Fort Hood and Obama’s Priorities

Just a short while ago, it was announced that at least one soldier opened fire at Ft Hood in Texas, killing many soldiers about to be deployed.

Like many other Americans, I turned on the news to see President Obama's words to the nation.

I was shocked to see that at a time of great tragedy, he opened with a "shout-out" to a close friend, and pats on the back to those he was working with.

Oh, yes, and before I forget, he told people that there was a tragedy at Ft. Hood.

I was shocked, but perhaps I shouldn't be. This shows what Obama thinks of the military, and the rest of America.

-Ronald Rightside

The Entirely Predictable Consequences of Abortion

Things are a little lopsided in China. More than just politically, I mean.

According to a new report, there are 30 million more young men than women in China. For years, the Chinese government has imposed a limit of one child per family. Since there is great prestige in having a son in their culture, it has been common for families to abort female babies after the first ultrasound.

Assuming the usual 50-50 ratio between the sexes, this means that there have been 30 million females killed, who might otherwise have grown up and been able to influence the most populated nation on earth. This will quite possibly lead to a war within a generation, to conquer another nation to provide wives for these young men.

If there were any consistency, the liberals – especially the "women's rights groups" and "anti-war" groups – would oppose abortion for the consequences that follow. Anybody could have seen that this would happen… anybody but a liberal.

- Ronald Rightside

Wanted: News Director – Ability to See Through a Ladder Optional…

The liberals hate Fox News. Plain and simple. Few would deny that, although the drive-by media would spin it into righteous indignation.

However, the nation loves it. The latest Nielsen numbers show Fox News not just winning the battle of the ratings, but utterly dominating.

What should people conclude from this?

• Well, if I were in charge of CNN or MSNBC, I'd conclude that people want more conservative news, and if I was concerned about money or ratings (really, the same thing in the television world), I'd alter the programming to compete.
  
• If I were in charge of the Democratic Party, I'd conclude that people are not as liberal as we thought, and look for more moderate voices to steer the party.
  

What do I really expect? I have no doubt whatsoever that these people will take this as proof that the typical American is too stupid to make decisions for himself, and try to push the liberal agenda. If there isn't an immediate change in news programming (and I don't expect that for a minute), then we have proof that they're not interested in profits, but in promoting an unpopular point of view.

-Ronald Rightside

Suddenly, Everything Makes A Little More Sense

Why were the cheese-eating surrender monkeys defending Roman Polanski so much? It didn't make sense.

And then it came out: he was one of their own. Apparently, sex with children is the French national pastime.

(To be fair, some French people thought Polanski was a pervert. On the other hand, some people are defending this guy, so I guess it's a wash.)

-Ronald Rightside

Liberals Find Connection Between Crime Rates, Jail Terms

The front page of USA Today, 10/07/09, has a story about fewer rapes, primarily due to DNA evidence. [The dead tree edition proclaims "DNA is behind decline in rape reports," making it sound like there are fewer reports, while the website is titled, "Reported Rapes hits 20-year low."]

The most interesting paragraph in the article:

Use of DNA evidence has expanded gradually over the past 15 years and can put a rapist in prison the first time he's caught, preventing him from harming other women, Berkowitz says. Many rapists are repeat offenders.

Only a liberal would find it – literally – "Front Page News," that there is less crime if you imprison criminals. It can be debated how much of a deterrent effect harsher sentences have on crime rates – it would stay theoretical unless we actually tried it. I don't think anybody (not even a liberal) would deny that criminals in jail don't commit crimes against the public. I believe that the death penalty would be a deterrent to crime, if it was done quickly and consistently; however, not even a liberal would deny that a murderer who has been executed would not murder again.

Maybe it costs a lot of money to keep criminals in jail. First of all, where else would you want them? Secondly, how much more does it cost for them to run free?

- Ronald Rightside

The Times, They Are A-Changing

If things have gotten so bad that even the Left is mocking The Exalted One, then perhaps people are starting to wake up.

(Wow, that's funny.)

- Ronald Rightside

Definition of the Week

Flyover Country: The portion of the United States that lies between New York City and Los Angeles CA. To conservatives, the majority of the US. To liberals, the unwashed masses of ignorant hicks that really don't matter and couldn't govern themselves anyway.

Hollywood Hypocrisy

….yeah, like that's news.

According to The Age of Stupid, a movie recently released, the worst thing that a person can do for the environment, short of starting a forest fire, is flying in an airplane.

So, how are these ecologist filmmakers acting as a result of this revelation? They're flying all over the world to publicize the movie. When questioned about this, they acted logically and rationally, and physically attacked the reporter that refused to bow down before them.

Typical liberal mentality. These things apply to you and me, and not the liberal elite. They, after all, are smarter than the rest of us.

If they're so smart, why can't they find the word hypocrite in the dictionary?

-Ronald Rightside

Succinct

Definition of the Week

Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys: Euphemism for the French.

The Difference Between Democrats and Republicans

People often look at Republican leaders who commit adultery, and call them hypocrites. What is the real difference between Democrats and Republicans?

The difference is, Republican hypocrites are run out of town on a rail; Democrat hypocrites get re-elected.

- Ronald Rightside

The Democratic Stand on Responsibility

Matt Damon has an interesting view of politics.

Doug (Limon) always said that he was turning what is basically a Republican book into a Democratic movie. In the novel, Bourne wakes up with amnesia and says: "Oh, my god, I'm a killer," but he is eventually absolved of his guilt because he did his killing for the government. But, in the movie, he says, "Oh, my god, I'm a killer," and then he has to make peace with that by taking responsibility for his actions. ( http://star-ecentral.com/news/story.asp?file=/2007/8/3/movies/20070803094131&sec=movies )

Overlooking for a moment that Damon seems to have made this comment without having read the book (in the book, the main character isn't really "Jason Bourne," but an undercover government agent who was assuming the identity of a sniper), it seems outrageous that anybody would argue for the Democrats as a model of personal responsibility. The only thread in common with all of the Democrat positions is irresponsibility:

• Don't worry about working; just let the government take care of you.
  
• Don't worry about health care; just let the government take care of you.
  
• Pregnant? Just go ahead and have an abortion.
  
• Feel sexual urges for someone or something unacceptable to most of America? Don't worry, just go ahead and do whatever you want.
  

The Democrats think that the average American is too stupid to take care of himself. They, as the intelligentsia, are the ones who need to be in control. I wouldn't trust the Democratic leadership to take care of a goldfish.

- Ronald Rightside

Polarity

Below is a picture available to be captioned on http://www.punditkitchen.com/:

At the time of this writing, forty-five different captions have been proposed, which fall neatly into two categories.

1. In support of the military, considering this to be a hilarious joke. http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/9/15/128975248145627149.jpg
   



2. In condemnation of this, horrified that somebody would do this. http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/8/23/128955147128365681.jpg
   

People often wonder why there can't be a single political candidate that everybody can agree upon. This is why. Some people are concerned with American and her safety, and some people are concerned about what the world thinks. Of course, nobody in "the international community" is concerned with impressing America; why should we be concerned with impressing them?

-Ronald Rightside

What About Iran?

A few days ago, Obama told Iran that if they didn't give up their nuclear program, they would have to "answer to the international community" or "be held accountable." Considering his stance up to this point, I assume that means he would write them a stern memo. The British Prime Minister said, "the international community has no choice but to draw a line in the sand", and even the Cheese-Eating Surrender Monkeys said that "sanctions would have to be taken" if there was not full disclosure by December.

Iran has said that Obama would regret this statement. Since then, Iran has tested medium-range missiles that could reach Israel and US troops in the Middle East. Does anybody think that there is no connection?

Iran has maintained that their nuclear facility was for energy production, even though:

1. It's located on a military base.
   
2. It's guarded by elite troops.
   
3. It's too small to produce enough refined uranium for power but just fine for weapons.
   
4. They didn't disclose the information until it was about to be revealed anyway.
   

What will Obama do now? What needs to be remembered is that Iran doesn't give a rodent's rectum about what the "international community" thinks (even though nothing is more important to Obama). While there's a little trade between Iran and foreign nations (especially China), they wouldn't care if the "international community" imposed sanctions. That would simply add another layer of covert activity through shell corporations and nations friendly to Iran. These are people who have made it clear that they identify the US as the Great Satan, even when offered humanitarian aid from the US. (Does anybody believe that they would have offered humanitarian aid to the US? I wouldn't expect them to urinate on an American if he was on fire.)

Iran will continue to attempt to develop nuclear weapons until:

1. They succeed and attack non-Muslim nations like Israel and US forces (either directly or by supplying terrorists).
   
2. Their facilities are destroyed (either by Israel, the US, or some combination of UN forces).
   

What will Obama do? Here's something that he can't blame on Bush.

-Ronald Rightside

On Schoolchildren and Bias

There's been a great deal of talk about the recent school assembly in which school children were singing the praises of President Obama. The lyrics are reproduced below:

Song 1:
Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama

Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

Song 2:
Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!
For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"

Hooray, Mr. President! You're number one!
The first black American to lead this great nation!

Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans
To make this country's economy number one again!

Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!
And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!

So continue —- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick
So here's a hearty hip-hooray —-

Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!
Hip, hip hooray!

(Reproduced from http://stevex09.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/praise-obama-song-lyrics/)

When a video of this was uploaded to YouTube, some people became outraged, while others said that the outrage was only politics and racism. The school, predictably, refused to confirm that the song was ever performed (despite the video), refused to answer any charges, and sought to prosecute the person responsible for taping the performance (presumably a proud parent openly taping his child).

While the teacher responsible was known to be a vocal Obama supporter, I do not believe that there was any malice intended. However, how appropriate was these songs, which many have noticed parallels the description of Jesus Christ in the song Jesus Loves the Little Children? The most reliable barometer is, how would this have been received if it had been performed four (or eight) years ago? If children were told to praise Bush for his "great accomplishments" a month into his first term, the moonbats would have hit the roof- this would have been seen as political indoctrination.

I see nothing wrong with children writing letters to the president, congratulating him for winning an election and asking him to do a good job and think about them when making his decisions; this has often been done after an election. However, saying that we are all proud of him, and "honor [his] great plans to make this country's economy number one again" goes far beyond neutrality. Quit making children political pawns, and spend more time teaching them to read and write.

- Ronald Rightside

Just an Observation…

Anybody ever notice that "Left" and "Wrong" are both the opposite of "Right"?

- Ronald Rightside

A Reminder About the War on Terror

Let's make something clear: nobody is FOR war. Liberals forget that the war on terror was not GWB acting unilaterally; the UN Security Council voted unanimously for Resolution 1441, because all evidence at that time said that Iraq was harboring Al-Qaeda operatives, if not actually sponsoring them. The UN might not have had the intestinal fortitude to follow through, but there was every justification for the war.

What do you liberals think will happen if the US troops were pulled out tomorrow? Every nation around Iraq would pick up the stakes at the border and walk forward; Iraq would disappear overnight, and the people of Iraq would pay the price. As soon as things are safe, we'll leave; if you Liberals have another solution, let's hear it.

- Ronald Rightside

HIV Prevention Made Easy

Researchers claim to have found a vaccine that will cut the risk of HIV by 31%.

They've already invented something that will cut the risk of HIV by nearly 100%. It's called a zipper; as long as it remains up, one is at virtually zero risk of contracting HIV.

If people will continue to do things that can and will ultimately result in their own deaths, cutting the risk by a relatively-small 31% will result in people doing these things more to counteract it. If people think that they are safe from HIV, they'll have sex with more partners (the 1970's revisited), and when they finally do get infected, they'll spread it to more people. The HIV vaccine might ultimately be the worst thing to happen in the war against HIV.

- Ronald Rightside

“The First Amendment is For Us, Not You”

The Obama administration evidently stands behind the Liberal view that "we know more than you do, or the writers of the Constitution did."

In the ongoing push to get a government healthcare plan passed before people have a chance to read the bills or consider the consequences, the White House has ordered Humana Healthcare to stop talking about ObamaCare. The Congressional Budget Office has said that payments to Medicare providers would go down by $100 Billion over 10 years, but Obama has said that benefits would not be cut. There are only three possibilities here, people:

1. Payments will go down, and companies will have to cut benefits to remain profitable.
   
2. Inflation will make costs go up, so payments will have to go up.
   
3. Payments will go down, and the government will force companies to give the same benefits, despite a lack of profit, by "nationalizing" the businesses and taking control of them "for the public good."
   

Options 1 and 2 are simple economics; option 3 is typical government "thinking." I know which one I expect to happen. I just hope the next election comes first.

- Ronald Rightside

Ambassador: Architecture More Important than Safety

According to a recent AP story, there is a desire for US embassies abroad to look warmer and friendlier. Victor Ashe, ambassador to Poland, says that US embassies look too much like fortresses, and not friendly. Perhaps, he says, this would make sense in Pakistan, but in friendlier nations, there shouldn't be the regulations for clearance from the road and concrete barriers.

What does Mr. Ashe believe would happen if the US built "warm and fuzzy" embassies in Western nations? The common sense answer is that the terrorist would attack US embassies in our allied nations instead of their own nations. C'mon – if they attacked us here in the US, and they attacked the Brits in Britain, why wouldn't they attack us there?

The days of important government buildings built primarily for their looks – domestic or abroad – are unfortunately over. With our enemies willing to kill themselves to kill Americans, and able to travel around this country unfettered, we need to be secure, and that might require slightly less beauty. The only way that Mr. Ashe can get prettier buildings would be for the military – and this means US military, as the rest of the UN isn't known for action – to rid the world of these terrorists. Until that time, we can look at these fortresses and feel secure.

- Ronald Rightside

The War on Common Sense

Those who are against "the war on drugs" (henceforth known as "potheads") have long since said that making drugs illegal only encourages drug use; if they were legalized, then people wouldn't feel such a rush from breaking the law.

This has always been considered nonsense by the great majority; now there's evidence to prove that this is nonsense.

The British government, known since the time of Thomas Paine for their staunch opposition to common sense, has essentially removed all limitations on alcohol. The predictable result is that alcohol abuse has skyrocketed. Alcohol is not only available anywhere, but the price has dropped as the supply has increased.

Would legalization of marijuana mean less drug abuse? If you think so, you're smoking something.

-Ronald Rightside

Source: http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0923/p08s01-comv.html

“This is CNN: Not Even Pretending To Be Fair and Balanced”

It drives me crazy when I hear people saying that there is no bias in the mainstream news media. The argument usually goes, "The reporters may be liberals, but the owners of the newspapers and television stations are Republican fatcats, and they control what the reporters report." First of all, are these people really contending that CNN, MSNBC and the New York Times are leaning too far to the right? Fox News is ridiculed for their lean to the right, but that's extreme only in relation to the other media outlets. They are fairly close to the stand of the American people, slightly right or left depending on the individual reporter or issue.

The bias of the mainstream media was really driven home several presidential elections ago; at the Republican convention, a black senator was called upon to make a keynote speech. This was probably the proudest moment of the man's life. Wait a minute – a black Republican? That would have undermined all of the media's stereotyping. The only television channel that showed this speech was a religious-based news show; CNN was interviewing somebody on the convention floor who had a remarkable hat. "Ignore that man behind us; my, that's a lovely hat you're wearing."

The time was that reporters thought that their job was to report impartially. Today, the idea of "impartiality" has been rejected; everybody, they say, has some kind of bias. Journalism is now seen as an opportunity to influence events.

It's like the baseball umpires discussing their job over drinks. One said, "There's balls and there's strikes, and I call them like they are." The second said, "There's balls and there's strikes, and I call them like I see them." The third said, "There's balls and there's strikes, and they ain't nothing until I call them."

Thank God (not "thank goodness" or "Isn't it great that…" – thanks belong to God for His grace upon this nation) for radio and the blogosphere. These are the only outlets that aren't completely dominated by the Left.

-Ronald Rightside

When Is A Tax Not a Tax?

Stop me if you've heard this one! It's when a liberal has promised that he wouldn't raise taxes.

Remember that promise? Dover, N.H., Sept. 12, 2008.

"I can make a firm pledge. Under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

Well, you might be paying a lot more money, and it might be collected by the IRS, and the bill might call it a tax – but the president promised that he wouldn't raise taxes, and so it's not a tax. Just two days ago, I saw a group setting up at a festival from the local Dems, and they were handing out papers saying that there would be no tax increase associated with the health plan. In fact, taxes should go down, because everything is set up to save so much money.

I just hope, for their sakes, that their government-mandated healthcare plan covers the marijuana that they're smoking.

- Ronald Rightside

New Blog, Old Conservatism

Is it true that there has never been a greater need for a return to conservatism?

There's always been liberalism. It's just that it's moving so fast right now. For this reason, Ronald Rightside is moving to this format, in the hopes that the Reagan idealism can be rekindled.

Viva La Reagan Revolution!
- Ronald Rightside