Thursday, December 31, 2009

Iran Protests | Shah's Son Reza Pahlavi Urges Nations to Withdraw Ambassadors

The son of the late Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, who was overthrown and exiled 30 years ago (by the very regime in power today), continues to speak up and is pleading to the international community to join protests against the regime in Iran. He is urging nations to withdraw their ambassadors in objection to Iran’s brutal crackdown of peaceful protesters. In addition to requesting the removal of envoys, he has also written a letter to U.N Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon for investigation into human rights violations. (which means nothing as we know they are useless but the gesture is understandable

In an interview with The Associated Press, Pahlavi equated the climate of the unrest in his homeland with the "revolutionary atmosphere" that preceded the fall of his father from the Peacock Throne 30 years ago, when the monarchy was replaced by an Islamic republic.
In the letter Pahlavi urged the U.N. chief to press Iran to release those arrested and act to "halt the intolerable and increasingly dangerous march of events." The letter was given to the AP Thursday.
Pahlavi said that recalling ambassadors would be a "minimal but clear indication" by U.N. member states of their support for the rights of Iranian citizens and objections to violations of these rights by Iranian authorities.
"This is not about me. I'm not here to advocate anything but ... freedom and democracy for the Iranian people at first and I've determined this as my unique mission in life."
Still, he acknowledged that "I carry on my shoulders the historic weight of an institution that I may potentially represent."

I absolutely agree his with his contention regarding the retraction of ambassadors. In solidarity, the doors need to shut. Unlike the revolution that occurred 30 years ago, these embassies do not have to fear the demonstrators; the thugs are the ones in power, these people just want their rights back. As he stated, while the act may sound minimal, it sends a clear indication of disapproval to the regime along with support for basic human rights. Since the last revolution, the United States has not had an embassy in Iran but surely Canada, Great Britain, and Sweden (among others) can remove their ambassadors, can they not? If not for human rights, then certainly for our own defense, Obama should be meeting with our allies and making the same request as Pahlavi. During the same meeting, sanctions should be discussed and applied (obviously with the approval of congress).
I must apologize, how inappropriate of me to suggest the President take time off golf to tackle important issues.
Lest we not forget that Obama has been shunned by the mullahcracy once again as 2009 has passed along with Obama’s deadline for Iran.

Wednesday, December 30, 2009

Breaking | Rush Limbaugh Rushed to Hospital in Hawaii

Rush has been reportedly rushed to the hospital while vacationing in Honolulu, Hawaii.
(video report via FoxNews below)

via AP
HONOLULU — Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh was taken to a hospital after suffering chest pains and was resting comfortably Wednesday, his radio program said in a statement. "Rush was admitted to and is resting comfortably in a Honolulu hospital today after suffering chest pains," the statement said. "Rush appreciates your prayers and well wishes and will keep you updated via and on his radio program."
Kit Carson, Limbaugh's chief of staff, said he had no further information on Limbaugh's condition.
I hope Rush gets better, we need him to fight the good fight!
As I was browsing different articles trying to obtain as much information as I could about Rush’s condition, I was disgusted by the lib-tard medias reports and bias. Without fail, almost every article includes garbage relating to his past which has no significance to this story. Even more disturbing were the comments posted by obvious left-wing-nutties. Twitter has also been full of activity as the crazy’s use this opportunity to bash him. Whatever your views on Rush or for that matter ANYONE with whom you disagree, HAVE RESPECT.
When it comes down to it, it exhibits a level of classlessness. Conservatives, for the most part, do not use their disagreements to attack their opponents in the same personal manner as liberals (not all liberals but as a generality), its not even close. Most conservatives would wish the other person well by stating something along the lines of…Though I don’t agree with so-and-so and we've been political foes in the past, we wish him well.

Tuesday, December 29, 2009

Krauthammer Criticizes Obama's "Flacid, Meaningless" Words on Iran Protests

As Krauthammer eloquently stated on Fox News Special Report, Obama is continuing to miss a moment in history, one where he has been offered a fairly good opportunity to not only assist Iranians gain democracy from a barbaric regime but as a result help our own country, the region, and the world in general.
Obama needs to come out stronger than ever in denouncing the current regime in Iran, preferably using the same ferocity and passion he uses to scold his political opponents. What will it take? How many times does the regime have to reject Obama before he understands that negotiations are impossible when dealing with impossible people. The United States has always stood for freedom in the past, its pretty pathetic that it has taken this long for him to come out but like Krauthammer, I refuse to clap and thank him for his statement. Its long overdue and was lacking. Get it together.
Free Iran.

Thursday, December 24, 2009

"What's Next?" | Healthcrap Bill Analysis From Bob in NY

At first it's funny because its amusing but then you take a step back and you realize that this isn't a joke, its our reality...and then its not really funny anymore!
Bob...what's next?!

Wednesday, December 9, 2009

Disturbing | Kevin Jennings School Czar Needs to Go

Parents beware!
Watch the video below as Michelle Malkin discusses the appalling information regarding School Czar, an Obama appointee, Kevin Jennings. Recognize that she has to be restrained regarding the amount of detail she can discuss as television has certain regulations in which she must abide. On the other hand, it’s nice to know that television has such regulations but apparently children don’t, 14 year olds are supposedly old enough to be introduced to sexually explicit lectures and instructions on methods to insert certain…(ah can’t even go further than that, it’s that bad!). Let’s just say that they are calling this scandal “fistgate”. Kevin Jennings needs to get…and quickly! As more information surfaces on his past endeavors, affiliations with organizations, or statements made referencing his ideology, it is non-negotiable; he needs to get to steppin!

The Washington Times had an editorial piece on Kevin Jennings appropriately titled 'Obama's risky-sex czar'. They had to place a warning before the article to caution its readers about the contents. Come on, when the Washington times has to place a disclaimer…ITS THAT FREAKIN BAD. Here's the disclaimer and portions of the article...

WARNING: This editorial includes discussion of topics that are sexually graphic.
Under usual circumstances, we would never entertain these subjects or the rancid language involved. In this case, however, a very unusual exception must be made because the issues are central to the background of a senior presidential appointee at the U.S. Department of Education who is in a position to influence how and what our children are taught in our nation's schools. Thus far, out of fear or squeamishness, there has been public hesitance to examine closely the beliefs of this individual because many are afraid even to touch the risky content. Our scruples cannot be used against us when traditional moral precepts need to be defended. Simply, the deep level of depravity involved in this subject cannot be portrayed without providing a couple of examples to illustrate the inappropriate content. Please do not read any further if you will be offended by sexually graphic language.

They go on to reveal some disturbing information;

The Obama administration is stonewalling serious inquiries about sexual filth propagated by a senior presidential appointee who is responsible for promoting and implementing federal education policy. Democrats clearly are terrified of ruffling the feathers of their activist homosexual supporters, who are an influential part of the Democratic party's base. This scandal, however, is not merely about homosexual behavior; it is about promoting sex between children and adults - and it's time for President Obama to make clear that abetting such illegal perversion has no place in his administration.
The conference discussions were very graphic and cannot be relayed in full detail in a family newspaper. A few examples are sufficient to describe the depravity of the subject matter. During one session about oral sex, a presenter asked the 14-year-old students: "Spit or swallow? Is it rude?" In another session, the 14-year-olds are taught about a gross practice called "fisting," in which "the man leading the discussion position[ed] his hand and show[ed] 14-year-olds how to insert their entire hand into the rectum of their sex partner."

As the article points out in the conclusion, neither the administration nor Obama himself has come out answer questions. Concerned parents and citizens have a right to know what the heck is going on and why this administration would appoint a man with this background to this position.
Are we being Punked?!

Tuesday, December 8, 2009

McCain | Where's the Transparency via C-SPAN?

Remember the numerous campaign promises on transparency from the President. How about the one where you promised that all negotiations would broadcast on C-SPAN? Hmm...still waiting.

Via Townhall

McCain's wondering (as we all are) where the transparency is and why C-SPAN is not present as promised...

Saturday, December 5, 2009

Obama Flicks off Mayor John Callahan? | Middle Finger x3

This is not the first time that this has happened and beyond it being something amusing to observe, from what I remember about body language, this gesture is not uncommon. I’m not directly referring to flicking off people, though I’m sure that is quite popular as well. I was referencing the whole head itching flicking off movement, which has now occurred on numerous occasions. Each time, the act came upon hearing the name of a rival or a fren-enemy.
For most people, this is a subconscious gesture signifying the hatred/dislike/anger of the person doing it and the person whose name they are mentioning. This makes absolute sense considering the first time Obama did this it was upon hearing Hillary’s name, then McCain’s, and now mayor John Callahan who by the way was a supporter of his opponent Hillary Clinton. Each of us has our own expressions that we exhibit unintentionally and can really provide insight as to how we truly feel. Obama's rhetoric is obviously pleasant because it has to be but body language says it all.

Whether Obama is conscious of his little flip scratch thing, I can’t really say but I can tell you that his head was not itching. Take that to the bank…jk

(Okay I just rewatched it and I'm so right! Pay close attention, not to words but to expressions, they’ll show everything, no matter how hard someone tries to hide it. He def. is holding grudges! That is too funny!)

I posted the videos of Obama flicking off McCain and Hillary below...

Notice how the crowd cheers after he flicks off Hillary...I'm beginning to think that it may be intentional. What do you think?


Thursday, December 3, 2009

I Dont Know Why Dems "Are So Doggone Stupid" Via Sen. Hatch

Props to Senator O. Hatch for telling it like it is! Now if only more Republicans could speak out and SPEAK UP, we would be doing a lot better.

Btw...He did it on MSNBC no less, he aint scurredd! Go ahead Senator!

Robert Gibbs Heated Exchange With Reporter April Ryan

Robert Gibbs, the White House Press Secretary, got into it yesterday with reporter April Ryans. April, a reporter with American Urban Radio, dared to question Gibbs about Social Secretary Desiree Rogers and the incident surrounding the state dinner. As the exchange progressed, Robert Gibbs had the nerve to compare her to his child who throws temper tantrums. He then recommended that she “calm down” and “take a deep breath”.(transcript of the whole exchange below the video)
The President excluded, the White House Press Secretary is the 2nd most visible person within an administration. Obama's Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs, has been probably one of the worst in recent years. He is delusional, confused, clueless (or portrays as such), even worse, he tends to be very confrontational. He speaks as if he is above everyone. You may ask a totally reasonable question, instead of answering or declining to answer, he thinks he's on a comedy stage and it’s 'The Gibbs Show'.

APRIL RYAN: Did she invite herself to the state dinner or was she a guest of, did the President invite her, or did she put her name on, no, that's a real question, do not fan at all.

ROBERT GIBBS: I, I, Jonathan?

RYAN: I'm serious. No, seriously? Did she invite herself or did the President ask her. Her name was on that list and social secretaries are the ones who put the names on the list.

GIBBS: Right.

RYAN: Did she invite herself, or did the president--

GIBBS: Right, was she at the dinner? April, April, calm down. Just take a deep breath for one second. See,this happens with my son. He does the same thing.

[reporters in the briefing room: Oooooh!]

RYAN: Don't play with me!

GIBBS: I'm not.

RYAN: I'm being serious. Do not blow at all.

GIBBS: And I'm giving you a serious answer. Was she at the dinner? Yes.

RYAN: Was she an invited guest?

GIBBS: She's the social secretary. She had the primary responsibility--

RYAN: No, social secretaries are not guests of the dinner.

Wednesday, December 2, 2009

Glenn Beck | One of the Top '10 Most Facinating People'

Glenn Beck has been named among Barbara Walters (better known as “BawBa”) ‘10 Most Fascinating People of 2009’. The interview is going to shown on ABC next Wednesday, 10 pm ET.
Though he is the topic of conversation and attacked brutally by the media relentlessly, he manages to be quite successful. Beck is doing it big with two bestsellers on the NY Times List, his show on Fox News is num. 2, he is successful in his radio program, his ‘Bold Fresh Tour’ is sold out, and his stage show, “The Christmas Sweater – A Return To Redemption..LIVE!” which is playing in selective theaters around the country. Not to mention, he is the man responsible for outing Van Jones and other WH commie lovers like Anita Dunn.
Whatever your thoughts are on Glenn Beck, he is indeed intriguing. His personality is unlike any other. What I enjoy most about him is that he doesn’t seek the approval of others which allows him to be forward and real. He will tell you what he thinks without reservation and you may or may not like his opinions but you should respect that rare quality. My only issue with Beck is his continuous bashing of the Republicans as if they are equivalent to the Democrats, I understand what he is inferring but when you have to choose between mediocre and awful (awful referring to Dems of course), you definitely want mediocre. The Republicans are not supporting the Crap & Tax bill or the devastating Health Crap Bill. That’s an enormous difference in my book and one to praise!
Btw…Sarah Palin is also included in Wednesdays Barbara Walters Special.
(Walters is a total lefty but she sure knows how to pull in viewers for her special! A very smart move on her part as it guarantees her ratings to double if not more)

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Palin Responds to Obama Surge Speech, "Finally, A Decision"

Palin responded to Obama's speech tonight by posting a statement on her page;

Three months ago, I joined a number of Americans in urging President Obama to provide the resources necessary to achieve our goals in Afghanistan. Tonight, I am glad he mostly heeded that advice.

At long last, President Obama decided to give his military commanders much of what they need to accomplish their mission in Afghanistan. In the end, he decided to endorse a “surge” for Afghanistan, applying the counterinsurgency principles of “clear, hold and build” that worked so well in Iraq. Given that he opposed the surge in Iraq, it is even more welcome that he now supports a surge in Afghanistan.

This approach means, as Senator John McCain has noted, that “We now have an opportunity to build a bipartisan consensus in support of a vital national security priority: defeating Al-Qaeda and its violent extremist allies in Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ensuring that these countries never again serve as bases for terrorist attacks against America and our allies.”

We should be clear, however, that fewer troops mean assuming more risk. Talk of an exit date also risks sending the wrong message. We should be in Afghanistan to win, not to set a timetable for withdrawal that signals a lack of resolve to our friends, and lets our enemies believe they can wait us out. As long as we’re in to win, and as long as troop level decisions are based on conditions on the ground and the advice of our military commanders, I support President Obama’s decision.

Obama's Afghan Speech; Krauthammer Breaks It Down

Krauthammer, once again, puts it brilliantly.

What was the point of the always Obama contradicts Obama.

Obama's Afghan Surge Speech

I'll expand on the whole speech later but I had to make a few comments...
The whole speech was "I...I...I...I...I", I'm so great, I did this, I am great because of this. I understand this.
His speech was made to appeal to his base, the extreme left.
  • Stop blaming the previous administration for everything. Your the President. YOU CANNOT PICK AND CHOOSE...YOU CANNOT TAKE CREDIT FOR ALL THE VICTORIES BUT BLAME OTHERS FOR THE LOSSES.
  • He was asked for 60,000 troops but at the minimum 40, did he come up with his 30,000 number? Why are going half-way? Why are you micro-managing the war when you have a competent general?
  • How do you announce a surge but then set a date for withdrawal? That gives our enemy some assistance. Why is he playing politics with the lives of our brave men and women in the military?
  • You don't insult and undermine their President in public at a time like this, you do it behind the scenes but you don't bash them when the whole world is listening. Why would you delibertly undermine is authority. Reprimand when the doors are closed.
  • Why did he infer that we are "occupying" their country? Is that what he really thinks?
Its all show and rhetoric, nothing more.
I'm so over it.
(more to come)

Blog Template by