Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg was recently interviewed by one of those thoroughly professional journalism people in regards to the circus that is Sotomayor, when she let slip a very disturbing little gem which will probably be remembered forever. In fact, it might be the only thing ever uttered by Justice Ginsburg which will be remembered at all.
Speaking on Roe v. Wade, Madam Justice told the so-called reporter who asked her about the landmark usurpation of State and Congressional authority by a renegade Court that she was under the impression that the real purpose of Roe was (paraphrasing here) "to control certain populations which we don't want too many of..."
The reporter, probably too shocked by what she'd just heard, failed to ask the logical follow-up question; "What'choo talkin' 'bout, Willis?", oh sorry, I mean "Did you have a particular population in mind, Madam Justice"?
I'm only assuming that she (the reporter) was shocked. What's more likely is that her finely-honed journalistic skill set (ripping things off the Internet without confirmation or attribution, making shit up to fit your argument, making false attacks against conservatives, learning where the free coffee and donuts are) was insufficient to cope with such an earth-shattering revelation of what one of America's most powerful judges thinks about the value of human life....especially if it belongs to a person we "don't want too many of."
Since the Justice didn't elaborate, and the reporter was somehow prevented (probably by a brain tumor) from asking for clarification, let me take a stab at filling in the list of people we supposedly don't want, and which Roe was probably intended to "control" according to Madam Justice;
Blacks.
Hispanics.
The Handicapped.
The Mentally Ill.
Criminals.
Christians.
Republicans.
Rich White Heterosexual Patrician Males (specifically).
Men (in general)
For those of you who are not familiar with the Eugenics Movement which was a hallmark of Progressive thinking in this country during the early part of the last century, this is the point.
The Eugenicists held that people, like dogs, cows or racehorses, could be bred to produce superior specimens (what the Nazis would call Ubermenchen, or Supermen) who exhibit what the Eugenicists considered the finest traits of the human race. Things like intelligence, strength, athleticism, artistic sense, according to this theory, could be bred into successive generations of human beings until we were all 'perfect'.
Traits that were undesirable: propensity to disease, deformities, anti-social behavior, ignorance would be 'bred out' of the human race, by the process of sterilizing those who possessed those traits, or in the extreme, killing them. This is Darwinism taken to it's extreme. It resulted in the Lynchburg and Tuskeegee experiments in this country -- where people were forcibly sterilized, given forced abortions, and then 'hospitalized' for many years (some for the remainder of their lives) to keep them from 'polluting' the gene pool -- that's when they weren't actually experimented on by so-called scientists. In Nazi Germany, it led to the creation of special 'baby farms' where children created by the union of the men of the SS and German women willing to breed in service to the state, were raised in government-run orphanages to create the next generation of Aryan Supersoldiers for the Third Reich.
They were programs intended to perfect mankind by either removing the worst genetic material by isolation from the 'breeding stock', or surgical prevention of conception, and by only allowing those deemed best equipped to reproduce. Many of them actually handed out breeding licenses, and in some cases, arrest for a particular crime might entail an automatic sentence of sterilization, or remand to specifically be studied (read; experimented upon) by scientists.
The counterpart (and logical conclusion) to those programs was, unfortunately, the horror of the Nazi concentration and death camps, which aimed to not just annihilate the Jews as the object of Nazi obsession and hatred, but the Jews as a source of DNA which the Nazis believed 'polluted' the superior races of Europe.
Good to know that Justice Ginsburg (who I have to believe probably knows at least one Holocaust survivor) believes that American law is intended to produce genocide; under the guise of 'reproductive rights', according to her, the actual purpose of Roe was deny those same rights to those deemed unworthy by the State, or at least by a future State being run by 'Progressives'.
Nice.
Jonah Goldberg of National Review has a thing or two to say on the subject.
Update: Apparently YesWeCan's new "Science Czar" wrote a book advocating this very shit 40 years ago! Here's the dirt on the despicable John Holder, courtesy of the National Examiner.
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Tuesday, July 14, 2009
Some Thoughts on Sotomayor...
The dog and pony show which is a Senate Confirmation Hearing on Judge Sonia Sotomator began in earnest yesterday. They shouldn't bother, as her appointment is foregone conclusion in the sense that democrats (small 'd' intentional) have the votes to confirm her in any case. The only obstacle to confirmation now is if it was found that she had done something really heinous, like ruled that people have the right to BBQ puppies in public in full "Village People" get-up with fireworks shooting out of their asses, in front of a gas station.
The abortion questions 'conservatives' (small 'c' intentional) will probably ask are moot; the Supreme Court usurped the power of both Congress and the states when it ruled in Roe v. Wade, and since the results of that power grab have been a postive boon for both parties, don't expect the question to actually be resolved in these hearings (although the Senators will kick it about to buff up their own street cred to their constituencies). Besides, we all know that there is now too much invested in the decision for anyone to actually talk seriously about the Supreme Court reversing itself; it will never happen. The Court will not reverse it's decision and pop the bubble of infallibility and reverence with which the institution is held by the legal profession (itself a den of whores), and neither party will submit to the Federalist soultion --putting the abortion question to a straight up-and-down vote in state legislatures -- because both sides manipulate the question for political gain (and money, as well as organized voting blocs) as it suits their purposes. And they do it too damned well.
Instead, I would concentrate on scoring a rhetorical point which might have an effect on the voting public despite her confirmation. It's that "Wise Latina" comment.
Her apologists have pooh-poohed it as an off-the-cuff remark which may represent a personal belief, but which does not translate to a 'core judicial philosophy', but I say 'bullshit'. She's on reconrd as having said it something like five, seven or 3thirty-one times, depending on who you believe. Anyone who says such things repeatedly (especially in prepared speeches!) doesn't do so because it's a random thought; they say it because they either truly believe it, or it's the sort of 'apply anywhere bullshit' which all politicians (and judges, unfortunately, are politicians, too) carelessly fling around to sport their political bona-fides.
In which case, Sonia Sotomayor is either under the impression that it is a true statement, which makes it a racist statement. Or, she's a liar who will say whatever is required of her depending on her audience, possessed of a stockpile of well-turned-politically-correct pablum to throw at them when required.
I'm not certain which it is. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt here, conditioning that benefit with the personal impression that she seems to be both an opportnist who has learned to use her gender and heritage for her personal advantage, and that's she's probably dumber than dogshit, but very well-rehearsed in the ways of political crapspeak. I'm certain that outside the political and legal realms, she probably makes a mean arroz con pollo and is probably a very pleasant woman (I do have to give her credit for having a wonderful smile, which conveys friendliness and warmth, like grandma used to).
That having been said, I'm not certain she's really a good choice, but perhaps merely the least-worse.
The abortion questions 'conservatives' (small 'c' intentional) will probably ask are moot; the Supreme Court usurped the power of both Congress and the states when it ruled in Roe v. Wade, and since the results of that power grab have been a postive boon for both parties, don't expect the question to actually be resolved in these hearings (although the Senators will kick it about to buff up their own street cred to their constituencies). Besides, we all know that there is now too much invested in the decision for anyone to actually talk seriously about the Supreme Court reversing itself; it will never happen. The Court will not reverse it's decision and pop the bubble of infallibility and reverence with which the institution is held by the legal profession (itself a den of whores), and neither party will submit to the Federalist soultion --putting the abortion question to a straight up-and-down vote in state legislatures -- because both sides manipulate the question for political gain (and money, as well as organized voting blocs) as it suits their purposes. And they do it too damned well.
Instead, I would concentrate on scoring a rhetorical point which might have an effect on the voting public despite her confirmation. It's that "Wise Latina" comment.
Her apologists have pooh-poohed it as an off-the-cuff remark which may represent a personal belief, but which does not translate to a 'core judicial philosophy', but I say 'bullshit'. She's on reconrd as having said it something like five, seven or 3thirty-one times, depending on who you believe. Anyone who says such things repeatedly (especially in prepared speeches!) doesn't do so because it's a random thought; they say it because they either truly believe it, or it's the sort of 'apply anywhere bullshit' which all politicians (and judges, unfortunately, are politicians, too) carelessly fling around to sport their political bona-fides.
In which case, Sonia Sotomayor is either under the impression that it is a true statement, which makes it a racist statement. Or, she's a liar who will say whatever is required of her depending on her audience, possessed of a stockpile of well-turned-politically-correct pablum to throw at them when required.
I'm not certain which it is. I'll give her the benefit of the doubt here, conditioning that benefit with the personal impression that she seems to be both an opportnist who has learned to use her gender and heritage for her personal advantage, and that's she's probably dumber than dogshit, but very well-rehearsed in the ways of political crapspeak. I'm certain that outside the political and legal realms, she probably makes a mean arroz con pollo and is probably a very pleasant woman (I do have to give her credit for having a wonderful smile, which conveys friendliness and warmth, like grandma used to).
That having been said, I'm not certain she's really a good choice, but perhaps merely the least-worse.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
If It Quacks Like a Duck...
Does anyone still assume that President Obambi wants to fix the economy? There's a stimulus bill which has stimulated nothing. The takeover of the the banks which are still not lending. Taking over GM to ensure that the Autoworkers (those warriors of capitalism!) get their welfare-disguised-as-paycheck. Then heturns his attention to health care 'reform', which will not generate amny revenue, and looks as if it will require more borrowing, and Cap-and-Trade, which will burden American business with higher energy costs and leave them vulnerable to foreign competition.
They still have done nothing to shore up the dollar, and forget anything approaching budget cuts. Don't forget 23 new 'czars' with attendant, and overlapping, federal bureaucracies attached.
This guiy is not about to fix anything; his modus operandi is about making people ever-more dependant upon the government.
Even democrats (small 'd' intentional) know that if you wish to stimulate economic growth, you take the decisions about money out of the hands of the Congresscritters, and slash taxes across the board and let the people decide how to invest the savings, cutting out several layers of government red tape.
See you all in the government cheese line! Hopenchange, indeed...
They still have done nothing to shore up the dollar, and forget anything approaching budget cuts. Don't forget 23 new 'czars' with attendant, and overlapping, federal bureaucracies attached.
This guiy is not about to fix anything; his modus operandi is about making people ever-more dependant upon the government.
Even democrats (small 'd' intentional) know that if you wish to stimulate economic growth, you take the decisions about money out of the hands of the Congresscritters, and slash taxes across the board and let the people decide how to invest the savings, cutting out several layers of government red tape.
See you all in the government cheese line! Hopenchange, indeed...
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Of Pots and Kettles, Part XXVI
Read this speech by President Odickhead to the Parliament of Ghana, and then try to maintain a straight face...and your blood pressure.
Talk about sheer gall!
Does no one in the White House have even the slightest bit of respect for the intelligence of anyone in this country?
Talk about sheer gall!
Does no one in the White House have even the slightest bit of respect for the intelligence of anyone in this country?
Friday, July 10, 2009
Now You Know Why There's a 'Health Care' Problem...
Megan McArdle in the Atlantic takes on the Health Care issue, explaining just why a government-run plan is simply the rationing of resources, and does not improve anyone's quality of life. The article itself, to me anyways, is dry and a rehash of everything I already knew, but what makes this remarkable is the Comments section, where one poster actually had the unmitigated audacity to actually type this:
"...Oh, and I forgot to say, they billed my insurance 40,000 for 4 days in the hospital, and my insurance company made me pay 4,000 dollars of it. That is 1000 dollars a day for my hospital stay, even though I HAD INSURANCE!!!! (I am a grad student living on 1400 a month.)
Nobodies' assets are safe under our current system. It just costs whatever they think they can confiscate from you..."
And therein is the problem! This deluded woman's insurance company shelled out $36,000 to save her life, and restore her to health, but that $4,000 (a mere 10% of the total cost!) that she is asked to pay is an undue burden, approaching an unfair confiscation of her assets!
Look, I've had my own problems with the insurance companies in the past, but this is a very petty complaint, indeed,
But it is indicative of the mentality of many who scream 'Health Care Crisis' summed up very nicely. The poor naif is a 'grad student' (like this is supposed to impress me? She's basically a dictator in training, if you ask me, and the sense of entitlement just fairly oozes out of that revelation. I hope she's a grad student in something useful, like engineering, or chain-saw juggling, and not one of those Gender Studies faux-PhD's), living on a fixed income (probably a stipend paid for by the taxpayers who support her university). She's probably receiving financial aid, too. Her whole lifestyle may have been subsidized by the taxpayer during her academic career, so why shouldn't it also cover that last 4k?
This same mentality is prevalent in all other wards of the state -- welfare recipients, Social Security recipients and Public Unions: they have a lifestyle subsidized by the state in one way or another, and probably receive much more in compensation from society than they ever really contributed to it (this is especially true of the so-called Greatest Generation of Social Security recipients, and the Welfare-as-family-tradition section of the so-called poor). So why shouldn't government go whole hog and save them that last 10% of the bill?
The 'debate' is not about Health Care. It's not about access, cost or quality. It's about people who don't perform useful work getting something for free , and having it established as a 'right'.
"...Oh, and I forgot to say, they billed my insurance 40,000 for 4 days in the hospital, and my insurance company made me pay 4,000 dollars of it. That is 1000 dollars a day for my hospital stay, even though I HAD INSURANCE!!!! (I am a grad student living on 1400 a month.)
Nobodies' assets are safe under our current system. It just costs whatever they think they can confiscate from you..."
And therein is the problem! This deluded woman's insurance company shelled out $36,000 to save her life, and restore her to health, but that $4,000 (a mere 10% of the total cost!) that she is asked to pay is an undue burden, approaching an unfair confiscation of her assets!
Look, I've had my own problems with the insurance companies in the past, but this is a very petty complaint, indeed,
But it is indicative of the mentality of many who scream 'Health Care Crisis' summed up very nicely. The poor naif is a 'grad student' (like this is supposed to impress me? She's basically a dictator in training, if you ask me, and the sense of entitlement just fairly oozes out of that revelation. I hope she's a grad student in something useful, like engineering, or chain-saw juggling, and not one of those Gender Studies faux-PhD's), living on a fixed income (probably a stipend paid for by the taxpayers who support her university). She's probably receiving financial aid, too. Her whole lifestyle may have been subsidized by the taxpayer during her academic career, so why shouldn't it also cover that last 4k?
This same mentality is prevalent in all other wards of the state -- welfare recipients, Social Security recipients and Public Unions: they have a lifestyle subsidized by the state in one way or another, and probably receive much more in compensation from society than they ever really contributed to it (this is especially true of the so-called Greatest Generation of Social Security recipients, and the Welfare-as-family-tradition section of the so-called poor). So why shouldn't government go whole hog and save them that last 10% of the bill?
The 'debate' is not about Health Care. It's not about access, cost or quality. It's about people who don't perform useful work getting something for free , and having it established as a 'right'.
Thursday, July 09, 2009
Cyberwar...
Article in today's New York Post about North Korea's Cyber nastiness this past week. Something clicked for me upon hearing more about this yesterday, bear with me.
I remember reading a report online this past October, just as John McCain was 'suspending his campaign to focus on the economy' that the economic issue's first manifestation was in the Federal Reserve 'losing' half a trillion dollars in cash in a twenty-minute period (I have tried, but I cannot find that post anywhere) on the day the markets first began to tank. That's $500 billion electronically transferred by someone, or several someones, someplace where the Federal Reserve was unable to follow it, or get it back. Someone suddenly drew on huge reserves of cash and took it clean out of the monetary system. The next day, the Fed was looking for $700 billion; 500 to cover the losses, 200 more as a cushion. (Disclaimer: I do not know for a fact that any of this is factually true, but it fits a theory based on what I know and see. I spent 20 years in data processing in the financial industry, so bear with me).
Now, the Fed is perfectly capable of tracing that money, or at least , it should be. So far as I know, it still has not explained where that money went. There could be two reasons for it:
a) They honestly don't know.
b) You really don't want to know.
Why wouldn't you really want to know? Because what if that cash was vaporized in a cyber attack? How safe would you feel your money was? Markets are all about security, if nothing else; people have to believe the system is secure and within reasonable limits, predictable. How secure and predictable is a system where someone could electronically siphon off half a trillion dollars with no one noticing or being able to stop it?
The timing of the debacle was suspect too. An October Surprise of epic proportions. Perhaps someone was giving G.W.B a final "fuck you!" on his way out the door, and at the same time ensuring that John McCain would be fatally wounded? When one considers the speed with which the Obama Administration, and the democratic party apparatchiks have shown in insinuating itself into American industry and finance, and destroying what's left of financial confidence from within the system, the more paranoid, tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists begin to sound.
Just a hunch, but I gather we're not being told the entire truth behaind this economic crisis, because the truth is that this country was attacked, sans bombs and airplanes, electronically with a cyber assault on the financial system. I think the government knows it, and knows who did it -- but not how it was done -- and that this helps explain some of the recent chaos.
Or, I could be talking out of my ass. Until more facts are available, your guess is as good as mine.
Article in today's New York Post about North Korea's Cyber nastiness this past week. Something clicked for me upon hearing more about this yesterday, bear with me.
I remember reading a report online this past October, just as John McCain was 'suspending his campaign to focus on the economy' that the economic issue's first manifestation was in the Federal Reserve 'losing' half a trillion dollars in cash in a twenty-minute period (I have tried, but I cannot find that post anywhere) on the day the markets first began to tank. That's $500 billion electronically transferred by someone, or several someones, someplace where the Federal Reserve was unable to follow it, or get it back. Someone suddenly drew on huge reserves of cash and took it clean out of the monetary system. The next day, the Fed was looking for $700 billion; 500 to cover the losses, 200 more as a cushion. (Disclaimer: I do not know for a fact that any of this is factually true, but it fits a theory based on what I know and see. I spent 20 years in data processing in the financial industry, so bear with me).
Now, the Fed is perfectly capable of tracing that money, or at least , it should be. So far as I know, it still has not explained where that money went. There could be two reasons for it:
a) They honestly don't know.
b) You really don't want to know.
Why wouldn't you really want to know? Because what if that cash was vaporized in a cyber attack? How safe would you feel your money was? Markets are all about security, if nothing else; people have to believe the system is secure and within reasonable limits, predictable. How secure and predictable is a system where someone could electronically siphon off half a trillion dollars with no one noticing or being able to stop it?
The timing of the debacle was suspect too. An October Surprise of epic proportions. Perhaps someone was giving G.W.B a final "fuck you!" on his way out the door, and at the same time ensuring that John McCain would be fatally wounded? When one considers the speed with which the Obama Administration, and the democratic party apparatchiks have shown in insinuating itself into American industry and finance, and destroying what's left of financial confidence from within the system, the more paranoid, tin-foil-hat-wearing conspiracy theorists begin to sound.
Just a hunch, but I gather we're not being told the entire truth behaind this economic crisis, because the truth is that this country was attacked, sans bombs and airplanes, electronically with a cyber assault on the financial system. I think the government knows it, and knows who did it -- but not how it was done -- and that this helps explain some of the recent chaos.
Or, I could be talking out of my ass. Until more facts are available, your guess is as good as mine.
What Overpaid State Workers think of us Suckers...errr...Taxpayers.
I've found this mentality to be prevalent in indsutries that are dominated by union workers, btw, a few of whom also seem to be some of the most insecure, and mentally unstable human beings I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. This is probably because they fear the loss of the (extorted) golden calf of union employment more than they do AIDS.
Note the frequent retort of 'burger-flipper' and references to 'I took a test to get this job'. I've just recently taken a Civil Service exam, and if that's anything to judge by a retarded Irish Setter with dyslexia and one good eye could probably pass whatever exam they gave in California. Tell me there isn't some kind of pathology at work here...
I've found this mentality to be prevalent in indsutries that are dominated by union workers, btw, a few of whom also seem to be some of the most insecure, and mentally unstable human beings I've ever had the displeasure of meeting. This is probably because they fear the loss of the (extorted) golden calf of union employment more than they do AIDS.
Note the frequent retort of 'burger-flipper' and references to 'I took a test to get this job'. I've just recently taken a Civil Service exam, and if that's anything to judge by a retarded Irish Setter with dyslexia and one good eye could probably pass whatever exam they gave in California. Tell me there isn't some kind of pathology at work here...
But Only White People Can Be Racist...Rev. Al Said So...
Two Hundred NY State employees fired for being white. Being a resident of the People's Republic of New York, I can easily believe this. Race permeates everything in New York, and our black politicos are very good at screaming racism when it's partly-cloudy-with-a-chance-of showers, and recycling 1960's boilerplate about The Man, and the "lack of resources (i.e. someone else's money doled out by government) in the Black Comm-unnn-itttaay". So, I wouldn't be surprised if they did this at all. It's par for the course.
Th NY State Legislature hasn't met for a month now to conduct any public business, as there's some silliness afoot over 'leadership' with the other. Neither side could lead a three year old to the crapper, in this state. When you stop to consider what they apparently do when they're working, this might be a good thing.
It's really true: people get the government they deserve. You only have to look at New York State to see this maxim illustrated; a Mayor of NYC who thinks he has the right to overturn the will of the voters to run for a third term, a governor who's only in charge because his predecessor was an aficionado of courtesans, and who is, literally, blind to what goes on in Albany, a State Legislature that has come to a complete halt -- except to scream that they should still be getting paid -- over a power struggle about who gets to divvy up the public pie...and the citizenry is happy to have them not work at all. In fact, it hardly notices, mostly because a certain segment of the citizenry couldn't spell 'legislature' is you spotted them the first 10 letters.
Apparently, that segment of the population have all found gainful employment in Albany.
Two Hundred NY State employees fired for being white. Being a resident of the People's Republic of New York, I can easily believe this. Race permeates everything in New York, and our black politicos are very good at screaming racism when it's partly-cloudy-with-a-chance-of showers, and recycling 1960's boilerplate about The Man, and the "lack of resources (i.e. someone else's money doled out by government) in the Black Comm-unnn-itttaay". So, I wouldn't be surprised if they did this at all. It's par for the course.
Th NY State Legislature hasn't met for a month now to conduct any public business, as there's some silliness afoot over 'leadership' with the other. Neither side could lead a three year old to the crapper, in this state. When you stop to consider what they apparently do when they're working, this might be a good thing.
It's really true: people get the government they deserve. You only have to look at New York State to see this maxim illustrated; a Mayor of NYC who thinks he has the right to overturn the will of the voters to run for a third term, a governor who's only in charge because his predecessor was an aficionado of courtesans, and who is, literally, blind to what goes on in Albany, a State Legislature that has come to a complete halt -- except to scream that they should still be getting paid -- over a power struggle about who gets to divvy up the public pie...and the citizenry is happy to have them not work at all. In fact, it hardly notices, mostly because a certain segment of the citizenry couldn't spell 'legislature' is you spotted them the first 10 letters.
Apparently, that segment of the population have all found gainful employment in Albany.
The REAL Micheal Jackson Memorial Service...
Here's the real story behind it. It's rather sad, but somehow appropos. After all, if you invite 'Reverend' Al Sharpton to anything, there must be at least one scam running somewhere.
UPDATE: Here's what that travesty cost the city of Los Angeles.
Here's the real story behind it. It's rather sad, but somehow appropos. After all, if you invite 'Reverend' Al Sharpton to anything, there must be at least one scam running somewhere.
UPDATE: Here's what that travesty cost the city of Los Angeles.
Reason #3,105 Why Your President is an Asshole...
Unilateral disarmament is basically what it amounts to.
I found it rather strange that President YesWeCan can go to Russia to talk about nuclear arms, and apparently the words "Iran" and "North Korea" never even get mentioned. What DOES get mentioned is something about the United States reducing the number of it's own warheads and launchers, and oh, we'll not expand our missile defense systems, which a) work and b) are needed now that North Korea is flinging missiles around the Western Pacific.
Good 'ol Hopenchanger, in full 1970's NoNukes dudgeon, apparently has forgotten what decade he lives in. Just before his trip, someone dug up an old essay of Obambi's from his Columbia Dayz, a rambling bit of hippie-speak about the total elimination of nuclear weapons, flower power, and the healing qualities of crystals when the moon is in the fifth house of Aquarius. We can assume he still thinks this way, and that this is the cornerstone of his nuclear arms policy because he basically gave up the farm in Moscow, and got not one iota of help in the fight against proliferation, while ensuring that Europe is now naked in the shadow of Russian nuclear power.
I'm sure we'll be sold this crap as another significant step on the way to world peace, yet one more way in which the United States can improve it's world image. Like kind of crap actually matters. We live in a dangerous world, with other states who possess such weapons, many of which are hostile to us either because of who we are, or what we represent. No amount of playing nice, no amount of bribery, no amount of marketing, is ever going to change that. A deterrent is necessary to keep those people from deciding that we're a soft mark (although with Obama in charge, that's a very hard front to maintain) and doing us harm.
Even the Brits have taken notice of how Obama is rushing headlong into disarmament.If the British have noticed, you know it must be obvious.
Unilateral disarmament is basically what it amounts to.
I found it rather strange that President YesWeCan can go to Russia to talk about nuclear arms, and apparently the words "Iran" and "North Korea" never even get mentioned. What DOES get mentioned is something about the United States reducing the number of it's own warheads and launchers, and oh, we'll not expand our missile defense systems, which a) work and b) are needed now that North Korea is flinging missiles around the Western Pacific.
Good 'ol Hopenchanger, in full 1970's NoNukes dudgeon, apparently has forgotten what decade he lives in. Just before his trip, someone dug up an old essay of Obambi's from his Columbia Dayz, a rambling bit of hippie-speak about the total elimination of nuclear weapons, flower power, and the healing qualities of crystals when the moon is in the fifth house of Aquarius. We can assume he still thinks this way, and that this is the cornerstone of his nuclear arms policy because he basically gave up the farm in Moscow, and got not one iota of help in the fight against proliferation, while ensuring that Europe is now naked in the shadow of Russian nuclear power.
I'm sure we'll be sold this crap as another significant step on the way to world peace, yet one more way in which the United States can improve it's world image. Like kind of crap actually matters. We live in a dangerous world, with other states who possess such weapons, many of which are hostile to us either because of who we are, or what we represent. No amount of playing nice, no amount of bribery, no amount of marketing, is ever going to change that. A deterrent is necessary to keep those people from deciding that we're a soft mark (although with Obama in charge, that's a very hard front to maintain) and doing us harm.
Even the Brits have taken notice of how Obama is rushing headlong into disarmament.If the British have noticed, you know it must be obvious.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)