Calling it quits

Will Malven
11/25/2009

Well folks, it's been a good run, but I think it's time to call it quits.

I'm sure those of you who have been more or less regular readers have noticed the drop in number of blog entries. Demands on my time...especially financial needs...have forced this decision.

Well, that and facing the fact that I will never generate the kind of traffic to this website that is necessary for commercial success.

This website will remain active, as a reference source until my ownership of the name expires next summer.

Thanks for reading and opining. Keep the faith, conservatism is still the majority view and the Obama phenomenon is now beginning to wear thin with the people who got so caught up with it.

Seems they are discovering what some of us knew from the very start, the new emperor has no clothes...and Obama is buck-nekkid...that's for sure.

God bless you, God bless our republic.

Onward to victory!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

The Obsequious President Obama Bows Once Again

Will Malven
11/16/2009

Well, not satisfied with humiliating all Americans with his sbsequious bow before the Saudi King earlier this year, President Obama has once more kowtowed to a foreign leader...this time the Emperor of Japan.

This man has no pride in his nation, in fact he is ashamed of being an American, a title he believes saddles him with the burden of being the source of all evil in the world.

Can this man be any more ignorant of protocol? Can he be any more disrespectful towards his nation and the men who fought to valiantly to defend it against the Japanese Army in World War II?

Even in a bow of apology, the deepest of customary bows, one only goes to 45 degrees; Obama's bow was a 90 degree bow. He was not showing respect, he was making a fool of himself and America.

A real American President knows not to bow before any foreign dignitary, especially not to the emperor of Japan. Ronald Reagan knew how to behave as did Dick Cheney.














The truth is, Obama wants to apologize for America. He actually feels guilty that America used the atomic bomb to end the war in Japan.

Obama has no class and his bow to the Japanese Emperor was a sign of obeisance, not respect. In attempting to demonstrate how sophisticated and erudite he is, he proved himself to be just the opposite...a cultural oaf. Of course most of America knew that by the way he failed to show proper respect to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown and to the Queen.

Makes me wonder if he brought the Emperor a transistor radio or maybe a Sony CD player. I suppose he must have brought the Empress a synthetic kimono.

Liberals like to say that Obama has brought back the respect for America that President Bush lost. They point to the fact that he is well liked by the people of the world. Of course the world likes President Obama, he acts like a puppy. The entire world loves a lap dog.

Respect must be earned and President Obama has done nothing to earn anyone's respect. He's just another corrupt Chicago style politician and he will never be anything more than community organizer.

What an embarrassment for America.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Senator Lindsey Graham is "Stuck on Stupid"

Will Malven
11/10/2009

There is nothing more reprehensible than a politician that hedges his bets when discussing problems that directly impinge on our national security. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-SC) is just one such politician. He is a member of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Government Affairs and has access to enough information to be better informed than most of us.

He appeared this weekend on Face the Nation and when he was asked about the Fort Hood terrorist attack, he could not bring himself to talk about Major Nidal Malik Hasan's Muslim terrorist connections. He should know better than to make this kind of waffling, cowardly, stupid, pandering comment, but here it is.



Senator Graham, you should be ashamed of yourself and immediately stepdown as Senator in shame and embarrassment after this obscene display of obsequiousness towards Muslims. It's true that not all Muslims are terrorists, but in the world today, pretty much all terrorists are Muslims.

What a total politician and jerk.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Fort Hood Shootings: In Dealing with Islam, Political Correctness is a Suicide Pact

Will Malven
11/09/2009

During the hours of news coverage following the tragic shootings that occurred at Fort Hood, one thing that stood out above all others was the reluctance of the news agencies to state the name of the perpetrator of this heinous act. Well after Fox and other news networks knew the apparent identity of the gunman, great care was exercised to avoid identifying Nidal Malik Hasan by name.

From the time that the shootings took place it took the Fox News Channel four and one half hours to provide the identity of the perpetrator by name. Shepherd Smith, the news anchor, even stated that he was "reluctant" to say the name of the perpetrator, because they were concerned about any reaction the name might evoke, until it was confirmed by the Department of Defense. He was not alone in this reluctance, Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison was also provided with the name of the alleged perpetrator but would not say who it was until it was confirmed by the Defense Department.

I am all for making certain that a reporter has his fact right before he goes on camera. In fact I would prefer to get my news more slowly if that delay is motivated by a desire to get the story right, but that has not been the case in our mainstream media for some considerable time. For decades now the press has been more inclined to get the story out immediately and then correct the information as facts change...but not this time.

Compare how the Fort Hood shooter's identity was handled by the media with that of Jason Rodriquez following the tragic mass shooting that he perpetrated in Orlando, Florida yesterday. Within an hour of the shootings occurrence, everyone who was watching the news knew the Mr. Rodriquez's name.

Why? Why the discrepancy? Certainly, some of the delay Thursday was due to the natural difficulties associated with obtaining information from sources on a military base. Access to information necessarily is more controlled on a military base than it is in the general public, but once the identity was known with some degree of certainty, why didn't the press reveal it with the same eagerness that it has displayed in other cases of this type? Why was the senator "uncomfortable" with identifying who the killer was? Why was the press so forth coming with the identity of the man in Florida and so slow to reveal the name of the shooter in Texas?

The reason for this reluctance is clear and has been manifest in our national media ever since the attacks on 9/11 were revealed to have been perpetrated by radical Muslims. There was, and still is, a reluctance to be seen as being critical of Islam and radical Islamists, by the mainstream media.

They have never been so scrupulous when dealing with Christians when, on very rare occasion one commits a heinous act. Every time a protest occurs at an abortion clinic, the protestors are readily identified as being a member of a "fundamentalist Christian" organization, or an "extreme right-wing Christian" group.

Why is it that liberals as a general rule are so reluctant to talk about radical Muslims or even to use the word terrorist when discussing radical Islamists who have been attacking American people for the past four decades?

Even in protecting our citizens, today's law enforcement organizations are proscribed from using, "racial profiling," as a tool for detecting potential terrorists. To an outside observer, it would appear that our political leaders are more concerned with not offending some special interest group...like the Muslim community...than they are with protecting and saving American lives.

Every time an attack like the one at Fort Hood occurs, we are admonished not to draw any conclusions about a certain group of people from the actions of one individual or small group of individuals. We are instantly and repeatedly reminded of non-Muslims who have committed horrible acts. The names of Timothy McVeigh or Ted Kaczynski or some other lone crazy who perpetrated mass murder are readily at the tip of liberals' tongues to remind us that it's not only Muslims who commit these kinds of acts.

There is almost a religious fervor in their efforts to prevent anyone from concluding what is patently obvious to any objective observer, that Islam, the "Religion of Peace," spurs more of its adherents to violence than any other organized religion or political group on Earth. There's not even a second place in this category.

Liberals are especially prone to use moral equivalency to excuse what is clearly a dangerous proclivity among Muslims throughout the world. From the blog "Confluence" here is a typical liberal’s comment:

"...Islam is no more violent than any other religion. Fundamentalism is our enemy and that can be found in Christianity as well as Islam. I am not going to condemn a religion or its followers because of the deranged actions of one their members and I caution others who I respect to refrain from doing so as well..."

This comment is made in the face of facts that surround us in the world today. This was not an isolated act nor am I saying all of this "because of the deranged actions of" one individual. Radical Islamists are committing violent acts against their own people and against non-Muslims all over the world today. Bombings in Afghanistan and Pakistan and Iraq have killed dozens of civilians and our troops. Muslim terrorists are fighting and killing people in the Philippines, Somalia, Indonesia and America.

This liberal fool continues:

"Fundamentalism is our enemy and that can be found in Christianity as well as Islam. I am not going to condemn a religion or its followers because of the deranged actions of one their members and I caution others who [sic] I respect to refrain from doing so as well. The last thing we need is a backlash to comdown on the heads of Muslim men, women and children."

More false moral equivalency. How many terrorist attacks have "fundamentalist Christians" committed over the last four decades? How many American citizens have they killed? How many acts of indiscriminate murder? Such claims as this author "riverdaughter" makes are as dishonest and agenda driven as they are ludicrous.

Liberals and other who wish to excuse Islam always mention Charles Whitman who killed 14 and wounded 32 in 1966 at the University of Texas, or George Jo Kennard who drove into a Luby's Restaurant and killed 23 people on October 16, 1991, or Timothy McVeigh who bombed the Alfred P. Murrah Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995 and killed 168 people, or Seung-Hui Cho who murdered 32 people on April 16, 2007, or Jiverly Wong who killed 13 and wounded 4 on April 03, 2009.

While all of those are horrible occurrences, they have no common thread. They each are isolated, disparate events. Juxtapose those events with the fact that, according to the State Department, there were 248 "Significant Terrorist Incidents" that occurred between May of 1961 and the end of 2003 throughout the world. Out of those, 133 or 54% have been caused by Muslim extremists.

Even disallowing 43 attacks against Israel which could be blamed on the long term war between Arabs and the Israelis, and 18 attacks against targets in Iraq which could be blamed on the American presence there, Muslims were responsible for 72 terrorist attacks throughout the world between 1970 and 2003. [As a side note, another group, also a cause celebre for liberals, communist (whether it be the FARC in Columbia, AFRC in Sierra Leone, or even the Red Brigade in Europe), have been responsible for 49 terrorist attacks.]

So is it reasonable to wonder when someone named Nidal Malik Hasan who is a devout Muslim and who has been very outspoken in his opposition to Americas presence in Iraq and Afghanistan if there is more to the attack at Fort Hood than him being mentally ill?

The reasons for paying extra close attention to any and all acts of violence that are carried out by Muslims are obvious and the risk to our national security and the safety of every American citizen in not doing so for reasons of political correctness is great.

The level of idiocy and intentional blindness required for our government to take the approach to these acts of violence that isolated events and that one must not bring the words Islam or Muslim into the dialogue for fear of offending certain people is approaching that of criminality.

Evidence shows beyond any reasonable doubt that, far from being a Religion of Peace, Islam is a grave threat to our nation and our citizens and for that reason, perhaps America should consider removing all of our men and women in uniform who are Muslims from active service and banning any further enlistments of Muslims.

For those who claim "It's not fair," you're right it's not, but then it's not "fair" that 13 of our very best and brightest were killed Thursday by a Muslim with a grievance against America and our involvement in the Middle East. It's not "fair" that 3000 Americans were killed on 9/11. It's not "fair" that we have lost over 4000 of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. It's not "fair" that 13 families are now in mourning for their lost loved ones and another 38 families are worried sick over how their loved ones are doing in their efforts to recover from the wounds Dr. Hasan inflicted on them...for no reason.

So don't tell me it's not "fair" to profile swarthy looking men between the ages of 17 and 40 because I don't care if it's "fair" or not; fairness is irrelevant. Those swarthy looking men have been responsible for the deaths of thousands of innocent civilians and members of our military...not because they are suffering from PTSD or because "he was a troubled man," but because they hated America and chose to follow the path of a radical religion that teaches hatred and murder of all who refuse to submit to its teachings.

There may be nothing more to these deaths than the sad story of a sick individual who suffered a severe psychotic episode and killed a lot of people similar to the others liberals are so quick to mention, but to make that assumption without even investigating the obvious issues surrounding this man's history and the apparent care with which he planned this massacre is just plain stupid, arrogant, political correctness run amok.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Pelosi's Health Care Bill: Half a Billion Dollars a Page

Will Malven
10/30/2009

Sooo...somebody do the math, please! Half a billion dollars/page...that's $500,000,000 for each and every page (give or take a page or two). Of course that's the projected cost over 10 years, so let's say $50,000,000 per page per year. To put that into perspective, if a rich person is defined as those making over $250,000/year, then each page could make 200 of the 4 million newly unemployed a rich person, or 400,000 newly created "rich persons."

Of course we know that the true cost, the cost that the other idiot in charge of the other House in our Legislative Branch, Harry Reid, let slip in a moment of senility was $2 Trillion over 10 years or twice as much as Congress is willing to admit to. That brings us up to 800,000 "rich persons" who could be created by simply giving away this money.

Carry it even farther. If $50,000/year is the average annual income, then suddenly we would have 4,000,000 new jobs, each guaranteed for 10 years. Wow, just think if we were to do that then each of those people could afford to buy their own insurance through their employers.

Think about it...4 million newly employed all of them insured and paying both federal income tax and social security taxes.

Of course the fifty thou they were earning would be worth about twenty thousand after inflation kicked in...which is of course the whole point of this exercise. WE DON'T HAVE 2 TRILLION DOLLARS TO SPEND LIKE THIS!!!

Back to Pelosi's plan. The CBO claims that the ultimate cost of this plan will be roughly $1.055 Trillion and then they go through some mental "matherbation" (they assume that $161 Billion will be generated by penalties assessed on those who don't sign up for insurance- 1055 - 161 = 894) to get the sum down to $894 Billion which is, amazingly enough, $6 Billion below President Obama's promised $900 Billion limit...funny how that worked out.

Problem is, we all know that these numbers are completely bogus. The Heritage Foundation has the "low-down" on the historical accuracy of congressional cost estimates for the sort of social programs that Democrats seem to like so much here and their record is not very reassuring:

"In 1965, as Congress considered legislation to establish a national Medicare program, the House Ways and Means Committee estimated that the hospital insurance portion of the program, Part A, would cost about $9 billion annually by 1990.v Actual Part A spending in 1990 was $67 billion. The actuary who provided the original cost estimates acknowledged in 1994 that, even after conservatively discounting for the unexpectedly high inflation rates of the early ‘70s and other factors, “the actual [Part A] experience was 165% higher than the estimate.”

Whoops! Better make that check out for a bit more than Congress is lying telling us.

It gets better folks:

"Medicare (entire program). In 1967, the House Ways and Means Committee predicted that the new Medicare program, launched the previous year, would cost about $12 billion in 1990. Actual Medicare spending in 1990 was $110 billion—off by nearly a factor of 10."

WOW! So like...we could expect this "$1 Trillion program which actually costs $2 Trillion to cost more like $20 Trillion? I don't know about you, but that sure sounds like a lot of money to me.

That's just for Medicare, how about Medicaid?

Medicaid DSH program. In 1987, Congress estimated that Medicaid’s disproportionate share hospital (DSH) payments—which states use to provide relief to hospitals that serve especially large numbers of Medicaid and uninsured patients—would cost less than $1 billion in 1992. The actual cost that year was a staggering $17 billion.

That's 1700% people. Congress and the much touted CBO were off by a factor of 17. What happens if they have made the same mistakes today as they made back then?

Think about what this means. Under optimistic assumption, especially given the record of the current economy, the GDP (Gross Domestic Product) of the United States in 10 years is projected to be around $16.5 Trillion. Our current GDP is $13.3 Trillion current national debt is $11.9 Trillion (ummm that'a a net positive of $1.4 Trillion). Congress is about to add "$1.055 Trillion" and very probably several times that, given their historical record for accuracy, for health care alone...UH-OH America just went bankrupt.

Madame Speaker asserts (along with her fellow liberals) that Democrats are pursuing the passage of this bill "to provide competition" and force insurance companies to control health care costs and to insure the estimated 40 million 30 million uninsured, whom we are told are dying for lack of insurance, which is of course total poppycock as no one in America goes without treatment unless they choose to.

You want competition, there are 1700 insurance companies in America. The only reason there isn't any competition is because the governments of each state have legislated monopolies for certain insurance companies, thus according to the GAO in Texas there are 46 providers with Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Texas being the largest holding 27% of the market and the top 5 companies holding 68% of the market. We're in pretty good shape compared to other states like Alabama in which one company, Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Alabama holds a whopping 96% of the health insurance market.

There's not much competition in Alabama, so instead of offering just one other option, the "public option," why not simply pass a federal law allowing people to buy their insurance from any provider anywhere in the United States? Instead of giving citizens one alternative, they would be given 1700 alternatives...and here's the kicker, it wouldn't cost a dime of taxpayer money to do this.

The sad truth is, the reason Democrats in Congress won't deregulate the insurance industry is that this whole sham isn't about providing better, cheaper medical care, it is about accruing more power to the federal government. It is about destroying the private insurance industry and forcing citizens to rely more on the federal government for their "welfare."

Anyone who denies that this is an effort to destroy the private insurance industry is lying...flat out. NO if's, and's, or but's about it. They are intentionally attempting to deceive the American people. You cannot have "competition" where one of the "competitors" has unlimited resources on which to draw and does not have to make a profit. Madame Speaker Pelosi claims that this public option will not have an unfair advantage:

“It should be actuarially sound. It should be administrative and self-sufficient. It should be a real competitor with the private sector and not have an unfair advantage.”

Is anybody reading this dumb enough to believe that the government won't step in and assist this "public option" in the event that is shows signs of not competing? Is anyone gullible enough to believe that this plan will not have a built in financial advantage? How many companies, insurance or otherwise, do you know of that do not ever have to worry about failing?

This is the "thin end of the wedge" of "single payer" socialized medicine. It is a large step in America's continuing slide towards becoming another European style socialist state complete with all of the economic difficulties and "shared sacrifices" with which Europeans have been "blessed."

This isn't just a pig in a poke, it is a rotting, festering, decaying porcine corpse and Democrats want you to buy it without even getting your "poke." Only you can stop this monstrosity...only you can exert sufficient pressure on members of Congress to stop this rape of the American health care system and of the America electorate.

Contact your members of Congress...do it repeatedly and do it to all of them, left or right. Make certain they know exactly how you feel and stop this train before it picks up any steam.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

White House Attacks Against Cheney Continue Liberal Tradition (Attack the Messenger)

Will Malven
10/26/2009

Another 14 Americans died in Afghanistan today; ten while leaving a combat zone in helicopters, and another four while engaged in combat from helicopters...meanwhile in other news, President Obama continues to "evaluate" the recommendations of his commanding general on the ground...the term "dithering" comes to mind...

This past week, former Vice-president Dick Cheney upset members of the Obama Administration and the Democrat Party leadership by revealing that far from "ignoring" Afghanistan as the Democrats have been accusing the Bush Administration of doing, President Bush and Vice-President Cheney had ordered a comprehensive review of the war in Afghanistan last fall and at the request of the Obama people kept the fact of the review, as well as the findings, confidential.

As a reward for their earnest efforts at assisting the Neophyte in Chief and his assembled cabal of incompetents in getting a strong start in running the nation's business, President Bush and his administration have been the target of endless attacks and have been blamed for everything from the economic meltdown (for which they deserve a fair share of the blame) to Obama's foreign policy screw ups (for which Obama is solely responsible).

It seems to prove the old cynic's adage: "No good deed goes unpunished." Perhaps President Bush would have fared better had he followed his predecessor's actions and removed all of the O's from the keyboards of all White House computers and committed other acts of deliberate sabotage, as the Clintonistas did...he certainly couldn't have been attacked any more savagely by the Democrats and Obama.

Once again this points out the nasty truth about liberals and Democrats, if you cross them, they hate you for life. If you contradict them, they revile you. If you expose them for liars and corrupted hypocrites, they attack you personally.

Cheney pointed out the fact that at the request of Obama's team, they performed their review of the Afghan War in secret, provided Obama's team with the results of that review in secret, and that the much ballyhooed "in depth" evaluation of Afghanistan Obama carried out in March and their report was largely a cut-and-paste job of President Bush's fall report.

Rather than answering Cheney's charges, the White House chose to attack the former vice-president and the Bush Administration. While the accusations against President Bush as concerns "neglecting Afghanistan for Iraq" may or may not be true, they are irrelevant as it pertains to the former vice-president's charges.

What is revealed here is a further confirmation of this President's complete lack of capacity to deal with the problems that face this nation. The fact that the "review" done in March was nothing but a re-wording of a report provided to them by President Bush's Administration and that following that review, the current occupant of the White House has done nothing in furtherance of that review, has failed to follow the advice of his personally selected commander on the ground there, and is still uncertain of how to proceed in Afghanistan-even as our troops continue to die there-confirms former Vice-president Cheney's accusations of dithering as factual.

Obama and his little band of sycophants are so pre-occupied with how his decision will affect his party's political future, that he is content to see Americans die without giving them the support they have requested and that they need, until he and other Democrats leaders can decide which policy will have the most positive effect on their poll numbers.

General McChrystal requested his 40,000 additional combat troops back in August of this year; it is now the end of October and our troops continue to be embattled and die in increasing numbers yet the President and his advisors continue to debate politics rather than policy.

This indecisiveness of our President is destructive to our nation's goals and to our troops morale. Those fine young men and women are eager to perform the jobs for which they were hired, provided they are sure those leading them are doing so competently and with certainty of purpose. It is only when our leaders are unsure of themselves and of their policies that the morale of our troops suffers.

Throughout his campaign and since he was inaugurated, President Obama has called the war in Afghanistan a "war of necessity," yet now when he is faced with making a decision that would confirm that campaign claim, he hesitates. Now when our troops most need decisive, strong leadership, their new "Commander in Chief" can't make up his mind and seems more concerned with how his decision will affect his party's chances in the 2010 election than with winning in Afghanistan and protecting, not just Afghani lives, but American lives both here and abroad.

Say what you will about former President George W. Bush, when it came to protecting our nation and our troops, he never allowed the potential domestic political implications of a purely military decision to cloud his judgment.

Dick Cheney was right to chide President Obama about Afghanistan and his accusation of "dithering" was dead on. It is unseemly and irresponsible of the White House to attack the former vice-president on purely political grounds while failing to execute the most basic and essential obligations of the Presidency.

Even if every single accusation they have made against Dick Cheney and President Bush was true (and they're not), it would be completely irrelevant to what is occurring with our troops and what policy the current President should pursue.

Politics should play no part in protecting our national interests and our troops and the games the White House and Democrat leadership are playing with the lives of our troops is shameful and unacceptable.

Mr. President, you have declared this war a "war of necessity;" you have chosen your commander for the war in Afghanistan and solicited his advice. You have already performed you extensive review of the war in Afghanistan back in March and now the commander whom you appointed has made his request clear. Stop playing politics with the lives of our troops and make your decision.

Stop playing the blame game.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below

Russia's Putin warns against intimidating Iran (Obama Continues to Win Friends - Uh-huh)

Will Malven
10/14/2009

My, my, but Obama is sure succeeding in changing the world's opinion of America. So far we have had insults to both the Prime Minister and the Queen of the United Kingdom, French President Sarcozy ridiculing Obama and suggesting that he "walk on water," and former Russian President and current Prime Minister Vladimir Putin sending former President Bush a "thank-you" letter on the day that President Obama travels to Moscow.

Now we have Mr. Putin warning America against taking any actions against Iran that could be construed as intimidating. Not only that but once more Putin snubbed the Obama White House, leaving for a trip to the Russian Far East and China before Obama's Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, could arrive in Moscow. For those of you counting, that makes two huge snubs by Putin of the Obama White House...talk about impressing a foreign leader...I guess Putin has made his opinion of Obama quite clear.

Here's a portion of the Reuters India account with the usual link to the full article:

Russia's Putin warns against intimidating Iran

Wed Oct 14, 2009 11:02pm IST
By Darya Korsunskaya

BEIJING (Reuters) - Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin warned major powers on Wednesday against intimidating Iran and said talk of sanctions against the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme was "premature".

Putin, who many diplomats, analysts, and Russian citizens believe is still Russia's paramount leader despite stepping down as president last year, was speaking after U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited Moscow for two days of talks.

"There is no need to frighten the Iranians," Putin told reporters in Beijing after a meeting of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

"We need to look for a compromise. If a compromise is not found, and the discussions end in a fiasco, then we will see."

"And if now, before making any steps (towards holding talks) we start announcing some sanctions, then we won't be creating favourable conditions for them (talks) to end positively. This is why it is premature to talk about this now."

Aren't you glad that Obama caved in on the missile defenses that were supposed to be placed in Poland and the Czech Republic? He really impressed Putin.

Folks, Obama got nothing, zip, squat, zero props or concessions for his unilateral surrender of the missile defense facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic...absolutely nothing...but contempt.

Secretary Clinton's entire trip was a bust. She failed to achieve any of her goals and did not receive any assurances from the Russians that they would assist in our efforts to prevent Iran from achieving nuclear weapons capability.

Far from achieving anything, she got the brush-off from Moscow. This once again proves just how wrong liberals are in their policies and how absurdly naive they are in dealing with powerful nations like Russia.

For Obama's appeasement of Russian objections to the anti-missile systems that were going to be placed in Poland and the Czech Republic, he got...more demands and a warning from Moscow. Thus ever is the reward for kowtowing to other nation's leaders.

AP reports that Moscow has stated that it maintains the right to us "pre-emptive nuclear strikes" to protect their nation against any aggressive acts on both local and national scale...local scale as in the former Soviet state of Georgia where there was just recently a dust-up, perhaps?

The head of the Russian Presidential Security Council, Nikolai Patrushev, specifically mentioned the U.S. and NATO as still posing a threat to Russia, in a news article published in Izvestia.

It is important to note that these comments from Mr. Patrushev came while Hillary Clinton was in Moscow, cap-in-hand asking for help from Russia on the Iranian issue.

Russia's response was for Patrushev to say that Russian leaders are looking at:

"a variety of possibilities for using nuclear force, depending on the situation and the intentions of the possible opponent.In situations critical to national security, options including a preventative nuclear strike on the aggressor are not excluded."

He also said that nuclear weapons could be used:

"to repel an aggression with the use of conventional weapons not only in a large-scale but also in a regional and even local war."

Again, is he referring to the recent Georgia conflict?

Yeah that Obama White House really has Moscow eating out of its hands now. From all appearances, Obama has us headed back to a Cold War status reminiscent of the 1970's.

Now I know that Obama has aspirations of claiming President Carter's title of "Worst President of the last Century" and that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, but really, do we need to undo all of the great work of Presidents Reagan and Bush just to feed the ego of this "Empty-Suit-In-Chief?"

To use former President Bush's phrase describing his meeting with the President Putin in reverse, all of these foreign leaders and dictators have looked our current President "in the eyes" and have seen the emptiness behind them.

They know they can intimidate him. Men like Ahmadinejad, Chavez, Noriega, Putin (well Putin has so much contempt for him he won't even meet with him), and Medvedev are laughing at Obama as he play-acts his way across the globe pretending to be President of the United States while actually accomplishing nothing.

The American ship of state is without its captain. Instead we have the director if entertainment sitting in the big chair and attempting to steer. It's like (to mix my metaphors) having a 5 year-old child at the wheel of a 60,000 lb. semi-tractor trailer that is barreling down a two lane blacktop.

The world is becoming increasingly dangerous as venturesome and despotic leaders begin to realize just how under-qualified and unprepared President Obama is to deal with their aspirations of power and expansion.

The terrorists know this as well and they are beginning to expand their operations as a result. Does anyone believe it is a coincidence that we have had a sudden spate of terror suspects arrested within our borders?

Once the fools in Congress get through "revising" (read dismantling) the Patriot Act that has kept America safe for the past eight years, we citizens had better be prepared for another perhaps worse 9-11.

Obama is rapidly proving once again that incompetence in the Oval Office is a recipe for chaos and disaster and in President Obama, we have the "Mother of all" Incompetents.

Long Live Our American Republic!!!!

What do you think?

To leave your opinion click on the word "COMMENT(S)" below