As Obama sissifies the leadership of our military in order to curry favor with the metrosexual bases of the Prog parties, he is signaling our enemies that there is no better time to begin moving against the interests of America. Presently, there are none finer than our military men and women in the field. See [www.nragive.com]. So why does the leadership for this regime want to undermine them?
****
Was the information released by Obama about the number of U.S. nukes classified, so that it would have been criminal for anyone else to leak it? If so, how long, and why? What was the need or point for divulging it? If Reagan had divulged it, that would be one thing. There is the matter of trust. But what fool trusts Obama? So I have to ask: Why did he feel it necessary to divulge this "trivial" piece of information at this time?
Well, I suspect he is trying to soften up the public to accept a big scale back. And that I would not find trivial, nor would he be the one I would want to trust to do it.
This man is reducing our economy, reducing our borders, reducing our industry, reducing our independence, and reducing our access to information. I suspect he is "moving on" to the next reduction: In our defenses.
***
Ramos and Compean were put in solitaire for more than a year in regard to the shooting in the butt of a fleeing, border jumping, dope dealing miscreant they thought was armed.
But Ayers and Dohrn will go un-prosecuted by the regime now in power in America for having aided and fomented terror and violence against an American ally.
In the matter of “getting into people’s faces,” does the regime respect any points of decency? Does the regime consider it ok for its radical friends to help put worldwide propaganda in high readiness for triggering photo ops for mis-characterizing a loyal ally’s attempts to protect itself from sworn enemies’ known, repeated, vile, and coordinated efforts to gather boatloads of missiles for use against population centers?
Should not the regime’s failure to adequately investigate and/or prosecute Ayers’ and Dohrn’s involvement in this matter mark the regime as having a grotesque hatred for Western Civilization? Does the regime and its radical friends want Israel to act like a good little mouse, as it eeks out a living in a land beset with snakes of the vilest evil. Is there adequate saliva to put proper emphasis on this sort of chutzpah?! Or to wake up Americans?
****
Referring to boys wearing long hair, well, few care about that, per se. It’s the context. The long hair of the 60’s was in a context. I don’t think that context was a mere cultural fad. It became part of the regalia by which to distinguish social drop outs and rebels from the rest of society. It’s one thing to wear long hair to set yourself apart, as a free thinker (or even to look pretty, like Che). It’s another thing to hate your country, buy into Marxism, and advocate communal free sex and drugs in place of the family. I know, many of the long hairs of the 60’s did not go that far. But many did. And I suspect that bad boy image had something to do with stirring the fad. Still, recognizing that is not quite the same as getting “whipped up” about it. Indeed, I see nothing wrong about, nothing to get “whipped up” about, and nothing to get hung about, boys wearing long hair. (Davy Crockett had long hair, for goodness sakes.) But what is to get whipped up about is context.
For whatever reasons, many boomers (born 1946 to 1955, and thus children of the 60’s), thought society’s problems should best be addressed with communalism or collectivism, rather than with free enterprise and traditional American and family values. Those children and their attitudes never went away. Those people still hold power in many American institutions. And their attraction to collectivism is represented in Obama to this day. These are the kids who never had to grow up; they never had to become independent men or women. They remain sissified to this day ... sissified elites who react in horror if a first grader carries an inch long plastic replica of an old West gun in his back pack. I see that as a problem. I don’t expect acolytes of Ayers (a boomer) or Obama to agree. Insofar as there is a fundamental clash of values, we simply end up agreeing to disagree.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
We ought to value equal opportunity among all decently responsible individuals. But there is no good reason to equally value all cultures and systems. There is no good reason to value cultural propensities that are poison to American assimilation. I wish a journalist would ask Obama: Dude, are you familiar with any counterproductive aspects from flooding America with Mexican border jumpers? Bonus round: List five. Follow up: So why are you allowing it?
Some people try to fill need for status by pushing to head a collective. It is one thing when that collective is based on intellectual or aesthetic pursuits. It is another thing when that collective is based on superficial points of division. I am tempted to start a special interest group for red headed Irish Indians. But that would make me part of the problem, not part of the solution. It may be interesting to start a club for red headed Irish Indians. But in no way do I think government should finance it. Even though affirmative action may help redress some of the historical and current discrimination against red headed Irish Indians. No doubt, more unfair discrimination has been endured by other groups. But legalistic minutiae for the duration desired by Dems is counterproductive -- unless their goal is to sink society based on individual responsibility,
******
Whether of law or inspiration, the Declaration is a rallying symbol. It's an ideal to which every real American can pledge renewed fidelity, much as long-married couples renew their vows. Lord knows we need a new birth of fidelity to what it means to be an American.
Indeed, observe the infidels against freedom, as everywhere they proclaim that there is no worthwhile American culture, per se. I believe those bastards about that about as much as I believe my Dad and uncles did not fight in WWII and my brothers did not fight in Viet Nam. If there is no American culture, then just what the hell is it that Americans have been defending? Clue: Not the "right" of corporatist and union thugs to demolish our country and reduce our patriots to the default and subjugated position to which Europhiles are inclining.
Much could be done, were we a decently educated electorate with a decently competent leadership that we could have faith in. But our electorate is as corrupted as the leadership of the reigning regime. So what decent person wants to accept the fate of our electorate or follow the lead of our prevailing elites?
When we most needed an agent to help our center hold, we got Obama -- a catalyst bent on transmogrifying us. Now, the process of separating wheat from chaff is bound to become ever more painful. The game now will be about mitigating that pain, not avoiding it. For Obama's mentor, Ayers, sacrificing 25 million, give or take a few hundred million or so, would be about right, to "save the planet" (sarc).
Have faith, work hard, call b.s. to account. What else can we do?
See http://www.historyplace.com/worldwar2/defeat/enter-bunker.htm (shows picture; cites Patton with arm raised); http://www.olive-drab.com/gallery/description_0049.php; http://www.3ad.com/history/courtney.hodges/photos.htm; http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=6424;
http://ww2db.com/image.php?image_id=615; http://www.life.com/image/50720521; http://www.squidoo.com/WarGodPatton; http://cgi.ebay.com/ROOSEVELT-and-General-PATTON-vintage-original-photo-/380185400337.
Post a Comment