave you this link as to what we could be supporting, tacitly, by bombing Syria.
Tuesday, September 03, 2013
In The End Ariel Castro, The Creature, Was Nothing But A Coward
This is breaking news as I type this but the convicted kidnapper of three Cleveland, Ohio teens who held them prisoner in his home for a decade, Ariel Castro, who I refer to as The Creature, has committed suicide.
According to the link, The Creature was found hanging in his cell at an Ohio state prison in Orient. Of course measures were taken to try to revive The Creature, but they proved fruitless and he was pronounced dead at 9:20pm local time.
The Creature pleaded guilty to kidnapping Amanda Berry, Gina De Jesus and Michelle Knight and holding them prisoner in his home for over a decade. Miss Knight was held the longest and was pregnant five times at the hands of The Creature. And each time The Creature beat her just enough to induce miscarriages.
Rather than rehash the obvious, I wrote about it here once The Creature made his plea to avoid the death penalty.
In the end, The Creature proved to be a coward.
He could not hack the fact that he would be subjected to the kind of life that he perpetuated on Misses Berry, De Jesus and Knight.
So he saved the taxpayers of Ohio some cash and carried out his own death sentence.
And proved to be the coward he was.
According to the link, The Creature was found hanging in his cell at an Ohio state prison in Orient. Of course measures were taken to try to revive The Creature, but they proved fruitless and he was pronounced dead at 9:20pm local time.
The Creature pleaded guilty to kidnapping Amanda Berry, Gina De Jesus and Michelle Knight and holding them prisoner in his home for over a decade. Miss Knight was held the longest and was pregnant five times at the hands of The Creature. And each time The Creature beat her just enough to induce miscarriages.
Rather than rehash the obvious, I wrote about it here once The Creature made his plea to avoid the death penalty.
In the end, The Creature proved to be a coward.
He could not hack the fact that he would be subjected to the kind of life that he perpetuated on Misses Berry, De Jesus and Knight.
So he saved the taxpayers of Ohio some cash and carried out his own death sentence.
And proved to be the coward he was.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)