Thursday, November 13, 2014

Smoking Guns

Which are more stupid? Our 'leaders' or the we, the People, who vote for them? In my very early days as a Knight, a chap gained his spurs early on by being booted out of house and home so that his older brother could inherit the land. A chap was considered pretty useless and indeed a liability and a threat until he could prove himself worthy, and preferably prove it a long way away. He did not get to vote on the matter.

Then we became civilised. Women got the vote whilst men still were sent off to fight and mostly die. Elsewhere. Out of sight. And so it is today, although many more and more fauous excuses are invented to get him out of his home and onto furrin shores. Our leaders are full of quite stupid  excuses. They lie and decieve.

Two examples in recent days may illustrate this all-too-often ignored feature of leaders and the led.

British men are sent to far-flung places to fight. What for? We do have to ask. Men's lives are on the line.

American men - and women - are lied to about life and death and deliberately deceived about the healthcare at home. (And of course, many sent overseas to join the British men and men from Oz, too, getting the 'opportunity' to prove themselves). Let us ask a few questions.

Vince Cooper asked first as he had the first pint.

Why did British troops go to Afghanistan?
British troops were being killed and maimed in Afghanistan, yet Westminster politicians and top brass cannot offer coherent reasons for their presence in the country or an approach to Islam that makes any sense
Why were British troops sent to fight in Afghanistan? The question is worth asking as, now that the last British troops have left the country, the top brass of the army are in serious disagreement with each other over the purpose of the whole enterprise.
In a letter to the Sunday Telegraph Colonel Richard Kemp, Former Commander of British Forces in Afghanistan rejected General Lord Dannatt’s claim that British Forces were deployed to help the Afghans “get a life after two decades of bloody civil war.”
Colonel Kemp dismisses Lord Dannatt’s almost social worker interpretation of the role of the army. He states categorically that British troops were sent to Afghanistan “to throw out or destroy al-Qaeda and to prevent the country from again becoming a base that international jihadists could use to attack the West.”
That’s a serious disagreement.
And it is a serious indictment too. The 'working' soldier has a full-on military ethos, as one hopes. His General tells a different and altogether 'weenie' tale. 
In a war where well over four hundred British troops were killed and thousands injured, many maimed for life. The purpose of such suffering needs real justification, not contradiction.
THIS is the Boy Next Door. A Fine young man. He died in Battle. An Australian.
He put his life in harm's way, as many a Knight has done for generations. For YOU.
At the behest of liars, thieves, deceivers and swindlers.
Will YOU let it be a waste?

Yet contradiction is what is on offer. Lord Dannatt seems to believe Britain went to war for 
humanitarian and social reasons. 
This interpretation contradicts not only Colonel Kemp, but Prime Minister Tony Blair, who sent in the troops in the first place. Mr Blair stated the war aim was to “shut down the terrorist network” and -- almost as an afterthought -- to destroy the heroin supply (the opium poppy crop).
So far, Colonel Kemp’s interpretation seems to agree with Tony Blair’s, yet John Reid, Labour’s defence secretary in 2005-2006 stated he would be “perfectly happy” if British troops in Afghanistan left “without firing a shot.” 
But how could British troops “shut down the terrorist network” without firing a shot?
British troops were being killed and maimed in Afghanistan, yet Westminster politicians could not offer coherent reasons for their presence. And the contradictions over Afghanistan took a further twist when Defence Secretary Bob Ainsworth said in 2009 that troops were there “as a result of our assessment of the terrorist threat facing Britain.”
The streets of Britain had now become the new front in the Afghan war. 
Later, under David Cameron, the Defence Secretary Liam Fox continued the same theme. British soldiers were not in Afghanistan “for the sake of the education policy in a broken 13th century country”, he said. The reason British troops were in Afghanistan was “so the people of Britain and our global interests are not threatened.”
The explanations for the war in Afghanistan had come full circle: to turf out al-Qaeda and burn the poppy-crop; to protect an education policy for Afghan women, and finally to protect the streets of Britain from Islamist attacks.
The politicians, from the safety of Westminster have chopped and changed for political convenience over the thirteen years of this Afghan war, while the troops put their lives on the line. 
Lucy Aldridge, mother of the youngest British soldier to fight in Afghanistan said: “I think that from the outset the conflict was ill-conceived, ill-planned, and I think that is something that definitely needs to be looked at post-withdrawal.”
Mrs Aldridge lost her brave son in that war. Given the vacillation of Westminster politicians, she surely deserves the enquiry that she demands.
Another very serious question needs to be asked. 
But if British troops were in Afghanistan to fight “the terrorist threat facing Britain”, 
why was Muslim immigration to Britain not severely reduced or stopped altogether, 
at least as an emergency? 
After all, the main way an al-Qaeda terrorist can hit the UK is by being here. Not all Muslims are terrorists of course; only a tiny minority. But it is from within the Muslim community that most terrorists come.

Just a tiny minority of  around 160 million worldwide. 
Some minority !

Military forces are established and maintained to defend the country. In times of peace such forces can become slack and ill-used. They can lose vital skills and experience. Hense it has always been an unspoken - certainly an unwritten - policy for UK troops to find battles to take some part in. It keeps the 'sharp' end sharp. 

But such a policy can itself be misused.

Now to America which is suffering from the worst President in its history.  And to an issue not to do with fighting political and military enemies abroad but fighting the day-to-day physical ailments and illnesses at home. 

We can severely criticise a 'Presidential' decision to send troops into obscure places to fight outbreaks of disease and illness. Viruses do not carry guns or place artilliary. 

Such troops are not medical specialists for that purpose.  No-one in Africa was declaring war on America.

But home based healthcare is a battle we all need to fight. And the President made war in the American public in his efforts to 'improve' their health.

This was a matter to engage everyone, shirley? A matter that affected everyone, even the ladies who vote. The public had a big stake in the matter and needed to know 'The Plan'.

But the 'Great Leader', Chairman O Ba Ma, could not treat his subjects as adults. He thinks of them as stupid. In part he is right. He did get voted in. Twice.

David Limbaugh took his pint in hand and addressed the bar.
A Smoking Gun for Us 'Stupid American Voters'

Recently, a very disturbing video emerged that contains the metaphorical smoking gun concerning President Obama’s many lies about Obamacare. This should remove any lingering doubt that we’re dealing with a fascist-type administration.

Of course, there should be no need for a smoking gun, because it is now undeniable that Obama lied on his major selling points about the Affordable Care Act. Unlike many Democrats in falsely accusing President George W. Bush of lying about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, I don’t use the term “lie” lightly.

I don’t mean that Obama made good-faith statements about his bill that he honestly believed at the time but would later turn out to be erroneous. I am not even suggesting that he made promises he knew would be difficult to fulfill that he ultimately could not. 
I am saying that he made statements that he knew to be false when he made them.

Obama said countless times, despite knowing better, that if Americans liked their health care plans and their doctors, they could keep them. 
He said that average health care premiums for a family of four would decrease by some $2,500. 
He said his bill would be budget-neutral. 
His administration talked out of both sides of its mouth in characterizing the bill variously as a tax and as a penalty, depending on which label served his interests at the time. 
Team Obama assured us that employer-based plans would not be wedged out.

No one should need further proof of these multiple and oft-repeated lies, but should you need more, there is indeed more – and it’s explosive and hot off the presses.

The Daily Caller reports that in a newly surfaced video, Obamacare architect Jonathan Gruber, an MIT professor, made some stunning admissions concerning how the administration presented the bill and how it overtly deceived the public because the bill never would have passed otherwise.

To understand the administration’s contempt for the American people, it is important for you to watch the video.
(It’s on YouTube, titled “GRUBER: ‘Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage.”) 
But in case you cannot, here is what Gruber said: 
“This bill was written in a tortured way to make sure (the Congressional Budget Office) did not score the mandate as taxes. If CBO scored the mandate as taxes, the bill dies. OK? So it’s written to do that. 
In terms of risk-rated subsidies, if you had a law which said healthy people are going to pay in – you made explicit that healthy people pay in and sick people get money – it would not have passed. … Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage. And basically, call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical to getting the thing to pass. … Look, I wish (health economist) Mark (Pauly) was right (that) we could make it all transparent, but I’d rather have this law than not.”

You can see the mindset that these people have. There is no mistaking it. They know better than we “stupid” American people what is good for us, so they’ll do whatever is necessary, including purposely deceiving us, to advance their political agenda.

This is the stuff of outright tyrants – arrogant, unaccountable, cavalier despots. This is political fascism. This is not representative government. This type of behavior nullifies the Constitution and disenfranchises the American people.
One is reminded of the most senior woman voter in the country, Nancy Pelosi - you know of her from earlier posts. She is the abortion supporting Catholic. A moron befitting the oxymoron.

She' leading the House, declared that the Representatives of the voting public would have to pass the Bill before they could understand what was in it.

Well she was right about that at least.

Not that anyone seriously boxed her ears, took her knickers down and gave her a sound spanking and said 'Repeat after me. The Public pays me to read this shit BEFORE I pass it". someone should have.

It’s one thing to have strong ideological views. It’s altogether another to impose those views at any cost and in derogation of the people’s rights. 
This is who this president is. 
These are the people he surrounds himself with.

Obama and his team are not chastened, much less repentant, over the recent election results. They remain undeterred, and they intend to continue using whatever means they deem necessary, in their self-assessed superior wisdom, to accomplish their political ends, beginning with immigration.

It’s hard to believe that this man was ever elected and exceedingly harder to believe he was re-elected, but it is now quite clear that even he and his team believe he wouldn’t have been able to achieve re-election or advance much of his agenda had he been truly honest and transparent about his aims and the effects of various bills.

If you were unaware of or in denial about Obama’s character and his willingness to deceive and act against the will of the American people before – despite other smoking guns, such as those concerning his lies on the Benghazi, Libya, attacks – you have no excuse now.

Two dangerous years remain in Obama’s term. Even Democrats who might agree with many of Obama’s remaining agenda items have a duty to oppose his further abuse of our system, including on immigration. But whether or not they step up, it is imperative that Republicans take a hard line against any such corrosive acts against the rule of law and our Constitution.

We, the Public, must ask ourselves - not just our leaders.... Are we stupid?

We do after all keep electing these crass liars. 

OK, many of us do not.  It is the clod next door, the Big Brother, who continually votes-in other big bothers. We often find ourselves in the minority.

But look what Muslims do with their minority !

They take up arms too.

Gird your loins. Put on the Armour of TRUTH.  Take up Your Sword.


Addendum: The Tavern Keeper is taking to the sea, with steed and baggage, on a journey to the Big Island. The Tavern will still be open and a buxom wench will be on hand to serve fine ale and Grace while I am away.  
Comments will be held until a message reaches me.
I shall return before two weeks have passed.


1 comment:

  1. Well realistically “international jihadists” were never really the problem they have been painted as. The real problem the west has is social disease such as demographic decline caused through abortion, and a lack of committed marriages and the viral hate movement called feminism.

    Unfortunately ALL Western governments are heavily sold out to cultural Marxism. Which means the modern soldier is under the command of organized criminals, we call politicians.

    I think it is about time that the West and America in particular should consider, investing some serious time, and resources in its sones as opposed to whining about how many women “Engineers” we have.


Ne meias in stragulo aut pueros circummittam.

Our Bouncer is a gentleman of muscle and guile. His patience has limits. He will check you at the door.

The Tavern gets rowdy visitors from time to time. Some are brain dead and some soul dead. They attack customers and the bar staff and piss on the carpets. Those people will not be allowed in anymore. So... Be Nice..