Sunday, July 27, 2008
I've been half-jokingly telling folks that I believe we should use nucular (nuclear) weapons in the Middle East. It started at a local Walgreens, when someone asked about a book I was reading, and I said that we should nuke Iran and Saudi Arabia in order to insure a constant oil supply without interference from the wackos there. About 2 weeks later I had an argument on a plane with some dolt who thought we could "talk Iran back from the edge". Uh-huh. I then was at a sales meeting listening to our European friends saying our "cowboy ways" were the root of all of our problems with Islam (and the rest of the world, for that matter).
To that last comment, I replied by taking the hand of one of our female co-workers in my hand. I then pointed out that, under sharia law, this women could now be killed (what is honorable about "honor" killing, anyway?) because she and I were not related and I had spoiled her family honor by holding her hand. "Just what do you propose to do with these crazies that think it's perfectly acceptable to kill her?" No answer. Of course, when it comes to the application of their pacifist theories, most folks don't want to address such mundane questions as mine.
I have honestly and truthfully expressed my contention that we should nuke Iran in order to take out its leadership and wipe out their ability to build nukes of their own. I have also said we should put a laser-guided bomb in the next OPEC ministers' meeting, and make it the policy of the US Gov't to assassinate any new OPEC ministers that are named. We should continue this policy until we've broken OPEC, which, in my estimation, would take about a month.
Look, I don't give a rat's ass what religion you practice, as long as you don't push it on me, and as long as your religion doesn't call for you to kill those that don't believe as you do. Live and let live. But I'll be damned if I'll stand by and lose this great country (and the small corner of it that I actually own) to a bunch of idiots that want to take us back to the 12th century. Both Obama and McCain don't have the stomach for what must be done -- but I really think McCain would act offensively if he discovered a plot to nuke NYC or LA. Obama would call Imajerkwad or Abbas and want to talk about it, while in the meantime their surrogates would be lighting that nuclear candle and bringing this country to a standstill. Jesus, we all froze in place on 9/11/01 for a week or more...what do you think would happen if Houston suddenly was vaporized? (I don't really like Houston, but jeez, I don't want to nuke it -- just maybe block off I-45 northbound at Conroe.)
My point is that we must take the initiative in securing oil for this country - and securing our country itself. Because make no mistake that this is what it's about. As Americans, we really don't care if a third-rate sand-filled country kills half of its own population, as long as they keep selling us their oil. I'd give us about 10 days of gas at 10 bucks a gallon before the US rises up and votes to nuke that same country -- AS LONG AS WE CAN BUY GAS AT $2 A GALLON AND A CASE OF BEER FOR $15 AT 7-11.
As you might imagine, I get a lot of shocked looks when I state my true opinion (as described above). You just can't DO that, they say. Oh yeah? says I. Why the hell not? Cause they'll hate us, they say. Well, duh, they already do.
I am serious as I can be that we need to get out there and spray a few gamma rays. Hell, we're falling asleep guarding them and shipping them halfway across the country under the wings of B-52's by mistake...if we're going to start becoming lackadaisical about them, let's pop one off in the desert of Iran before they do it to us. At least it would keep the missile crews awake.
So along comes a blogger who thinks as I do. From Westerner, as posted at Gates of Vienna, here is a good start at a plan:
Dealing With the Islamic Threat
In recent years, several knowledgeable writers — including Serge Trifkovic (The Sword of the Prophet) and Ibn Warraq (Why I am Not a Moslem) — have described what Islam is actually like, both in theory and in practice. It is not a religion of peace, but rather an intrinsically expansionist movement, and serious Moslems wish to establish the rule of Islam over the entire globe. They will accept temporary truces, but are resolutely determined to continue their struggle until total victory, and will utilize whatever methods are necessary to achieve that goal.
The nature of the Islamic state that they seek to impose on us is clear, both from their ideology and from their history. It will not include either freedom of speech, or freedom of the press, or freedom of religion, nor will it include equal rights for women. Those non-Moslems who are neither killed nor forcibly converted, will be dhimmis (lacking the normal rights of citizens, and subject to special taxes and humiliating treatment). Since Muhammad himself held slaves — and, indeed, enslaved formerly free persons — it will be blasphemous to allege that slavery is immoral. No vestige of our democratic system will endure.
However, although the writers mentioned above correctly state the nature of the Islamic threat to our country and our way of life, they do not say how we can counter that threat. The same is true of such other writers as Melanie Phillips (Londonistan) and Mark Steyn (America Alone).
Larry Auster is somewhat better, because he not only takes the Islamic threat seriously, but has a plan of action for defending our society. He suggests (quite sensibly) that we should defend ourselves against terrorism by refusing to accept immigrants from Moslem countries, and sending home those who are already here. He also suggests that we must destroy the Iranian nuclear facilities, and should prevent any other Moslem from acquiring nuclear weapons.
- - - - - - - - -
However, although Auster’s suggestions are advisable, they are still inadequate. Even if an American president (and a sufficient number of congressmen) were to become convinced that Auster is correct — and even if the president proceeded to carry out those suggestions — the world would still contain a sizable number of Islamic states, most of which contain a large, powerful Islamic establishment dedicated to the spread of Islam throughout the world. Furthermore, many of those states possess enormous reserves of oil, and the wealth that those reserves lead to. In a few years, that American president would leave office, and sooner or later would be succeeded by a leader who is less convinced that Islam is a mortal threat to us and must be opposed by such firm measures. Auster’s suggestions, therefore, even if adopted, will only bring us a brief reprieve.
We cannot be safe unless Islam is crushed; that is, so reduced in strength that it can no longer threaten the free world. To some readers, this may seem impossible: How can a movement which boasts of 1.2 billion followers ever be crushed? But we should not despair. Remember, just a few decades ago, the Communists ruled far more territory — and a considerably larger fraction of the world’s population — than the Moslems do today. The West is far stronger than the Moslem world, and if we use our assets wisely and act boldly we can crush Islam permanently. Our overall strategy for doing so should include the following steps:
1. We should start by thoroughly destroying the Iranian nuclear facilities. (Yes, we could triumph even if Iran obtained nuclear weapons, but only at a far greater cost.) 2. Next, in order to protect our homeland from Moslem terrorists we must adopt a policy of not accepting any immigrants (or even tourists or students) from Islamic countries, and by deporting all foreign Moslems who are already here, whether illegally or legally. (It is not that most Moslems are terrorists, but rather that most terrorists are Moslems, and that by keeping Moslems out of our country we can greatly decrease the frequency of terrorist attacks in the United States.) 3. We must make it an invariable policy that we will not permit any predominantly Moslem country to build or obtain weapons of mass destruction. (Pakistan obviously represents a special case, since it already possesses nuclear weapons. However, even though the present government is reasonably friendly to us, we cannot permit them to keep those weapons, nor the facilities producing them.) 4. There are various ways in which we can eventually reduce our (and Europe’s) dependence on Middle Eastern oil. However, those programs will take decades to carry out. The only way in which we can quickly break both the financial power of the Moslem states and our dependence on their oil reserves is forcibly to seize the oil fields in the Middle East. The states bordering the Persian Gulf are all weak, and if we make up our mind to do so we can easily seize the regions where most of that oil is located, drive away the people who live there now, and produce the oil ourselves. These, of course, are acts of war, and would be immoral if done solely to enrich ourselves. However, the Moslem world is already at war with us, and we are fully justified in taking such actions to defend ourselves and our way of life. 5. Our government must then embark on a policy of persistently denouncing Islam. We should repeatedly state and broadcast that Muhammad was not “the messenger of God,” but rather was a false prophet. We should also tell the world that he was a bloodthirsty tyrant, and a cruel, greedy, and lascivious man. (The truth of these statements is amply documented by ancient Arab writings.) Islam cannot be defeated if, in an attempt to avoid hurting anyone’s feelings, we continue to ignore these truths and continue to speak of Islam and its founder respectfully. 6. Finally, we must demonstrate — in an absolutely unmistakable way — that the Moslem religion is not favored by God. The most convincing way of doing this is by (after suitable warnings) totally destroying several Moslem holy sites, including Mecca and Medina. We should announce in advance the dates when those places will be destroyed, and that Allah is either unwilling or unable to protect them. We should then, using nuclear weapons, proceed to vaporize each of those sites in sequence. (In order to avoid unnecessary loss of life, the first two or three such sites should be sparsely populated, and the inhabitants of Mecca and Medina should be given a reasonable length of time to evacuate.)
Since most Moslems believe that the truth of Muhammad’s statements were demonstrated by his military victories, the total destruction of those cities cannot be reconciled with Islam. It is therefore probable that over the course of a century the number of Moslems in the world will drop drastically. Some Moslems will convert to other religions; some will become agnostics or atheists; and those who remain “Moslem” will break up into many small sects. In any event, bereft of military power, oil — and the diplomatic power that brings — and money, Islam will lose much of its appeal and will cease to be a menace.
It may be objected that this program involves the killing of a large number of people, many of them innocent. So do all wars. We did not choose this war; it has been forced on us. And just as we were justified in killing millions of Germans and Japanese to achieve victory in World War II, we are justified in killing large numbers of Moslems to maintain our independence and freedom from the Islamic menace. Note that our victory in World War II did not occur until about eight million Germans — and a similar number of Japanese — had been killed, a far greater number than would be killed by the program suggested here.
Of course, this program cannot be carried out by the United States — or any coalition of Western nations — until there is sufficient popular support for it. The purpose of this article is not to cause the immediate adoption of this program, but rather to create an understanding of what needs to be done. It is vital that when an American president is elected who understands the gravity of the Moslem threat, and is willing to take strong action to counter it, he uses that window of opportunity to deal a crushing blow to Islam, so that the threat does not continue.
Now here's someone that I can drink with, laugh with, and know that my kids would be safe with. Let's start thinking about the practical effects of that nuke going off in Seattle, and let's visit a little of that hell on some Islamic fascists before they do it to us.
I'm really not crazy -- and I'm a big enough guy that I don't get picked on, so I don't have a Napoleon complex. But what I do have is this -- I have a great desire to see my kids, nephews, nieces, and cousins grow up in a safe US of A, without worrying about Londonistan becoming Dallastan. I attended a wedding this weekend, and I'd like to bounce their future kids on my knee and know they can grow up safely and soundly in a free America. Let's get out ahead of this threat and remove it -- as we should have done with Hitler before he had done any real damage.
Because you're not going to like the US with a few more smoking craters. I don't want them to happen. Let's whack a few bad guys and get some future security while doing it.
Saturday, July 26, 2008
The point is...the top 5% of taxpayers (those with gross income of $137,056 or more) pay 60% of the total income taxes.
I don't consider $137k as rich...a couple, one a cop, the other a teacher, could earn this. And we're paying more than half of all taxes paid! People always thinks "someone else" should pay more taxes.
Let's go to a flat tax. Or we're going to have a revolt.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
But THIS...THIS should mean that he is prosecuted for sedition. This is aiding and abetting...all the way. This POS should be put in jail. For God's sake, there's a picture of Arafat smiling over the handshake.
If this jagoff was a real patriot, he would have worn a vest and sacrificed himself while taking out the Palestinian terrorist, Abbas. Now THAT is change I would vote for.
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Tuesday, July 15, 2008
Damn straight. This is why I still have a "W" sticker on my SUV. I'll pay $5 for gas, Iran can stick its oil up its a**. (That last line is stolen from an old Bowley & Wilson song.)
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Friday, July 11, 2008
But, thankfully, there is a scientific answer.
THE CORRECT WAY TO HANG TOILET PAPER.
Click here to see the entire scientific proof.
Not that science wins any battles with the wife. My abbreviation for toilet paper on the grocery list is A.W. You figure it out.
H/T Current Configuration
Thursday, July 10, 2008
Wednesday, July 09, 2008
Sunday, July 06, 2008
Reuters today has a story on Obama-lama-ding-dong being puzzled (Rubic's cubed?) that his words might mean something:
"I'm surprised at how finely calibrated every single word was measured. I wasn't saying anything I hadn't said before, that I didn't say a year ago or when I was a United States senator," said Obama, who is still a senator from Illinois.
Hint to the junior Senator: You are running for the PRESIDENCY of the UNITED STATES of AMERICA, you dolt. Of course your words matter. You'd get the keys the the nuclear arsenal, you could order fighters to shoot down others' aircraft, boldly go and drop bombs where no man has gone before...(apologies to Shatner and Roddenberry). You can also stop global warming (not) by raising taxes and ordering unfunded-mandates like cap-and-trade!
I posted before that you would tack to the middle, as all winning candidates do. But you're going to lose your moonbat base if you keep this up...so keep it up, dummy.
Here's your panic button when the world gets too tough for you.
Saturday, July 05, 2008
Now the Brits are getting into the act. Seems that British drug sniffing dogs will now have to wear booties when sniffing out Muslim drug dealers. It's bad enough that we don't execute drug dealers...now we're worried about how they react when Fido comes sniffing around for their hash?
Here's the first line of the article: Police sniffer dogs will have to wear bootees when searching the homes of Muslims so as not to cause offence.
Grimmy has it right.
And so does this guy:
John Midgley, co-founder of the Campaign Against Political Correctness, said: “The police are in effect being overly sensitive to potential criminals and not being sensitive enough to the public at large who need to be protected. These sort of things have a counter-productive effect because they cause huge friction between different communities.”
They are DOPEHEADS.
WHO CARES HOW THEY FEEL OR WHAT THEIR RELIGION IS?
H/T Gates of Vienna
Friday, July 04, 2008
"On this troubled Fourth we still should remember this is not 1776 when New York was in British hands and Americans in retreat across the state. It is not 1814 when the British burned Washington and the entire system of national credit collapsed — or July 4, 1864 when Americans awoke to news that 8,000 Americans had just been killed at Gettysburg."
Read it all here.
There are those who would have you believe that the US is in decline, that we're a terrible country, and that our citizens disregard the rights and opinions of others. We're a war-mongering nation which others hate, and we can be better by talking to penny-ante dictators while paying them $150 for a barrel of oil. That is Obama's world, not mine.
Take a walk around your house (inside and out) today and appreciate what your hard work has provided for you. Grill a bratwurst, have a few beers, jump in the pool. We've got it made here in America. Thank a soldier for it.
H/T The Corner
Thursday, July 03, 2008
You ignorant slut. Are you freaking kidding me? Of course you should be with this guy. And give your child up for adoption, because you don't have the brains God gave a gnat. The fact that you would consider giving up your child for this human pond scum means you are unfit to be a parent.
Now read the letter:
Posted on Tue, Jul. 01, 2008 10:15 PM
Dear Abby: Woman’s choice should be obvious
I’m in love with Wade, but I don’t know if he loves or wants to be with me anymore despite the fact he keeps saying he wants to be with me. Am I being silly for still wanting to be with him? Your thoughts, please. — Confused and Torn in Illinois
DEAR CONFUSED AND TORN: Wanting to be with someone you love isn’t silly, but it’s time for you to think maturely and realize the consequences of your decision. After six years with Wade, you are still single. You could be single forever.
When you became a mother, life stopped being all about you. Wade is a sex offender. What if you should become pregnant again? Is it fair to your parents to dump your daughter on them like an unwanted pet? What effect could it eventually have on the child? Do you fully understand that what you have in mind will isolate you from relatives and friends who have minor children?
While I can’t dictate what you should do with your life, I can say you’re heading in the wrong direction. Please step back and rethink this.
© Universal Press Syndicate 7/2Was in the Kansas City Star
H/T The Corner
Tuesday, July 01, 2008
Harry "Surrender" Reid (remember this pic?) now says coal and oil are making us sick. Don't know about you, but I feel fine. But I believe in the free market. I don't think they are making me sick (or any of my neighbors), so I'll keep on buying them (gas and charcoal...hey, he's attacking the FOURTH OF JULY, for God's sake).
If you don't want them, Harry, don't buy 'em. But keep your Liberal Fascism to yourself...you don't get to say that I can't buy them.
Here's a comment from NRO today.
Re: Larry Kudlow [Ramesh Ponnuru]
My point is that Kudlow shows a rare and honorable trait. He gave his word to the President that some comments would be "off the record"...and he kept his word.
How many of the NYTimes or WAPost lefties can we say this of? Not many...
Saudi King: Get Used to High Oil Prices
Tuesday, July 01, 2008Saudi Arabia's King Abdullah told oil consumers Tuesday that they should get used to high prices and not blame the country for the spike in the price of crude, the Agence France-Presse news agency reported.
"Consumer countries have to adapt to the prices and the mechanisms of the market," the king said in an interview published Tuesday in Kuwaiti daily Al-Siyassah.
Abdullah's comments came as the price of oil jumped past $143 a barrel for the first time.
The king contends that speculators are to blame for the rising costs, a claim that has been denied by the International Energy Agency, AFP reported.
"Often it is a case of political expediency to find a scapegoat for higher prices rather than undertake serious analysis or perhaps confront difficult decisions," the IEA told AFP.
OK, here's Econ 101.
Oil prices are NOT being driven up by speculators. Oil prices are high for one reason: OPEC. OPEC is a cartel. In the USA, cartels are illegal (well, except for MLB and the NFL and...) So when traders on the exchanges bid on oil, there is one major supplier with the same price. OPEC sets prices for ALL of its members, and sets production quotas for members. Together, OPEC members produce about 40% of the world's oil supply. This means that, if I agree to pay $130 for a barrel of oil, all OPEC members sell at this price. I can't get a separate bid from Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Venezuela, etc. In the past, some of the OPEC members would "cheat" on their production quotas, but they were punished by other OPEC members.
If there was truly a free market in oil, I could go to the market and get a price from all of the different nations that produce oil. If the current price was $130, I could probably find someone who would offer it at $129. That, in turn, would start a bidding war (downward), resulting in a lower price. The price would stabilize when the last barrel of oil available was sold to the last bidder. This usually results in a price that reflects costs + a reasonable profit margin.
Today, if I offer $129 for oil that's selling at $130, none of the OPEC countries are allowed to sell to me at $129. Since they control such a high percentage of oil output, those suppliers that are not members of OPEC have no incentive to sell at any price lower than the "set" price, or OPEC price. They'll get the OPEC price.
To call this "an open market", "a free market'', or "the mechanisms of the market" is a bunch of baloney.
Solution: We should tell all OPEC countries that we will bomb the next OPEC meeting, killing all oil ministers. We will then assassinate all future oil ministers and bomb OPEC meetings until they dissolve OPEC. You think I'm kidding? Well-placed smart-bombs in the camel tents of a few Saudi and Iranian goat-lovers would cause them to get our religion quickly. I'm deadly serious. These SOB's hide behind statements like the one above, taking billions from us, and then tell us it's our fault. I've had enough of this garbage.
The price to drill and recover oil in the middle east is somewhere less than $20/barrel. I would pay $40/bbl for this oil. They'd still be zillionaires, but we would be a lot better off.
Oh, by the way, lest you think I'm kidding, my REAL proposal is to nuke the mideast, take it over, and sell it to the highest bidder (Exxon and Shell would pay reasonable prices for oil leases there). As my brother would say, "What are all of those arabs doing camped out above our oil?"
This postcard was used to let folks know there's a new number to call for police info. The idea, obviously, was that you'd get the card, see the cute puppy, and read the info. Simple Marketing 101.
Geez, it seems that the poor Muslims consider dogs "unclean". Now they are offended. Poor them. IT'S A PUPPY, DAMN IT!
There is no freaking way that the Tayside police should submit to this absolute b.s. I will personally print up copies of these cards and mail them myself. Just give me a few hundred addresses in Tayside, and off they go.
Political correctness is one thing; but this goes way too far. You want unclean? Come see Yellow Dog after he jumps in the pond at the farm, you morons.
Read about it here.
John H over at Power Line nails Obama. In a speech today, Obama said this:
I remember, when living for four years in Indonesia as a child, I listened to my mother reading me the first lines of the Declaration of Independence, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they're endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
John takes a great shot:
I would have thought that pretty much everyone--certainly every Presidential speechwriter, and every Harvard Law School graduate!--knows that these are not the "first lines" of the Declaration, which begins, "When in the course of human events...." What, exactly, accounts for the fact that Obama is not a laughingstock?
Good ole Mrs. Upchurch in 6th grade would have flunked me if I made that kind of stupid mistake. Click the link below and read the rest of the stupidity that is Obama.
H/T Power Line