DarthKeller's Blog

The ravings of a Sith Conservative!

Archive for the ‘History’ Category

No Foreclosures without Gov’t Review… WHAT!?

Posted by darthkeller on February 25, 2010

While checking out the interwebs today I noticed an article that struck my fancy:
Obama May Prohibit Home-Loan Foreclosures Without HAMP Review.

Please, allow me a moment to get this straight: Liberals wanted MORE regulation and oversight so that there would be no chance of discrimination when buyers went to secure a home loan. Discrimination would not be allowed based on race, sex, sexual orientation, religion, or ability to pay back the loan. Correct?

Since I like Bawney Fwank, I’ll use his quotes:

And here he is lying about what he said:

So, Liberals pushed us into Fannie/Freddie, which banks KNEW would be a bad idea, and in 2008 it all came crashing down when banks were not getting paid back on the loans they were FORCED to approve.

Now, Obama wants to ensure that if a bank starts foreclosure proceedings, they cannot foreclose on the house until the Home Affordable Modification Program has a chance to check everything out.

Are they expecting that the borrower simply chose not to pay even though they have the money and the threat of a government agency which sounds like an overused recreational drug is going to scare them into paying? No, they just want to screw with the system even more than they already have.

Let me break it down for you: When a bank lends someone $100,000 for a home, they have an appraiser look at the home to ensure that it’s worth the loan. Then they expect to be paid back, a little at a time, each month, by the “owner” of the home (the bank actually owns the property, hence the reason you’re paying them for it). If they stop receiving payment from you, they are out $100,000. So, they will foreclose on the house and put it on the auction block. Why? Because selling a $100,000 for $50,000 is better than getting $0 for it.

This is just another ploy by the Obama administration to do two things:
1) Strengthen ACORN and ACORN-esque groups. They are able to break into homes that are owned by the bank, which gives them credibility to help the “little man” out. Actually, they are using the “little man” to push their power-hungry agenda
2) Keep the banks under their foot. Remember, this is the administration that forced banks to take TARP money, then wouldn’t allow them to pay the money back without a strings attached. Why? CONTROL

So, there you have the Liberal mindset: Create an agency, then a program for that agency. Screw up everything by stupid rules and regulations. Pretend to ride in and save the day. Once the day is “saved”, refuse to leave and ride off into the sunset, instead, stick around and enslave the people!

I bet it does better than most of the crap that comes out of Hollywood these days.

Advertisements

Posted in Economy, History, Politics | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

New Rules for Complaining

Posted by darthkeller on February 24, 2010

The other night I was watching Undercover Boss with Raven when we saw something interesting. The CEO of 7-11 was in the Dallas area (sorry Dallas, they actually said what part, but since I don’t know the DFW area at all, I’m not going to insult you by taking a guess) when he met Igor, a delivery driver. Igor worked nights. Igor’s wife is a school teacher (thus, works days). So, they rarely saw each other during the week.

“Danny” (the CEO’s cover name, I can’t remember his real name…sorry) asked Igor how he could deal with not getting to see his wife except on the weekends. Igor’s answer was simple: Less time to see each other, less time to fight. I thought that was hilarious, Raven did not.

Then Danny asked Igor the big question: How could Igor be so upbeat while working a night shift, away from his wife and kids, having left his home country in eastern Europe.

Igor’s answer: I’m in America! I have opportunities here! I have a chance at a life my parents and grandparents could only dream of!

This brought tears to my eyes. We are bombarded every day with the fringe-media’s view that America is evil. America is stupid. America is wrong. America is imperialistic. America is hopeless.

I’m sorry, but I refuse to believe that. I refuse to believe that you have nothing less than opportunity in America. You don’t have guarantees here, you have chances. If two guys go to work for the same company, on the same day, doing the same job, one WILL rise higher than the other, but that doesn’t mean that either of them had more or less chance to rise than the other one did.

The Left loves to proclaim that the Declaration of Independence guarantees happiness… NO! The DoI guarantees the “PURSUIT of happiness”, results may vary!

TheRoot.com (I will not link to them) had a list of 21 “Black folks we’d like to see removed from history”. On that list was Justice Clarence Thomas. Why? Because he “opposes government programs intended to help minorities”. I’m sorry, but slavery ended 147 years ago. Segregation of public schools: 52 years ago. Civil rights: 46 years ago (these dates are based on my memory and could be off by 2-3 years). I understand that because of these policies minorities have had less opportunity than others, but if you can’t get your act together in 46 years, YOU PROBABLY NEVER WILL UNLESS YOU ARE MADE TO!

How much more do you need? Minorities have college scholarships. They have affirmative action. They are given every opportunity to succeed in the world! If they continue to fall short of happiness, that’s there own damn fault! Yet, the media continues to paint this country as “racist”.

Allow me to explain something: You cannot call Obama “post-racial” if you still want to call someone “racist”. You cannot be “racist” if race is no longer considered. You cannot be “post-racial” if race is considered. Sorry guys, but you cannot have it both ways.

BTW – Am I the only one that thinks Chris “Tingles” Matthews is a racist? “I forgot he was black for about an hour”. That means when Matthews sees Obama, his FIRST (and, it could be argued, ONLY) thought is, “There’s a black man”. Funny, when I see Obama, I don’t see a “black man”, I see a “socialist man”. Just saying.

You might think I’m getting off point, but I’m not. I’m simply pointing out the hypocrisy and lunacy of the Left, and more to the point, the fringe media.

So, new rule: If you want to bitch about this country and claim that it needs to be like another country, you must live in said country for a period of no less than 5 years, WITHOUT CONTACT to those in the USA! Why? So that you get the full experience of that country. After 5 years, if you still want to change this country, go ahead and try (and we’ll fight you every step of the way). I’m sick and tired of hearing jackasses on the left say “We need to be like Canada” (anyone else notice their leaders come to America for health care… hmm….), or “We need to be like China”… IF YOU WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY LIKE CANADA, CHINA, CUBA, RUSSIA, etc, GO LIVE THERE AND LEAVE US ALONE!

It pisses me off to no end that they teach revisionist history in school making the Chinese look “misunderstood” and calling Stalin “Uncle Joe”, and then kids grow up thinking that we are the bad guys. HELLO! MAO KILLED 60 MILLION CHINESE. I’ve seen reports that Stalin killed as many as 10 million! There is no viewpoint in which these men were anything but EVIL! And yet our kids look at them as heroes!

I will not stand by and allow this to happen any longer. If you want to teach this crap, then I will teach the REAL history! If you don’t like it, I don’t care!

To quote Andrew Breitbart: “We are on to you!” The media has lost its iron-clad grip on America’s mind, and now that we’re here, we’re not going away. We’re going to start fighting harder, using Alinsky’s tactics against the Left every day.

Get ready, the fun is about to start now!!!

Posted in History, Politics, Random Thoughts | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

Bawny Fwank Goes to History Class

Posted by darthkeller on January 19, 2010

I saw something today that was…. shocking. And no, I’m not talking about Scott Brown (congrats SENATOR BROWN!).

Check this video from Barney Frank:

There’s been a de facto amendment to the US Constitution … with that 60-vote majority. It is outrageous. If you look by the way, it tends to be, in many cases, the senators from those smaller states

First, if anyone can tell me what the HECK HE’S SAYING where I have the “…” above, I’d appreciate it, maybe those words are the key to Bawny Fwank not being a jackass!

Alright, I guess since I’ve taken Michael Moore to seminary, I need to take Bawny to a Constitutional history course.

During the Convention, a lot of time was spent on simply deciding how laws were going to be created. They had already decided the three-branch system, a President to lead the Executive branch, who would be elected by the people; a court system with judges being appointed by the President; they simply could not figure out how to represent the people better than a single elected man.

Though several plans were brought forth, the two plans that seemed the best chance of success were the Virginia Plan and the New Jersey plan.

The Virginia plan was simple: The larger the state’s population, the more representatives it had. Although this plan seems to be the most “representative” plan possible, there is one problem: Let’s take California (our most populist and most blue state) and Oklahoma (28th, and pretty darn red!). Now, under the Virginia plan, Oklahomans would never really have our voice heard, because we are simply outnumbered! Wait…. Yeah… This does sound like a good thing to a Liberal…. Damn!

Now, the New Jersey plan was not based on population, every state has two representatives. Take the same scenario as before, now the two “blues” from California are blocked by the two “reds” from Oklahoma.

Now, a very intelligent man named Roger Sherman (the only man to sign the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, and US Constitution) had a brilliant idea: Combine the ideas! We’ll have a primary house made up of representatives, the greater the population the more representatives you have; and a second house, the made up of senators, two per state. Yeah, Oklahoma will get railroaded in the House, but their vote is just the same as the vote of the California’s and New York’s, once the vote reaches the Senate.

Yeah, this makes passing laws through the Senate a lot more difficult, BECAUSE IT’S SUPPOSED TO BE MORE DIFFICULT! The people are equally represented in the Senate, and even though you might not want to believe it, the people don’t all agree with your Liberal agenda!

I’m getting tired of hearing Liberals scream about violating the Constitution while at the same time taking powers for themselves that were NEVER intended by our founding fathers! When Michelle Bachman asked Turbo Tax Tim Geithner about the CONSTITUTIONAL powers that allowed him to take over private companies, he couldn’t, but he was CERTAIN that it was in there. When Tom Coburn proposed a rule change that would REQUIRE all bills be able to state, from the Constitution where the powers were given for that bill, it was the LIBERALS who voted down this rule change! So, don’t even try to play the “it’s not Constitutional” card with me!

So, you want to remove the filibuster because we “smaller states” use it to hold up your Socialist agenda? TOUGH! Learn to speak clearly and then we can have a discussion and I’ll show you that not all Americans are afraid of morons like you!

Posted in History, Politics | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Words from the General

Posted by darthkeller on December 1, 2009

Mr. President, Mr. Speaker, and Distinguished Members of the Congress:

I stand on this rostrum with a sense of deep humility and great pride — humility in the wake of those great American architects of our history who have stood here before me; pride in the reflection that this forum of legislative debate represents human liberty in the purest form yet devised. Here are centered the hopes and aspirations and faith of the entire human race. I do not stand here as advocate for any partisan cause, for the issues are fundamental and reach quite beyond the realm of partisan consideration. They must be resolved on the highest plane of national interest if our course is to prove sound and our future protected. I trust, therefore, that you will do me the justice of receiving that which I have to say as solely expressing the considered viewpoint of a fellow American.

I address you with neither rancor nor bitterness in the fading twilight of life, with but one purpose in mind: to serve my country. The issues are global and so interlocked that to consider the problems of one sector, oblivious to those of another, is but to court disaster for the whole. While Asia is commonly referred to as the Gateway to Europe, it is no less true that Europe is the Gateway to Asia, and the broad influence of the one cannot fail to have its impact upon the other. There are those who claim our strength is inadequate to protect on both fronts, that we cannot divide our effort. I can think of no greater expression of defeatism. If a potential enemy can divide his strength on two fronts, it is for us to counter his effort. The Communist threat is a global one. Its successful advance in one sector threatens the destruction of every other sector. You can not appease or otherwise surrender to communism in Asia without simultaneously undermining our efforts to halt its advance in Europe.

Beyond pointing out these general truisms, I shall confine my discussion to the general areas of Asia. Before one may objectively assess the situation now existing there, he must comprehend something of Asia’s past and the revolutionary changes which have marked her course up to the present. Long exploited by the so-called colonial powers, with little opportunity to achieve any degree of social justice, individual dignity, or a higher standard of life such as guided our own noble administration in the Philippines, the peoples of Asia found their opportunity in the war just past to throw off the shackles of colonialism and now see the dawn of new opportunity, a heretofore unfelt dignity, and the self-respect of political freedom.

Mustering half of the earth’s population, and 60 percent of its natural resources these peoples are rapidly consolidating a new force, both moral and material, with which to raise the living standard and erect adaptations of the design of modern progress to their own distinct cultural environments. Whether one adheres to the concept of colonization or not, this is the direction of Asian progress and it may not be stopped. It is a corollary to the shift of the world economic frontiers as the whole epicenter of world affairs rotates back toward the area whence it started.

In this situation, it becomes vital that our own country orient its policies in consonance with this basic evolutionary condition rather than pursue a course blind to the reality that the colonial era is now past and the Asian peoples covet the right to shape their own free destiny. What they seek now is friendly guidance, understanding, and support — not imperious direction — the dignity of equality and not the shame of subjugation. Their pre-war standard of life, pitifully low, is infinitely lower now in the devastation left in war’s wake. World ideologies play little part in Asian thinking and are little understood. What the peoples strive for is the opportunity for a little more food in their stomachs, a little better clothing on their backs, a little firmer roof over their heads, and the realization of the normal nationalist urge for political freedom. These political-social conditions have but an indirect bearing upon our own national security, but do form a backdrop to contemporary planning which must be thoughtfully considered if we are to avoid the pitfalls of unrealism.

Of more direct and immediate bearing upon our national security are the changes wrought in the strategic potential of the Pacific Ocean in the course of the past war. Prior thereto the western strategic frontier of the United States lay on the littoral line of the Americas, with an exposed island salient extending out through Hawaii, Midway, and Guam to the Philippines. That salient proved not an outpost of strength but an avenue of weakness along which the enemy could and did attack.

The Pacific was a potential area of advance for any predatory force intent upon striking at the bordering land areas. All this was changed by our Pacific victory. Our strategic frontier then shifted to embrace the entire Pacific Ocean, which became a vast moat to protect us as long as we held it. Indeed, it acts as a protective shield for all of the Americas and all free lands of the Pacific Ocean area. We control it to the shores of Asia by a chain of islands extending in an arc from the Aleutians to the Mariannas held by us and our free allies. From this island chain we can dominate with sea and air power every Asiatic port from Vladivostok to Singapore — with sea and air power every port, as I said, from Vladivostok to Singapore — and prevent any hostile movement into the Pacific.

Any predatory attack from Asia must be an amphibious effort. No amphibious force can be successful without control of the sea lanes and the air over those lanes in its avenue of advance. With naval and air supremacy and modest ground elements to defend bases, any major attack from continental Asia toward us or our friends in the Pacific would be doomed to failure.

Under such conditions, the Pacific no longer represents menacing avenues of approach for a prospective invader. It assumes, instead, the friendly aspect of a peaceful lake. Our line of defense is a natural one and can be maintained with a minimum of military effort and expense. It envisions no attack against anyone, nor does it provide the bastions essential for offensive operations, but properly maintained, would be an invincible defense against aggression. The holding of this littoral defense line in the western Pacific is entirely dependent upon holding all segments thereof; for any major breach of that line by an unfriendly power would render vulnerable to determined attack every other major segment.

This is a military estimate as to which I have yet to find a military leader who will take exception. For that reason, I have strongly recommended in the past, as a matter of military urgency, that under no circumstances must Formosa fall under Communist control. Such an eventuality would at once threaten the freedom of the Philippines and the loss of Japan and might well force our western frontier back to the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.

To understand the changes which now appear upon the Chinese mainland, one must understand the changes in Chinese character and culture over the past 50 years. China, up to 50 years ago, was completely non-homogenous, being compartmented into groups divided against each other. The war-making tendency was almost non-existent, as they still followed the tenets of the Confucian ideal of pacifist culture. At the turn of the century, under the regime of Chang Tso Lin, efforts toward greater homogeneity produced the start of a nationalist urge. This was further and more successfully developed under the leadership of Chiang Kai-Shek, but has been brought to its greatest fruition under the present regime to the point that it has now taken on the character of a united nationalism of increasingly dominant, aggressive tendencies.

Through these past 50 years the Chinese people have thus become militarized in their concepts and in their ideals. They now constitute excellent soldiers, with competent staffs and commanders. This has produced a new and dominant power in Asia, which, for its own purposes, is allied with Soviet Russia but which in its own concepts and methods has become aggressively imperialistic, with a lust for expansion and increased power normal to this type of imperialism.

There is little of the ideological concept either one way or another in the Chinese make-up. The standard of living is so low and the capital accumulation has been so thoroughly dissipated by war that the masses are desperate and eager to follow any leadership which seems to promise the alleviation of local stringencies.

I have from the beginning believed that the Chinese Communists’ support of the North Koreans was the dominant one. Their interests are, at present, parallel with those of the Soviet. But I believe that the aggressiveness recently displayed not only in Korea but also in Indo-China and Tibet and pointing potentially toward the South reflects predominantly the same lust for the expansion of power which has animated every would-be conqueror since the beginning of time.

The Japanese people, since the war, have undergone the greatest reformation recorded in modern history. With a commendable will, eagerness to learn, and marked capacity to understand, they have, from the ashes left in war’s wake, erected in Japan an edifice dedicated to the supremacy of individual liberty and personal dignity; and in the ensuing process there has been created a truly representative government committed to the advance of political morality, freedom of economic enterprise, and social justice.

Politically, economically, and socially Japan is now abreast of many free nations of the earth and will not again fail the universal trust. That it may be counted upon to wield a profoundly beneficial influence over the course of events in Asia is attested by the magnificent manner in which the Japanese people have met the recent challenge of war, unrest, and confusion surrounding them from the outside and checked communism within their own frontiers without the slightest slackening in their forward progress. I sent all four of our occupation divisions to the Korean battlefront without the slightest qualms as to the effect of the resulting power vacuum upon Japan. The results fully justified my faith. I know of no nation more serene, orderly, and industrious, nor in which higher hopes can be entertained for future constructive service in the advance of the human race.

Of our former ward, the Philippines, we can look forward in confidence that the existing unrest will be corrected and a strong and healthy nation will grow in the longer aftermath of war’s terrible destructiveness. We must be patient and understanding and never fail them — as in our hour of need, they did not fail us. A Christian nation, the Philippines stand as a mighty bulwark of Christianity in the Far East, and its capacity for high moral leadership in Asia is unlimited.

On Formosa, the government of the Republic of China has had the opportunity to refute by action much of the malicious gossip which so undermined the strength of its leadership on the Chinese mainland. The Formosan people are receiving a just and enlightened administration with majority representation on the organs of government, and politically, economically, and socially they appear to be advancing along sound and constructive lines.

With this brief insight into the surrounding areas, I now turn to the Korean conflict. While I was not consulted prior to the President’s decision to intervene in support of the Republic of Korea, that decision from a military standpoint, proved a sound one, as we — as I said, proved a sound one, as we hurled back the invader and decimated his forces. Our victory was complete, and our objectives within reach, when Red China intervened with numerically superior ground forces.

This created a new war and an entirely new situation, a situation not contemplated when our forces were committed against the North Korean invaders; a situation which called for new decisions in the diplomatic sphere to permit the realistic adjustment of military strategy.

Such decisions have not been forthcoming.

While no man in his right mind would advocate sending our ground forces into continental China, and such was never given a thought, the new situation did urgently demand a drastic revision of strategic planning if our political aim was to defeat this new enemy as we had defeated the old.

Apart from the military need, as I saw It, to neutralize the sanctuary protection given the enemy north of the Yalu, I felt that military necessity in the conduct of the war made necessary: first the intensification of our economic blockade against China; two the imposition of a naval blockade against the China coast; three removal of restrictions on air reconnaissance of China’s coastal areas and of Manchuria; four removal of restrictions on the forces of the Republic of China on Formosa, with logistical support to contribute to their effective operations against the common enemy.

For entertaining these views, all professionally designed to support our forces committed to Korea and bring hostilities to an end with the least possible delay and at a saving of countless American and allied lives, I have been severely criticized in lay circles, principally abroad, despite my understanding that from a military standpoint the above views have been fully shared in the past by practically every military leader concerned with the Korean campaign, including our own Joint Chiefs of Staff.

I called for reinforcements but was informed that reinforcements were not available. I made clear that if not permitted to destroy the enemy built-up bases north of the Yalu, if not permitted to utilize the friendly Chinese Force of some 600,000 men on Formosa, if not permitted to blockade the China coast to prevent the Chinese Reds from getting succor from without, and if there were to be no hope of major reinforcements, the position of the command from the military standpoint forbade victory.

We could hold in Korea by constant maneuver and in an approximate area where our supply line advantages were in balance with the supply line disadvantages of the enemy, but we could hope at best for only an indecisive campaign with its terrible and constant attrition upon our forces if the enemy utilized its full military potential. I have constantly called for the new political decisions essential to a solution.

Efforts have been made to distort my position. It has been said, in effect, that I was a warmonger. Nothing could be further from the truth. I know war as few other men now living know it, and nothing to me is more revolting. I have long advocated its complete abolition, as its very destructiveness on both friend and foe has rendered it useless as a means of settling international disputes. Indeed, on the second day of September, nineteen hundred and forty-five, just following the surrender of the Japanese nation on the Battleship Missouri, I formally cautioned as follows:

Men since the beginning of time have sought peace. Various methods through the ages have been attempted to devise an international process to prevent or settle disputes between nations. From the very start workable methods were found in so far as individual citizens were concerned, but the mechanics of an instrumentality of larger international scope have never been successful. Military alliances, balances of power, Leagues of Nations, all in turn failed, leaving the only path to be by way of the crucible of war. The utter destructiveness of war now blocks out this alternative. We have had our last chance. If we will not devise some greater and more equitable system, Armageddon will be at our door. The problem basically is theological and involves a spiritual recrudescence and improvement of human character that will synchronize with our almost matchless advances in science, art, literature, and all material and cultural developments of the past 2000 years. It must be of the spirit if we are to save the flesh.

But once war is forced upon us, there is no other alternative than to apply every available means to bring it to a swift end.

War’s very object is victory, not prolonged indecision.

In war there is no substitute for victory.

There are some who, for varying reasons, would appease Red China. They are blind to history’s clear lesson, for history teaches with unmistakable emphasis that appeasement but begets new and bloodier war. It points to no single instance where this end has justified that means, where appeasement has led to more than a sham peace. Like blackmail, it lays the basis for new and successively greater demands until, as in blackmail, violence becomes the only other alternative.

“Why,” my soldiers asked of me, “surrender military advantages to an enemy in the field?” I could not answer.

Some may say: to avoid spread of the conflict into an all-out war with China; others, to avoid Soviet intervention. Neither explanation seems valid, for China is already engaging with the maximum power it can commit, and the Soviet will not necessarily mesh its actions with our moves. Like a cobra, any new enemy will more likely strike whenever it feels that the relativity in military or other potential is in its favor on a world-wide basis.

The tragedy of Korea is further heightened by the fact that its military action is confined to its territorial limits. It condemns that nation, which it is our purpose to save, to suffer the devastating impact of full naval and air bombardment while the enemy’s sanctuaries are fully protected from such attack and devastation.

Of the nations of the world, Korea alone, up to now, is the sole one which has risked its all against communism. The magnificence of the courage and fortitude of the Korean people defies description.

They have chosen to risk death rather than slavery. Their last words to me were: “Don’t scuttle the Pacific!”

I have just left your fighting sons in Korea. They have met all tests there, and I can report to you without reservation that they are splendid in every way.

It was my constant effort to preserve them and end this savage conflict honorably and with the least loss of time and a minimum sacrifice of life. Its growing bloodshed has caused me the deepest anguish and anxiety.

Those gallant men will remain often in my thoughts and in my prayers always.

I am closing my 52 years of military service. When I joined the Army, even before the turn of the century, it was the fulfillment of all of my boyish hopes and dreams. The world has turned over many times since I took the oath on the plain at West Point, and the hopes and dreams have long since vanished, but I still remember the refrain of one of the most popular barrack ballads of that day which proclaimed most proudly that “old soldiers never die; they just fade away.”

And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty.

Good Bye.

 

Gen Douglas MacArthur, to Congress, April 19, 1951

The way I see it, tonight Barry has two options that he must weigh and choose from. There are no other options that should be considered. Though history has painted him a mad-man, Gen MacArthur is one thing above all else, a military genius!

Those two options that Barry has tonight (taken from MacArthur): 1) Send Gen McCrystal the troops he’s requested, send them right now, send them, along with anything/everything else McCrystal requests. Give our men and women the best chance possible to succeed in Afghanistan! 2) Bring every troop, every rifle, every round of ammunition, HOME! Immediately! Do not let our men and women linger in a fight that the US Government will not allow them to win! Save their lives!

I’m not some crazy warmonger – I hate war! I would love to see the leaders of the world, in replace of war, sit down to a game of chess (ok, bad example, Barry would get DESTROYED by attempting to move all of his pieces to the left, without regard to what is straight-ahead….), but that’s not the way disputes are handled. They are handled with the sacrifice of men and women who believe in an idea, and believe that idea is bigger than you, me, or even their own life.

I would love to see a time of peace and prosperity in the world, but over the past 20 years, that peace has constantly been disturbed by one group of people, Muslims, and until they are made to sit-back and shut-up, the world simply will not be safe! If we do not show them that the United States is no longer going to play the target in their sick sadistic target-practice game, that our country will strike back at the tyrants who seek to do us harm, then at least give up now so that the best of our country can come home and live out their days with their families!

The time has come for Barry to make a decision, for the past 11 months he’s been able to prance around the world on his apology tour, avoiding the big issues by simply changing the topic of the day, but he can no longer vote PRESENT on the issue of the war in Afghanistan.

I don’t know why, but for some reason, a shiver just went down my spine……….

Posted in History, Politics | Tagged: , | Leave a Comment »

Playing by the Rules

Posted by darthkeller on November 16, 2009

I was raised in a house with a simple thought when it came to sports: It’s not whether you win or lose, it’s how you play the game.  In my teenage years, I had amended that thought slightly: It’s only about winning or losing, who cares how you get there!

I’m now much older, and I realize that I was wrong.  I realize that it’s all about how you play the game.  It’s about honoring the sport you’re playing; it’s about honoring those that came before you.  I watch the NBA and the way players play the game, and I think, “How can you disrespect players like ….?”

Last August we watched NBC attempt to talk around the only issue that seemed to matter: The Chinese female Olympic team was underage.  They would say things like: Well, if they’re good enough to be here, why does it matter?  Why does it matter? Simple: Everyone who plays a game has agreed to a set of rules before participation.  It doesn’t matter whether they were good enough or not, they were breaking rules that they themselves agreed to follow.

If that’s the argument that’s going to be used, then why not get rid of penalties in football, or fouls in basketball, or throw out any reason for tossing a player out of a baseball game! They are all good enough to play in their respective professional sport, therefore, according to the talking heads at NBC, there should be no penalties for not playing by any rules!

I know, this sounds like a weird rant on sports, but actually, it’s not.  It’s about politics.  You see, the Left has applied this technique for years! Think about it: Whenever any politician on the Right has shown that they are human, and therefore capable of making a mistake, they are portrayed as the worst living human being of all time!  Mark Sanford, who cheated on his wife, an act that I find about as despicable as any offense a man can perform, was on my TV for a week straight! Nothing but dissecting his home life, his credit card receipts, going through his garbage looking for that next piece of evidence.  Not only that, but the Left began to attack his policy decisions.  I’m sorry, but I’m not sure how cheating on your wife relates to your belief on lower taxes… Could be me, but those two don’t seem to mix very well.

Where was all this when it happened to Bill Clinton?  Sure, they talked about his infidelity; they all asked how Hillary could stay with him, etc.  But, I never once heard about how this might affect his policy.

This is Alinsky’s rules straight out of the playbook.  #13 (#11 in some lists….): “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it.”

The fact is, the Left will always try to personalize every attack.  Why? Because they know that if they were forced to have an honest debate on policy, the American people would choose the freer system every time, and that would almost always play to the Republican Party.  So, they choose, instead, to attack the individuals.  This isn’t just a Left/Right issue either.

Look at the way Hillary Clinton was treated in the 2008 Democratic Primary.  Wow!  The only person I have ever seen treated with as much contempt was Sarah Palin, and that was only after they had practiced on Clinton.

This isn’t just kept in current politics either.  I’m sure some of you have heard of Progressive History.  Progressive History is the idea that, in every lesson of history see how you can blame the US and embolden the enemy.  I’ve even heard that it was our fault for the bombing of Pearl Harbor.  They claim it was because of embargos placed on Japan that they Japanese felt the need to bomb Pearl.  Yes, we had embargos against Japan, there’s no denying that fact, but they were placed there because of increased aggression out of the Japanese mainland.

Furthermore, regarding the attacks on Pearl, please take a look at the words of FDR: “The United States was at peace with that nation and, at the solicitation of Japan, was still in conversation with the government and its emperor looking toward the maintenance of peace in the Pacific.”

We didn’t go to them with talks of peace, they came to us, and then, behind our backs attacked us.  Now, the Left, with their superior intellect, would tell us that it was all our fault.  They want nothing more than to denigrate all but the most Communist of societies, so for them, the atomic bombs dropped are more proof of the evil of America.

Let’s consider for a moment: We spent days giving warning to the Japanese that they bombs were coming, even going so far as to drop the famous “LeMay Bombing Leaflet” to give warning to the people of several cities that these “bombs have no eyes.  So, in accordance with America’s humanitarian policies, the American Air Force, which does not wish to injure innocent people, now gives you warning to evacuate the cities named and save your lives.”

Sure, the Left will probably take credit for this all the while blaming the bombing on the Right (though, it should be noted that Truman, along with FDR, were LIBERALS, not just Democrats…).  What the Left of today would rather have seen in 1945, was no atomic weapon and instead we send thousands, if not millions, of American soldiers to fight on the shores of Japan.

What they don’t realize is the honor of the Japanese people.  They would have fought until there was only one left standing, and that person would have died defending his home as well.  You see, the Left wants nothing more than the demoralization of their enemy.  They would send a million men to corner the Japanese, where we on the Right, would rather send a bomb and destroy the corner, thus allowing for a way out.

Sure, all of this sounds like one huge digression, but I assure you, it’s not.  The Left today is trying to do to the Republicans what they think should’ve been done to the Japanese, using the rules of the Chinese National Team: Humiliate our opponent, the rules be DAMNED!

I’m a firm believer that: “An eye for an eye and the whole world goes blind”, as a Christian, I do not believe that it would be in the GOP’s best interest to resort to the despicable tactics of the Left, and I don’t think we need to, in order to win elections.  But, there is a time in every fight, in every war, in which one party must stand up, draw a line in the sand, and say “NO MORE!”, and that time is now.  If not now, when, if not us, who?

Posted in History, Politics, sports | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »