Senator Barak Obama has once again mis-spoken, and has once again retreated into the "spin zone" in order to change the subject.
Obama stated that he would draw the troops out of Iraq, and send them back in if Al Queda were to return to Iraq. Senator McCain corrected him, stating that Al Queda is already in Iraq, which is true.
Obama's "spin" response was that Al Queda is only in Iraq because Bush and McCain brought them into Iraq. This was not the issue, and is dishonest on several levels. The issue, presented by Obama, himself, was the implication that Al Queda is no longer in Iraq - after all, how could they "return" if they never left?
First, we are not in Iraq due solely to Bush and McCain, as implied by Obama - even the vast majority of Democrats voted for going into Iraq.
Second, for someone claiming to be the "agent of change for the future", Obama seems to retreat into the past in order to cover his mis-steps. After all, the issue had nothing to do with how, why or when Al Queda came to Iraq. The issue was whether or not they are there now, as stated by McCain, or if they were already gone, as implied by Obama when he said he would send troops only upon "Al Queda's return to Iraq". "Return" implies they are not there at this time, and that is incorrect. McCain was simply trying to correct Obama's statement, since Obama is obviously ignorant of what is actually going on in Iraq.
Obama, thinking people know that you are an empty suit, with words as your only strength. We realize you know nothing of foreign policy, or what is really going on. We know you have no inkling about money and economics, because your numbers do not even come close to balancing. We know you are nothing but a gas-bag, albeit a charming one. You remind me of the Pied Piper, and if given the chance, you will lead all your lemmings to destruction.
We know these things because you have no experience. We know it because you have not accomplished anything substantive while in office. We know it because you still refuse to talk issues, and offer anything of substance. We know it because your financial numbers do not even clome close to balancing. So far, your entire campaign has been one of rhetoric. Like you, there has been no substance.
So, I challenge you, Obama! Get in front of the cameras and tell America exactly what solutions you offer. Be specific. Deal with the issues. And explain to us what the effects of your choices would be. Begin answering some of the hard questions, and not just the stupid, meaningless ones that the Oba-maniacs in the media have been tossing your way, such as whether or not you like Farrakhan.
Stand up, Obama. Tell us what is really in your heart. If you are going to propose 400 million in new government programs, show us, exactly, how those programs will be paid for. If you think government should rule the people rather than vice versa, tell us why.
Exactly what would you do about the illegal immigrants already here? How, exactly, would you fund free college for everyone? And what would be the effect if every child were to go to college, even though the number of jobs requiring college degrees are not increasing? What, exactly, would you do about "sanctuary cities" that laugh at and ignore the laws of this country? What type of person, exactly, would you appoint to the Supreme Court? Why, exactly, do you refuse to wear the American Flag lapel pin, and why, exactly, do you refuse to place your hand on your heart when the pledge of allegiance is recited?
If you want the votes of thinking people, Obama, then you must begin giving us something more substantive to think about. The fools, the blind and the lemmings will follow you simply because of your empty words. But thinking, educated people need more.
So, whatcha got, Obama? I'll bet you have nothing. Nothing but grand words of hope and change. I'll bet you have nothing more to offer except empty promises, grand lies and useless rhetoric.
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Wednesday, February 27, 2008
Human Sacrifice in America
Well, it had to happen. Another illegal immigrant has killed Americans because the "sanctuary mindset" of liberals allows illegals to hide in plain sight.
This woman, Olga Franco from Guatamala, hit a school bus, killing four innocent children. Over the last year, there have been several incidents similar to this.
My big beef is with the liberal "thinkers" (is that an oxymoron?) like Geraldo Rivera who keep harping that these situations (and deaths) are not an immigration issue - rather, they are issues of drunk driving, bad driving or criminal activity. They claim that such things happen even to Americans.
Of course they do. But that is not the point. The very simple and clear point is that deaths caused by illegal immigrants are PREVENTABLE. If we were to take a harder stance on illegal immigration, and if we were to prohibit "sanctuary cities", and deport illegals when discovered, and if we were to enforce the law, all those deaths could have been prevented. THAT is the issue.
Of course we cannot prevent all such deaths. But we most certainly can and should prevent those that are preventable. For people like Geraldo to minimalize the death of Americans by saying "We cannot prevent all deaths, so let's not prevent any" is not only absurd, but incredibly immoral.
Liberals need to understand that if even one death can be prevented by simply adhering to current laws, then that is what we must do. But, unfortunately, people like Geraldo believe that some unnecessary deaths are acceptable - perhaps even desired - in order to achieve their liberal agenda. They believe, apparently, in human sacrifice, not unlike the pagan sacrifices of tossing virgins into volcanoes to appease the Gods.
Of course, any thinking person already knows that liberals believe in human sacrifice - they condone deaths at the hands of illegals; they advocate strongly for abortion and partial birth abortion; and they even support euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. Liberals, of course, do not see it as human sacrifice, however. To them, it is simply a case of "the end justifies the means."
To me, it is a case of them having no respect for life, honesty or the law.
This woman, Olga Franco from Guatamala, hit a school bus, killing four innocent children. Over the last year, there have been several incidents similar to this.
My big beef is with the liberal "thinkers" (is that an oxymoron?) like Geraldo Rivera who keep harping that these situations (and deaths) are not an immigration issue - rather, they are issues of drunk driving, bad driving or criminal activity. They claim that such things happen even to Americans.
Of course they do. But that is not the point. The very simple and clear point is that deaths caused by illegal immigrants are PREVENTABLE. If we were to take a harder stance on illegal immigration, and if we were to prohibit "sanctuary cities", and deport illegals when discovered, and if we were to enforce the law, all those deaths could have been prevented. THAT is the issue.
Of course we cannot prevent all such deaths. But we most certainly can and should prevent those that are preventable. For people like Geraldo to minimalize the death of Americans by saying "We cannot prevent all deaths, so let's not prevent any" is not only absurd, but incredibly immoral.
Liberals need to understand that if even one death can be prevented by simply adhering to current laws, then that is what we must do. But, unfortunately, people like Geraldo believe that some unnecessary deaths are acceptable - perhaps even desired - in order to achieve their liberal agenda. They believe, apparently, in human sacrifice, not unlike the pagan sacrifices of tossing virgins into volcanoes to appease the Gods.
Of course, any thinking person already knows that liberals believe in human sacrifice - they condone deaths at the hands of illegals; they advocate strongly for abortion and partial birth abortion; and they even support euthanasia and/or assisted suicide. Liberals, of course, do not see it as human sacrifice, however. To them, it is simply a case of "the end justifies the means."
To me, it is a case of them having no respect for life, honesty or the law.
Thursday, February 21, 2008
Electability???
My point exactly! Republicans, for all their faults, tend to vote for the person they believe is best suited to the job that needs to be done. In fact, that is what most sane and reasonable people would do.
In watching the "Lunt Forum" after the Democratic debate on Thursdy evening, the Democrat voters in the room were asked why they would vote for one candidate or the other. Their general response was "electability."
It really makes one wonder how so many voters could be so blinded by partisan ignorance! Instead of wanting to vote for the best Democratic candidate suited to lead, and protect America, they feel it is more important to vote for the person who is most likely to beat the Republican candidate. So what if their candidate might be an inexperienced fool. Perhaps even downright dangerous and incompetent. As long as the candidate can beat the Republicans, that's all that counts!
How utterly stupid.
The way I see it, each and every American citizen of voting age should vote for the person who has the best leadership ability, has a good grasp of the problems at hand, and has solid, sound solutions to offer. And we should vote for that person regardless of whether he/she is Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Sure, belonging to a party is fine. But regardless of party, we are supposed to be electing the best leader available.
It does not matter one iota if he or she smiles better, orates better, dresses best, or can eat a taco without getting salsa on their shirt. And it does not matter what party they are affiliated with. All that matters - and all that should be seriously considered in the voting booth - is who is best qualified to do the job that faces America over the next four years.
Sometimes that may be a Republican. Sometimes it may be a Democrat. Right now, at this point in our history, we need a leader who understands the threats our nation is facing. Heaven forbid if Al Gore had been president on 9/11!
It does no good whatever to provide health care or jobs if we are dead, dying, or fighting for our very survival!
I would like to see a better health care system. And a better education system. But even more important, I would like our nation to get the murderous threat of terrorism behind us, first. Unless we do that, it may be a waste of time to do anything else. Dead people do not need doctors or schools.
Make no mistake about it - Islam has one objective (even the so-called "moderate Muslims"), and that is to rule the world. It says so in their Koran. Their prophet has told them to have as many children as possible, to overwhelm all others. He told them to go forth to other lands, and infiltrate every nation. He told them to use force, and murder, if necessary.
Look around, folks. That is exactly what is happening. They are spreading out in every nation. They are propagating like rabbits. Just look at that one Muslim woman in India who was in the news this week. At 120 years old, she has 11 children, 120 grandchildren, 250 great-grand children and 20 great-great grandchildren. For those who have basic math skills, that one Muslim woman is responsible for bringing forth 401 new Muslims.
And the "soldiers" among them - the jihadists - are killing anyone who stands against them. It has nothing to do with detente. And all the "nice" talk in the world will not deter them. Their objective is clear, and nothing anyone does will make them waiver from it. Total world domination, at whatever cost. And if liberals on the left want to hide their heads in the sand, or refuse to acknowledge that the threat is real, and cannot be stopped by peaceful means, then they deserve everything they get.
But my family deserves better! So I will vote for the candidate that will take the strong stand. Because weakness will only get us dead.
Clinton has said she wants to make nice with the enemy, and even protect them (she refused to vote for extending FISA, for example). And Obama is even worse - he wants to welcome them with a smile and open arms.
We would be safer if we elected Britney Spears!
In watching the "Lunt Forum" after the Democratic debate on Thursdy evening, the Democrat voters in the room were asked why they would vote for one candidate or the other. Their general response was "electability."
It really makes one wonder how so many voters could be so blinded by partisan ignorance! Instead of wanting to vote for the best Democratic candidate suited to lead, and protect America, they feel it is more important to vote for the person who is most likely to beat the Republican candidate. So what if their candidate might be an inexperienced fool. Perhaps even downright dangerous and incompetent. As long as the candidate can beat the Republicans, that's all that counts!
How utterly stupid.
The way I see it, each and every American citizen of voting age should vote for the person who has the best leadership ability, has a good grasp of the problems at hand, and has solid, sound solutions to offer. And we should vote for that person regardless of whether he/she is Republican, Democrat, or Independent. Sure, belonging to a party is fine. But regardless of party, we are supposed to be electing the best leader available.
It does not matter one iota if he or she smiles better, orates better, dresses best, or can eat a taco without getting salsa on their shirt. And it does not matter what party they are affiliated with. All that matters - and all that should be seriously considered in the voting booth - is who is best qualified to do the job that faces America over the next four years.
Sometimes that may be a Republican. Sometimes it may be a Democrat. Right now, at this point in our history, we need a leader who understands the threats our nation is facing. Heaven forbid if Al Gore had been president on 9/11!
It does no good whatever to provide health care or jobs if we are dead, dying, or fighting for our very survival!
I would like to see a better health care system. And a better education system. But even more important, I would like our nation to get the murderous threat of terrorism behind us, first. Unless we do that, it may be a waste of time to do anything else. Dead people do not need doctors or schools.
Make no mistake about it - Islam has one objective (even the so-called "moderate Muslims"), and that is to rule the world. It says so in their Koran. Their prophet has told them to have as many children as possible, to overwhelm all others. He told them to go forth to other lands, and infiltrate every nation. He told them to use force, and murder, if necessary.
Look around, folks. That is exactly what is happening. They are spreading out in every nation. They are propagating like rabbits. Just look at that one Muslim woman in India who was in the news this week. At 120 years old, she has 11 children, 120 grandchildren, 250 great-grand children and 20 great-great grandchildren. For those who have basic math skills, that one Muslim woman is responsible for bringing forth 401 new Muslims.
And the "soldiers" among them - the jihadists - are killing anyone who stands against them. It has nothing to do with detente. And all the "nice" talk in the world will not deter them. Their objective is clear, and nothing anyone does will make them waiver from it. Total world domination, at whatever cost. And if liberals on the left want to hide their heads in the sand, or refuse to acknowledge that the threat is real, and cannot be stopped by peaceful means, then they deserve everything they get.
But my family deserves better! So I will vote for the candidate that will take the strong stand. Because weakness will only get us dead.
Clinton has said she wants to make nice with the enemy, and even protect them (she refused to vote for extending FISA, for example). And Obama is even worse - he wants to welcome them with a smile and open arms.
We would be safer if we elected Britney Spears!
Saturday, February 16, 2008
Dangerous Presidential Candidates
This is something that we, the people, need to stop and think about.
First, it is important that Americans know what our presidential candidates stand for. We have a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION to know where they stand on issues important to us. Of this there is no doubt.
But many presidential candidates use dishonesty to hide what they stand for, and refuse to offer any insight into where they stand, or in presenting solutions. But it's even worse than that.
Here is an example: this week, the Senate voted on important issues concerning terrorism, FISA and surveillence. Neither of the Democratic presidential candidates voted. And the insidiousness of this becomes apparent when you realize WHY they chose not to vote: had they voted for these things, they would lose the support of the far-left, and if they voted against them, they would lose the Independent and centrist voters. In other words, both Clinton and Obama chose not to vote for purely devious reasons - to hide from the voters the position they take on such issues. Yet, they ask people to vote for them, anyway. They want us to vote "blindly", without us knowing whether or not they will act on our behalf. They show they are more concerned with popularity and polls than they are with facing the tough issues and taking a stand, and doing the work of the people. It shows they are unwilling to do the current job we elected them to do, so why should we consider giving either of them an even higher position? They can't even handle the job of Senator, so they are obviously unfit to be President.
Can America really afford a President that refuses to take a stand? Or refuses to have core principles? Can we really afford a President that acts according to the most recent polls, rather than on principle?
If neither Clinton nor Obama are willing to stand up and vote for or against important issues, for fear of losing voter support, then they have no right to ask for any votes at all. They have no business running for any public office, let alone the most powerful office on Earth.
Their unwillingness to take a position on important issues only proves they are unworthy, and cannot be trusted.
I say we should toss those bums out on their ears - not only should we not give them our votes to be President, but we should not even re-elect them to any other office. They are either unwilling or unable to do the job. They were elected to vote on those issues. They chose not to, because they were afraid of losing support. Do we really want a President whose fear of losing popularity will affect their decisions?
I certainly do not! I would rather vote for someone who took an unfavorable stand than to vote for someone who was too weak and fearful to take any position at all.
First, it is important that Americans know what our presidential candidates stand for. We have a RIGHT and an OBLIGATION to know where they stand on issues important to us. Of this there is no doubt.
But many presidential candidates use dishonesty to hide what they stand for, and refuse to offer any insight into where they stand, or in presenting solutions. But it's even worse than that.
Here is an example: this week, the Senate voted on important issues concerning terrorism, FISA and surveillence. Neither of the Democratic presidential candidates voted. And the insidiousness of this becomes apparent when you realize WHY they chose not to vote: had they voted for these things, they would lose the support of the far-left, and if they voted against them, they would lose the Independent and centrist voters. In other words, both Clinton and Obama chose not to vote for purely devious reasons - to hide from the voters the position they take on such issues. Yet, they ask people to vote for them, anyway. They want us to vote "blindly", without us knowing whether or not they will act on our behalf. They show they are more concerned with popularity and polls than they are with facing the tough issues and taking a stand, and doing the work of the people. It shows they are unwilling to do the current job we elected them to do, so why should we consider giving either of them an even higher position? They can't even handle the job of Senator, so they are obviously unfit to be President.
Can America really afford a President that refuses to take a stand? Or refuses to have core principles? Can we really afford a President that acts according to the most recent polls, rather than on principle?
If neither Clinton nor Obama are willing to stand up and vote for or against important issues, for fear of losing voter support, then they have no right to ask for any votes at all. They have no business running for any public office, let alone the most powerful office on Earth.
Their unwillingness to take a position on important issues only proves they are unworthy, and cannot be trusted.
I say we should toss those bums out on their ears - not only should we not give them our votes to be President, but we should not even re-elect them to any other office. They are either unwilling or unable to do the job. They were elected to vote on those issues. They chose not to, because they were afraid of losing support. Do we really want a President whose fear of losing popularity will affect their decisions?
I certainly do not! I would rather vote for someone who took an unfavorable stand than to vote for someone who was too weak and fearful to take any position at all.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
The "Super-delegate" Farce
The Democratic party, in its quest to subvert the election process and the Constitution, uses a dirty trick known as "Super Delegates". These delegates are not elected by the people, nor are they required to vote according to the will of the people. They are, instead, appointed by the Democratic Party leadership - the elites, not the folks - and may vote any way they please (or are instructed to by the leadership).
The Constitution goes to great lengths to detail precisely how the election process is to work, and nowhere does it mention, or allow for, such "super delegates".
These delegates are "set aside" by the Democratic party, to be called upon to choose the party nominee regardless of who the people may actually vote for. For example, if Obama gets more "regular" delegates than Hillary, and the party leadership prefers Hillary, the super delegates will be used to swing their weight behind Hillary, and make her the nominee, against the will of the people.
Super Delegates are illegal, since they are not given any such power by the Constitution. No party should be permitted to hijack the will of the people - or even be in a position to make that possible.
But then again, we are talking about the Democratic party - in my opinion they are the sneakiest, most dishonest, disingenuous bunch of liars and crooks to ever assemble. These are the same people who hijacked the Congress when it came time to vote on judicial nominees, rather than to allow a vote, as called for in the Constitution. These are the same people who appointed justices who subverted the Constitution to allow state and local governments to steal the property of citizens, and who find "hidden" rights in the Constitution that simply do not exist.
So why should it surprise anyone that the Democrats would hijack the election process?
The Constitution goes to great lengths to detail precisely how the election process is to work, and nowhere does it mention, or allow for, such "super delegates".
These delegates are "set aside" by the Democratic party, to be called upon to choose the party nominee regardless of who the people may actually vote for. For example, if Obama gets more "regular" delegates than Hillary, and the party leadership prefers Hillary, the super delegates will be used to swing their weight behind Hillary, and make her the nominee, against the will of the people.
Super Delegates are illegal, since they are not given any such power by the Constitution. No party should be permitted to hijack the will of the people - or even be in a position to make that possible.
But then again, we are talking about the Democratic party - in my opinion they are the sneakiest, most dishonest, disingenuous bunch of liars and crooks to ever assemble. These are the same people who hijacked the Congress when it came time to vote on judicial nominees, rather than to allow a vote, as called for in the Constitution. These are the same people who appointed justices who subverted the Constitution to allow state and local governments to steal the property of citizens, and who find "hidden" rights in the Constitution that simply do not exist.
So why should it surprise anyone that the Democrats would hijack the election process?
Friday, February 1, 2008
Why The Economy Went South
I am not so naive as to think any one factor is responsible for the economy being weakened. But I can say with certainty just exactly what the pivot point was - the one thing that started the pendulum swinging the other way. Are you ready? The increased minimum wage, courtesy of the only thing the Democrat Congress is solely responsible for.
How can that be? After all, aren't low income people getting more money to spend? Wouldn't that juice up the economy?
On the surface (which is the only way Democrats ever see anything), that would appear logical. But conservatives are a bit wiser and smarter - they tend to look below the surface.
Let's get one thing straight - every time we increase the minimum wage, we do great harm to the economy. Period. If you do not believe that, consider what really happens when the minimum wage is increased.
Let's start with where those extra funds for wages will come from. I certainly hope you are bright enough to realize the employer is not going to take it out of his own pocket. If he did, there would be no gain to the economy because for every dollar extra that low income workers now have to spend, the employer has one less to spend, so it would be a wash. More to the point, the employer is not going to jeopardize his own security by paying that money out of his own pocket, even if he could afford to. That leaves only one place where the money can come from - the employer must increase the prices of his products and services. In short - you, me and the low income person will have to pay more for our goods and services.
About the extra dollar per hour...
It does not benefit the low income family at all. Not one iota. Why? Because for every dollar extra that he gets paid, he must now pay an extra dollar for the higher priced goods and services, because the prices of products and services had to increase in order to pay the minimum wage.
But it gets worse. Now a spiral has been set in motion. With rising prices (caused by an increase in minimum wage), all other income earners are now suffering a loss. Their income did not go up, but the cost of living has gone up. In order to avoid losing ground, every other employee across the country must request a raise in pay, to cover the cost of living increase. And once again, where do you think all that raise money is going to come from? You guessed it - another increase in prices of products and services.
With this second round of price increases, the low income person is now spending more in higher prices than he is getting in increased wages, resulting in a net loss, causing more poverty.
Common sense and logic indicates that forced wage increases result in damage to the economy, higher prices, inflation, recession and more poverty - exactly the opposite effect that was desired.
And that is why conservatives oppose minimum wage increases.
And that is the precise moment that the economic pendulum began to swing the other way.
And that is why I can say with certainty that the economic momentum was stopped by the Democrats - again!
How can that be? After all, aren't low income people getting more money to spend? Wouldn't that juice up the economy?
On the surface (which is the only way Democrats ever see anything), that would appear logical. But conservatives are a bit wiser and smarter - they tend to look below the surface.
Let's get one thing straight - every time we increase the minimum wage, we do great harm to the economy. Period. If you do not believe that, consider what really happens when the minimum wage is increased.
Let's start with where those extra funds for wages will come from. I certainly hope you are bright enough to realize the employer is not going to take it out of his own pocket. If he did, there would be no gain to the economy because for every dollar extra that low income workers now have to spend, the employer has one less to spend, so it would be a wash. More to the point, the employer is not going to jeopardize his own security by paying that money out of his own pocket, even if he could afford to. That leaves only one place where the money can come from - the employer must increase the prices of his products and services. In short - you, me and the low income person will have to pay more for our goods and services.
About the extra dollar per hour...
It does not benefit the low income family at all. Not one iota. Why? Because for every dollar extra that he gets paid, he must now pay an extra dollar for the higher priced goods and services, because the prices of products and services had to increase in order to pay the minimum wage.
But it gets worse. Now a spiral has been set in motion. With rising prices (caused by an increase in minimum wage), all other income earners are now suffering a loss. Their income did not go up, but the cost of living has gone up. In order to avoid losing ground, every other employee across the country must request a raise in pay, to cover the cost of living increase. And once again, where do you think all that raise money is going to come from? You guessed it - another increase in prices of products and services.
With this second round of price increases, the low income person is now spending more in higher prices than he is getting in increased wages, resulting in a net loss, causing more poverty.
Common sense and logic indicates that forced wage increases result in damage to the economy, higher prices, inflation, recession and more poverty - exactly the opposite effect that was desired.
And that is why conservatives oppose minimum wage increases.
And that is the precise moment that the economic pendulum began to swing the other way.
And that is why I can say with certainty that the economic momentum was stopped by the Democrats - again!
Berkeley vs the Marines
Well, Berkeley, CA is at it again. By all their actions it is evident that the people of Berkeley are unpatriotic, anti-American anarchists. Now they are trying to drive Marine recruiters out of town - they want no part of the U.S. Military.
Hm-m-m. I know just what to do. It's simple, really.
First, I would remove all military personnel from Berkeley. Then I would make sure every citizen of Berkeley is made aware that no matter what happens, the federal government will never send any federal people - or money - into Berkeley. If they suffer wildfires, they can put them out alone. Mudslides? No federal help there, either. And if that overdue massive quake hits? Sorry, Berkeley - you are on your own.
And I would make sure they fully understand just how alone they are - even if terrorists were to attack in Berkeley, the military and federal government would sympathize - but would not interfere or lift a finger, because the military is not welcome in Berkeley.
And then I would make sure the entire world - even the terrorists - understands that Berkeley is no longer under the protection of the U.S. government, because the "will of the people of Berkeley" ousted the military.
And once the terrorists know they can hit a city of liberal acceptance of sin, and do so with impunity, it may not be long before we no longer have to worry about Berkeley, or the nutcases that live there. And other malcontents who would consider making the same unpatriotic move would have second thoughts...
Berkeley residents seem to be far too ignorant to understand one simple fact: the liberal ideas that Berkeley loves are precisely the same decadent things that Islam cannot condone, and wants to destroy. It seems most unwise for rabbits to party in front of the wolf's den, and actually believe that they can use diplomacy to keep the wolf at bay.
Not merely unwise, but downright stupid!
Oh - these nut jobs are Democrats, and want Hillary or Obama to become president. Think about that when YOU go into the voting booth.
Hm-m-m. I know just what to do. It's simple, really.
First, I would remove all military personnel from Berkeley. Then I would make sure every citizen of Berkeley is made aware that no matter what happens, the federal government will never send any federal people - or money - into Berkeley. If they suffer wildfires, they can put them out alone. Mudslides? No federal help there, either. And if that overdue massive quake hits? Sorry, Berkeley - you are on your own.
And I would make sure they fully understand just how alone they are - even if terrorists were to attack in Berkeley, the military and federal government would sympathize - but would not interfere or lift a finger, because the military is not welcome in Berkeley.
And then I would make sure the entire world - even the terrorists - understands that Berkeley is no longer under the protection of the U.S. government, because the "will of the people of Berkeley" ousted the military.
And once the terrorists know they can hit a city of liberal acceptance of sin, and do so with impunity, it may not be long before we no longer have to worry about Berkeley, or the nutcases that live there. And other malcontents who would consider making the same unpatriotic move would have second thoughts...
Berkeley residents seem to be far too ignorant to understand one simple fact: the liberal ideas that Berkeley loves are precisely the same decadent things that Islam cannot condone, and wants to destroy. It seems most unwise for rabbits to party in front of the wolf's den, and actually believe that they can use diplomacy to keep the wolf at bay.
Not merely unwise, but downright stupid!
Oh - these nut jobs are Democrats, and want Hillary or Obama to become president. Think about that when YOU go into the voting booth.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)