When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
Connect with
I allow to create an account
When you login first time using a Social Login button, we collect your account public profile information shared by Social Login provider, based on your privacy settings. We also get your email address to automatically create an account for you in our website. Once your account is created, you'll be logged-in to this account.
DisagreeAgree
19 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Skookum
13 years ago
Thanks Mike, you have expressed my shock, indignation, and fear: I haven’t felt this way, about the security of our country, since the afternoon of 9/11. This is not 1942, there will be no time to to rebuild a nuclear capability with a patriotic work force, once we disarm, we will be sitting ducks to prove Obama’s idealism. An idealism intent on proving that inherent goodness exists in the hearts of madmen. It is madness to assume by offering up ourselves as the ‘flower children’ of the world, that the madmen of the world will overwhelmed with our good intentions and come celebrate 4th of July barbecues with us: quite a different scenario is more likely, that we are probably the ones who will be barbecued!
@Skookum: Interesting to note also that Obama overrulled his own Sec. of Defense, William Gates, on the issue of continued nuclear weapons testing. Readers may recall that Obama tried to stifle fears of his inexperience and dangerous delusions regarding national security by keeping Gates as Sec Def.
I believe I said at the time that such a move was a sham. It’s the idiot Obama running the show and the expereinced Gates is just window dressing.
Rob in Katy
13 years ago
Three words: “Seven days in May.” do I need one or two /sarc tags for this?
Why so much attention on what the U.S. might do if attached? When attached, retaliation is dependent on how, when and what the attack did. When 9/11 happened, it took a while to decide what the response would be. It was not decided in advance that if the U.S. was attacked we would respond in a certain way. Obama is playing the American public and he deserves to fail.
Obama is so full of hot air, he sucks. He also says he will not address the radical islamic terrorists as such. Maybe. But he does NOT have the authority to decide how we refer to the radical islamic muslim terrorists.
It has truly become more evident that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT an American. A Harvard and Columbia University educated student would know how to pronounce corps (pronounced “core” not “corpse” as Obama pronounced it). And would you think that a White Sox fan (as Obama claims that he is) would know at least the name of one former or present player? Let’s get real. Obama is a foreigner.
Most people don’t know that his recent religious adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was a follower of islam — a muslim. Is he still? Maybe. The caustic remarks spewed out of Jeremiah’s mouth with vitriolic fervor did not move Obama to complain; not once. By default, Obama agreed with everything his ears were hearing.
Out with Obama.
(Note: islam and muslim are not capitalized on purpose).
BRob
13 years ago
“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” – Ronald Reagan, 1984
@BRob: That’s funny…. One of my little moonbat parrots just cut and pasted the exact same comment at the Mike’s America home planet.
Is George Soros now passing out Reagan quotes?
Allow me to rephrase an old quote from Sen. Loyd Bentsen from his debate with V.P. candidate Dan Quayle in 1988:
I knew Ronald Reagan. He was a friend of mine. And Obama is NO Ronald Reagan.
If you think Reagan would approve of Obama’s unilateral disarmament you don’t know Reagan.
Reagan built UP the military Obama is now dismantling.
Reagan never apologized for American power.
You quoting Reagan just reminds us what a great president is like and why we don’t have one living in the White House now.
Reagan won the Cold War by facing down the Soviets. Obama is now surrendering to the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians and anyone else who hates America as much as he does.
Mr. Irons
13 years ago
A foreign military build up of an political rival nation which couldn’t be matched, poorly maintained health services and “maintance” per Government “right” of Soviet Consitution which was revoked to most of the “citizens” of such a nation, and weak domestic commerical communist market and industry that was ironicly being kept afloat by imported goods and services by same foreign nation’s captialist market? The deathnote to the USSR.
Congress and the White House seems hell bent to repeat the errors of the former USSR.
BRob
13 years ago
Mike —
You criticize Obama for seeking the exact same goal that Reagan sought: an end to the threat of nuclear war. I’ve long since given up and possibility of you cons actually agreeing with Obama on anything. Y’all have determined that strident opposition to everything, no matter how petty the issue or how important and well-thought out the strategy, is the way you should go. Why? Because opposition and spittle flying boosts ratings at Fox News and helps push GOPer fundraising; there is no money in admitting the guys gets some things right, so you cons won’t admit the obvious. You claim it is because everything Obama does is wrong. But in reality, the lie is exposed when Obama steals a GOPer idea, calls it his own, then gets you cons to OPPOSE what you previously PROPOSED. That’s fine as a tactic; but knee jerk unthinking opposition is just not intellectually honest or a good long term strategy, especially if Obama’s plans end up working.
Let’s face facts, Mike: Obama was not elected to make decisions like a GOPer. We had eight straight years of failure going that route, which is why the country chose to let the Dems manage for a while. If your ideas were so great, if your management was so sound, then the outcomes would have been better under unilateral GOPer control.
Obama’s goal as president is to maintain and advance the technological, economic, military, political and cultural superiority of the US. He will not pursue those goals the way McCain/Palin would have (thank God!) or the way Bush II tried and failed. You can pronounce him a failure of you like. But that’s like calling Obama a “loser” in the football game, when its five minutes into the second quarter, with Obama ahead by 10 points.
Here’s my test for if Obama’s idea on nukes is a bad one: what does Dick Luger think? Remember, he and Obama bonded over loose nukes and non-proliferation. Do you hear any criticism from him? No. In fact, I bet Luger helped formulate the friggin plan. If too many of you cons get out of pocket and try to trash it, mark my words, Luger will cut you off at the knees. That is why you hear an awful lot of nothing coming from DC nuke issue types.
@BRob: Once again, you don’t know what you are talking about. Reagan is turning over in his grave at the willful distortion of his views on this subject.
I realize you only know about Reagan from whatever spoon fed info, like the quote above, is handed you by George Soros et. al.
But surely you must know that some of us, not least of all myself, know a bit more about Reagan and his national security program.
You’re just not putting forward anything approaching a credible argument.
And that’s par for the course from you.
Jeff Sabo
13 years ago
If granny has a gun she is less likely to get robbed. The bigger and more apparent that gun is the less likely she is to be a victim. If granny goes around telling people, “don’t worry it is not loaded” granny better watch out. Plain and simple BRob.
Another Reagan quote “any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States or our allies…concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.”
this is easy pickings. Another website titled their entry “How’s that Russian Negotiation Going?”
He was being sarcastic but my answer was simple.
“Fine for Obama, he’s a communist.
Sucks for us.
By now can we dispense with any discussion of his ideological beliefs? He is a commie or at least hard core sympathizer. So when he says he likes small businesses he’s lying. It is like if “Fat Bastard” from Austin Powers fame says he likes babies. Sure, to eat.
It’s not what he says, it is what he does. Just like a good communist.
Some of this information was drizzling out during the campaign in a small Chicago paper I was reading. New Zeal has done an exemplary job of investigating, adding more info as he has uncovered it and cataloging it all in a nice tidy package. This is his latest, he has much more archived:
Exactly how, pray tell, is Obama “dismantaling” the military? The last budget was 8% higher than the year before.
And how is he “unilaterally” disarming by cutting a deal with the Russians to reduce nukes to 1,500 weapons? How is 1,500 not “enough”?
Reagan made it clear: his goal was to eliminate nuke weapons. Obama’s deal with the Russians takes us one step further toward Reagan’s stated goal. Now unless, you think Reagan was just BULLSH*TTING around, and did not mean what he said, then how in the hell is Obama the ‘bad guy” here for getting us closer to Reagan’s goal? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Finally, I think Palin and Giulianni and Newt Gingrinch (none of whom know a damn thing about nukes) either failed to read the nuke use plan, or they are simply lying about it. The plan SPECIFICALLY PERMITS the use of nukes in response to a chemical or biological attack, and it specifically excludes non-signatories of the non-proliferation treaty (like North Korea) from its protections. But, then again, why should we expect a former half-term governor, a former mayor, and a man who never was a nuke expert in Congress and who has been out of Congress 12 years — why should they be expected to know any more about nukes that Caeser, the guy who owns the barber shop I go to? After all — they have the same amount of experience on the issue, which is ZERO!
Finally, y’all keep forgetting that Obama worked with Dick Luger on non-proliferaiton issues in the Senate, starting in 2004. Luger is one of his best buds and closest advisors. Dick Luger was probably heavily involved in the new nuclear use plan, assuming he did not write the damn thing himself, since he and Obama are attached at the hip on these issues. In fact, has a single CURRENTLY ELECTED GOPer said ANYTHING crtitical about the Obama plan? Has one? Who was it? Yeah, we heard Hannity’s college drop out TV host view on the plan, but he knows nothing more about the issue than Palin does. “The dog that did not bark” tells me that word got around to elected GOPers that they should keep mouths shut on this plan.
@B-Rob: Were you alive and sentient during the Reagan years?
Reagan supported peace through strength. Obama supports peace through apology and unilateral disarmament.
Reagan used SDI to get the Soviets to the negotiating table for serious arms reduction. Obama is throwing away SDI and getting nothing concrete in return.
Reagan believed Government wasn’t the solution to our problems, Government IS the problem. The direct opposite view of Obama.
Reagan believed in tax cuts across the board to spur economic growth (guess what, it worked) Obama believes in tax hikes for everyone (bought a pack of cigarettes lately?)
Reagan valued and nurtured the Special Relationship we had with Britian. Obama openly scoffs at the idea.
Reagan was a staunch ally of Israel. Obama is doing everything he can to weaken that alliance.
Dont’ come around here trying to twist and distort Reagan’s vision for a safer, freer world. In Reagan’s day, the Dems did everything they could to oppose Reagan’s efforts to win the Cold War. And you’re doing everything you can to make sure we lose the next one.
BRob
13 years ago
How is Obama dismantling the military? What has he dismantled? Since when is an 8% increase in defense spending “dismantling”?
You put a lot of other things out there that are mere obfuscation from the quesion, which was NUKE POLICY. But I return to the central point:
Why haven’t any ELECTED GOPERS said anything against the Obama plan? Why haven’t we heard Dick Lugar, who has forgotten more about nukes than anyone else will ever know, come out against the Obama plan and the Russian treaty? And what does Sam Nunn think?
The only people I have heard opposing this nuke plan or the treaty are people who DON’T KNOW SQUAT about nukes, like Palin and Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity.
1,500 war heads is plenty. Its like a man in a house who has 143 guns. At some point, you are beyond having enough weapons for “protection” and you are into a costly gun collection habit. Add in the threat of loose nukes in Russia and Ukraine, and we have some real danger that only a comprehensive nuke elimination program can help.
My guess: Lugar wrote the damn policy, or was a co-author. Why? Because he and Obama have been tangled up on these issues for the last six years.
MA is correct. Don’t listen to or believe your teachers in college, they are revising history ala progressive style.
Do you want to know what Reagan said when in a cabinet meeting about what to do with the Russians and their aggressive agenda? Ready?
According to the story he walked in, saw people ready for a long winded discussion like most political situations call for and he said in response to “what are we going to do with the continuous confrontations?” question with- “We win, they lose.”
Then, according to the story, he walked out, leaving the “how” to his people. Honestly, how can you compare a depression era, world war era, common sensed man who called his nation the last bastion for freedom with Obama? A man arguably narcissistic to a dangerous level, who feels he is destined to be the leader, who has nothing but a radical America hating background and who, by his actions, has shown he is more than willing to hurt us. Look at who Reagan surrounded himself with and who Obama has sought counsel with and then put the freaking bong down and join the rest of us who have awoken.
We are in some serious trouble here. Listen, it is okay to have kids run around pretending to be in charge and a whole other thing for them to actually be in charge. Combine that with a group of seriously hard core leftists and corrupt politicians and we are being fed into a metal grinder at a recycling plant like we were starring in our own teen slasher movie!
Rob in Katy
13 years ago
I am still waiting for the apoligies to “Tailgunner” Joe!
And I am still waiting for a reason for the “Civilian Defense Force?” The constitutionally allowed military defended our borders in the War of Independence, In the War of 1812, in the Spanish American War, I am not sure why we need a Civilian force unless it is to keep those unrulely Tea Partiers in line, round them up, and send them to re-education camps… Or it could be like every King and tin plated dictator wanting his own guard to protect his ass, coincidence? I think not!
Thanks Mike, you have expressed my shock, indignation, and fear: I haven’t felt this way, about the security of our country, since the afternoon of 9/11. This is not 1942, there will be no time to to rebuild a nuclear capability with a patriotic work force, once we disarm, we will be sitting ducks to prove Obama’s idealism. An idealism intent on proving that inherent goodness exists in the hearts of madmen. It is madness to assume by offering up ourselves as the ‘flower children’ of the world, that the madmen of the world will overwhelmed with our good intentions and come celebrate 4th of July barbecues with us: quite a different scenario is more likely, that we are probably the ones who will be barbecued!
@Skookum: Interesting to note also that Obama overrulled his own Sec. of Defense, William Gates, on the issue of continued nuclear weapons testing. Readers may recall that Obama tried to stifle fears of his inexperience and dangerous delusions regarding national security by keeping Gates as Sec Def.
I believe I said at the time that such a move was a sham. It’s the idiot Obama running the show and the expereinced Gates is just window dressing.
Three words: “Seven days in May.” do I need one or two /sarc tags for this?
Here’s the plan…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_terrorism_rhetoric
Off he goes into the wild blue yonder…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100407/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_us_russia 🙄 🙄
Why so much attention on what the U.S. might do if attached? When attached, retaliation is dependent on how, when and what the attack did. When 9/11 happened, it took a while to decide what the response would be. It was not decided in advance that if the U.S. was attacked we would respond in a certain way. Obama is playing the American public and he deserves to fail.
Obama is so full of hot air, he sucks. He also says he will not address the radical islamic terrorists as such. Maybe. But he does NOT have the authority to decide how we refer to the radical islamic muslim terrorists.
It has truly become more evident that Barack Hussein Obama is NOT an American. A Harvard and Columbia University educated student would know how to pronounce corps (pronounced “core” not “corpse” as Obama pronounced it). And would you think that a White Sox fan (as Obama claims that he is) would know at least the name of one former or present player? Let’s get real. Obama is a foreigner.
Most people don’t know that his recent religious adviser, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, was a follower of islam — a muslim. Is he still? Maybe. The caustic remarks spewed out of Jeremiah’s mouth with vitriolic fervor did not move Obama to complain; not once. By default, Obama agreed with everything his ears were hearing.
Out with Obama.
(Note: islam and muslim are not capitalized on purpose).
“A nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought. And no matter how great the obstacles may seem, we must never stop our efforts to reduce the weapons of war. We must never stop at all until we see the day when nuclear arms have been banished from the face of this Earth.” – Ronald Reagan, 1984
@BRob: That’s funny…. One of my little moonbat parrots just cut and pasted the exact same comment at the Mike’s America home planet.
Is George Soros now passing out Reagan quotes?
Allow me to rephrase an old quote from Sen. Loyd Bentsen from his debate with V.P. candidate Dan Quayle in 1988:
I knew Ronald Reagan. He was a friend of mine. And Obama is NO Ronald Reagan.
If you think Reagan would approve of Obama’s unilateral disarmament you don’t know Reagan.
Reagan built UP the military Obama is now dismantling.
Reagan never apologized for American power.
You quoting Reagan just reminds us what a great president is like and why we don’t have one living in the White House now.
Reagan won the Cold War by facing down the Soviets. Obama is now surrendering to the Russians, the Chinese, the Iranians and anyone else who hates America as much as he does.
A foreign military build up of an political rival nation which couldn’t be matched, poorly maintained health services and “maintance” per Government “right” of Soviet Consitution which was revoked to most of the “citizens” of such a nation, and weak domestic commerical communist market and industry that was ironicly being kept afloat by imported goods and services by same foreign nation’s captialist market? The deathnote to the USSR.
Congress and the White House seems hell bent to repeat the errors of the former USSR.
Mike —
You criticize Obama for seeking the exact same goal that Reagan sought: an end to the threat of nuclear war. I’ve long since given up and possibility of you cons actually agreeing with Obama on anything. Y’all have determined that strident opposition to everything, no matter how petty the issue or how important and well-thought out the strategy, is the way you should go. Why? Because opposition and spittle flying boosts ratings at Fox News and helps push GOPer fundraising; there is no money in admitting the guys gets some things right, so you cons won’t admit the obvious. You claim it is because everything Obama does is wrong. But in reality, the lie is exposed when Obama steals a GOPer idea, calls it his own, then gets you cons to OPPOSE what you previously PROPOSED. That’s fine as a tactic; but knee jerk unthinking opposition is just not intellectually honest or a good long term strategy, especially if Obama’s plans end up working.
Let’s face facts, Mike: Obama was not elected to make decisions like a GOPer. We had eight straight years of failure going that route, which is why the country chose to let the Dems manage for a while. If your ideas were so great, if your management was so sound, then the outcomes would have been better under unilateral GOPer control.
Obama’s goal as president is to maintain and advance the technological, economic, military, political and cultural superiority of the US. He will not pursue those goals the way McCain/Palin would have (thank God!) or the way Bush II tried and failed. You can pronounce him a failure of you like. But that’s like calling Obama a “loser” in the football game, when its five minutes into the second quarter, with Obama ahead by 10 points.
Here’s my test for if Obama’s idea on nukes is a bad one: what does Dick Luger think? Remember, he and Obama bonded over loose nukes and non-proliferation. Do you hear any criticism from him? No. In fact, I bet Luger helped formulate the friggin plan. If too many of you cons get out of pocket and try to trash it, mark my words, Luger will cut you off at the knees. That is why you hear an awful lot of nothing coming from DC nuke issue types.
@BRob: Once again, you don’t know what you are talking about. Reagan is turning over in his grave at the willful distortion of his views on this subject.
I realize you only know about Reagan from whatever spoon fed info, like the quote above, is handed you by George Soros et. al.
But surely you must know that some of us, not least of all myself, know a bit more about Reagan and his national security program.
You’re just not putting forward anything approaching a credible argument.
And that’s par for the course from you.
If granny has a gun she is less likely to get robbed. The bigger and more apparent that gun is the less likely she is to be a victim. If granny goes around telling people, “don’t worry it is not loaded” granny better watch out. Plain and simple BRob.
Another Reagan quote “any adversary who thinks about attacking the United States or our allies…concludes that the risks to him outweigh any potential gains. Once he understands that, he won’t attack. We maintain the peace through our strength; weakness only invites aggression.”
Listen guys,
this is easy pickings. Another website titled their entry “How’s that Russian Negotiation Going?”
He was being sarcastic but my answer was simple.
“Fine for Obama, he’s a communist.
Sucks for us.
By now can we dispense with any discussion of his ideological beliefs? He is a commie or at least hard core sympathizer. So when he says he likes small businesses he’s lying. It is like if “Fat Bastard” from Austin Powers fame says he likes babies. Sure, to eat.
It’s not what he says, it is what he does. Just like a good communist.
@archer52:
Some of this information was drizzling out during the campaign in a small Chicago paper I was reading. New Zeal has done an exemplary job of investigating, adding more info as he has uncovered it and cataloging it all in a nice tidy package. This is his latest, he has much more archived:
http://newzeal.blogspot.com/2010/04/obama-file-101-whos-been-fibbing-then.html
Exactly how, pray tell, is Obama “dismantaling” the military? The last budget was 8% higher than the year before.
And how is he “unilaterally” disarming by cutting a deal with the Russians to reduce nukes to 1,500 weapons? How is 1,500 not “enough”?
Reagan made it clear: his goal was to eliminate nuke weapons. Obama’s deal with the Russians takes us one step further toward Reagan’s stated goal. Now unless, you think Reagan was just BULLSH*TTING around, and did not mean what he said, then how in the hell is Obama the ‘bad guy” here for getting us closer to Reagan’s goal? Makes no sense whatsoever.
Finally, I think Palin and Giulianni and Newt Gingrinch (none of whom know a damn thing about nukes) either failed to read the nuke use plan, or they are simply lying about it. The plan SPECIFICALLY PERMITS the use of nukes in response to a chemical or biological attack, and it specifically excludes non-signatories of the non-proliferation treaty (like North Korea) from its protections. But, then again, why should we expect a former half-term governor, a former mayor, and a man who never was a nuke expert in Congress and who has been out of Congress 12 years — why should they be expected to know any more about nukes that Caeser, the guy who owns the barber shop I go to? After all — they have the same amount of experience on the issue, which is ZERO!
Finally, y’all keep forgetting that Obama worked with Dick Luger on non-proliferaiton issues in the Senate, starting in 2004. Luger is one of his best buds and closest advisors. Dick Luger was probably heavily involved in the new nuclear use plan, assuming he did not write the damn thing himself, since he and Obama are attached at the hip on these issues. In fact, has a single CURRENTLY ELECTED GOPer said ANYTHING crtitical about the Obama plan? Has one? Who was it? Yeah, we heard Hannity’s college drop out TV host view on the plan, but he knows nothing more about the issue than Palin does. “The dog that did not bark” tells me that word got around to elected GOPers that they should keep mouths shut on this plan.
@B-Rob: Were you alive and sentient during the Reagan years?
Reagan supported peace through strength. Obama supports peace through apology and unilateral disarmament.
Reagan used SDI to get the Soviets to the negotiating table for serious arms reduction. Obama is throwing away SDI and getting nothing concrete in return.
Reagan believed Government wasn’t the solution to our problems, Government IS the problem. The direct opposite view of Obama.
Reagan believed in tax cuts across the board to spur economic growth (guess what, it worked) Obama believes in tax hikes for everyone (bought a pack of cigarettes lately?)
Reagan valued and nurtured the Special Relationship we had with Britian. Obama openly scoffs at the idea.
Reagan was a staunch ally of Israel. Obama is doing everything he can to weaken that alliance.
Dont’ come around here trying to twist and distort Reagan’s vision for a safer, freer world. In Reagan’s day, the Dems did everything they could to oppose Reagan’s efforts to win the Cold War. And you’re doing everything you can to make sure we lose the next one.
How is Obama dismantling the military? What has he dismantled? Since when is an 8% increase in defense spending “dismantling”?
You put a lot of other things out there that are mere obfuscation from the quesion, which was NUKE POLICY. But I return to the central point:
Why haven’t any ELECTED GOPERS said anything against the Obama plan? Why haven’t we heard Dick Lugar, who has forgotten more about nukes than anyone else will ever know, come out against the Obama plan and the Russian treaty? And what does Sam Nunn think?
The only people I have heard opposing this nuke plan or the treaty are people who DON’T KNOW SQUAT about nukes, like Palin and Newt Gingrich and Sean Hannity.
1,500 war heads is plenty. Its like a man in a house who has 143 guns. At some point, you are beyond having enough weapons for “protection” and you are into a costly gun collection habit. Add in the threat of loose nukes in Russia and Ukraine, and we have some real danger that only a comprehensive nuke elimination program can help.
My guess: Lugar wrote the damn policy, or was a co-author. Why? Because he and Obama have been tangled up on these issues for the last six years.
MA is correct. Don’t listen to or believe your teachers in college, they are revising history ala progressive style.
Do you want to know what Reagan said when in a cabinet meeting about what to do with the Russians and their aggressive agenda? Ready?
According to the story he walked in, saw people ready for a long winded discussion like most political situations call for and he said in response to “what are we going to do with the continuous confrontations?” question with- “We win, they lose.”
Then, according to the story, he walked out, leaving the “how” to his people. Honestly, how can you compare a depression era, world war era, common sensed man who called his nation the last bastion for freedom with Obama? A man arguably narcissistic to a dangerous level, who feels he is destined to be the leader, who has nothing but a radical America hating background and who, by his actions, has shown he is more than willing to hurt us. Look at who Reagan surrounded himself with and who Obama has sought counsel with and then put the freaking bong down and join the rest of us who have awoken.
We are in some serious trouble here. Listen, it is okay to have kids run around pretending to be in charge and a whole other thing for them to actually be in charge. Combine that with a group of seriously hard core leftists and corrupt politicians and we are being fed into a metal grinder at a recycling plant like we were starring in our own teen slasher movie!
I am still waiting for the apoligies to “Tailgunner” Joe!
And I am still waiting for a reason for the “Civilian Defense Force?” The constitutionally allowed military defended our borders in the War of Independence, In the War of 1812, in the Spanish American War, I am not sure why we need a Civilian force unless it is to keep those unrulely Tea Partiers in line, round them up, and send them to re-education camps… Or it could be like every King and tin plated dictator wanting his own guard to protect his ass, coincidence? I think not!