Any Oval Office moron could have "pulled the trigger"... and Yes, Øbamoron Did.
N
obel "Peace"Assassination Prize "winner" Blamebush Hubristic Øbamegalomaniac inherited™ the information President George W. Bush extracted from waterboarding 9/11 planner Khalid Sheikh Mohammed which led to our top SEALs finding Oscuma bit Dustnow.
Had President Bush heeded the advicevicious attacks of the gutless ONEder and future golfer-in-chief Bozock Øbassassin, Oroastin' in Hellnow would still be stealing the oxygen that far, far better life forms — starting with turdworms — deserve infinitely more.
To captureassassinate Bin Laden, the Americans needed to know who his trusted couriers were.
In 2004 [i.e., during PresidentBush'sterm], the interrogationwaterboarding of an al-Qaeda operative arrested in Iraq enabled the CIA to corroborate information they had on [Bin Laden's "most trusted" courier Abu Ahmad al-]Kuwaiti....
This finally led them to the compound in Abbottabad.
Thank you, President Bush, for picking out, buying, cleaning, testing, loading, mounting on a steady tripod, and aiming the gun as competently, precisely, and effectively as, yes, you did, so that pulling its trigger would be so easy, even an Øcaveman could do it.
They promise as much a cure for those as they do for anything else.
N
ame one disease or ailment successfully cured or treated as a result of embryonic infanticidal stem cell research. A single case of it will do.
No "promises to someday possibly lead to a better theory of how it may, with a lot of luck and if everything goes exactly as planned, hopefully prompt new promising research sometime in the future." Promises aren't results.
In other words, name any successful stem cell related cure or therapy that wasn't derived from adult stem cell research.
While the infanticidal stem cell researchers were still only making more pie in the sky promises, the adult stem cell ones had already produced an impressive number of useful remedies. Which begs the question: Why would anyone want any government to take any of our hard earned dollars and flush them straight down the former's unproductive lab drains?
Glad I asked. Given such anyones are always Decieverats and other liberals, followed by every poor sap unfortunate enough to be their deceivees, there are two reasons.
First and foremost, abortion infanticide is a holy sacrificial rite in the Church of Liberalism which its fanatic followers use as the most sacred means to appease the godhead of their religion — The Lenin, The Marx, and The Qennedy — and seek their redemption in Its eyes and find favor amongst themselves. So they're very touchy about it. Consequently, the public's general abhorrence towards human sacrifice, no matter what its form, has presented them with a bit of a sticky wicket. They've tried "our bodies, our choice," but have had as much success garnering social acceptance of their "right" to kill "a mere body part" with it as any voodoo high priestess outside of Benin has of her own gory rituals with "my chickens, my choice."
That's left liberals with only two choices. Either see this rite of theirs crushed out of existence under the growing weight of public disfavor, or find some Happy Face™ large enough to stick on top of all the blood. Since liberals are nothing if not extremely combative there's no need to guess which choice they've made.
If they could somehow equate abortions with saving lives then, by Jove! John Edwarts!, maybe we won't notice too much that they're also having to take lives first. Enter infanticidal stem cell's hype Happy Face.
Problem is, infanticidal stem cells have but one guarantee; namely, their nasty, unassailable habit of growing uncontrollably inside any victim patient who might be dopey enough to let a liberal inject his body with any, possibly causing tumors.
Stem cells from embryos have the ability to grow into all other types of cells. They may be able to mature into brain cells to repair damage from strokes, Alzheimer's and Parkinson's diseases; into heart cells to heal the ravages of heart attacks; and into organs to replace those ruined by cancer. But problems exist in getting such cells to mature into a specific type of cell and to home in on a specific place. There's also the problem of stopping them from growing once the repair is made. Uncontrolled growth may lead to tumors.
Knowing such a Two Deaths for the Price of One® therapy is never going to be what the doctor ordered, liberals are having no real luck with their Abortion Happy Face Project either.
The second reason Deceiverats and other liberals want to toss our tax dollars into the infanticidal stem cell researchers' Bunsen burners is money. That balkanized conglomeration of special interests otherwise known as the Demohordic Party has nothing else to bind it together. The party of perks and handouts is not based on some particular set of core principles — or on any principles at all, for that matter — but on who can get the most from us the fastest. Chief among such who is Big Abortion.
The abortion industry's drive to increase its already obscene profits finds no better chauffeur than the Democorruptic Party. Except that the latter, having been unable to snooker us with its Abortion Happy Face Project, is now feeling increased pressure from those blood-money moguls riding in the back. Through contributions to the Demosoros Party as well as "grants" to the special interest groups supporting it, they're handsomely paying it to take them all to the Big Government corporate-welfare trough as fast and as smoothly as possible. However, they're most displeased with the slower speeds and bumpier routes chosen by that hired help, who's now worried about them handing it the pinko slip.
Without money Deceiverats and other liberals can't buy power. Without power they won't be able to control or manipulate us, leaving them no real hope of making us in their own disgusting, contemptible, morally sterile image. If they can't make us all degenerate regressives too, they'll continue to stick out like a sore thumb cancer until our society decides it's time for some much needed surgery.
Not even adult stem cells will be able to save their ungodly diseased selves then.
Thank the Lord we have a president who is more interested in supporting effective medical research that can and does actually save lives, than in ever catering to the special interest groups that can and do nothing but spew Demoabortionist Party propaganda.
.S. Forrest Rangers/Wildfire Fighters Being Attacked By Illegal Immigrants," says the KXMB headline.
The trees in those forests these hard-working, family-valuesing arsonigrants are torching likely wouldn't be all charcoal now had "our president" (undocumentedly speaking) been at all serious about building the fence no sellout politician will build.
Congress flatly ordered him by law to begin building that 854-mile fence over a half year ago. Less than a dozen miles of it's done now. Family values may not stop at the border, but fence construction certainly does.
If al-Qaeda was doing this to sneakbreak burn their way into our country, we'd all consider it an act of war, too.
At the very least it's ecoterrorism whose sole, intentional aim is to cause or threaten death or serious injury to our federal agents defending our borders.
Or perhaps the undocumented arsonists just want to come out of the shadows our national forests' trees are casting on them, and feel that burning them all down will best do the trick?
On winning the War and why free nations must, he is still exceptionally right.
P
resident Bush's keynote address at the Democracy and Security Conference in Prague is excerpted below.
In dark and repressive corners of the world, whole generations grew up with no voice in their government and no hope in their future. This life of oppression bred deep resentment. And for many, resentment boiled over into radicalism and extremism and violence. The world saw the result on September the 11th, 2001, when terrorists based in Afghanistan sent 19 suicidal men to murder nearly 3,000 innocent people in the United States.
For some, this attack called for a narrow response. In truth, 9/11 was evidence of a much broader danger — an international movement of violent Islamic extremists that threatens free people everywhere. The extremists' ambition is to build a totalitarian empire that spans all current and former Muslim lands, including parts of Europe. Their strategy to achieve that goal is to frighten the world into surrender through a ruthless campaign of terrorist murder.
To confront this enemy, America and our allies have taken the offensive with the full range of our military, intelligence, and law enforcement capabilities. Yet this battle is more than a military conflict. Like the Cold War, it's an ideological struggle between two fundamentally different visions of humanity. On one side are the extremists, who promise paradise, but deliver a life of public beatings and repression of women and suicide bombings. On the other side are huge numbers of moderate men and women — including millions in the Muslim world — who believe that every human life has dignity and value that no power on Earth can take away.
The most powerful weapon in the struggle against extremism is not bullets or bombs — it is the universal appeal of freedom. Freedom is the design of our Maker, and the longing of every soul. Freedom is the best way to unleash the creativity and economic potential of a nation. Freedom is the only ordering of a society that leads to justice. And human freedom is the only way to achieve human rights.
Expanding freedom is more than a moral imperative — it is the only realistic way to protect our people in the long run. Years ago, Andrei Sakharov warned that a country that does not respect the rights of its own people will not respond to the rights of its neighbors. History proves him right. Governments accountable to their people do not attack each other. Democracies address problems through the political process, instead of blaming outside scapegoats. Young people who can disagree openly with their leaders are less likely to adopt violent ideologies. And nations that commit to freedom for their people will not support extremists — they will join in defeating them.
For all these reasons, the United States is committed to the advance of freedom and democracy as the great alternatives to repression and radicalism. And we have a historic objective in view. In my second inaugural address, I pledged America to the ultimate goal of ending tyranny in our world. Some have said that qualifies me as a "dissident president." If standing for liberty in the world makes me a dissident, I wear that title with pride.
America pursues our freedom agenda in many ways — some vocal and visible, others quiet and hidden from view. Ending tyranny requires support for the forces of conscience that undermine repressive societies from within. The Soviet dissident Andrei Amalrik compared a tyrannical state to a soldier who constantly points a gun at his enemy — until his arms finally tire and the prisoner escapes. The role of the free world is to put pressure on the arms of the world's tyrants — and strengthen the prisoners who are trying to speed their collapse....
There are many dissidents who couldn't join us because they are being unjustly imprisoned or held under house arrest. I look forward to the day when a conference like this one include Alexander Kozulin of Belarus, Aung San Suu Kyi of Burma, Oscar Elias Biscet of Cuba, Father Nguyen Van Ly of Vietnam, Ayman Nour of Egypt....
We appreciate that free societies take shape at different speeds in different places. One virtue of democracy is that it reflects local history and traditions. Yet there are fundamental elements that all democracies share — freedom of speech, religion, press, and assembly; rule of law enforced by independent courts; private property rights; and political parties that compete in free and fair elections. These rights and institutions are the foundation of human dignity, and as countries find their own path to freedom, they must find a loyal partner in the United States of America.
Extending the reach of freedom is a mission that unites democracies around the world. Some of the greatest contributions are coming from nations with the freshest memories of tyranny. I appreciate the Czech Republic's support for human rights projects in Belarus and Burma and Cuba. I thank Germany, and Poland, and the Czech Republic, and Hungary, and Slovenia, and Georgia, Lithuania, Estonia, Croatia for contributing to the new United Nations Democracy Fund. I'm grateful for the commitment many new democracies in Central and Eastern Europe are making to Afghanistan and Iraq. I appreciate that these countries are willing to do the hard work necessary to enable people who want to be free to live in a free society.
In all these ways, the freedom agenda is making a difference. The work has been difficult, and that is not going to change. There will be triumphs and failures, progress and setbacks. Ending tyranny cannot be achieved overnight. And of course, this objective has its critics.
Some say that ending tyranny means "imposing our values" on people who do not share them, or that people live in parts of the world where freedom cannot take hold. That is refuted by the fact that every time people are given a choice, they choose freedom.... At a polling station in Baghdad, I was struck by the words of an Iraqi — he had one leg — and he told a reporter, "I would have crawled here if I had to." Was democracy — I ask the critics, was democracy imposed on that man? Was freedom a value he did not share? The truth is that the only ones who have to impose their values are the extremists and the radicals and the tyrants....
History shows that ultimately, freedom conquers fear. And given a chance, freedom will conquer fear in every nation on Earth.
Another objective — objection is that ending tyranny will unleash chaos. Critics point to the violence in Afghanistan, or Iraq, or Lebanon as evidence that freedom leaves people less safe. But look who's causing the violence. It's the terrorists, it's the extremists. It is no coincidence that they are targeting young democracies in the Middle East. They know that the success of free societies there is a mortal threat to their ambitions — and to their very survival. The fact that our enemies are fighting back is not a reason to doubt democracy. It is evidence that they recognize democracy's power. It is evidence that we are at war. And it is evidence that free nations must do what it takes to prevail.
Still, some argue that a safer goal would be stability, especially in the Middle East. The problem is that pursuing stability at the expense of liberty does not lead to peace — it leads to September the 11th, 2001. The policy of tolerating tyranny is a moral and strategic failure. It is a mistake the world must not repeat in the 21st century.
Others fear that democracy will bring dangerous forces to power, such as Hamas in the Palestinian Territories. Elections will not always turn out the way we hope. Yet democracy consists of more than a single trip to the ballot box. Democracy requires meaningful opposition parties, a vibrant civil society, a government that enforces the law and responds to the needs of its people. Elections can accelerate the creation of such institutions. In a democracy, people will not vote for a life of perpetual violence. To stay in power, elected officials must listen to their people and pursue their desires for peace — or, in democracies, the voters will replace them through free elections.
Finally, there's the contention that ending tyranny is unrealistic. Well, some argue that extending democracy around the world is simply too difficult to achieve. That's nothing new. We've heard that criticism before throughout history. At every stage of the Cold War, there were those who argued that the Berlin Wall was permanent, and that people behind the Iron Curtain would never overcome their oppressors. History has sent a different message.
The lesson is that freedom will always have its skeptics. But that's not the whole story. There are also people like you, and the loved ones you represent — men and women with courage to risk everything for your ideals. In his first address as President, Vaclav Havel proclaimed, "People, your government has returned to you!" He was echoing the first speech of Tomas Masaryk — who was, in turn, quoting the 17th century Czech teacher Comenius. His message was that freedom is timeless. It does not belong to one government or one generation. Freedom is the dream and the right of every person in every nation in every age.
The United States of America believes deeply in that message. It was the inspiration for our founding, when we declared that "all men are created equal." It was the conviction that led us to help liberate this continent, and stand with the captive nations through their long struggle. It is the truth that guides our nation to oppose radicals and extremists and terror and tyranny in the world today.
I am disturbed that we are not prepared to fully do what we must if we wish to totally and finally defeat the worst of Freedom's enemies, all led by Iran, which threaten our and future generations. As David Warren puts it, in contesting President Bush's statement that "freedom can be resisted, and freedom can be delayed, but freedom cannot be denied,"
In my view, and my experience, freedom can be resisted, delayed and denied, and moreover, it can be in decline, as it is in the West, where the nanny state grows insidiously and constantly — regardless of who is elected to government — with the expanding power of the self-appointed elites who control our legal systems, and regulatory regimes.
It is nice to say rhetorically that freedom will prevail, but we must realize that such statements apply to heaven and not to earth. For down here, civic freedom is invariably obtained at the cost of human blood and treasure. It is not obtained by negotiating with dictators, except from a position of invincible force, and then only when one is fully prepared to use it. The very argument used against the wisdom of invading Iraq — that it costs blood and treasure — is itself the signal of surrender.
Aristotle once wrote that the magnificent man "does not count the cost." He understood also the virtue of prudence, the need for calculation and tact. But prudence itself is not finally calculated in blood or treasure. In the words with which my own country, Canada, was once mobilized against the Hitler menace: "No price too high!"
There is no price too high for human liberty, and those who dispute this are — and deserve to be — slaves.
While the Democracy and Security Conference's Prague Document, whose signers "call upon governments and peoples throughout the free world to help those trying to build free societies elsewhere," does not expressly dispute that "no price (is) too high for human liberty," it implicitly exhorts placing self-imposed limits on this price whenever those governments and peoples are doing the following:
To demand the immediate release of all non violent political prisoners in their respective countries.
Instructing diplomatic emissaries to non-democratic countries to actively and openly seek out meetings with political prisoners and dissidents committed to building free societies through non-violence.
Raising public awareness, through institutions in their own countries and through international bodies, of human rights abuses under non-democratic regimes.
Raising the question of human rights in all meetings with officials of non-democratic regimes.
Seeking national and international initiatives, in the spirit of the Helsinki Accords, that link bilateral and international relations to the question of human rights.
Exerting pressure, through peaceful diplomatic, political and economic means, on governments and groups abusing human rights to discontinue their practices.
Providing incentives, through diplomatic, political and economic means, to governments and groups willing to improve the human rights record in their countries and to embark on the road to democracy.
Isolating and ostracizing governments and groups that suppress their peaceful domestic opponents by force, violence or intimidation.
Isolating and ostracizing governments and groups that threaten other countries and peoples with genocide or annihilation.
Promoting best human rights and governance practices that have been found effective and beneficial in other countries, in particular in new and recent democracies.
I would not, nor I doubt would any of the people on the receiving end of pending genocide or annihilation, want us to be "isolating and ostracizing" governments threatening those horrors. They and I would want such governments to be immediately and forever no more. Yes, we could exert peaceful pressure on them and provide them with diplomatic, political, and economic incentives all day long, every day, from now till Doomsday. But we should never expect any or all of that will effectually stop them in the end. We could also promote best practices, seek initiatives, raise public awareness, instruct diplomats, and demand releases before or after as well. But we should never mistake this either for starting something that will end with our accomplishing anything other than giving us a frail illusion of action which, at least for a while, we hope, lets us feel good about ourselves.
It would be nice if our being so nice and accommodating to inhuman machines that are coldly calculating the murderous consumption of lives and freedoms which fuels and maintains them actually did transform them into something equally and reciprocatingly nice and accommodating. Except this has never worked. Petting a lethal machine may make it hum a little better, but that will not stop it. To permanently remove the danger it constantly poses, we must unplug it entirely, dismantle it completely, take a sledge hammer to every one of its parts, and unceremoniously toss the whole mass of twisted metal on the growing scrap heap of wasted history — preferably before any more nearby hands get caught in that machine and pulled, along with the rest of their owners, inside its deadly entrails.
Mr. President, the truth is that one of the most evil regimes in the world as we know it is on the verge of acquiring the most powerful weapon in the world as we know it. And the future is in your hands. The clear message from Prague was that you have friends around the world, even if not in your administration. You have the power to protect our nation and freedom for all people everywhere. You lead your nation now. And without exercising that leadership, with no further pretense that the U.N. has the authority to deny the necessities of America's national defense, the triumph of hate over hope will be laid at your door.
All that is true. He must, despite the predictable Democrappeaserat Party leadership's extreme caterwauling when he does, totally and finally defeat the expansionist machine of hate and terror now ruling and ruining Iran. In the end all people everywhere will know who did and didn't have foremost in mind their freedoms, and who is and isn't on their side and on the right side of history.
President Bush's address has amply laid out why he must, for all our sakes, do and be that.
What had brought President Bush to make this pilgrimage to Prague, en route to the G-8 summit? The answer echoed through the noble vision outlined in his speech — a speech that several seasoned observers of presidential oratory who attended the conference judged to be among the best that Mr. Bush has ever given.
I agree with Daniel Johnson's assessment of the speech.
My prayer is that the postscript will say history has judged the actions of America in defense of human freedom at this time and place to be among the best that she has ever taken.
Or, I should say, from the Ruler of the Known Universe's telepathically shielded vocal organ.
“P
resident Bush," alas, is President Bush.
A broken spirit, not alien abduction, explains his willingness of late to sup with al-Qennedy and other liberals using a short spoon when certain courses not solely consisting of a World War IV ingredient (thankfully that, at least) are served.
Indeed, as proof of their vastly superior universal knowledge, Remulak MoxArgon the Overlord-in-Chief himself not only cleared that one up but, in response to another reader's question, offered the best solution I've seen so far to two of the most intractable problems now facing our planet:
I'm proposing a law for the return of the stocks, where people can buy water balloons and rotten tomatoes to toss at the offending celebrity, money going to charity. I think the Paris Hilton/ Lindsay Lohan/ Nicole Ritchie axis of drunk will alone raise enough money to eliminate poverty in Africa.
Out of control celebrities and African poverty both solved. Astounding.
Goes to show you they aren't just another bunch of pretty faces up there.
Packages and school supplies raised through these organizations are transported to Iraq, free of charge, by FedEx, then distributed to Iraqi children by our brave freedom fighters.
