Napolitano New Years Blunder

31 12 2010

What the heck is wrong with the Obama administration?

I’m hoping that 2011 will give us some hard evidence in order to Impeach the worst president in modern history. Then we can clean out his Rats nest of Marxist appointees that seem to only help the enemies of the USA.

I got back to the house late this morning and as my habit, I turned on Fox News. It’s normal in my home to have Fox playing in the background during the day as I do my re-hab work, PC work, and all-around general chores. Within 30 second after turning on the TV, Fox had a story about Janet Napolitano, head of Homeland Security. She, in her infinite wisdom (major sarcasm)… is spending her New Years Eve in Afghanistan because there are some US Border Patrol Agents helping to train people at the AfPak border. Meanwhile, citizens in the USA are forced to keep out Illegals on our very own Southern border. See Video below…

Am I the only one that thinks this is another slap-in-the-face of the American people? Think about it  The head of Homeland Security is in Afghanistan helping to protect their border. What about our damn border right here at home?

A huge thank you goes out to the gentlemen in the video. They are doing the job that HOMELAND SECURITY is supposed to do. Instead, that Dept is busy protecting the borders of AFGHANISTAN. I’m beyond angry about this and it is taking every ounce of willpower to stay away from dropping ‘F’ bombs everywhere.

This is more proof that it is WE THE PEOPLE that are going to have to save this country. May God help us!

Gio-

Advertisements




Score One For Old Guys

29 12 2010

This has got to be the video of the day. Watch a 67 year old Vietnam Vet chop down a young thug on a bus… Click here.

Gio-





Gay Political Party

29 12 2010

There has been a lot of talk on the blogs lately about Gay issues. Hell, just look back over the last 2 weeks of my postings and you will see how it’s even effected me.

So just for the record, I want to take another stab at this issue, and then I promise to move on to other subjects. This one riles me up so much because it’s a big issue if you still believe in morality.

M-o-r-a-l-i-t-y, remember what that is? Here’s a few reminders…

Morality is concern with the distinction between good and evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct; ethical motive: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

Morality (from the Latin moralitas “manner, character, proper behavior”) is a system of conduct and ethics that is virtuous. It can also be used in regard to sexual matters and chastity. …

moral – concerned with principles of right and wrong or conforming to standards of behavior and character based on those principles; “moral sense”; “a moral scrutiny”; “a moral lesson”; “a moral quandary”; “moral convictions”; “a moral life”

Lately there have been quite a few gay issues getting ink on other blogs and with the comments always end up the same predictable way. The pro-gay side will use any argument to try to bolster their position except for one… the morality part of the equation. Once in a while someone will try to use the moral argument, but always goes down in flames, so it’s not used very often as a tactic for the pro-gay crowd. They don’t use it because they know it’s the one argument that won’t hold water.

I wanted to briefly write about this tonight mostly due to an article I read a few hours ago about how a gay conservative group had been invited to this years CPAC convention. Some of the regular attendees heard about this and politely backed out from attending this year. The Family Research Council is just one of those opting out, and I want to publicly say that I appreciate them for their move.

Of course this leads back to politics, like everything eventually does, but the politics of an issue like this could put Conservative-politics in a very tricky place. Here’s why… If the GOP decides to throw open the doors and welcome the gay agenda, then the GOP will never get another vote from me (and a few million just like me). That then leaves me with finding another party that I feel has a reasonable chance of winning. As I write this there are only two parties that get elected in this country, the Democrats and Republicans. They control the money and the power. The good news is that a viable 3rd party may be about to make a major move. I welcome the formation of the Tea-Party as an honest and logical choice for people like me that can no longer side with the GOP because the GOP has lost it’s heart when it comes to Conservative issues. However, if the Tea-Party decides to be another Conservative-Lite Party then we Conservatives are in BIG trouble. Hell, the whole country will be in BIG trouble.

Here comes the part I hate… what the hell do we do? I refuse to put aside my morals when it comes to the gay agenda and the abortion agenda, and at one time I thought the GOP agreed and sided with me. Now it seems that it no longer cares about standing up for whats right and simply wants to placate real Conservatives simply for our money and our votes.

So do we go with a new, more Conservative party, knowing that it will mean that the Dems re-gain control for at least another 10 years while this new party can grow big enough to challenge the Dems. Or do we suck-it up and continue with voting for those that only agree with some of our ideals?

I can only speak for me, but I cannot just throw away my Morals like an old worn-out pair of shoes. Morality is what seperates us humans from animals.

God help us!

Gio-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 





Revealing Huffpost DADT Post

28 12 2010
During the recent debate concerning DADT being repealed, I once again made the mistake of reading comments at the Huffington Post to see if anyone there really understands what is at stake. Prior to the ruling to repeal, progressives and their Gay friends were making heart-felt arguments about how they just wanted equality while serving their country, blah, blah, blah.
Then things changed when it was announced that the Senate had indeed repealed DADT and now Gays would be allowed to serve while being open about their sexual preferences. (next I expect pedophiles are going to want equal rights too) Below is just one short exchange that probably reflects the reality of how Gays feel about this. The pretense of wanting equality is gone!
Gio-
StatsNpolls1   19 minutes ago (12:53 AM)Great, now we can have an al sex right there on the front lines. bite me taliban. Favorite (0) Flag as Abusive

————————-

palisades02   17 minutes ago (12:55 AM) So I’m guessing you will be the first in line.. Oh wait, Gay service men have standards,­, Perhaps you can find yours. Favorite (1) Flag as Abusive

Permalink  | Share it

————————

suntzu   10 minutes ago (1:02 AM)
Stats said: “Great, now WE (emphasis mine) can have an al sex…”

What a revealing statement!

StatsNpolls1   6 minutes ago (1:06 AM)
So? you have a problem with that, phobe?
—————————————————




Polar Bears Extinction

27 12 2010

 You gotta love this story….

 The “Natural Resources Defense Council” has been trying to re-ignite the Global Warming scare along with every other Tree-Hugger organization because the economy has hit them hard in the bank-account. Each Organization is trying to find the magic-wand that will get people to start using their charge-cards again and throw some money their way. The NRDC has been using a rather unique idea that is being adopted by most of the other organizations during these hard times. They have adopted the technique I like to call… “Lying”.

First, look at the partial screen-shot below copied from their very own website just 4 days ago. NRDC.ORG is trying to raise money with this bogus claim on their website.

Keep in mind they are talking about 40 years from now while you read the very short story below the NRDC screen-shot.

Enjoy!

Gio-

Natural Resources Defense Council

————————————————————————————

The following report came out on Christmas Eve.

Politico reports:

FWS (Fish and Wildlife Service) Director Rowan Gould said the 2008 “threatened” listing was made “following careful analysis of the best scientific information, as required by the ESA.”

At the time, the service determined the bears weren’t danger of extinction, so did not warrant the “endangered” status. The bears were listed as “threatened” because they face serious threats from projected decline in its sea ice habitat due to global warming would result in them likely being in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future.

FWS is “confident it was and is the appropriate status,” Gould said.

Listing the polar bear as “endangered” as a result of global warming could open the door to using the Endangered Species Act to regulate greenhouse gases, an outcome the Obama administration has opposed.

————————————————————————————

You just can’t make this stuff up!

Gio-





Merry Christmas To All

23 12 2010

Just a quick note to wish everyone a very blessed Christmas this year. I’m happy to announce that I live in a town where everyone still says Merry Christmas to each other.

 

Gio-





Sad Day UPDATE: DADT

19 12 2010

Here are the RINOS that helped to repeal DADT. Please put them on your hit-list.

Six Republicans initially crossed the aisle to vote against the policy: Susan Collins (R-Maine), Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska), Mark Kirk (R-Ill.), Scott Brown (R-Mass.), Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) and George Voinovich (R-Ohio). … In the first procedural vote on Saturday morning, 63 senators voted in favor of the bill and 33 against. In the final passage, Sens. John Ensign (R-Nev.) and Richard Burr (R-N.C.) switched their vote to “aye,” despite initially voting against moving forward with the bill.

Burr is my Senator�and it sickens me! With a show of hands, how many of you would like to slap Murkowski across her smug mouth?

Will get the full list of Dems that voted for it next.

Gio-