Why Obama deserves the gulf spill criticism

Every now and then you get someone who tries to defend Obama over the gulf spill.  It's not hard to make an effective argument to refute them, but having examples like this really makes the process that much easier:

After making a brief stop in Norfolk for refueling, U.S. Coast Guard inspections and an all-out publicity blitz intended to drum up public support, a giant tanker billed as the world's largest oil skimming vessel set sail Friday for the Gulf of Mexico where it hopes to assist in the oil-cleanup effort.

The Taiwanese-owned, Liberian-flagged ship dubbed the "A Whale" stands 10 stories high, stretches 1,115 feet in length and has a nearly 200-foot beam. It displaces more water than an aircraft carrier.

Built in South Korea as a supertanker for transporting oil and iron ore, the six-month-old vessel was refitted in the wake of the BP oil spill with 12, 16-foot-long intake vents on the sides of its bow designed to skim oil off surface waters

The vessel's billionaire owner, Nobu Su, the CEO of Taiwanese shipping company TMT Group, said the ship would float across the Gulf "like a lawn mower cutting the grass," ingesting up to 500,000 barrels of oil-contaminated water a day.

But a number of hurdles stand in his way. TMT officials said the company does not yet have government approval to assist in the cleanup or a contract with BP to perform the work.

Ed over at HotAir points out a lot of interesting facts and makes a few key points, such as how this ship can basically do what's taken us 2 months time in one day, and that there's no reason the government shouldn't of known about this ship before day 66.  He's absolutely right, and there is no valid reason why this monster shouldn't of been in the gulf as soon as possible.  This is where the President comes in.  ThePresident has the ability to pound on tables and make things happen without all the bureaucracy, but instead of actually doing what he can to fix the problem, he's tried to pass the buck off on whoever he can.

Even more proof that Obama is a legislator at best, but certainly not a leader.

5 things Conservatives shouldn't say

Obama isn't my President.

It's unsurprising that the first time I heard someone declaring that the President wasn't their President was during the Bush years.  Although I'm certain others have made this statement toward other Presidents, I doubt it was quite as widespread, and so the statement has come to personify the rabid, foaming at the mouth hatred that liberals expressed during those years.  The statement isn't offensive because the man in charge happened to be from my political party, but it offends me as an American.  To disagree or even hate a President is one thing, but to declare that he isn't your President is something else entirely.

The same goes for Obama.

Is it unfortunate that an incompetent, far-leftist got elected to office?  Of course, but does that mean he's not your President?  Absolutely not.  Him being your President doesn't mean you owe him any particular loyalties.  Americans aren't expected to love or follow their Presidents, but we should be expected to respect the office.  I hardly consider it respectful to ignore the current officeholder just because you disagree with - or outright loathe - his policies and ideology.  Like it or not Barack Obama is the current President of the United States of America, so unless you're in the process of throwing a revolt or giving up your citizenship, he is your President.

There's a surprisingly thin line for legitimate dissent to outright insanity.  Liberals sprinted across that line without looking back, and conservatives could find themselves teasing with that boundary if they're not careful.  I can count the number of people I've heard say "Obama isn't my President" on one hand, but virtually no one offers any sort of condemnation for such statements, and that's what worries me.  Conservatives need to ensure that we don't become what liberals became during the Bush years.


Obama is a Kenyan!/Where's the Birth Certificate?

Where is the birth certificate?

That question isn't aimed toward Obama, but the Birthers who, for whatever reason, have pursued this relentless despite having little to no proof.  Initially I was open to the suggestion that Obama wasn't a natural born citizen and thus wasn't eligible for the Presidency, but as time went on I became less and less impressed with Birthers and their arguments.

For the last year and a half they've been going on about this, and for the last year and a half they've produced...nothing.  Their argument never evolved past its original point, in which they point to Obama having never released his birth certificate.

For a starting argument it isn't bad.  It is suspicious that we've never seen a birth certificate, and that Obama has blocked that information with an executive order, but that's circumstantial evidence at best.  At some point you have to start producing something to validate the serious nature of your claims, but they never did that.  There was never any decent answer to the certificate of live birth, or the newspaper clipping declaring Obama's birth, but their absolute lowest moment came when they declared that they had the birth certificate, only to find out it was forged by a blogger.

Conservatives should treat Birthers for what they are:  Conspiracy theorists.  If they want to spend their own time pursing this, then that's their business, but conservatives need to continue to distance themselves from people who believe Obama isn't a natural born citizen.  At the same time we really do need to pass legislation which requires presidential candidates to produce their birth certificates.


Obama is a Muslim!

The argument for Obama being Muslim goes something like this:  Because Obama's father was Muslim, and because he spent time as a child in Indonesia learning in Islamic schools, Obama is a Muslim today, as is evident by his poor treatment of Israel.

It's a bit difficult to address that argument simply because it's so absurd, and is on the same level as doubting Nikki Haley's conversion.  I'm not even sure why they would bring up his faith of his father since that's certainly does not bind a man toward any particular faith, especially when you grow up in a completely different culture.  Pointing out that he spent time reading the Quran and learning in Islamic school has a bit more validity, but again has no consequence on choices he made later in life in regards to faith.  It would be like saying a Muslim child is Christian because her family has embraced the American life and now celebrates Easter and Christmas in the same commercial sense that so many other Americans do.

I've repeatedly maintained that if Obama is anything other then what he says he is, it's Atheist, but ultimately it's not something worth focusing on.  Arguing over whether Obama is Christian, Muslim, or Atheist doesn't change what he's doing to this country, but it does serve to make his opposition look radical and/or insane.


When will the States/People revolt/secede?

Revolt and secession should always be a legitimate option for the American people to take should it ever come down to it, and wondering how far you would have to be pushed before you take up arms against your own government and countrymen is something we should all think about at least once.  However it's a thin line between asking yourself what the prerequisites are for rebellion, and openly demanding/supporting it.

Advocating revolution is a serious thing, so unless times are extremely dire or your reasoning is perfect you won't find much sympathy with the public, and to be honest that's a good thing.  When people make such threats they often do so not because they believe they have an obligation to fight against a government that has usurped the law, but because they disagree with the current ideology/policies in practice.

Again we can look to the Bush years for an example.  During this time it wasn't uncommon to hear smug liberals saying that the blue states should leave the union, have their own President, and watch the red states crumble and die.  This talk wasn't driven by a belief that they had a legal obligation or case to rebel, but from a hatred of the man (Bush) and his policies. 

There are some similarities the conservative case for revolt against Obama.  It would be dishonest to say that the majority of flirting with revolt doesn't stem from a conservative hate of the man and his ideology.  While there is a valid argument that his ideology could be outside the constitution, and thus illegal, the argument isn't so clear cut as to permit talk of revolution.  There is quite a bit of gray, and certainly nothing that mainstream America would see as valid.   It's worth noting that in some cases the threat is merely on the table, with legitimate reasoning for it, such as when Governor Perry of Texas spoke of secession if the Federal government continues to usurp state power. The distinction has to be made between the two, otherwise you risk coloring the entire movement as one of radicals who may very well be those "right-wing terrorists" the DHS spoke of.


Impeach Obama!

Much like how I'm offended as an American when people say Obama isn't their President, I'm also offended when people call for the impeachment of Obama.

Throughout this post I've brought up the Bush years, and I've done so because it's easy, for me at least, to remember the disgust I felt over the way liberals acted during those years.  Those memories and feelings have been invaluable in guiding my dissent against the current administration, in reminding me where the line is and why I shouldn't cross it.  The call for impeachment personifies this best.  During the Bush years liberals were proud to call for Bush's impeachment, often validating it under the belief that he lied about the Iraq war.  It was, and is, a flimsy excuse, one that if true would mean the impeachment of many Senators and Representatives, including many Democrats and liberals, and would imply a greater conspiracy throughout the world.  Pointing this out doesn't change their mind, and only serves to remind you that their dissent is based in disagreement turned into rabid hatred.

Just to be fair:  The above picture actually came from a Ron Paul rally, but it's just an example of the type of thing you would see broadcast, proudly, by liberals.

Just as liberals had no legitimate reason to call for impeachment with Bush, conservatives lack a legitimate reason to call for impeachment with Obama.  Many of the arguments I made when talking about revolution apply here.  There is a legitimate line of questioning about if his ideology is legal under the constitution, but it's such a gray that I don't believe any of the arguments (that I've heard) for impeachment are reasonable, let alone legitimate.  The call for impeachment stem from a sizable minority, who often make the call during Obama's particularly bad moments, and often are never called out.  It's not beyond reason to believe that if Obama were reelected it could send conservatives into a frenzy not unlike that of liberals during the Bush years.

The consolation is that impeachment would ultimately do more damage.  Biden is a complete moron in every sense of the word, and impeaching Obama would only serve to make him a martyr for Progressives.  His defeat, however, would be a crushing defeat, and perhaps see moderates retake control of the Democrat party.


Final thoughts

Unlike liberals, conservatives do not have much in the way of leeway.  Liberals got away with their rabid, foaming at the mouth because they have the support of the media and as such they were able to present themselves as far more moderate and reasonable then they were.  The worst of them were not shown, and the bad was always presented as no so bad.

Conservatives, on the other hand, are always presented as bad.  We're violent, we're radical, and we're insane.  Most people don't buy into that, but conservatives can't take that for granted.  Conservatives need to remember what it was like during the Bush years, and always need to do their best to keep their arguments within reason, or at least be able to justify them when the time comes.

Often people say shocking things (and too often it seems they do it just to be shocking) and too people many look the other way, unwilling to attack another conservative.  However, this is our movement, and we have an obligation to police our own.  Maybe we can't control it, but we do have the right to try.

If nothing else internal dialogue offers us the chance to strengthen our views, and helps us to defend them against liberals later.  As the bible says:

     As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another. - Proverbs 27:17

Conservatives still gaining ground

Whether you're a bit down or encouraged about the political climate today, Gallup brings you some good news with one of their latest polls:

Conservatives have maintained their leading position among U.S. ideological groups in the first half of 2010. Gallup finds 42% of Americans describing themselves as either very conservative or conservative. This is up slightly from the 40% seen for all of 2009 and contrasts with the 20% calling themselves liberal or very liberal.

Not only have conservatives maintained their plurality, but there are now twice as many self-described conservatives than there are liberals.  The increase in people describing themselves as conservatives likely comes from the drop in those calling themselves moderates, and I can't help but feel that that has something to do with another chart Gallup provides:

While the Republican party has been the conservative party for at least the last ten years, the Democrats went from a party with a plurality of moderates, to one with a plurality of liberals.  The fact the Democrats are liberal really isn't going to be surprising to anyone, but it is interesting that as liberals have taken over the Democrat party, more and more people have identified themselves as conservatives.  That leads me to believe that people's views aren't changing so much as the left is increasingly looked upon as radical, or otherwise outside the mainstream while conservatism is stilled viewed favorably.

Perhaps the most important thing to take away from this is a continued sense of momentum conservatives have leading up to the midterm elections.  Rasmussen shows that Republicans are up 8 points among likely voters on the Generic Congressional Ballot:

Republican candidates now hold an eight-point lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot for the week ending Sunday, June 20.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 44% of Likely U.S. Voters would vote for their district's Republican congressional candidate, while 36% would opt for his or her Democratic opponent.  Last week, Republicans led 46% to 36%, tying the GOP's largest lead ever since it first edged ahead of the Democrats a year ago.

In January of last year the numbers were reversed with 42% supporting Democrats and only 36% supporting the Republican.  Democrats have to contend with a universally unhappy response to the oil spill, strong anti-Obamacare sentiment, an economy that continues to struggle, and the increasing view that Obama is just as much to blame as Bush for the state of the economy.  Unless something major changes in the next few months - and there's no reason to think anything will - Democrats will find themselves replaced in the House, and possibly (though unlikely) even the Senate.

Something to think on:  Is Republicans taking control of the House and/or Senate a good thing for Obama in 2012?

In defense of a Democrat

I've watched the video a few times, and I really don't see what all the outrage is about.  HotAir's headline is Dem Rep says “minorities, defective[s]” not “average, good American people”.  That makes you think that the man pulled a Margaret Sanger, but after watching the video I'm actually offended since that title seems so disingenuous.  Watch and decide for yourself:



The key quote that people seem to be freaking out over:

"We're giving relief to people that I deal with in my office everyday now unfortunately.  That because of the longevity of this recession these are people - and they're not minorities, and they're not defective, and they're not all the things you'd like to insinuate that these programs - these are average, good, American people."

Was the choice in words poor on paper?  Slightly, but it seems pretty clear to me that the Representative is addressing the Democrat held belief that Republicans are racists and oppose things like welfare because they "help too many brown people."  Watching the video should make it very clear that he's not saying that minorities aren't "average, good American people", but that he's combating the notion that minorities are the only ones on the system, and that they're living off of it.

In fact I feel like if you're going to criticize anything he said it should be the suggestion that the poor can never be anything other than poor, although I'm fast discovering that that is a rather common belief among liberals.

Cute: Mexico thinks we care

In case you hadn't heard, the Obama administration is planning on challenging the Arizona anti-illegal immigration law in court soon.  For whatever reason Mexico thinks that that gives it a right to put its two cents in, but hey, what else is new?

 Mexico on Tuesday asked a federal court in Arizona to declare the state's new immigration law unconstitutional, arguing that the country's own interests and its citizens' rights are at stake.

Lawyers for Mexico on Tuesday submitted a legal brief in support of one of five lawsuits challenging the law. The law will take effect June 29 unless implementation is blocked by a court.

The law generally requires police investigating another incident or crime to ask people about their immigration status if there's a "reasonable suspicion" they're in the country illegally. It also makes being in Arizona illegally a misdemeanor, and it prohibits seeking day-labor work along the state's streets.

Mexico doesn't want to have to go through the painful process of cleaning up corruption and fixing their economy, so instead they use America as a release valve.  The population has a place to escape, money flows back to Mexico, and you don't have to deal with silly things like fixing your country.  If at any point those gringos up north start getting uppity, you call em racists and watch white guilt set in.  Not a bad plan.

Whenever Mexico says stuff like this I can't help but grin.  It's so laughably transparent.  For example there's this little bit from the same article:

Citing "grave concerns," Mexico said its interest in having predictable, consistent relations with the United States shouldn't be frustrated by one U.S. state.

So where was Mexico's interest in having predictable, consistent relations whenever President Chalderon blamed his country's drug war on us?

In an editorial printed in newspapers nationwide Monday, President Felipe Calderón defended his drug war as vital to the country's security. More than 23,000 people have died in drug-related violence since December 2006, when Calderón first sent the Mexican military into the streets, according to a government report.

The president directly blamed the United States.

"The origin of our violence problem begins with the fact that Mexico is located next to the country that has the highest levels of drug consumption in the world," Calderón wrote. "It is as if our neighbor were the biggest drug addict in the world."

Now that I think about it this does fit in the "predictable, consistent relations" category, doesn't it?  It's OUR fault that your country is filled with corrupt government agents who allowed drug cartels to get powerful.  So does this mean Mexico punishes drug users more harshly than the drug dealers?  Is that what this drug war is about, seeking out the users?

If Mexico wants to get involved in our court system maybe we should get involve in their drug war.  After all the violence is bleeding over the border.  Perhaps another expedition is in order?

Charlie Crist

A new Florida Chamber of Commerce poll suggests Charlie Crist may be widening his lead over Republican Marco Rubio and Democrat Kendrick Meek in the U.S. Senate race.

Where other recent polls showed Crist barely edging out Rubio, the June 9-13 survey of 607 likely voters by the Florida Chamber of Commerce Political Institute and Cherry Communications found 42 percent backing Crist, 31 percent Rubio and 14 percent Meek. The margin of error was plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Has Florida lost it's mind?

Politicians are about the last people we expect to be principled, but that doesn't mean there aren't expectations in place.  Shifting positions to be more acceptable to voters isn't an uncommon thing, but radically shifting positions and doing it frequently is something to worry about.  Pandering to voters is seen as weak, and a terrible way to govern the populace.  John Kerry was accused of flip-flopping on the issues back in 2004, and that attack worked. 

So why in God's name is Crist pulling ahead?

When it comes to unprincipled politicians who whore themselves out for votes I'm hard pressed to find someone worse than Charlie Crist.  His flip-flopping goes all the way back to mid 90's, but it's his latest string of opportunistic crap that crosses the line.  It started out with one act of selfishness, and just snowballed from there:




The result of his betrayal was a refund demand from some donors.  They had supported a Republican, they argued, not an independent.  At first Crist agreed, but of course that changes whenever he realized he needed that money:

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist announced today that he will not refund donations he received from Republican voters before he left the GOP in his bid for Florida’s U.S. Senate seat.

“Our position is that people donated to a good cause and we intend to spend it on a good cause,” Michelle Todd, an adviser to the Crist campaign, said.

The announcement contradicts statements the Crist campaign has made to several newspapers, including the Miami Herald and St. Petersburg Times. In both publications, the campaign said it would issue “pro-rated refunds” because Crist had already spent some of the money.

At the very least those who donated to Crist could take some comfort in that they donated to someone who would likely still caucus with the Republicans if he won, but Crist soon realized that if he wanted to win he was going to have to win Democrats over to his cause.  Republicans are mostly behind Rubio, and since winning had become the bottom line it wasn't long before that "People of Florida" line made it pretty clear he could go all the way in his defection:

GREGORY: “Would you vote for a Republican or a Democratic Majority Leader?”

CRIST: “I might not vote for either one. I’m going to vote for who I think would be best for the people of Florida. And if that happens to be a Democrat, so be it. If it happens to be a Republican, so be it. But I’ve got to look out for the people of my state.”

Wooing Democrats transformed Crist, although to be fair he had originally changed in order to woo conservatives.  But the back and forth is astonishing.  When he needed to win over Democrats he dropped the pro-life section of his webpage, flipped his position on DADT, and pimped himself out to the White House.  A few months ago you would of thought Crist a solid, if moderate, Republican. 

Today you wouldn't be shocked if he outright joins the Democrats in his selfish bid to gain political power.  And all for what, I have to wonder.  He's clearly ambitious for higher power, but he couldn't possibly think that he could ever run for President, could he?  Then again his strategy is currently paying off, and the voters of Florida are lining up behind the man even though he didn't have the respect to give them a decent lie.  Crist is just about the lowest piece of political scum imaginable, and I'm surprised I don't see more conservatives talking about him.  Florida may deserve this scum if they decide to elect him, but Marco Rubio deserves better and America most certainly does.  Maybe if a bit more attention was paid to his crap he wouldn't find himself up in the polls.

Ideological

Throughout this blog I've used the term "ideological", and until now I have yet to define it.  A good example would be when the Obama administration sacrificed Arizona to the Chinese, but a better one comes from Obama today:

President Obama signaled on Friday that countries in Europe should not withdraw their extraordinary spending programs too quickly.

In a public letter to other leaders of the Group of 20 nations in advance of a summit meeting in Toronto next week, Mr. Obama wrote, “Our highest priority in Toronto must be to safeguard and strengthen the recovery.”

Mr. Obama also addressed currency exchange rates, which are likely to come up at the meeting, and repeated his support for market-based rates, a reference to views that China is holding down the value of its currency.

“This is obviously going to be an issue that we’ll continue to discuss,” a White House spokesman, Bill Burton, told reporters traveling with Mr. Obama to Ohio on Friday, according to the Associated Press.

Mr. Obama also wrote in the letter, “We must be flexible in adjusting the pace of consolidation and learn from the consequential mistakes of the past when stimulus was too quickly withdrawn and resulted in renewed economic hardships and recession.”

That statement represented a signal to Germany and other European countries, which have moved in recent weeks to pare spending, mindful of the wrenching consequences of excessive public debts in Greece, Portugal and Spain. The United States is trying to pare its own substantial deficit. Mr. Obama reiterated a pledge to cut the deficit, now about 10 percent of gross domestic product, in half by the 2013 fiscal year, and to 3 percent of G.D.P. by the 2015 fiscal year, a level he said would “stabilize the debt-to-G.D.P. ratio at an acceptable level” by then.

But American officials are concerned that fiscal retrenchment by too many countries at once could imperil the global recovery.

It's one thing to truly believe that increased government spending actually helps economies,  but Obama takes it beyond that and starts lecturing other nations about it.  The EU is teetering on the brink of failure because of debt, but if you looked at Obama's remarks you would think they were just being panicky.  Europe burns and Obama tells them that now is not the time to stop playing with gasoline.

One has to wonder if Obama is truly ignorant to the problem.  Democrats have wracked up incredible deficits since 2007, and continue to pursue expensive measures as if there wasn't a very real, very dangerous problem.  He continues to pay lip service the idea of cutting the deficit and the debt, but turns around and offers us expensive budgets and says we need another stimulus.

If Obama understands the problem or not is irrelevant since his ignorance would still be born from his ideological view of economics.  Europe and America have problems with spending, and Obama's priorities are set on getting them to spend more money.  It defies all sense, and this is what I mean when I use the term ideological.

A Lesson for Obama

 "Iran's development of a nuclear weapon, I believe, is unacceptable, and we have to mount an international effort to prevent that from happening,'' Obama told reporters in Chicago today.

"I want to be very careful that we are sending the right signals,'' the president-elect said. "Obviously how we approach and deal with a country like Iran is not something we should simply do in a knee-jerk fashion.'' 

What happened to that?  Obama's approach to Iran was supposed to be firm, but one of reason and diplomacy - a far softer approach than I care for in regards to Iran - but he didn't do that.  Instead drawing a line and saying "We will not let you have nuclear weapons, but lets talk this over", his administration pursued a policy of appeasement.

Appeasement typically breeds more bad behavior, while taking a harder line typically makes our enemies (or even allies) think twice.  When America invaded Iraq over WMDs in 2003 it carried the extra benefit of  Libya fully exposing their own WMD program and disarming.  Obama's actions with Iran have also carried consequences, consequences which should of been obvious to the supposed leader of the free world:

Jordan is set on becoming the Middle East's newest nuclear power, Jordanian King Abdullah told the Wall Street Journal in an interview over the weekend.

In the interview, King Abdullah accused Israel of pressuring countries like South Korea and France not to provide nuclear technology to Jordan. He said Israel's "underhanded" actions had helped bring Jordanian-Israeli relations to their lowest point since the 1994 peace agreement.

Jordan has been, more or less, a US ally - a Sunni regime that has learned what happens when you welcome Islamists into your country.  But the fact that they're our ally is the very reason they can openly pursue a nuclear program.  If we won't stop a nation we consider our enemies from attaining nuclear weapons, why would we stop a nation we consider friends from pursuing nuclear power?  King Abdullah even promises that the nation will abide by the non-proliferation treaty, but how long will that last if Iran gets nuclear weapons or Jordan ever feels like it needs deterrence?

In fact deterrence is the major issue with Iran having nuclear weapons.  The anti-Iranian nations of the region will almost certainly make the argument that they need nuclear weapons to protect themselves, and will pursue nuclear agendas or be forced to fall under the Iranian sphere of influence.  None of this is a good thing.

This chain reaction isn't contained to the mid-east.

Take Venezuela, who has backed Iran from the very start.  Venezuela falls into that same fanatically anti-American category as Iran, though with an insane clown for a leader rather than tyrannical fundamentalists.   A stand against Iran would likely have the result of putting nuclear power out of Venezuela's hands, or at the very least make the Russians think twice about using Venezuela as a convenient tool.  America's response to Iran means that any threat or condemnation will be viewed as toothless, and ultimately Chavez has nothing to gain from working with America anyways (his entire platform is based off the tried and failed marxist rhetoric) so diplomacy is just as much out the window with them as it is with Iran.

Or Myanmar who will almost certainly be armed by either China, North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, or Russia should America prove unwilling (or unable) to stop Iran from attaining nuclear weapons.

And then there's Brazil, a rising power that has had a history with seeking nuclear weapons and has taken an increasingly anti-American stance in recent years.

Each nation that attains nuclear weapons sets disturbs the delicate balance in place.  If Venezuela gets nuclear power, for example, they'll almost certainly share it with their marxist/socialist allies (Cuba, Nicaragua), and Colombia may very well require nuclear weapons to hold the Venezuelans in check.  A nuclear Myanmar could spark trouble in Indonesia, Thailand, and even Australia in the long run.

Obviously the more people armed with nuclear weapons, the worse off everyone is.

Obama needs to fully understand the consequences for failure here, and I don't think he does.  By failing to deal with Iran he has emboldened our enemies, and potentially crippled America's ability to keep her enemies in check.  Nothing about his stance on Iran is intelligent - in fact its quite stupid - and it reinforces the international view that Obama is weak.  If he wants to make non-proliferation and disarmament a primary policy (no matter how silly the latter is), then he should start getting serious with Iran, and by serious I mean doing something other than passing toothless resolutions.  He also needs to wake up and realize that some of these regimes aren't going to want to talk unless the swords is against their throat.

Unbelievable Part 2

Ever read a news story that left you seeing red?

Arthur Furano voted early — five days before Election Day. And he voted often, flipping the lever six times for his favorite candidate. Furano cast multiple votes on the instructions of a federal judge and the U.S. Department of Justice as part of a new election system crafted to help boost Hispanic representation.

Voters in Port Chester, 25 miles northeast of New York City, are electing village trustees for the first time since the federal government alleged in 2006 that the existing election system was unfair. The election ends Tuesday and results are expected late Tuesday.

Although the village of about 30,000 residents is nearly half Hispanic, no Latino had ever been elected to any of the six trustee seats, which until now were chosen in a conventional at-large election. Most voters were white, and white candidates always won.

Federal Judge Stephen Robinson said that violated the Voting Rights Act, and he approved a remedy suggested by village officials: a system called cumulative voting, in which residents get six votes each to apportion as they wish among the candidates. He rejected a government proposal to break the village into six districts, including one that took in heavily Hispanic areas.

I found the article as a featured headline on Yahoo.com.  I don't particularly enjoy going to Yahoo for news since they're the very definition of MSM (Mainstream Media), but whenever I'm there I usually take a casual glance and see what's going on.  When I spotted the title "Town's election gives residents six votes" with the caption of "The New York town of Port Chester responds to a Federal complaint that it was under representing Lainto voters." with the blue link button saying "Novel plan".  I thought, "Surely this isn't what it looks like" and clicked.

I was wrong.

Do I have to say the obvious?  If every man has an equal vote, and no man is being kept from voting by force, then the only logical reason for being underrepresented would be because he was too lazy to go vote.  How does failing at your civic duties equate to getting extra votes?  Furthermore, how is it fair that the system is encouraging racial voting?  There isn't any rule in place that says "There aren't enough whites in government in New Mexico, all whites get 6 votes.", yet Latinos are afforded that right?

I hope the article left something out, but seeing as how the AP calls this a "novel plan", I doubt it.

Democrats Gone Crazy

The last eighteen months have been pretty interesting, and I'd say downright entertaining if it weren't for the seriousness of the situation.  After winning 08 in pretty much every category, Democrats set about to disprove the myth of the time; that they were invincible.  Though a mixture of a insanity, arrogance, and a deep rooted lack of common sense, they would make people hate them.

At least that's the reasoning we can hope for.

Now to be fair the crazy of the last year and a half hasn't been restricted to just Democrats.  We all remember that guy who did his best to not just destroy himself, but the party as well with one moronic declaration of love after another.  But for every story of Republican crazy (half of them coming from Ron Paul and Birthers) we get ten stories of Democrat crazy.

Below are some of my favorites.  I'll probably write about this again simply because I had so much fun reminiscing.  Good times.


Meet Alvin Greene

Alvin Greene came onto the political not too long ago.  Until he somehow won the South Carolina primary nobody had heard of him, and his campaign consisted of paying the $10,000 fee and...doing nothing.  I don't mean nobody in the way the media used it with Obama, I mean that one of the leading theories for him winning the primary was because voters picked names alphabetically since they didn't recognize either candidate. 

Since his primary victory he's proven to be a complete train wreck for the Democrats.  At first he was a curiosity.  People asked "Who is this guy that's going to get crushed by DeMint?" 

And then we found out about his felony charges, and it's been all downhill from there:

Court records show Greene was arrested in November and charged with showing obscene Internet photos to a University of South Carolina student, then talking about going to her room at a university dorm.

Charged with disseminating, procuring or promoting obscenity, Greene could face up to five years in prison. He has yet to enter a plea or be indicted.

Democrat response has ranged from wanting him to drop out - you'll fully grasp why that's reasonable when you see the video below - to saying he's a GOP plant, which is delightfully insane (Who would plant a guy that no one's heard of, and didn't do anything during the election?).  It's not that they want to win this election, they can't, but this guy hurts just about anything at all related to the Democrats.

Skip to 2:15 to get to the interview



The drama is still playing out today with allegations of voter irregularities and Democrat Vic Rawl saying he's going to join the ticket anyways.  Why these two men want to fight over who gets the right to lose with a D next to their name is beyond me, but it's entertaining so I hope they keep at it.


The Obama Administration Photo-OP


What event could cause a city to panic and buildings to be evacuated?  A terrorist attack?  A major fire?  Maybe a massive natural disaster?  Try a photo-op the Obama administration ordered:

Monday's authorized military jet photo shoot over Lower Manhattan frightened many New Yorkers and enraged Mayor Bloomberg, who was never told the event would be occurring.

The Department of Defense had pre-approved the flight of a presidential Boeing 747 and two F16 military fighter jets, seen above in a photo taken by NY1 Viewer Tatyana Hube, to fly around Staten Island and the Statue of Liberty.

According to an administration official, the flight was being conducted to update its file photo of the plane near the Statue of Liberty.

The article briefly touches upon the chaos this sparked, and one person asks the obvious question:

The incident sparked fear in many workers in Lower Manhattan and forced the evacuation of buildings in Jersey City.

"Whoever thought this through and didn't come to the obvious conclusion that there should have been a notification of the residents of Lower Manhattan, many of whom are 9/11 survivors, how does that work?" said Gregory Segal, a Battery Park resident.

Some workers say the image invoked memories of September 11, 2001, when two hijacked commercial airliners flew into the World Trade Center towers.

No, really, how does that work?  What happened the last time people suddenly saw Boeing 747's flying low over New York City?  Was there not one person within the administration who said "Hey, guys, maybe we shouldn't do this." or at least said "Maybe we should let people know we'll be flying this plane over them."  This wasn't a one man operation, quite a few people had to of been involved and signed off on this, and that's what makes it so crazy.

To give you an idea of the panic this caused:



Oh and the picture?

The only thing that could make this better?  Finding out it cost the taxpayers $357,000.


Her Royal Highness Speaker Nancy Pelosi of San Fransisco

There's a reason people don't like Nancy Pelosi, and it has something to do with her being a word I won't use here.  However if a conservative ever wants to pant liberals as elitists, they need only look to Nancy Pelosi as an example.  Pelosi has a problem with spending, which we all know, but it goes beyond just supporting overpriced, bloated bills.

Take the debate over her jet.  After 9-11 the Speaker of the House was legally obligated to fly on a military aircraft for security purposes, which makes sense.

So when does it become a problem?

Did you know she was entitled to a military plane? Neither did I. But under legislation passed after 9/11, it’s legally mandated for security reasons. Dennis Hastert had such special transport for five years.

Nancy Pelosi asked for a bigger (and far more expensive) plane because the one she was using couldn’t make it to the West Coast without a refueling stop. Hastert didn’t have that problem getting to Illinois.

It's pretty safe to say that there was no pressing security need to ensure she get a plane that can fly non-stop across the country.  Refueling at military bases isn't exactly a risky proposition, but it does take time, and our Speaker demands that no expenses be spared in getting her from point A to point B in the least amount of time possible.

Pelosi reacted with her usual level of grace, which is shrieking and screaming like a banshee.  She may have a point though, it is kinda sexist to criticize purchasing an expensive plane just so the Speaker can from point A to point B without stopping.  Downright Un-American.

You could almost ignore the jet incident.  She did have a legal obligation to fly on them, and even though the excuse is incredibly weak, it's still an excuse.  But then Pelosi, in all her brilliance, does this:

Last fall, Speaker Nancy Pelosi moved her district office into the new federal building in San Francisco. The move quadrupled the rent she pays, and her new $18,736 monthly bill is almost double the next-highest rental paid by a Member of the House.

A database assembled by the Sunlight Foundation in cooperation with Roll Call provides new insight into Congressional spending on district office rents. Not surprisingly, Members from large urban districts with the highest property values are paying the most for district office rental, particularly New York–area Members.

But even in these high-rent districts, Pelosi’s new digs blow away the competition.

The next highest monthly office rent belongs to Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D), who occupies an office in a federal building in Manhattan’s trendy SoHo neighborhood for just under $10,600. Rep. José Serrano (D) paid $10,350 a month last year for an office in the Bronx, but he recently moved into a new building where the first month’s rent was only $9,583, his spokesman said Friday.

The fact that she's charging the US taxpayers over $200,000 a year on a district office is pretty ridiculous, but then you find out why she moved:

Pelosi’s spokesman said the high price of the Speaker’s new office is partly due to her need for additional space — she had been in her prior office for more than 20 years — and new security needs that go along with being the Speaker of the House.

“San Francisco is one of the most densely populated cities in the country and, of course, office space rents are some of the highest, on average, in the country,” said Drew Hammill, Pelosi’s press secretary.

“After being based in the Burton Federal Building for over 20 years, we were no longer able to meet the needs of San Franciscans in the existing space. The new office space is 3,075 square feet, nearly a third larger than the old space, which was of inadequate size. Additionally, the new building is more centrally located, right off of Market Street, which allows for easier access for constituents via public transportation,” Hammill said. Pelosi’s old office was about a half mile away, near San Francisco’s city hall.

Who buys this crap?  Around $150,000 extra in costs because you wanted 33% more room and "new security"?  That math is pretty sketchy even by Democrat standards, but the security part is what boggles my mind.  She spent two years in the old building as Speaker, and suddenly she needs new security? What pressing threat justifies charging the US taxpayer so much more money?

This is all ignoring the moronic statements Pelosi regularly makes.  When you spout out gems like "We have to pass to bill to find out what's in it." people tend to think you're lording over us poor, common, peasants.  Which is either dangerously true or dangerously delusional.  Probably a mixture of both.


Tell me who you are!!!

Democrat politicians have done a lot of things in the last eighteen months, but one of the things they've held back on is assaulting people, which is pretty wise when you want people to vote for you.  Or you don't want to go to jail, take your pick.

But Representative Etheridge was having a bad day, so what does he do when two students ask him a question on the street?  Loses his mind:



Check out the unedited footage here.

The only thing more confusing than his action is how quick Democrats have been to defend him.  I don't get it, why?  Even if the students were trying to ambush him, and are in fact not students, how is his response at all acceptable?  He could of just kept walking, or given them an answer that didn't mean anything.  Heck he could of even told them he doesn't appreciate being interviewed on the sidewalk.  Really, he could of done just about anything other than what he did.

Hey, maybe they were students who were inspired by this message of civic involvement!



A crazed hypocrite makes for "Wtf" moments apparently.


Expect more posts like this in the future.  The last year and a half has been filled with Democrats going mad, but virtually none of it gets the attention it deserves since the media is too busy going nuts over conservatives.  Hearing what these people say or seeing what they do truly helps you grasp just how our country got to where it is today.

It's also the best argument for Congressional term limits.

A reminder on why we continue the fight in the Afgan War

Too often today the line is blurred between the Taliban being terrorists, and being a government-in-exile or an armed political force.  The distinction wouldn't matter if there weren't elements, both within the Afgan government and the US, who support peace with the Taliban and their integration into the new political system.  Just in case you were getting a bit war weary, here's a reminder about the animals we fight:

British troops risk being infected with HIV as Taliban fighters are hiding contaminated needles with their bombs.

Heroin syringes as well as razor blades are being buried in the ground by insurgents in Afghanistan so that they prick bomb squad experts.

It is believed that the needles, used in Helmand province, are contaminated with hepatitis and HIV as the Taliban use increasingly 'despicable' tactics.

You don't get much lower than shoving dirty syringes in bombs or sticking contaminated razor blades in the ground around them, but this comes awfully close:

Suspected Taliban militants executed a seven-year-old boy in southern Afghanistan after accusing him of spying for the government, a provincial official said Wednesday.

The child was captured by the militants in Sangin district of southern province of Helmand Tuesday, Daoud Ahmadi, a spokesman for the provincial governor, said.

"The militants killed the seven-year-old boy in Heratiyan village of the district, on charges of espionage for Afghan government," Ahmadi said, citing information provided to police by relatives.

The thing to remember about most of these killing is that the charges are usually complete fabrications.  Generally when the Taliban take over an area they start ruling as if they were a government, and one of the things they do to keep order and ensure loyalty is to pull out random people and execute them for "being spies".  Making an example out of a grown man or woman is bad enough, but putting a seven year old child on his knees and shooting him is incomprehensible.

When liberals were in full surrender mode over Iraq conservatives reminded them that our withdrawal would likely result in a bloody genocide.  In Afghanistan we have to remind them that the end result may very well be the return to power of the Taliban, and the bloody, repressive rule that comes with it.

The Myth of Green Jobs

Although the Green movement has gained momentum within the US, it struggled to make the same progress in America as it had in Europe for one simple reason:  Economics.  While Americans were somewhat eager to embrace aspects of environmentalism, they were hesitant to believe everything, and even more hesitant to engage in policies that could harm the economy.  In order to change what would ultimately be a losing argument the Greens shifted arguments and focused on the potential economic boon of their policies, and thus the term "Green jobs" became commonplace.

The arguments are rather attractive, and even I agree with aspects of them.  They argue that going Green can help America achieve energy independence, help prevent global warming, and create desperately needed jobs. In the 08 election both parties picked up on this to one degree or another.  Democrats stayed focused on the environmental aspects of it, while Republicans merged it into current energy plans with McCain calling for an "all of the above" option.  Both sides admitted that the technology needed more worth, but other then that there never really seemed to be a downside.

However since then we've had access to new information.  A study from the King Juan Carlos University of Madrid found that Green energy is largely inefficient, expensive, and often kills more jobs then it saves, or exactly what you'd expect from something with the Green label:

Subsidizing renewable energy in the U.S. may destroy two jobs for every one created if Spain’s experience with windmills and solar farms is any guide.

For every new position that depends on energy price supports, at least 2.2 jobs in other industries will disappear, according to a study from King Juan Carlos University in Madrid.

U.S. President Barack Obama’s 2010 budget proposal contains about $20 billion in tax incentives for clean-energy programs. In Spain, where wind turbines provided 11 percent of power demand last year, generators earn rates as much as 11 times more for renewable energy compared with burning fossil fuels.

The premiums paid for solar, biomass, wave and wind power - - which are charged to consumers in their bills -- translated into a $774,000 cost for each Spanish “green job” created since 2000, said Gabriel Calzada, an economics professor at the university and author of the report.

The staggering cost of green jobs isn't something isolated to just Spain there's also Denmark:

• The Danish government spent 90,000 to 140,000 per a wind energy job created
• Only ten percent of the people employed by the wind industry held new jobs, the other ninety percent were old jobs that transferred over
• The average clean energy energy employee contributed 10,000 less to the economy than the average Dane, resulting in a GDP $270 million less than it would of been had the employees NOT been clean energy

And Germany:

• Wind energy costs three times as much as conventional, and solar eight times as much
• Since 2000 the German government has spent over $101 billion in subsidies for clean energy that only makes up 7% of the nation's power 
• The government has spent an average of $240,000 per a green job

And even America:

Yes, but getting these jobs is burning a hole in the national wallet. The problem is that even advocates like Obama concede that these programs are not very cost-effective in creating jobs.

Obama says the grants will create 17,000 cleantech jobs. Well, get out your calculator. $2.3 billion for 17,000 jobs equals $135,294 per job. (And that’s not including the eventual interest on this deficit spending). Those green jobs had better pay well over six figures to justify that expense.

Not to worry, the administration has a plan to solve this, too. It wants Congress to approve another $5 billion for “tens of thousands” more green jobs.

Although the Greens tried to present their case as one of pragmatism, the reality is that their cause is still highly ideological, and even borderline religious.  Numbers like these are staggering, but rather than admitting that and encouraging the continued development of more efficient green energy, they push forward as if we have some great moral imperative to adopt clean tech.

I, and most Americans, aren't against Green energy, but what we are against is crippling our economy in order to fulfill some ideological dream, and yet that is routinely what we get.  Take the stimulus which was filled with green and other liberal projects, cost a fortune, and failed to produce the numbers it said it would.  Indeed the numbers it did produce were strikingly similar to those above, with jobs in some areas costing in the hundreds of thousands per a job produced.

If Obama wants to help this economy - and himself - he should abandon such overly ideological policies.  .  Green Jobs, as of now, are a myth, and throwing money at a myth is as dangerous as it is insane. Until Green technology becomes efficient and affordable we would be better looking at conventional methods to solve today's problems.  Trying to force "being Green" on us will only continue to produce negative results.

Drill, Baby, Drill

The Oil Spill has been called Obama's Katrina, and I've already touched on why that is and isn't a valid argument.  Who gets blame and how this potentially hurts Obama has been the big theme of the spill, but what conservatives need to be worried about is how this is killing "Drill, Baby, Drill.".  A year ago the argument was a winner, hands down.  Only the Greens and rabid leftists opposed it.  A few weeks into the oil spill, however, and we're below water.

Does anyone else find that ridiculous?  There are several large reasons for why this was a preventable disaster.

A good place to start would be with the location of the leak.  As Charles Krauthammer asks, why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water?

Here’s my question: Why are we drilling in 5,000 feet of water in the first place?

Many reasons, but this one goes unmentioned: Environmental chic has driven us out there. As production from the shallower Gulf of Mexico wells declines, we go deep (1,000 feet and more) and ultra deep (5,000 feet and more), in part because environmentalists have succeeded in rendering the Pacific and nearly all the Atlantic coast off-limits to oil production.

And of course, in the safest of all places, on land, we’ve had a 30-year ban on drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

We shouldn't be drilling in such deep waters to begin with, but because environmentalists are doing what they do, we end up drilling in places that just aren't safe.  The picture below does a fantastic job of showing just how much of the US coast is unavailable for drilling.

On this same note we have to wonder why we're drilling at depths that prevent us from plugging the leak.  Wouldn't it of made sense to open up shallower waters elsewhere, and ban drilling at certain depths until we have the means to quickly and efficiently stop leaks?  Call me crazy but it seems far more harmful to the environment to stop safe drilling, but allow the more risky drilling, especially when your "efficient method" to stopping the leak is dumping mud on it.

Which brings me to the next point:  Regulation.

The idea of a conservative talking about regulating is something may seem hypocritical, so before we continue I want to point out that (most) conservatives don't advocate removing all regulations.  We simply believe that there is too much regulation in some areas, and that too much regulation strangles economies.  But some regulations are just common sense, and some limited government oversight can be a good thing.  Safety regulations for things like explosions or blowout leaks are generally things that fall into that good category.  The problem isn't that those regulations aren't in place - they are -the problem is that BP was exempt from those rules:

Petrochemical giant BP didn't file a plan to specifically handle a major oil spill from an uncontrolled blowout at its Deepwater Horizon project because the federal agency that regulates offshore rigs changed its rules two years ago to exempt certain projects in the central Gulf region, according to an Associated Press review of official records.

The Minerals Management Service, an arm of the Interior Department known for its cozy relationship with major oil companies, says it issued the rule relief because some of the industrywide mandates weren't practical for all of the exploratory and production projects operating in the Gulf region.

The blowout rule, the fact that it was lifted in April 2008 for rigs that didn't fit at least one of five conditions, and confusion about whether the BP Deepwater Horizon project was covered by the regulation, caught the attention of Interior Secretary Ken Salazar.

The Deep Horizon was an expensive rig, and the article says it was the "most advanced in the world.".  So do alarms go for anyone else when a supposedly super advanced rig has the worst possible scenario possible after every single safety feature fails, and after it's been granted exemption from regulations intended to prevent that disaster?  Somebody was cutting corners here, and someone else failed to find out that said corners were missing.  This wasn't a disaster and warning against offshore drilling, this was a disaster and warning against corruption and stupidity.

At the end of the day I just never understood the Oil Spill = Offshore Drilling is Bad reaction.  Yes, I'm fully aware of what's happening and what it will do to people's livelihoods as well as the environment.  I understand the devastation and the threat, but I also recognize that this disaster was entirely preventable, and that the benefits of offshore drilling outweigh the costs.  There will always be problems and complications when you're doing something, regardless of how positive that thing is.  This shouldn't deter us from doing that.

Besides what is the alternative, exactly?  Do people actually think this helps?  We can stop offshore drilling and purchase our oil from other countries, but how do you think Brazil, Mexico, and other nations get their oil?  Do you think their safety regulations come close to ours?  If offshore drilling is so dangerous that we risk completely destroying the oceans and ourselves with it, does it matter who does it?  Or is it only American oil rigs that explode, despite our higher safety standards?

The Deepwater Horizon was a terrible thing, but we shouldn't create another terrible scenario by attacking drilling in America.  Before we all start getting hysterical we need to take a step back and look at this for what it really was - a preventable disaster caused by a mixture of corruption and greed - and remind ourselves that we have the power to make offshore drilling safe, where other nations won't.  We also have to remind ourselves that the planet is a durable thing, and with our help it will recover.

A few interesting/fun videos

I feel a little guilty just posting videos after taking a day off, but I suppose it is my blog and I can do whatever I want.  That said the videos themselves are decent stuff, although you may of seen them by now.

The first is a spoof of "We are the world", and it's mocking the Gaza "Aid" flotilla.  It runs a bit long, but it got a few laughs and grins out of me.  If the whole issue is depressing you then this should cheer you up a bit.  Oh and the latest Rasmussen poll should help as well.  Enjoy!




The second video is Michael Savage taking a call from someone who may very well be the "Stupidest Caller Ever".  Even after listening to it once before I can't sit through it without pausing it and taking a break, the amount of stupid is that hard to handle.

There is a lesson to take away from this caller.  All Americans - especially conservatives - need to ensure they're educated.  It doesn't matter if you taught yourself on Wikipedia, just ensure you have a basic level understand of what's going on.  You don't have to be brilliant, just don't look like a moron, let alone anything close to this woman.

Brace yourself, and enjoy.




When I first watched this last video I wasn't quite sure what to think.  It was a bit corny, and the ending is a bit weird, but it's hard to criticize because it's actually very well put together and better than the original (which I had been listening to before finding this video).  The comments suggest it's been used in classrooms to get kids interested in history, and I suppose it'd actually do a great job at making the Founding Father's and their struggle seem just a bit more real.

I've come to really enjoy this song, and it's replaced the original on my playlist.  I hope we see more things like this in the future.

The Flotilla Event is just Common Sense

Imagine that you're in a helicopter, hovering over the deck of a ship with a crowd of people waiting below you.  You've been ordered to seize control of, and redirect a flotilla of "aid ships" to a friendly port, and so far the operation has gone smoothly.  But right now you're watching as a crowd of "peace activists" beat your comrades with poles, pipes, chairs, knives, and anything else they can get their hands on, and the only thing you're allowed to fight back with are paintball guns, which do nothing to stop the determined attackers..  You've each been given handguns in case you ever find yourself in life threatening situations, but the order for lethal force hasn't been given and below you can hear your allies on the deck yelling "don't shoot!". 

By now some men have been thrown onto lower decks, and others have jumped into the water to escape the beatings.  Help is coming, but struggling to get aboard, and in the meantime you're outnumbered and unprepared to handle this situation.  You can see weapons being pulled away from some soldiers, and one soldier who was thrown over onto a lower deck isn't moving.  Things are rapidly getting out hand, and if the activists decide to start dragging men away this could turn into a hostage situation.

And now it's your turn to slide down to the deck of the ship.


The scenario above is just a rough example of what happened when IDF commandos tried to seize control of a ship bound for the terrorist controlled Gaza strip.  If given all the information common sense would tell us that the IDF soldiers were defending themselves.  But common sense seems to be something the entire world is short on, especially Turkey:

A day after leading the move to condemn Israel at the United Nations Security Council, Turkish Foreign Minister Ahmet Davutoglu was expected to meet with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on Tuesday evening in Washington.

During a press conference ahead of the meeting, Davitoglu said he was disappointed with Washington's cautious response to an incident he likened to the September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

"Psychologically this attack is like 9/11 for Turkey because Turkish citizens were attacked by a state, not by terrorists, with an intention, a clear decision of political leaders of that state," he said.

Attempting to run a blockade organized by a group recognized as a terrorist organization, manned by armed thugs, and trying to deliver supplies directly to a terrorist state is the equivalent of sudden, unprovoked attack that left 3,000 dead, the vast majority of which were civilians.  Ignoring the irony in comparing a terrorist attack to an attempt  to supply terrorists, I think what the Foreign Minister intended to say is that the people of Turkey wanted this to be their 9/11, not that it actually was.  Ideological struggles need support, and what better way to get it then to make your enemy look like a cold blooded killer? 

To be fair there wasn't any way the "activists" were actually trying to run the blockade.  They had to of known that there wasn't any way they were going to get through that blockade, so instead they put some armed fanatics on board who cause an international incident for which, of course, Israel gets blamed.  Mission accomplished:

There have been strong reactions to the Gaza flotilla raid of 31 May 2010, both in Israel and in the Palestinian territories, as well as internationally. Official responses have varied from deep concern over the loss of life to strong condemnations. In a carefully worded statement, Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-moon condemned the violence, called for "a full investigation to determine exactly how this bloodshed took place" and urged Israel to "provide a full explanation." Many countries called for an international investigation. Unofficial responses included civilian protests against Israeli action following reports of the deaths aboard the MV Mavi Marmara.

Twenty European countries condemned or protested Israeli actions: Albania, Azerbaijan, Croatia, Belarus, Bosnia, Bulgaria, Estonia, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Norway, Portugal, Russia, Spain, Sweden and the United Kingdom.
Israel was widely condemned in the Arab world.
Eleven Asian countries condemned Israeli actions: China, India, Indonesia, Iran, Japan, Malaysia, Maldives, North Korea, Pakistan, Sri Lanka and Uzbekistan. Twelve South American countries condemned Israeli actions: Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Cuba, Ecuador, Mexico, Nicaragua (which also suspended diplomatic relations with Israel in protest), Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela.
Israel was also condemned by Turkey (which recalled its envoy), Australia, New Zealand, South Africa and the United States.

Nineteen countries expressed regret over loss of life: Israel, Argentina, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Canada, Czech Republic, Croatia, Egypt, Estonia, Greece, the Holy See, India, Ireland, Japan, Sri Lanka, United Kingdom, United States and Uruguay.

So far only the Netherlands has expressed support for Israel.

 I won't attempt to make this a Conservative vs Liberal argument because one of the first people to ask my opinion and then agree with me on this issue was a very liberal friend of mine.  I like to view this more as a common sense argument.  The men on these ships were armed, and attacked the IDF soldiers.  They were there to cause trouble knowing full well that Israel won't look good in a "Israeli soldiers kill peace activists trying to deliver supplies to poverty stricken Gaza strip." news article.

Of course that begs the question of why the media hasn't gotten around to asking the very obvious question of why "peace activists" and "humanitarians" were armed and so eager to assault IDF soldiers  If the IDF intended to massacre these people and went in guns blazing there wouldn't of been a struggle.  There wouldn't of been any injured IDF soldiers, let alone the ten that were.  There would of been a whole lot of dead activists and a whole lot of justifiable anger at Israel over a massacre.  In fact if the media were doing its job there would of been a lot more questions, like "How did an IDF soldier get shot?"  "Why were some IDF soldiers stabbed?"  "How did this soldier get such a serious head wound?"


There also wouldn't of been videos like these:








The videos don't show the IDF going in using lethal force, in fact the first video clearly shows several paintball guns near the end.  What the videos do show is soldiers being attacked and beaten with a variety of weapons the second they touch the deck.  The beatings themselves bring us back to Common Sense.  At several points we see IDF soldiers go down  and being surrounded by multiple people who proceed to beat them with pipes.  Common Sense should immediately kick in and tell us that these people are in serious danger, and if these beatings continue they may very well die.  And of course the logical response to that should be:  "Defend yourself at all costs."  Which brings us right back to the question of why there is any outrage at all over this event.  It seems to me that world leaders could of spent 10 minutes on youtube and walked away with the bare minimum impression that this wasn't entirely Israel's fault as Turkey wants us to believe.

Oh and in case you needed any more proof that these people were fanatics and not peace activists, watch this last short video filmed before the flotilla met IDF soldiers:





Edit:  Because I just have to remind you that Ron Paul and Common Sense aren't two things that go together.  Odd that the guy who wants to not get involved is so quick to get involved when it's Israel.

Picture of the day

Gallup has Obama down to 46% approval rating today, and along with it came some interesting numbers.  Obama is struggling with just about every demographic other than the poor, young, and black.  In fact the black numbers make for an interesting visualization.

Black approval is around 92%, while white approval at 40%.  All other demographics are trending downward (including, strangely enough, Latinos).  Meanwhile blacks are...er...trending up.  Despite Obamacare sinking, despite the oil spill, and despite the corruption in the Sestak offer their numbers don't budge.  If they don't disapprove of the President when he's doing so poorly, what is left other than race, and what would you call people a who remain loyal purely because of race?

Looking Back

In honor of memorial day I decided to look up videos on blacks in the military. This lead to me doing some reading and coming away with an urge to write something. I'll have to do a bit more work, but for now I wanted to share a few things.

Today much of what blacks accomplished in the military has been ignored by revisionists who instead focus on the injustices and horrors blacks faced. Certainly these injustices shouldn't be forgotten, but this revisionist history breeds a resentment against whites, and helps foster the view that blacks are different, rather than equal partners in an American society. Not only are the accomplishments of black soldiers forgotten, but a very effective route in countering racism is ignored. The military is a unifying aspect, or at least it should be. All of the mwn who fought do so for the United States and all that that stands for. Blacks should remember this and take some pride in knowing that the freedom all Americans enjoy today was won with black as well as white blood.

"I don't care what color you are, so long as you go up there and kill those kraut sons of bitches." - General Patton

This video isn't directly tied to blacks, but the point it makes transcends race. It makes my point and is inspirational, I highly recommend watching it: