If you've been paying any attention to the news at all, you can't help but know about the big to-do currently being waged on Capitol Hill regarding the probable nomination of UN Ambassador Susan Rice as the next Secretary of State. (Bye-bye, Billary Clinton, don't let the door hit you in your fat ass on the way out!) The Republicans have vowed to block the nomination due to the misleading/incorrect/false/whatever statements that Ambassador Rice gave on no less than five Sunday morning news shows concerning the attack on our embassy in Libya. These appearances took place the day after the attack, and during those appearances the Ambassador stated clearly and unequivocably that the attack was a "spontaneous demonstration" that took place as a result of an anti-Muslim film released a few days before, and absolutely was NOT a terrorist attack.
Of course, information released later proved not only that the attack was, in fact, a coordinated and pre-planned terrorist attack, but also that the White House - which means The Great Pretender - knew this before Ambassador Rice made her statements. And since the subsequent indications from NObama that he's going to nominate Rice as the next Secretary of State, the Republicans have pounced on her like a cat on a canary.
In short, they took the bait. They've been had, and they don't know it. They've allowed themselves to be duped by the oldest trick in the book, the trick that magicians use in their act every day. It's called "distraction," and in this case NObama is the magician.
This past week Ambassador Rice testified that she made her statements using information given to her by the CIA, and I gotta tell ya that I absolutely believe that. There's no doubt in my mind that when this whole thing broke she was given a fact sheet and told that the information in it had come from the CIA, that it was 100% reliable, and that she should use that fact sheet as the basis for her statements. And she did exactly what she was told. (One must wonder, though, how a woman of her intelligence who is smart enough to be appointed Ambassador to the United Nations could fail to realize that participants in a "spontaneous demonstration" don't usually show up with AK-47s and rocket launchers.)
Since then, of course, the news has broken that the contents of the document were edited, and that all references to a terrorist attack were removed and replaced with the "spontaneous demonstration" bullshit. This information comes from the CIA itself, and they say that the White House is responsible for the editing. And the White House, by the way, is where the Ambassador got the fact sheet from that she used as a basis for her statements.
This lays the blame and the fault for all of this squarley in the lap of the President of the United States, which is who the Republicans in Congress should be going after instead of Susan Rice.
Of course, NObama has come to the defense of Ambassador Rice, and the reason for this is simple: he has no choice. If he abandons Susan Rice and throws her to the Republican wolves as a human sacrifice to save his own skinny ass, he knows that she's not going to go down without a fight and will let loose with all kinds of secrets and make all kinds of damaging accusations on the way down. And that will turn the Republicans in the Congress loose on him, with the resulting furor in the press and the general public forcing the Demoncrats in Congress to go along with it.
Can you say, "IMPEACHMENT?"
So NObama has no choice; he has to defend Susan Rice lest he be left with defending himself - and both the college professor in him and his former lawyer wife both know that he'll have ZERO defense. His only hope is to continue the defense of his chosen scapegoat - and make no mistake about it, that's what Susan Rice is, a scapegoat - and weather the storm until it eventually dies down. Which it will, of course; with the looming budget crisis just over the horizon, it's only a matter of weeks before this whole thing is relegated to the back pages of the newspapers and the sub-sub-categories of news on FOXNEWS.com.
In my humble opinion, the Republicans in Congress need to pull their collective heads out of their collective asses and pounce on NObama before it's too late. The facts as I see them tell me that Ambassado Rice is guilty of doing nothing other than what she was ordered to do by the White House, even though I think her common sense should have kicked in at some point. (Then again, if you can't trust the President of the United States, then who can you trust? My point exactly.) Factual information has also come to light that the Embassy in Libya had told the White House that they feared a terrorist attack, that they wouldn't be able to defend against it, and requested assistance. The Great Pretender sat on his ass and did nothing, and as a result the US Ambassador to Libya and two other people were killed. The White House had previous knowledge that this attack was coming, had been begged by the Embassy for help, and did nothing.
It just amazes me that the Republicans haven't seen this, and I'm afraid that they'll continue snapping at the carrot being dangled in front of them until the budget crises overshadows everything else, and once again NObama will escape responsibility for something that he's done.
So I gotta ask you again: What the hell were you people thinking?
IHC
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
I Seem To Have Touched a Nerve
Apparently I touched a nerve - a very raw and sensitive nerve - or two of one of my readers with the content of my last blog entry. I say that because when I checked the comments section of that post a few days ago, I found this comment waiting for me:
"Cocksucker. Obama supports an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment (not the militia-based right Democrats have chirped about) and has expressed an interest in limited restrictions of the high-cap mags and AR's that you and your Nazi retards prefer to wave around in your hateful parades. Get over yourself. I have a houseful of guns and I have no fear that Obama wants my guns. You NRA bomb-throwers are the real problem with your senseless rhetoric without basis in law. Anonymous"
Like I said, it appears that I touched a nerve.
Normally when I get comments made on my blog that either begin with or contain an unprovoked and unnecessary insult or two I just delete the comment and move on, especially if the poster chooses to post the comment as "Anonymous." But with this comment, well, there's just so much to have fun with that I just had to break my own rule and keep it. Not only did I decide to keep it, I wanted to have so much fun with it that I chose to make it the subject of an entry in and of itself.
So let's have some fun, shall we?
I'll save the obvious for last and address the only point out of the many I made in my last post that Anonymous chose to have a problem with, that being NObama's stand on gun control. One must wonder why, though, out of all the other topics I addressed, that Anonymous only has a problem with this one. In the many discussions I've had on the Internet and in person on topics such as this, it's been my experience that if no one complains about something you've said, then it means you're right - that you hit the nail right on the head, and there's nothing they can say in rebuttal because it'd be a lie and they know it. So unless Anonymous wants to address the many other topics I covered, I'll just take for granted that he/she agrees with me on all those points and move on.
As for what Anonymous said concerning NObama's stand on the Second Amendment, that one point is correct. NObama has said that he supports the 'individual interpretation' of the Second Amendment, meaning that the Second Amendment refers to the individual citizen and not the militia. (Considering that all of the other amendments do the same thing, this is kinda a no-brainer.) However, he also stated that he supported the DC gun ban, stating that while he felt the Second Amendment applied to the individual it did not restrict the government from putting limits on that right.
But it is also true that while in the Congress, NObama voted in favor of every anti-gun or gun-restrictive bill that crossed his desk; further, he has also stated in public that he is in favor of re-instating the Clinton-era gun ban, also known as "The Brady Bill," having most recently made that comment in the last Presidential debate. He has also said that he is in favor of international treaties to restrict firearms trade, and even sent his Secretary of State to the United Nations to vote in favor of the proposed treaty - which she did. (Thank God it failed.) Further, In 1996 State Senator Obama answered a questionnaire and stated that he supported a complete ban on assault weapons, supported mandatory waiting periods, supported background checks, and supported a complete ban on manufacture and sale of handguns. Claims by then-Senator Obama that a staffer filed out the form were debunked by media outlets. Those same objectives were supported by State Senator Obama in a 1998 political awareness test. During a 2004 debate for the US Senate seat, Barack Obama mocked his opponent for not supporting a ban on assault weapons which he said had only one purpose: to kill people.
Since becoming President, NObama has appointed a Supreme Court judge who had previously gone on the public record as being pro-gun control, stating that the Heller decision - the one that was used to overturn the DC gun ban - was "settled law," and later voiced this opinion again in her dissention of that case when it came to the Supreme Court.
And if you want to read these facts for yourself, then go here: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/The_Second_Amendment/, because that's where I got the information from.
So I think that pretty much backs up my prediction of the coming assault on the Second Amendment. Now, let's get to the fun part!
One of the many good things about the Internet is that it gives you unlimited access to all kinds of good information that is at your disposal 24/7; one of the bad things about it is that it allows people to become what is known in the online forums as "Keyboard Commandos." A "Keyboard Commando" is someone who hides behind the shield of anonymity provided by the use of a screen name and uses this anonymity to sling insults, degrade, and otherwise belittle people by saying things online that they wouldn't have the balls to say to the other person should that person be standing in front of them - in other words, where the other person could knock their teeth down their throat. No, they hide behind their keyboard and sling insults, bringing their innermost and unrealized fantasies of courage and bravado to life with the strokes on the keyboard, congratulating themselves later on their magnificent show of bravado, false though it may be.
Such is the case with Anonymous, a misinformed, uneducated, sad, pathetic little man who felt the need to make himself feel better by morphing into a "Keyboard Commando." (I'll refer to Anonymous as 'he' from this point out because the language used sounds like that of a man and not a woman. If I'm wrong, then sue me.)
The fastest way to get people to NOT take what you're saying seriously is to lace your comments with insults and profanity, and this is even more true when you start your comments with one - as in the case of Anonymous. A wise man once said that the use of vulgarity, profanity and insults is the sign of a weak and empty mind, and this comment by Anonymous sure proves that to be correct. I didn't take what he said seriously from the very first word, and it only got worse as I read the rest of the comment.
In this comment Anonymous shows just how ignorant he truly is on more than one point.
When was the last time that any kind of "Nazi" group in this country held a "parade" in which they "waved around" assault rifles - or rifles of any kind? For that matter, when was the last time any "Nazi" group even held a parade in this nation? I recall a couple of sparsely-attended rallies in the distant past, but a parade? I don't seem to recall any parade by any "Nazi" group since the late 1930s when the German-American Bund was popular. (Of course, WWII put an end to all that.)
And the part about "NRA bomb-throwers" and "senseless rhetoric without basis in law" is just so inanely stupid as to actually be funny. I guess Anonymous doesn't read "American Rifleman" much, huh?
The comments and the manner in which Anonymous chose to make them are, sadly, what I have come to expect from the liberals in our nation. I have come to expect immature and childish actions such as this because the liberals with whom I have had several discussions over the past year have taught me by their own actions that this is what I am to expect. Liberals don't care much for facts because facts have the nasty habit of destroying their self-styled ideas and ideals, and this just throws them all into a tizzy. And since they can't reply with facts of their own to dispute what has been said, they resort to what they feel is the best and only thing they have left: insults and name-calling. Their own twisted brand of "logic" justifies this in their own minds, and they sleep very well at night knowing that they really showed the "big, bad conservative a thing or two!"
If only that were true, and not the exact opposite.
So what happened, Anonymous? Did I touch a nerve by daring to have the audacity to talk bad about your personal hero and demigod, NObama? Did I ruffle your feathers and upset your delicate disposition by daring to talk bad about your idol? Or did I really piss you off by voicing the facts as YOU know them to be true about this buffoon? Does the truth hurt that much? Apparently so.
And I'm very glad for you that you're not afraid that NObama will take your guns. For the sake of our nation, I sincerely hope that you're right. As for me, I'd rather be safe than sorry, and considering all of the PROOF of his intentions that I presented at the beginning of this post, I'm going to operate under the belief that NObama will in fact try to take our guns. If I'm wrong, then great! No one loses anything, and we remain citizens instead of subjects. But what if I'm not wrong? Then what? Will you then turn on your hero, or will you hand over your guns and subject yourself to his tyrannical rule, giving up any means you have to resist and preserve your freedom?
If the "cocksucker" part was supposed to upset me, well, I hate to tell ya this, but it didn't work. I've been called much worse by much better men, and have laughed in their faces too - just as I'm laughing in yours now.
You amuse me, you really do. You hide behind the shield of anonymity, spout your insults freely, and then run away and hide like the immature and cowardly man you are. You lie in your bed at night, snug and safe in the knowledge that what you've done will not come back to haunt you because no one really knows who you are - but you sure showed them! Yessir, you sure showed them!
You showed them what a coward you truly are - a misinformed, bigoted, immature coward who doesn't have the balls to stand up and fight for what he believes in while using his own name to do it. You'd rather give all the credit to someone else, that miserable and pathetic cretin known as "Anonymous."
I pity you, I really do. I have the courage to voice my opinions and stand up for what I believe in and sign my name to it, and I'm proud of that. That's a kind of pride you and others of your sad and pathetic ilk will never know - not until you grow up and grow a pair. Until then, until that day happens - if it ever does, which I seriously doubt - you'll be nothing more than a coward, an unimportant and sad little excuse for a human being and a man, giving "Anonymous" credit for the things you don't have the courage or integrity to do.
I'm willing to make a bet with you. I'll bet that you don't have the balls to make another comment and post your name to it in such a way that anyone can verify the name you give, such as linking it to your Facebook account. I'm betting you'll continue to hide behind your keyboard like the true "Keyboard Commando" and coward you really are. And here's the stakes of the bet: post your name, your REAL, VERIFIABLE name, and I'll post your comments here for the world to see. But post them under "Anonymous" and I'll delete them, every one of them, and I'll never waste another second of my time with you.
So there it is. Do you have the balls? I'm betting you don't.
Prove me wrong, I dare ya.
IHC
"Cocksucker. Obama supports an individual-rights interpretation of the Second Amendment (not the militia-based right Democrats have chirped about) and has expressed an interest in limited restrictions of the high-cap mags and AR's that you and your Nazi retards prefer to wave around in your hateful parades. Get over yourself. I have a houseful of guns and I have no fear that Obama wants my guns. You NRA bomb-throwers are the real problem with your senseless rhetoric without basis in law. Anonymous"
Like I said, it appears that I touched a nerve.
Normally when I get comments made on my blog that either begin with or contain an unprovoked and unnecessary insult or two I just delete the comment and move on, especially if the poster chooses to post the comment as "Anonymous." But with this comment, well, there's just so much to have fun with that I just had to break my own rule and keep it. Not only did I decide to keep it, I wanted to have so much fun with it that I chose to make it the subject of an entry in and of itself.
So let's have some fun, shall we?
I'll save the obvious for last and address the only point out of the many I made in my last post that Anonymous chose to have a problem with, that being NObama's stand on gun control. One must wonder why, though, out of all the other topics I addressed, that Anonymous only has a problem with this one. In the many discussions I've had on the Internet and in person on topics such as this, it's been my experience that if no one complains about something you've said, then it means you're right - that you hit the nail right on the head, and there's nothing they can say in rebuttal because it'd be a lie and they know it. So unless Anonymous wants to address the many other topics I covered, I'll just take for granted that he/she agrees with me on all those points and move on.
As for what Anonymous said concerning NObama's stand on the Second Amendment, that one point is correct. NObama has said that he supports the 'individual interpretation' of the Second Amendment, meaning that the Second Amendment refers to the individual citizen and not the militia. (Considering that all of the other amendments do the same thing, this is kinda a no-brainer.) However, he also stated that he supported the DC gun ban, stating that while he felt the Second Amendment applied to the individual it did not restrict the government from putting limits on that right.
But it is also true that while in the Congress, NObama voted in favor of every anti-gun or gun-restrictive bill that crossed his desk; further, he has also stated in public that he is in favor of re-instating the Clinton-era gun ban, also known as "The Brady Bill," having most recently made that comment in the last Presidential debate. He has also said that he is in favor of international treaties to restrict firearms trade, and even sent his Secretary of State to the United Nations to vote in favor of the proposed treaty - which she did. (Thank God it failed.) Further, In 1996 State Senator Obama answered a questionnaire and stated that he supported a complete ban on assault weapons, supported mandatory waiting periods, supported background checks, and supported a complete ban on manufacture and sale of handguns. Claims by then-Senator Obama that a staffer filed out the form were debunked by media outlets. Those same objectives were supported by State Senator Obama in a 1998 political awareness test. During a 2004 debate for the US Senate seat, Barack Obama mocked his opponent for not supporting a ban on assault weapons which he said had only one purpose: to kill people.
Since becoming President, NObama has appointed a Supreme Court judge who had previously gone on the public record as being pro-gun control, stating that the Heller decision - the one that was used to overturn the DC gun ban - was "settled law," and later voiced this opinion again in her dissention of that case when it came to the Supreme Court.
And if you want to read these facts for yourself, then go here: http://www.thepoliticalguide.com/Profiles/President/US/Barack_Obama/Views/The_Second_Amendment/, because that's where I got the information from.
So I think that pretty much backs up my prediction of the coming assault on the Second Amendment. Now, let's get to the fun part!
One of the many good things about the Internet is that it gives you unlimited access to all kinds of good information that is at your disposal 24/7; one of the bad things about it is that it allows people to become what is known in the online forums as "Keyboard Commandos." A "Keyboard Commando" is someone who hides behind the shield of anonymity provided by the use of a screen name and uses this anonymity to sling insults, degrade, and otherwise belittle people by saying things online that they wouldn't have the balls to say to the other person should that person be standing in front of them - in other words, where the other person could knock their teeth down their throat. No, they hide behind their keyboard and sling insults, bringing their innermost and unrealized fantasies of courage and bravado to life with the strokes on the keyboard, congratulating themselves later on their magnificent show of bravado, false though it may be.
Such is the case with Anonymous, a misinformed, uneducated, sad, pathetic little man who felt the need to make himself feel better by morphing into a "Keyboard Commando." (I'll refer to Anonymous as 'he' from this point out because the language used sounds like that of a man and not a woman. If I'm wrong, then sue me.)
The fastest way to get people to NOT take what you're saying seriously is to lace your comments with insults and profanity, and this is even more true when you start your comments with one - as in the case of Anonymous. A wise man once said that the use of vulgarity, profanity and insults is the sign of a weak and empty mind, and this comment by Anonymous sure proves that to be correct. I didn't take what he said seriously from the very first word, and it only got worse as I read the rest of the comment.
In this comment Anonymous shows just how ignorant he truly is on more than one point.
When was the last time that any kind of "Nazi" group in this country held a "parade" in which they "waved around" assault rifles - or rifles of any kind? For that matter, when was the last time any "Nazi" group even held a parade in this nation? I recall a couple of sparsely-attended rallies in the distant past, but a parade? I don't seem to recall any parade by any "Nazi" group since the late 1930s when the German-American Bund was popular. (Of course, WWII put an end to all that.)
And the part about "NRA bomb-throwers" and "senseless rhetoric without basis in law" is just so inanely stupid as to actually be funny. I guess Anonymous doesn't read "American Rifleman" much, huh?
The comments and the manner in which Anonymous chose to make them are, sadly, what I have come to expect from the liberals in our nation. I have come to expect immature and childish actions such as this because the liberals with whom I have had several discussions over the past year have taught me by their own actions that this is what I am to expect. Liberals don't care much for facts because facts have the nasty habit of destroying their self-styled ideas and ideals, and this just throws them all into a tizzy. And since they can't reply with facts of their own to dispute what has been said, they resort to what they feel is the best and only thing they have left: insults and name-calling. Their own twisted brand of "logic" justifies this in their own minds, and they sleep very well at night knowing that they really showed the "big, bad conservative a thing or two!"
If only that were true, and not the exact opposite.
So what happened, Anonymous? Did I touch a nerve by daring to have the audacity to talk bad about your personal hero and demigod, NObama? Did I ruffle your feathers and upset your delicate disposition by daring to talk bad about your idol? Or did I really piss you off by voicing the facts as YOU know them to be true about this buffoon? Does the truth hurt that much? Apparently so.
And I'm very glad for you that you're not afraid that NObama will take your guns. For the sake of our nation, I sincerely hope that you're right. As for me, I'd rather be safe than sorry, and considering all of the PROOF of his intentions that I presented at the beginning of this post, I'm going to operate under the belief that NObama will in fact try to take our guns. If I'm wrong, then great! No one loses anything, and we remain citizens instead of subjects. But what if I'm not wrong? Then what? Will you then turn on your hero, or will you hand over your guns and subject yourself to his tyrannical rule, giving up any means you have to resist and preserve your freedom?
If the "cocksucker" part was supposed to upset me, well, I hate to tell ya this, but it didn't work. I've been called much worse by much better men, and have laughed in their faces too - just as I'm laughing in yours now.
You amuse me, you really do. You hide behind the shield of anonymity, spout your insults freely, and then run away and hide like the immature and cowardly man you are. You lie in your bed at night, snug and safe in the knowledge that what you've done will not come back to haunt you because no one really knows who you are - but you sure showed them! Yessir, you sure showed them!
You showed them what a coward you truly are - a misinformed, bigoted, immature coward who doesn't have the balls to stand up and fight for what he believes in while using his own name to do it. You'd rather give all the credit to someone else, that miserable and pathetic cretin known as "Anonymous."
I pity you, I really do. I have the courage to voice my opinions and stand up for what I believe in and sign my name to it, and I'm proud of that. That's a kind of pride you and others of your sad and pathetic ilk will never know - not until you grow up and grow a pair. Until then, until that day happens - if it ever does, which I seriously doubt - you'll be nothing more than a coward, an unimportant and sad little excuse for a human being and a man, giving "Anonymous" credit for the things you don't have the courage or integrity to do.
I'm willing to make a bet with you. I'll bet that you don't have the balls to make another comment and post your name to it in such a way that anyone can verify the name you give, such as linking it to your Facebook account. I'm betting you'll continue to hide behind your keyboard like the true "Keyboard Commando" and coward you really are. And here's the stakes of the bet: post your name, your REAL, VERIFIABLE name, and I'll post your comments here for the world to see. But post them under "Anonymous" and I'll delete them, every one of them, and I'll never waste another second of my time with you.
So there it is. Do you have the balls? I'm betting you don't.
Prove me wrong, I dare ya.
IHC
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)