Brilliant and sad.
Archive for the 'Liberals Make Us Less Safe' Category
Although the risk of a massive nuclear attack or major land war in Europe have subsided, the threats we face today are no less serious. They fall into three major categories: regional military superpowers with hegemonic ambitions like China and Russia, rogue dictatorships which possess nuclear weapons like North Korea and (soon) Iran, and transnational conspiracies of religious fanatics who understand how to use “asymmetric” weaponry – weapons that possess far greater destructive impact than the power it takes to launch them. These threats, except for Russia and China, do not represent large military establishments of the traditional kind, but are extremely formidable nonetheless, because they exploit the vulnerabilities of first world economies in a globalized world.
At the 25thOxford Analytica International Conference Secretary of Defense Bob Gates (the same Secretary of Defense President Obama must have confidence in since he asked him to be the sole holdover from President Bush’s Cabinet) said the following:
The period following the collapse of the Soviet Union and the end of the Cold War unleashed old ethnic, religious, and nationalist hatreds and rivalries that had been largely buried since the Great War. The ethnic and religious slaughter in the Balkans; Russia’s seeming return to Czarist habits and aspirations; the fault lines between Sunni and Shia in Iraq and across the Middle East. The cast of characters sounds disturbingly familiar even at a century’s remove.
So history – in all of its contingent and tragic aspects – plainly did not die with the end of the Cold War as one American wrote, but has emerged again with a vengeance. It has returned to a world far more interdependent than the worlds of 1914 or 1938. And the monsters and pathologies of a long ago world have been joined by new forces of instability and conflict – terrorist networks rooted in violent extremism; rising and resurgent nation-states with new wealth and aspirations; proliferation of dangerous weapons and materials; authoritarian states enriched with oil profits and discontented with their place in the international order.
These conditions didn’t disappear with the rise of President Obama, who many believe will be the savior of America. They continue to chug along with the likes of the weak economy, job losses, housing crisis and need for energy independence. President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, Leader Reid, no matter how you shape your foreign and defense policy these serious threats to the foundation of American democracy will remain and won’t be going away any time soon (even under the leadership of a President who brings chills up the media’s legs and not the legs of those who wish harm on us).
The question that you need to ask yourselves is not whether there will be a need for continued military operations around the world; the question is whether you will allow political considerations to lead to the continued decay of what still remains (but is dangerously close to no longer being) the world’s most effective force for good and the preservation of peace and democracy at home and abroad – the American military. It appears that you have chosen to allow the continued decay of the military’s capability to respond to threats, domestic and foreign, on your watch at a time when you’ve found billions of dollars for a spending package falsely labeled as a stimulus package.
President Obama, how is it that we can’t afford to appropriately fund our national security needs, but we can find $20,000,000 for the removal of small to medium-sized fish passage barriers, $25,000,000 to rehabilitate off-roading ATV trails, $34,000,000 for remodeling the Commerce Department’s headquarters, $150,000,000 for honey bee insurance, $400,000,000 for STD prevention, and $650,000,000 ADDITIONAL dollars for digital TV coupons? Just exactly how does removing barriers in small to medium-sized fish passages stimulate the economy? How on Earth did fish survive before the United States existed to remove these barriers?
We won’t know how many defense jobs will be lost (aren’t you trying to create jobs President Obama?), what retirement and Tricare benefits will be taken from the men and women who defend us, what our loss of military capabilities will be, or if our capability to protect the sea lanes from pirates and guarantee the integrity of places like Taiwan will remain until we see President Obama’s detailed defense budget. What we do know is that if the defense budget is cut by a penny, let alone more than 10 percent, we will be one step closer to the reality of the next threat to the democracy and freedom we love moving from the planning stages to the action stages. A cut of greater than 10 percent to our national security budget will make the world you wake up in the day after it is passed the most dangerous day of your life.
It was just last year that Keith Uberdouche, er, Keith Olbermann discounted the plot to attack our soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey (see the video below of Glenn Beck ripping KO a new one with his own words), but today those “six morons” were convicted of plotting to kill those soldiers in that case.
There is no truth to the rumor that Olbermann’s audience shrunk today by five people (one already pled guilty)…only because that would imply he gets more than five viewers.
Democrats hate it when you point out the things they say and use their words against them…
You might think this is a rerun of two weeks ago, but it’s not. And while we support the Supreme Court for their decision of yesterday on the Second Amendment, that doesn’t mean they weren’t douchey this week as well, because they were.
In the case Kennedy v. Louisiana, SCOTUS determined that the death penalty was cruel and unusual punishment for child rapists.
The Kennedy in this case, named Patrick, is not related to the Kennedys of political fame, or else he would never have been convicted, but is a 300 pound evil jackass who raped his 8 year old step daughter and was sentenced to death for it, in accordance with Louisiana law.
Well, the 4 liberals on the court, along with the wind-sock that is Justice Anthony Kennedy, decided that the death penalty for a crime that doesn’t result in death in a violation of the Eight Amendment (cruel and unusual punishment for those of you keeping score at home). Yet their majority opinion doesn’t spend a lot of time addressing the Constitutional issues at stake, and never once mentions the fact that treason and espionage are both punishable by death, yet don’t necessarily result in death.
The Gang of 5 simply decided that the Tenth Amendment, the red-headed step child of the Constitution, means even less now. The logic of the decision is so twisted and illogical that Justice Alito wrote in his dissent, “In the end, what matters is the Court’s ‘own judgement’ regarding ‘the acceptability of the death penalty.’…Although the Court has much to say on this issue, most of the Court’s discussion is not pertinent to the Eighth Amendment question at hand. And once all of the Court’s irrelevant arguments are put aside, it is apparent that the Court has provided no coherent explanation for today’s decision.”
The explaination is, to put it simply, that’s what they wanted. They thought it seem exessive, so they wanted to stop it. Read the opinion and see if you can find a Constitutional basis for overturning a state law beyond the wishes of 5 people in black robes.
They are supposed to be bound by and to the Constitution, that’s their job. It’s not to feel or allow their personal opinions to sway their judgment. This decision had nothing to do with law, it had everything to do with their feelings on the death penalty.
The only justice in this case is the fact that child rapists are singled out in prison for special treatment by fellow prisoners. How sad is it that an 8 year old girl may only see the justice the courts were supposed to provider her with from people imprisoned by the same system.
For this reason the same 5 Justices who won 2 weeks ago get another plaque as our Douchebags of the Week. We really, really hope they stop winning next year.
It wasn’t safe to be between Nancy Pelosi and a microphone when the Supreme Court ruled non-American enemy combatants had the same right to habeas corpus as Americans do, even if they’ve never set foot in this country. She ran out to the cameras faster than the Road Runner *meep-meeping* through a maze of ACME booby-traps.
The SCOTUS was the final word in holding the Bush Administration accountable, she said, without noting that SCOTUS had over tuned a previous SCOTUS decision to arrive at what she wanted. Stare decisis, the buzz word for every SCOTUS nomination hearing, matters not on matters that matter to liberals.
But now, with the Heller case going in favor of liberty, in clear favor of the Constitution, The Joker doesn’t sing the same tune.
Well, they did on the last two accounts, technically. But the reason they did is because those issues weren’t before the court in this case. Heller wasn’t seeking to wander through schools with a pistol, he wanted to keep a gun in his own home without having to call the SWAT team when he need to move it from one room to another. Crazy, right-wing bastard!
See, when a conservative ruling comes down the Justices rule on the case before them, and only the case before them. They don’t go further into other non-related areas of law and impose new rules on everyone. The opinion, brilliantly writing by Justice Scalia, clearly articulates the history of the Second Amendment and its meaning. Hate the decision all you want, Libs, it won’t make any difference. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts.
The Supreme Court finaly decided a case based upon the Constitution, not a political agenda. DC residents have the right to own a gun. The 5-4 decision means residents of Washington, DC, and residents of cities all across the country, will be able to exercise their Second Amendment rights just like non-US citizens who’ve never set foot in this country will be able to exercise their habeas corpus rights.
Who knew SCOTUS would would finally come down on the side of the Constitution?
Read the opinion here. Hat tip to SCOTUS blog.