Well that didn't take long. Following a one-on-one meeting at the U.N. which gave Vladimir Putin the ability to measure the degree to which Barack Obama is a mewling pantywaist, the Russian dictator launched a surprise attack in Syria (after graciously ordering the United States to get the hell out of the way) on the anti-Assad rebels being funded and trained by the CIA.
That's right - Putin is bombing the crap out of our few surviving allies in the region, and so far the only response from Washington (via an oddly twitchy John Kerry during a live conference at which his Russian counterpart referred to him as "Joan") was to say that our country appreciates the Russians' "help" in fighting ISIS but, um, considering they're not dropping their bombs anywhere near ISIS, we should have a meeting - sometime soon! Maybe even tomorrow! - to see if we can come to some sort of agreement on their choice of targets.
As a brilliant political analyst pointed out a long time ago (okay, it was Hope n' Change on Wednesday), Putin has now made it official and uncontestable that the United States is no longer in the superpower business. We have lost our place in the world order thanks to the massive incompetence (not to mention intentional malfeasance) of the Obama administration - including former Secretary of Scapegoating Hillary "reset button" Clinton.
It's hard to overstate the danger of this current moment, as Putin has maneuvered Barack Obama into the position of having only two options: to back down entirely or to answer Russia's challenge aggressively. The first option leaves the world stage in complete disarray (with Russia, Iran, China, North Korea and others picking up the pieces), and the second option invites a dangerous game of brinksmanship.
A game in which, sadly, the United States is now clearly the JV team.
BONUS: From The Vaults...
(3/5/14)
(9/20/13)
BREAKING NEWS: OREGON MASS SHOOTING
At the time of this writing on Thursday evening, very little is known about the sick sonofabitch who shot up a community college in Oregon (which had no armed security), snuffing out lives and dreams before the police blew him to Hell (we hope literally).
We know that the shooter (whose name we won't repeat here) was 26 years old, not a student at the college, and there are reports that he was forcing his victims to state their religion: Christians got a bullet to the head, everyone else was shot in the legs.
Only hours after the shooting, Barack Obama took to the airways to - in his own words - politicize this appalling tragedy. And for once he was telling the truth, saying that when voters go to the polls, they need to keep in mind that voting for a certain political party was essentially a vote for continuing mass murder.
Really, Barry? Is THAT your healing message for a wounded nation?!
The president lied his ass off asserting that America basically lacks any real regulation of guns at all, and claiming that no other developed nation on Earth has problems with mass shootings - a statement which would make for a pretty good satire at Charlie Hebdo if the writers and artists hadn't been massacred by zealots from Obama's favorite religion of Peace.
The president then challenged reporters to print stories comparing the number of Americans killed by terror to the number killed by gun violence - a "twofer" for the president which allows him to use still-fresh murders for his own political ends while also giving cover to radical Islamic terror.
But here's a question for you, B. Hussein - when the papers print those body counts, how often do you think the one day total for gun violence will exceed the thousands of Americans who died on a single day in September back in 2001?
Obama lectured our stupid, stupid country on our failure to control guns when it comes to mass shootings, but never mentioned the fact that in his home town of Chicago 50 people were shot over the weekend. Which happens to be the case pretty much every goddamn weekend.
But if it's not, well, at least you accomplished your real goal in addressing the nation tonight: using the blood of innocents to distract the media from your foreign policy fiascos and your complete failure as a leader.
29 comments:
This "president" is a disgrace to the entire civilized world.
I just wonder how much more damage he'll inflict before he leaves office....
It’s the same story every time there’s a shooting like at Roseburg, here comes all the anti-gun rhetoric. There have been evil people and nut cases since the beginning of time. Before they had guns they used swords, arrows and maybe rocks. Other tools of murder are hammers, saws and poisons or even ones hands. The list goes on and on! It’s not the tools that are important but what’s in one’s head or heart.
The thing that disturbs me these days is the carnage that will occur when our local jihadists come out of their closets and do small group attacks. Think about six of these guys running through a school with AK-47s and grenades. Not a pretty picture! But they are here, some go to Syria to train and come back. The Feds seem to know about some of them, but appear to do nothing. How many do they not know about? How many are home grown? What if they coordinate multiple small group attacks across the country? I feel sad.
Amen.
"Putin has maneuvered Barack Obama into the position of having only two options:"
I've got to disagree there. BO maneuvered himself into that position. Putin just took advantage of it.
I can not imagine what my blood pressure was when I walked in the door last night. As I was driving home, brooding about the insane, unbelievable mess in the middle east I began to hear the details about the subhuman shooter in Oregon asking about his victims' religion and summarily executing the Christians. Then a local commentator played the clip of Netanyahu's speech at the UN, including the stunning 45 second period of silence. In what kind of world do we live? I consider myself a spiritual person, I recognize the existence of pure evil in the world, but have never bought into the idea that Obowwow is the beast and we are in the end times. I may have to reconsider that outlook.
You want to politicize this horrible, horrible massacre before the bodies are even cold? Go for it you unspeakable SOB. The democrat candidate in 2016 will lose by double digits because there is a breaking point in the rational portion of the electorate and we have just passed it.
I realize that Øbama and the globalist's goal in Syria is to topple the Assad Regime and thereby bring about the same level of peace and prosperity that we gave to Libya and Iraq after overthrowing their legitimate governments, but considering the US backed "moderate" rebels have been handing our weapons over to Al Qaeda or outright defecting to ISIS, Putin has the high ground in attacking them in my book.
I did not watch the pussident's speech about the Oregon shooting, as the mere sight of him gives me acid reflux, but I read that in the 12 minute diatribe he mentioned himself 24 times. Way to respect the lost lives, dickhead.
I can only pray that our country survives until ovomit is out of office and then we begin the long road back. We can do it but it will take an effort which hasn't been seen since World War Two. And I don't completely mean militarily but a national effort of cooperation. And in the process, any and all monuments and reference to him should be taken down and destroyed. He should be remembered only as the one who nearly destroyed the United States of America.
And as a side note; get rid of that stupid common core bullshit!
Something else that isn't being mentioned is that the Oregon shooter was a Muslim.
O'Baja will have to mark the spot for you Stilton, he's all ass.
Good stuff, Jarlsberg. Again.
People die and that moron Democrat (redundant) president says that it's the Republicans fault. The SJWs, the progressives, the socialists/communists - the Democrats have no shame. They are depraved just like the gunman. They take every tragedy as opportunistic - time to rally the flotsam and jetsam again.
I am so sick of these bastards/bitches. I am sick of Democrats.
But Putin isn't - it's his gold-ring time.
Was the shooter Muslim? All I saw is that he was Irish Republican Army, and I'm unfamiliar with that. One news article said he self identified as conservative republican. Although most conservative republicans don't despise religion.....some do, I guess.
If the shooter was Muslim, then the media is doing one heck of a spin on it.
@drjim- I'm very worried about how much more damage Obama will do and/or allow others to do. The next president's primary duties may be sticking the fork in and turning off the lights.
@JosephET- I'm amazed we haven't had more jihadists carrying out attacks in public places, and can't help but think that it's only a matter of time. But again, the problem isn't so much that guns and other weaponry exist, but that radical zealotry exists.
@John the Econ- Thanks.
@Michael Beaty- Trust me, you and I aren't disagreeing. You're absolutely right.
@TrickyRicky- My blood pressure was off the charts last night, I'm sure. Putin, the Oregon shootings, Obama's anti-gun speech, the crash of a military jet, the abandonment of Israel (and pulling Kerry and Rice from the U.N. floor)... I went to bed with one heck of a headache, and it wasn't from drinking.
@Geoff King- The situation in Syria is complicated. I referred to the CIA-backed rebels as allies because, as US policy, we've declared them to be so. The truth may be anything but. That does not, however, make the public humiliation of Obama any less.
@Fred Ciampi- The kind of rebuilding you're talking about will require Americans to have a sense of unity again, very much like in WWII. In other words, we'll need the exact opposite of the divisive "leadership" that Obama has shown.
@Anonymous- I haven't seen confirmation yet that the shooter was Muslim. Certainly he had at least one apparently radical Muslim friend/connection on MySpace.
@OpenTheDoor- I wouldn't have made the offer if I thought there was a prayer of it happening.
@Juanita The Icon- I think part of Obama's gun lecture was to push his usual partisan agenda, but mostly he wanted to push the shaming he got from Putin out of the news cycle. I loathe the man.
@Suzy- I've seen no solid evidence that the shooter was Muslim. And trust me, I've been looking.
We can all see how well O'Bummer's gun control is working........its not. He got Daley (although Daley was in office way before BO got in) to institute gun control in the form of innocent law abiding people cannot carry but criminals can carry all they want. Law abiding people have to have trigger locks and the gun in a safe; bullets in a different safe in another side of the house and a F.O.I.D. card. Criminals just buy a gun, load it and don't bother getting a FOID. We can see how well that whole sitch is working. Innocents like children are getting killed and no one can defend themselves. Never mind it was the same 'civilians' who decades ago would tell the popo "I's didnt see nufin'" when crime happened.
I still say buy a huge island and when they are arrested plus all those in prison now and are known gang bangers, fly them to the island and leave them. Don't even land; put on a parachute and push them out. Every so often drop a huge box of guns, ammo, knives, bats, etc. Let them fend for themselves with food, water and shelter. They will all take care of themselves very nicely. Probably cheaper than prosecuting, housing, feeding, educating and giving them health care and free up valuable prison space.
Obozo is as predictable as a wind-up toy...and about as useful.
I disagree with the charade that "Obamy" is a bungling boob. He has been very effective Domestically with his Pogroms to implode the country. On Foreign Affairs he is also effectively implementing the NWO Agenda. This is just a "dance" with Putin and the Chicoms as well.
If Bubba Clinton could sell out the US to the "foreigners", Why would anyone question Obama's Loyality.......to the NWO.
and the ChamberPot Repubs clamoring for WW III over Syria or Ukraine are no better either.
Two horrible, disgusting people: The Roseburg shooter and the DC O'Neutered. Was the guy a Muslim? I don't know, but I can tell you one absolute fact about him. He was not deterred for even a nanosecond by anti-gun laws and policies.
Putin probably has a gut ache from laughing so hard.
@Geoff King,
Amen! You'd be amazed at how fast I can change TV channels when O'Liar's face appears. He has nothing to say that I ever want to hear.
It's insulting every time he says common sense because he is implying that if you don't agree with him, you have none.
The very public wedgey putin gave zero did not bode well.
I don't have a good feeling about today's screech umm speech. Zero no doubt is getting the ass chewing of his life from his puppet meisters, (not that they disagree with what he is doing, just the way he is doing it.) And we know how adult like he acts after being corrected. No not a good feeling at all. Why kick the dog when you have the American people to kick?
For years I have ranted about Obama to my younger sister, who lives in upstate New York, and she has always remained noncommittal. Yesterday, she texted me after Obama's self-serving political rant on guns and was outraged at him. So people who have given him a pass are waking up to him finally. We must remain strong against the inevitable gun control push. We must remind everyone that the only places where everyday gun violence (as opposed to mass killings) are the cities where liberals are in control and where gun laws are strictest. Any idiot with half a brain can see this and also see that the mass shootings primarily take place in gun-free zones. The evildoer knows he will meet no resistance. Duh! Texas recently enacted a law permitting concealed carry on college campi and of course, 150 liberal pinhead professors at UT are protesting. I don't want my grandkids to be taught by such ignorant assholes. Finally, lest we forget, it was Obama and Holder who were running guns into Mexico in order to gin up support for gun control which backfired when a border agent was killed with one of those guns. Holder was about to be prosecuted when Obama used "executive privilege" to save his butt. Aarghh! I'm so pissed off. Okay, rant over.
@Stilt, it appears as though a SPAMMER has gotten through to us.
Okay folks, I'm going to unload a big one on you.
Once again, our President demonstrates that he never lets a crisis go to waste. But for a change, we really should compliment the President for his candor:
”We know that other countries, in response to one mass shooting, have been able to craft laws that almost eliminate mass shootings. Friends of ours, allies of ours—Great Britain, Australia, countries like ours. So we know there are ways to prevent it.”
And the “response” of those “allies of ours”? They confiscated practically all privately owned guns. So when this President says “common-sense gun-safety laws”, there can no longer be any doubt left as to what he really means, and also renders his subsequent assurances that he respects the 2nd Amendment completely meaningless.
(Not that banning guns has stopped shootings in these countries either)
And of course, his gun-grabber followers took no time to join in the chorus repeating bogus statistics with sanctimony and over-the-top levels of emotion. The problem with arguments based entirely on emotion is that not only are they frequently irrational, they’re usually contrary to logic applied to similar topics.
But let’s strip the emotion away for a moment, and just go with the numbers. This weekend, far more people will die on the south sides of Chicago, Atlanta, Los Angeles, and other largely black urban areas than did in Oregon last week, as they have most weeks now for decades.
So tell me again how “black lives matter”.
continued...
But sticking with the numbers, there are a lot of commonly available things in America that kill far more people than guns do. For example, alcohol will kill far more people of all races and classes all over America this weekend alone. So where are the calls to outlaw alcohol, which kills far more Americans every single day than mass shootings have over a century?
The answer lies in what economists call “utility value”. Utility value is the valuation that an individual places on a particular good or service. Utility value can be and usually is quite different for each individual. For example, I place near-zero utility value on Adam Sandler movies. And yet judging by his accumulated wealth, it’s clear that there are a lot of people who place great value on his movies.
In economic terms, we say that people who own guns find a high utility value for them, whereas people who are “anti gun” have a zero utility for guns. But a very large number of people have a high utility value for alcohol. The problem with “democracy” is that many people who have zero utility values for certain goods and services have little problem in calling for the prohibition of those goods and services, since such a prohibition would not restrict their freedoms personally. That’s why we have a constitution and are a republic verses a true democracy.
In general (but not exclusively) people who are politically to the left tend to be predisposed to demand the prohibition of things they have no use for, since they are less concerned about the greater concept of “freedom” in a society. Hence, they have no problems calling for the outlaw of guns, banishment of religion, SUVs, Happy Meals, Big Gulps, and the over-regulation-to-extinction of industries they dislike. (This also applies to the “climate change” agenda, which gives them carte blanch to ban absolutely anything and everything they find distasteful based solely upon a perceived “carbon footprints”. So finally, a legal basis to ban NASCAR. Remember, everything has a “carbon footprint”) As a libertarian, I find this distasteful, self-centered, and hypocritical.
I have no hard data to prove this, but it’s my suspicion that the majority of gun-hating leftists do like alcohol, as do the vast majority of gun owners. Hence, no political organization or pressure to outlaw alcohol, even though it has clearly killed far more people than civilian-owned guns ever will.
continued...
Leading up to 1920, there was a high enough number of people in America who had zero utility for alcohol to call for a prohibition. (Too bad alcohol wasn’t included in the 2nd Amendment) For over a dozen years, alcohol sales were illegal in the US. The results were not pretty. One was the rise of organized crime to meet the demand of those who retained their high utility value for alcohol.
Even any emotion-led leftist should see where I’m going with this. The same people who advocate for the legalization of marijuana because people had little problem getting it anyway and think securing our borders to stop the trafficking of humans, drugs and other contraband is a waste of time and money think they can successfully outlaw private ownership of guns without the same kind of unintended consequences we got with prohibition. The multi-billion dollar organizations that are currently in place to transport all forms of illegal contraband into America through a border so porous that literally millions of people pass through repeatedly every year will have another valuable commodity to import. Just in time too, as to replace revenues lost due to marijuana legalization.
My new approach which I’ve been considering for some time now is to confront anti-gun non-thinking with this argument: If we’re going to exercise “common sense” like the President suggests, then in addition to banning guns, we should also certainly ban alcohol. Anything less than outlawing alcohol would make outlawing guns statistically irrelevant, beyond satisfying the political lust and vengeance of leftists. After all, there is no constitutional protection for alcohol.
So remember, not supporting the 2nd prohibition of alcohol is essentially a vote for continuing mass murder.
Now don’t think that even for a minute that I am actually in favor of a new prohibition against alcohol any more than I am against guns. Mrs. Econ & I imbibe regularly. I just want intellectual consistency and believe that banning the sale and ownership of guns is pointless when compared to the carnage that we accept as a consequence of permitting alcohol in our society. If we’re going to sacrifice civil rights for safety, then I’d like some actual safety in return, which I’m really not expecting once the guns are supposedly gone.
Plus, to be honest, I have another motivation. Progressives transparently hate people who own guns. That’s mainly what motivates them; political revenge. If I am going to have to give up my guns as a sacrifice to their political vanity, then I want my pound of flesh.
And after that, it will be “freedom of speech”. I also advocate that we outlaw pointlessly violent media and pornography; things that most modern mass shooters and terrorists seem to consume prodigiously.
Freedom of speech? Absolutely, because once our guns are gone, the rest of our civil rights are going to quickly disappear anyway, paving the way for the new caliphate. It’s inevitable.
@John the Econ
Well said John. We agree.
Good post(s) John the Econ.
Just a little background on Australia's 'gun control'; in the past (as now) handguns were not permitted for private use, unless you were a registered member of a licenced pistol club which were strictly regulated at state level. Handgun homicide is hardly head of in Australia as a result.
Rifles were another thing, almost every regional/rural household or farmstead had several: a .22 rabbit gun, a heavier .303 bolt action for bigger stuff like 'roos, various shotguns for birds and usually a .410 single shot gun propped behind the back door for snakes.
Not just country folks either. In the Sydney beachside suburb of La Perouse was the former ANZAC rifle range used my the Army in both World Wars for musketry training prior to overseas deployment. The Army eventually turned it over to the local authority who opened it weekends and from sunup to sundown it sounded like Khe Sanh on a bad day. As expected, the pencilnecked pansy neighbours raised complaints and it was closed down and sold off to housing developers for a fortune, as it was prime Sydney waterfront property.
After Martin Bryant massacred 35 innocent people in Port Arthur there was a severe backlash in society against firearms but specific types of firearms, mainly automatic or self-loading (semi-automatic) rifles. There was a general amnesty on owning these types of rifles and people were encouraged to hand them in, no questions asked and no penalties involved. They were never 'confiscated'. Rifles like M1s, SKSs, SLRs, AR15s and so on were handed in, along with a huge haul of handguns, some being souvenirs of WW1/WW2/Korea/Vietnam but some not. There was also the 'BuyBack' scheme where the government paid fair market value for surrendered weapons.
I myself handed in quite a collection of military grade weaponry but no more than you would expect from a retired 30 year combat veteran. Besides which the local people know who I am and some of the toys I had collected. For instance I was cleaning my Type 56 (Chicom AK47) and decided to put a few rounds through it so blatted off a 30 round mag with @15 on rock & roll (auto). A minute or so after I had finished the phone rang and it was the local police sergeant, another Vietnam vet and a good guy who said "I know what it is and where it is and if you don't stop fooling with it I'll come up and confiscate it" and this was long before Port Arthur. I handed that one in along with the others but immobilised most of them pre-handin so no wise guy could help himself. Do I miss those guns? Hell no! To me they were just the tools of the trade, nothing more.
@John the Econ & @Popular Front- Great posts from both of you. I think the concept of "utility value" is hugely useful in understanding what the Libs love to do. I also like the "ban alcohol" argument and may try that on a few folks.
If Obama wants to posit "common sense" gun reform, then common sense tells us there are two groups which should be unable to arm themselves: criminals and potentially violent lunatics. Per John's arguments above, criminals will still get guns even if it's via the black market.
But what of the lunatics? Problematically, mental stability changes with time and circumstances. Someone capable of responsible gun ownership now may be a whacko with a short fuse a couple of years down the road. So mental stability will have to be certified, and regularly re-certified, using tests developed by the Left. It doesn't take much imagination to see how easily that testing system could and would be abused. (Hint: if you identify with a violent, racist group like the Tea Party you'll never again own anything more lethal than a spork.)
And if a government-mandated mental stability test is created, why limit it to gun ownership? Why not test to make sure no crazy people are casting votes?
Sigh...
One other thing I'll mention. In Obama's press conference the other day, he said that most of the mass shooters are young men - and again repeated his assertion that other countries don't have problems with young men becoming killers. Which nearly caused my head to explode because he'd just managed to ignore every freaking member of ISIS.
Clearly, Obama's real goal is to disarm people who aren't actually causing any trouble. Why he wants to do that is a question worth asking.
Because that's what Saul Alinsky would do!
Obama's just a wussy copycat little man trying to do what he thinks is cool...and he's pure evil!
@Popular Front, thanks for the first-hand insights. What I'd like to hear about is the perceptions of crime and safety after the "hand in".
My concern and belief, which I've seen data for in Britain, and I believe exists in Australia as well, is that as our entire country becomes a "disarmed victims zone", (at least for the "law abiding" community) the criminal elements will be emboldened to expand operations freely with far reduced risk of injury or death. Today, in my community where the vast majority of people are armed to some degree, entering someone's home is a very risky venture. If guns were to disappear from "legal" homes, I'd expect crime to escalate as it has elsewhere. Unfortunately, this is hard to quantify in hard data.
For example, "civil disturbances" as we've seen in places like Ferguson and Baltimore have always remained confined to commercial areas, because the thugs know that most commercial properties are not defended whereas you never know which house has a scared, angry gun-owner behind the door. Would that remain the case once they know that residential areas are assumed armed?
This notion should scare middle class America, which stands to see their neighborhoods become just as unsafe as the poor neighborhoods that have been run by the thugs for decades. Perhaps that is what Obama would like to see.
@Stilton, I think I'll be bringing up the topic of "utility" more frequently as time progresses. As I mentioned above, there's a definite correlation between things that Progressives personally have low utility for and things they think should be outlawed. This came to me a few decades ago as the moderator of online forums for a major national (and very liberal) newspaper. People would openly say that since they personally saw no practical need for something in their life, then nobody else should either. This is the arrogance of the left.
This is what I see as the real agenda behind the anti carbon "climate change" agenda. Since absolutely everything in life involves emitting carbon at some point, the left will freely be able to pick and choose whatever they disapprove of on society and outlaw it on the grounds of "carbon footprint".
For example, northeastern eco-Progressive elites irrationally hate air conditioning, I think mainly because it's a fixture of daily summertime life in southern red states, even though the carbon footprint of heating the homes of politically correct north easterners is three times that of that resulting from the use of air conditioning.
100,000 people showing up to a soccer match? No problem. 100,000 people showing up for a NASCAR race? Wasteful. I could go on, and I have no doubt that in the future I will.
As for "common sense" gun laws and measuring "sanity", I agree with you that this will ultimately be problematic. First off, many of the recent shooters had no formal history of mental illness that would have precluded them purchasing a weapon under any of the proposed laws.
Also, you touched on the other part of the problem. For decades now, there's been a concerted effort within academia (which is no doubt where such "mental stability" definitions would be established) to define conservatism itself as a mental deficiency. Wouldn't that be convenient? First take their guns, later take their votes.
Obama, and the problem of "young men": You mean like the thousands of "refugees" that he wants to import?
Post a Comment