Obama reminds me of the brides who put all their efforts into the wedding and do nothing to prepare for the marriage. He prepared for the party, he prepared for the attention, but he did little, and certainly not enough, to prepare to be the president of the greatest nation in the free world.
With every day it becomes more apparent, that Obama is simply a figurehead for the far left who have treated this country as some radical social experiment. A bad experiment at that, since recent history has proven that their social experiment has already failed, miserably, and resulted in the deaths of millions. You can almost hear the cacophony of leftist voices saying,"Now you run along and play golf and we will take care of the details."
Not only do I agree with Clint Eastwood in his assessment that Obama is the biggest fraud to ever be perpetrated on the American people, I will go a step further. I think that he was a necessary fraud. I believe that the radical liberal left needed a presentable black candidate to front their cause, so that they could prey on the collective guilt that resides in this nation over the issue of slavery. So many, possibly otherwise rational people, were just too willing to sell their vote for a clearer conscience. Hopefully, that guilt has been assuaged so that we can vote a truly prepared man into the White House.
Monday, October 1, 2012
Saturday, September 1, 2012
Fact Checkers Should Check The Actual Facts
An interesting new phenomenon has begun in this current election: FACT CHECKING. Typical of the tools the mainstream media provides us with, fact checking appears to be most helpful, but really it is just another layer of a reeking onion ruse that prevents us from critically thinking for ourselves.
This fact became abundantly clear to me as I read the next day coverage of Paul Ryan's convention speech in our local paper. As I read the speech excerpts, I noted the oh-so handy "fact check" box along side the article. "How helpful," was my first response, but as I perused the contents I found myself repeatedly saying, "He didn't say that...he didn't say that..."
It was readily apparent that the so-called fact checkers not only checked the facts, but in an effort to streamline the process, they also invented the facts. Not one single item that they attributed to Paul Ryan was actually said. Bottom line is that while it might be nice for others to think for us, a "government by the people" requires us to think and learn for ourselves. Look to the primary source for you informaion otherwise you will soon find yourself to be a liberal democrat.
This fact became abundantly clear to me as I read the next day coverage of Paul Ryan's convention speech in our local paper. As I read the speech excerpts, I noted the oh-so handy "fact check" box along side the article. "How helpful," was my first response, but as I perused the contents I found myself repeatedly saying, "He didn't say that...he didn't say that..."
It was readily apparent that the so-called fact checkers not only checked the facts, but in an effort to streamline the process, they also invented the facts. Not one single item that they attributed to Paul Ryan was actually said. Bottom line is that while it might be nice for others to think for us, a "government by the people" requires us to think and learn for ourselves. Look to the primary source for you informaion otherwise you will soon find yourself to be a liberal democrat.
Thursday, January 5, 2012
Resolutions New Year and Otherwise
...the children [of men]...because that they are redeemed from the fall...they have become free...to act for themselves and not to be acted upon... portions of 2 Nephi 2:26
I am not a big believer in New Year's resolutions. I prefer to take stock of my life many times throughout the year and make necessary adjustments, but in the spirit of the New Year, I will share some of my current resolutions.
1. I will not let the media tell me for whom to vote. I am sick of the media stating a fact and then telling me what it means to me. For instance, "Rick Santorum is leading in the polls, this shows how undecided the Iowa voters are." Really! How! All it shows me is that Rick Santorum is leading in the polls. Similar "Fact-Fallacious Conclusion" techniques have been employed to undermine many a good campaign. I am going to sort through the facts and decide for myself what they mean to me.
I am already aware that I am going to vote for a sinner, because there was only one perfect human ever on the earth and he ain't running for office.
2. I will not let the government define who I am. Are you kidding me!?! Under the new government definitions, nearly half the population is poverty stricken. Really? Just think of the degradation inherent in that label. Not just poor, but stricken with it, as if the poor can't defend themselves from the pounding blows of capitalism. Of course, such a situation requires the protection of the Socialist leaning Federal Government.
That is in fact the point of these labels: black, hispanic, poor, elderly, female, you name it. Socialism requires the label, encourages the victim-hood and them swoops down to save them, but really it is just another form of slavery...enslaving us in a dependancy on the government. Suborning our will to theirs.
I will not be labled a victim, but I will determine for myself who I am and how I will proceed with my life.
3. I will quit believing that Federal Government agencies can protect me. The USDA, FDA, EPA, TSA do not protect us. In fact, if you talk to the TSA about why they pass their most recent restrictions, their response is "To make the public feel safe." Feel safe! Is that what we are paying the big bucks for? To feel safe? I'm only interested in being safe and if they can't do that then stop taking my money for nothing. If such agencies have any merit, they belong on the state or county level where they have a chance of making a difference, but even without the inherent corruption, graft a favortism that exists in such agencies, they are not doing enough to justify their existance.
Think about it. The FDA does not save us from unsafe drugs as millions are recalled every year, usually by manufacturers who have a capitalistic interest in not making us sicker. The USDA does not protect us from tainted food. How many incidents of deadly food poisoning occured just in the last year? The TSA does not protect us from terrorism, good intel gathering does. (Yes, I am for intel agencies because they fall in the Constitutionally mandated "Provide for the common defense.)
I will not hope that others will take care me, but I will decide for myself how best to cook my food, take my medicines, and protect my person.
In short, my resolution is to Act, not to be Acted upon.
I am not a big believer in New Year's resolutions. I prefer to take stock of my life many times throughout the year and make necessary adjustments, but in the spirit of the New Year, I will share some of my current resolutions.
1. I will not let the media tell me for whom to vote. I am sick of the media stating a fact and then telling me what it means to me. For instance, "Rick Santorum is leading in the polls, this shows how undecided the Iowa voters are." Really! How! All it shows me is that Rick Santorum is leading in the polls. Similar "Fact-Fallacious Conclusion" techniques have been employed to undermine many a good campaign. I am going to sort through the facts and decide for myself what they mean to me.
I am already aware that I am going to vote for a sinner, because there was only one perfect human ever on the earth and he ain't running for office.
2. I will not let the government define who I am. Are you kidding me!?! Under the new government definitions, nearly half the population is poverty stricken. Really? Just think of the degradation inherent in that label. Not just poor, but stricken with it, as if the poor can't defend themselves from the pounding blows of capitalism. Of course, such a situation requires the protection of the Socialist leaning Federal Government.
That is in fact the point of these labels: black, hispanic, poor, elderly, female, you name it. Socialism requires the label, encourages the victim-hood and them swoops down to save them, but really it is just another form of slavery...enslaving us in a dependancy on the government. Suborning our will to theirs.
I will not be labled a victim, but I will determine for myself who I am and how I will proceed with my life.
3. I will quit believing that Federal Government agencies can protect me. The USDA, FDA, EPA, TSA do not protect us. In fact, if you talk to the TSA about why they pass their most recent restrictions, their response is "To make the public feel safe." Feel safe! Is that what we are paying the big bucks for? To feel safe? I'm only interested in being safe and if they can't do that then stop taking my money for nothing. If such agencies have any merit, they belong on the state or county level where they have a chance of making a difference, but even without the inherent corruption, graft a favortism that exists in such agencies, they are not doing enough to justify their existance.
Think about it. The FDA does not save us from unsafe drugs as millions are recalled every year, usually by manufacturers who have a capitalistic interest in not making us sicker. The USDA does not protect us from tainted food. How many incidents of deadly food poisoning occured just in the last year? The TSA does not protect us from terrorism, good intel gathering does. (Yes, I am for intel agencies because they fall in the Constitutionally mandated "Provide for the common defense.)
I will not hope that others will take care me, but I will decide for myself how best to cook my food, take my medicines, and protect my person.
In short, my resolution is to Act, not to be Acted upon.
Monday, September 12, 2011
Reflections of 9/11 2011
"We've all gone crazy, mourning all day and mourning all night, falling over ourselves to get all the misery right..."--Andrew Lloyd Webber
I know that a few may misunderstand me, so don't. I am not against all the memorials, 9/11 or other. (Although the number of memorials seems to be growing exponentially). I am not against the services either, but as I watched the never ending stream of 9/11 programs on the 10th anniversary, my mind kept coming back to the words of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Evita "falling over ourselves to get all the misery right."
Mayor Bloomberg was the poster child for getting all the misery right. So intent was he to get it right, he excluded two of the most requisite groups from the stand: the clergy and the first responders. On 9/11 2001, it was the first responders who showed true Christ-like service as they willingly walked into the breach and risked their lives to save total strangers. While no one could have imagined that those great towers would completely collapse, the rescue workers knew that they were putting themselves at great risk just to enter a burning high rise.
Then, and second only to the first responders, were the clergy. It was the clergy who helped us find some modicum of comfort as people flocked to churches in record numbers.
But when you are trying to get "all the misery right" the clergy and the first responders represent comfort and hope so clearly do not fit the miserable agenda. After all, the bottom line for big bureaucratic politicians is to keep the electorate focused on the misery so that the big bureaucratic politician can be the salvation.
There are a lots of good reasons to have memorials and services. It is vitally important to remember the events, not just as politcal opportunities, but as events of sacrifice, of caring, of resolution, of hope, of comfort and yes, of mourning...mourning but not misery.
We need to remember also the lessons of that day: that we were vulnerable to attack, and the lessons of the days that followed: that we could stand together against a common enemey.
On 9/11 2001, nearly 3000 people perished in a heretofore unimaginable attack. On 9/11 2011, hope, comfort, and resolve may have followed them into the grave.
I know that a few may misunderstand me, so don't. I am not against all the memorials, 9/11 or other. (Although the number of memorials seems to be growing exponentially). I am not against the services either, but as I watched the never ending stream of 9/11 programs on the 10th anniversary, my mind kept coming back to the words of Andrew Lloyd Webber's Evita "falling over ourselves to get all the misery right."
Mayor Bloomberg was the poster child for getting all the misery right. So intent was he to get it right, he excluded two of the most requisite groups from the stand: the clergy and the first responders. On 9/11 2001, it was the first responders who showed true Christ-like service as they willingly walked into the breach and risked their lives to save total strangers. While no one could have imagined that those great towers would completely collapse, the rescue workers knew that they were putting themselves at great risk just to enter a burning high rise.
Then, and second only to the first responders, were the clergy. It was the clergy who helped us find some modicum of comfort as people flocked to churches in record numbers.
But when you are trying to get "all the misery right" the clergy and the first responders represent comfort and hope so clearly do not fit the miserable agenda. After all, the bottom line for big bureaucratic politicians is to keep the electorate focused on the misery so that the big bureaucratic politician can be the salvation.
There are a lots of good reasons to have memorials and services. It is vitally important to remember the events, not just as politcal opportunities, but as events of sacrifice, of caring, of resolution, of hope, of comfort and yes, of mourning...mourning but not misery.
We need to remember also the lessons of that day: that we were vulnerable to attack, and the lessons of the days that followed: that we could stand together against a common enemey.
On 9/11 2001, nearly 3000 people perished in a heretofore unimaginable attack. On 9/11 2011, hope, comfort, and resolve may have followed them into the grave.
Wednesday, July 20, 2011
All We Like Sheep
No one can take advantage of you without your permission--Ann Landers
I just got back from an Alaskan Cruise, no I am not just bragging, I learned something...rather I had something re-affirmed that I and most of us already know: THE TSA IS NEEDLESSLY INVASIVE AND SUBSTANTIALLY INEFFECTIVE.
I always love the TSA defenders who would now say, "Well we appreciate that the TSA makes us feel safer" and they are absolutely right. The TSA makes them feel safer, but they do not in fact make any of us safer. And really, isn't that what they are supposed to be doing, making us safe!?!
Okay, so what did I learn from my cruise that is pertinent to the TSA discussion, well cruise ship security has gotten it right. They are both effective and minimally invasive. Not once on my cruise did I get to absorb unhealthy rads from an insta-porn machine nor did I get a sexually degrading groping over.
How do the cruise lines achieve this magic combination of effective, minimally invasive security measures. Well they did their homework. When we check in (much like when we have to check in for a flight) we submit information that allows the cruise line to ascertain how much of a security risk we pose. This is good business for cruises. They want to keep us safe at the same time they respect our personal autonomy which is a basis right under the laws of this country.
Next, when we checked in, the cruise line snapped a picture of each passenger, linking it with their electronic key card so that each time security swipes your card, a current photo appears on the computer screen and they know if you match your photo. This happens each time you leave or return to the ship. Easy as that...swipey, swipey.
And finally they scan all bags and packages. They do not even require liquids in a clear quart bag, or to be removed from your bags. This process is secure, sensible and leaves the traveler with their personal dignity. Most importantly, it's completely adaptable by the TSA.
So why doesn't the TSA respect our rights and adopt both more effective and less humiliating security measures...well they don't have too. "All we like sheep" have allowed them to have their way with us. And it is time to stop.
It is time we held the TSA to an American standard. We need to expect them to do their homework, including profiling based on country of origin, terroristic associations and suspicious behavior.
It is time we insisted that frequent fliers, and any other flier who is willing to go through the process, be allowed prior clearances and with the cruise ship swipe card this is possible.
If the TSA does their homework and has photo verified swipe cards, airport security costs will be greatly reduced and security will be greatly enhanced. In this day of big budget government and possible terrorist activity, these measures offer us a win-win.
It is past time that we quit giving the TSA permission to take advantage of us simply because we need or want to fly.
I just got back from an Alaskan Cruise, no I am not just bragging, I learned something...rather I had something re-affirmed that I and most of us already know: THE TSA IS NEEDLESSLY INVASIVE AND SUBSTANTIALLY INEFFECTIVE.
I always love the TSA defenders who would now say, "Well we appreciate that the TSA makes us feel safer" and they are absolutely right. The TSA makes them feel safer, but they do not in fact make any of us safer. And really, isn't that what they are supposed to be doing, making us safe!?!
Okay, so what did I learn from my cruise that is pertinent to the TSA discussion, well cruise ship security has gotten it right. They are both effective and minimally invasive. Not once on my cruise did I get to absorb unhealthy rads from an insta-porn machine nor did I get a sexually degrading groping over.
How do the cruise lines achieve this magic combination of effective, minimally invasive security measures. Well they did their homework. When we check in (much like when we have to check in for a flight) we submit information that allows the cruise line to ascertain how much of a security risk we pose. This is good business for cruises. They want to keep us safe at the same time they respect our personal autonomy which is a basis right under the laws of this country.
Next, when we checked in, the cruise line snapped a picture of each passenger, linking it with their electronic key card so that each time security swipes your card, a current photo appears on the computer screen and they know if you match your photo. This happens each time you leave or return to the ship. Easy as that...swipey, swipey.
And finally they scan all bags and packages. They do not even require liquids in a clear quart bag, or to be removed from your bags. This process is secure, sensible and leaves the traveler with their personal dignity. Most importantly, it's completely adaptable by the TSA.
So why doesn't the TSA respect our rights and adopt both more effective and less humiliating security measures...well they don't have too. "All we like sheep" have allowed them to have their way with us. And it is time to stop.
It is time we held the TSA to an American standard. We need to expect them to do their homework, including profiling based on country of origin, terroristic associations and suspicious behavior.
It is time we insisted that frequent fliers, and any other flier who is willing to go through the process, be allowed prior clearances and with the cruise ship swipe card this is possible.
If the TSA does their homework and has photo verified swipe cards, airport security costs will be greatly reduced and security will be greatly enhanced. In this day of big budget government and possible terrorist activity, these measures offer us a win-win.
It is past time that we quit giving the TSA permission to take advantage of us simply because we need or want to fly.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
The Theft of America's Heartland
The Soviet leaders reserve unto themselves the right to commit any crime, to lie, to cheat and that the only morality they recognise is what will further their cause.--Ronald Reagan
I am not a big fan of the conspiracy theory because it has no functional value in society. Conspiracy theories never find their way out of the theory stage and therefore never can be acted upon. However, conspiracy theories should never be confused with actual conspiracies.
Conspiracies are a fact. A fact that allows them to be prosecuted in a criminal court of law. The legal definition of conspiracy is: "A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law." Find the Law .com
So what has criminal conspiracy have to do with the flooding of the Missouri River Valley?
Fact:
1. Agenda 21 (see links below) despises private property holding.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
2. Executive order 86, while disingenuously touting the benefit of the rural life, also allows for the "altruistic" buy up of private lands.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201100431/pdf/DCPD-201100431.pdf
3. More than one free-thinker is concerned that the flooding was intentional.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_purposeful_flooding_of_americas_heartland.html
4. Every weather prognosticator in the U. S. warned that after the very wet 2010 summer and record snow fall of 2011, that their would be an extreme excess of water in the upper Missouri River basin. Plus, history has long established that the rains fall heavy in the spring. Why was the Army Corp of Engineers caught off guard? And why did they suddenly cancel their annual fish spawning mini-flood? Was it because they knew that they were going to create a maxi flood?
5. Letters for federal buy-outs have already gone out to many of the flooded land owners.
6. The Army Corp of Engineers (led by some smirky woman spokes person) has no problem being seen as incompetent as long as you don't see them as criminal.
7. Secretary of Agriculture Vilisak came charging in on his white horse to save the day and left with his tail between his legs telling the flooded out farmers that he could do nothing for them.
8. Finally, the ultra-liberal national press has shown no concern for loss of private property or livelihood, but seems overly concerned with the stability of the nuclear power plant (another liberal agenda item) and failed to report that the plant is in a maintenance outage and is a very small risk. (I live 5 miles as the crow flies, I am not concerned.)
In summation: The Missouri River Basin was flooded despite an elaborate system of flood protections and weather prognostication either by incompetence or design. Either way the federal government, so noted for making humankind dependant on its paternalism, is refusing to offer relief. The Federal Government along with its friends of the new world order are attempting to snatch up flooded river bottom for pennies on the dollar to expand federal land holdings and wildlife wetland refuges.
Bottom line, if proven, that flooding people's homes and livelihoods were done intentionally by action or failure to take action so that the federal government could maneuver a massive land grab, someone should be going to jail for criminal conspiracy. I would start with that smirky Army Corps of Engineers spokeswoman.
I am not a big fan of the conspiracy theory because it has no functional value in society. Conspiracy theories never find their way out of the theory stage and therefore never can be acted upon. However, conspiracy theories should never be confused with actual conspiracies.
Conspiracies are a fact. A fact that allows them to be prosecuted in a criminal court of law. The legal definition of conspiracy is: "A criminal conspiracy exists when two or more people agree to commit almost any unlawful act, then take some action toward its completion. The action taken need not itself be a crime, but it must indicate that those involved in the conspiracy knew of the plan and intended to break the law." Find the Law .com
So what has criminal conspiracy have to do with the flooding of the Missouri River Valley?
Fact:
1. Agenda 21 (see links below) despises private property holding.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/is-the-soros-sponsored-agenda-21-a-hidden-plan-for-world-government-yes-only-it-is-not-hidden/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TzEEgtOFFlM
2. Executive order 86, while disingenuously touting the benefit of the rural life, also allows for the "altruistic" buy up of private lands.
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/DCPD-201100431/pdf/DCPD-201100431.pdf
3. More than one free-thinker is concerned that the flooding was intentional.
http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/06/the_purposeful_flooding_of_americas_heartland.html
4. Every weather prognosticator in the U. S. warned that after the very wet 2010 summer and record snow fall of 2011, that their would be an extreme excess of water in the upper Missouri River basin. Plus, history has long established that the rains fall heavy in the spring. Why was the Army Corp of Engineers caught off guard? And why did they suddenly cancel their annual fish spawning mini-flood? Was it because they knew that they were going to create a maxi flood?
5. Letters for federal buy-outs have already gone out to many of the flooded land owners.
6. The Army Corp of Engineers (led by some smirky woman spokes person) has no problem being seen as incompetent as long as you don't see them as criminal.
7. Secretary of Agriculture Vilisak came charging in on his white horse to save the day and left with his tail between his legs telling the flooded out farmers that he could do nothing for them.
8. Finally, the ultra-liberal national press has shown no concern for loss of private property or livelihood, but seems overly concerned with the stability of the nuclear power plant (another liberal agenda item) and failed to report that the plant is in a maintenance outage and is a very small risk. (I live 5 miles as the crow flies, I am not concerned.)
In summation: The Missouri River Basin was flooded despite an elaborate system of flood protections and weather prognostication either by incompetence or design. Either way the federal government, so noted for making humankind dependant on its paternalism, is refusing to offer relief. The Federal Government along with its friends of the new world order are attempting to snatch up flooded river bottom for pennies on the dollar to expand federal land holdings and wildlife wetland refuges.
Bottom line, if proven, that flooding people's homes and livelihoods were done intentionally by action or failure to take action so that the federal government could maneuver a massive land grab, someone should be going to jail for criminal conspiracy. I would start with that smirky Army Corps of Engineers spokeswoman.
Thursday, May 19, 2011
Loose Tongues are Worse than Wicked Hands--Jewish Proverb
There were no such thing as Palestinians... It was not as though there was a Palestinian people in Palestine considering itself as a Palestinian people and we came and threw them out and took their country away from them. They did not exist.--Golda Meir
Okay, I admit that I have been a bit of a slacker with my blog, but let me say this in my defense. First, my toe healed. When my toe was broken, I could not get around well so I had much more time to write.
Second, there is sooooo much to comment on with the Obama administration that I am having trouble prioritizing.
Today Obama's loose tongue made prioritizing easy. "Mr. President, leave Israel alone!" (This should be said in a sort of primal scream/outrage type of voice.)
When I first heard mention of Obama's demanding that Israel's borders be put back to the pre-1967 position, I could barely believe what I was hearing. My first thought was that maybe Obama was in some way impaired, sort of a verbal DUI situation. Then I thought it was possible that Obama was entirely ignorant of the history of Israel (which made me hope that this was a verbal DUI instead because that would be more forgivable.)
In case historical ignorance is the problem, let me address this next portion to Mr. Loose Tongue himself.
Mr. President. In 1967 Israel fought a war and through the grace of God, Israel won. It was not a war of their making. It was not a war that they provoked (except by their existence.) It was not a war that they would have chosen to fight, but they met the enemy, who out numbered them roughly 3 to 1, and prevailed. Due to this conflict, they secured land that allowed them to better protect their country in subsequent attacks. (E.G. Yom Kippur War of 1973)
Since that time, officious intermeddlers (yes that is an insult, but it is in legalize so less painful), mostly from the United States, have pressured Israel to give back these defensive lands. To what end. Now the Gaza Strip is snakes den of Arab terrorists, and the Sinai Peninsula could once again be used to mount a substantial attack on Israel as Muslim extremist gain a strong hold in Egypt. And you Mr. Loose lips, would use wicked hands to give back those strategic lands to the malignant enemies of Israel. Say goodbye to your "Osama Poll Bump," Mr. President.
Next up, Mr. Obama will announce that he is giving the American Southwest back to Mexico...that's one way to deal with the illegal immigration problem.
Okay, I admit that I have been a bit of a slacker with my blog, but let me say this in my defense. First, my toe healed. When my toe was broken, I could not get around well so I had much more time to write.
Second, there is sooooo much to comment on with the Obama administration that I am having trouble prioritizing.
Today Obama's loose tongue made prioritizing easy. "Mr. President, leave Israel alone!" (This should be said in a sort of primal scream/outrage type of voice.)
When I first heard mention of Obama's demanding that Israel's borders be put back to the pre-1967 position, I could barely believe what I was hearing. My first thought was that maybe Obama was in some way impaired, sort of a verbal DUI situation. Then I thought it was possible that Obama was entirely ignorant of the history of Israel (which made me hope that this was a verbal DUI instead because that would be more forgivable.)
In case historical ignorance is the problem, let me address this next portion to Mr. Loose Tongue himself.
Mr. President. In 1967 Israel fought a war and through the grace of God, Israel won. It was not a war of their making. It was not a war that they provoked (except by their existence.) It was not a war that they would have chosen to fight, but they met the enemy, who out numbered them roughly 3 to 1, and prevailed. Due to this conflict, they secured land that allowed them to better protect their country in subsequent attacks. (E.G. Yom Kippur War of 1973)
Since that time, officious intermeddlers (yes that is an insult, but it is in legalize so less painful), mostly from the United States, have pressured Israel to give back these defensive lands. To what end. Now the Gaza Strip is snakes den of Arab terrorists, and the Sinai Peninsula could once again be used to mount a substantial attack on Israel as Muslim extremist gain a strong hold in Egypt. And you Mr. Loose lips, would use wicked hands to give back those strategic lands to the malignant enemies of Israel. Say goodbye to your "Osama Poll Bump," Mr. President.
Next up, Mr. Obama will announce that he is giving the American Southwest back to Mexico...that's one way to deal with the illegal immigration problem.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)