A few days ago, a friend on Facebook asked me if I supported the actions our government is taking in Libya. My response is a resounding “no.”  What do you think? Should we be supporting the Libyan rebels, targeting Gaddafi, or just not be involved period?

Here is my response from Facebook.

No, here’s why:

I believe that the right of self-defense extends to individuals on a micro scale and nations on a macro scale. Self-defense is justified if three criteria are satisfied:

1) Ability – the aggressor has the capacity to do significant harm
2) Opportunity – the aggressor has the opportunity to deliver on their ability to do harm
3) Jeopardy – the aggressors attack, if made, will do great bodily harm to their target, putting that individual’s life in jeopardy

I am not a neoconservative and I don’t support sending our military to third world shitholes to protect people that generally hate us. I believe in using the military to destroy direct threats to our national sovereignty and citizens, unilaterally if necessary, but only if the action is justifiable self-defense.

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan since it was obvious the Taliban were a deadly threat (ie ability, opportunity and jeopardy). I also supported the invasion of Iraq under the belief that Saddam was building weapons of mass destruction with the intention of using them on us. In this case, he had both ability and opportunity through terror channels. The jeopardy test was satisfied in that a nuke or dirty bomb would kill many people. Note that I don’t believe that Bush deliberately lied and manipulated us into war as the left often asserts. However, if it was confirmed that Saddam was not building WMDs, then the action in Iraq would have failed the ability and jeopardy tests, and I would not have supported it.

Qaddafi was one a direct threat and he used his influence and his followers to set bombs and kill our citizens (Pan Am, Berlin, etc.) President Reagan tried to kill him but failed. Today he is an impotent, has-been with more bark than bite. He doesn’t have the ability or opportunity to do us harm, especially with a civil war occurring in his country. The truth is, we may effect regime change with airstrikes and no-fly zones, but who are we replacing this dictator with?

Now the purpose of this post was to point out liberal hypocrisy, which Jay succinctly summarized. Obama has shown very poor, indecisive leadership on this issue. He allowed the British and French to lead and then joined the fight in a supportive role. He should have stuck to his platform and stayed out of this conflict, or he should have taken the lead and entered the fight weeks ago. He has a major perception issue and is seen as a weak leader, especially on the world stage. This half-assed foreign policy does little to abate that perception.

Earlier today I called my eye doctor (in Oregon) to request my prescription, as I am considering laser refractive surgery. A quick phone call and polite request resulted in a prompt response that included my prescription. I then proceeded to call my old eye doctor in California, hoping to acquire my original prescription to see if my vision has changed significantly. My polite request was met with:

I’m sorry sir, but I cannot give you your perscription over the phone. There is a law that prevents me from disclosing medical records… blah blah blah”

This simple exchange showcases the very essence of California: No liberty. Massive Regulation. Nanny statism as it finest. Where most states have a few pararaphs to define various sections of their legal code, California has multiple volumes. This state has devolved into nothing more than a failed social experiment run by the test subjects.

So it’s not surprising that a few weeks ago, with stunning predictability, Californians re-elected the same failed politicians and policies that have led to the drastic economic and cultural decline of their state. Real Clear Politics linked this article earlier today:

In one stunning stroke, amid a national conservative tide, California voters essentially ratified a political and regulatory regime that has left much of the state unemployed and many others looking for the exits.

The Golden State train wreck continues…

As predicted, Tuesday was a good night for the Republicans. Somehow the left thought they could implement their radical wish list without considering the will of their constituents (including a large number of moderates) and still maintain their hold on power. Now that the dust has settled, Tuesday’s outcome couldn’t be better. With control of the house, the Republicans can stop Obama’s agenda while proposing sensible reform legislation targeted at reshaping or replacing Obamacare. While these efforts will be largely nullified by the Senate or a presidential veto, they will serve to counter the left’s tired label for the GOP: “the party of no.” (Seriously, when the left spews that accusatory, tired drivel, why don’t the Republicans just remind them that the Democrats are the party of abortion and euthanasia?)

While the Republicans didn’t take the senate, this cannot be considered a missed opportunity. Essentially it prevents Obama from campaigning like Bill Clinton in 1996. The Dems still control 2/3 of the government, and voters will be reminded of that fact when the campaign season starts to heat up. Even Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid keeping his seat isn’t a bad outcome. He has a moderately pro-gun and pro-life voting record and has been endorsed by the NRA in the past (although not this year due to his support for Obama’s SCOTUS nominees).

The big question today is how will Obama react to the election: will he move to the center or stay the course? I have seen no evidence to suggest he is anything but a proud left-wing elitist. I’m sure he will redouble his efforts, costing him reelection and more seats in the Senate. After all, that is what elections are for.

Great article about the death of California:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/viewarticle.cfm/california–there-it-went-15537

And while there are many responsible parties (Democratic-dominated legislatures, weak Republican governors, labor unions), at bottom Californians created their own morass. Much of the debt was piled on by popular referenda. Lawmakers were elected and re-elected. The people acted, and the people are now suffering the consequences.

Another case study in what happens when democrats and liberals are left unchecked for years and years.

Because the 21st-century economy is global and portable, residents and businesses have other options. Employers and educated people can uproot themselves, and they have been, fleeing the congestion, the traffic, the crumbling infrastructure, and the deficient schools.

Leaving that cesspool was one of the best choices I’ve made.

Pajamas Media has a story about two rallies that occured on the same day – one in Nevada and one in Californicate. The difference between the two, as expected, is striking. Let the pictures speak for themselves.

One difference that wasn’t highlighted, however, is the fact that the women at the conservative rally were very attractive. Interesting. LOL!

Today, a friend of mine sent me this:

So, I guess the case is closed.

Seriously, photographers have a great deal of power. Consider that all of the pictures of the “ugly” Democrat women are just plain bad photographs. Anyone can end up a victim of bad timing, as John McCain learned during the 2008 presidential debates. This is why I prefer to be on the viewfinder side of the camera ;)

It’s that time of year again. This one’s for the ecofascists… :D

Previous Earth Days: 2009, 2008, 2007

Thanks to the whiny, needy, monumentally irrational and willfully ignorant Obama zombies, we now have a massive new unaffordable entitlement which will inevitably lead to a national sales tax:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2010/03/26/the_vat_cometh_104936.html

When you vote for Democrats, this is what happens…

Today the president signed the death certificate of his own party; the anticlimactic culmination of months of bribes, back-room deals, zero accountability, zero transparency and brutal, unrelenting agenda-driven politics against the will of the American people and against bipartisan opposition (including unanimous opposition of the Republican Party). This vile perversion of our democratic process is an unconstitutional and illegal, socialist-inspired monstrosity that will claim one sixth of the nation’s economy. The Dims own this one and it will bury them.

I watched the “debate” in the House, though it can hardly be called that. Both sides stated their point of view, but there was no real discussion or even opportunity to convince the other side. The Democrats kept returning to the same two arguments, undeniably the two most popular aspects of the bill: the elimination of preexisting conditions and preventing insurance companies from dropping coverage. These two components of the bill were great and should have been included in any health care reform legislation, however focusing on these two points created a weak argument when confronted with the chilling facts:

• An executive order is hardly a safeguard against public funds being used for abortions
• Premiums *will* go up for all those with private insurance
• This trillion dollar law will rob $550 billion from Social Security and Medicare (by the way these two reforms were passed with large bipartisan support)
• The national debt will inevitably explode, as will the taxes to fund it. The entire system will be unsustainable and eventually lead to more Chinese-owned debt and potentially a national sales tax (perfect for economic growth).
• The Federal Government cannot force American citizens to buy a private product – this is blatantly unconstitutional and won’t hold up in court
• This new law is incredibly unpopular. Why? Because it is a massive increase in the size, scope and power of government. It seeks to micromanage such an important aspect of our lives, denying us choice in the process, all because Big Brother knows best.

I was initially impressed with Bart Stupak’s firm stand against the bill’s potential for funding abortions with public money… that is until he succumbed at the last minute to an executive order that isn’t even worth the paper it’s written on. The fact that he would accept a non-binding scrap of paper from the most pro-abortion president in history shatters his pro-life facade. It became immediately apparent that his efforts were an attempt to save face with his constituents in order to shore up his dismal reelection prospects. Even with his support, the bill barely passed with only a few votes to spare.

According to Real Clear Politics (a poll aggregator), congressional approval is at 17% just two days after the bill was passed. In another survey, only 33% believe that the country is headed in the right direction. This is definitely change Hugo Chávez can believe in.

Obama was elected because he was rock-star charismatic, good looking, well spoken and full of empty promises. The 69,456,897 useful idiots who handed him power projected onto him their hopes and desires without considering the consequences of electing an ultra-liberal, Chicago politician and giving him a majority in both houses of Congress. Obama promised to fundamentally change the United States, and change is what we will receive, whether we want it or not.

While the Dims are celebrating with boasting, four letter expletives and victory laps, fourteen states are lining up to challenge the constitutionality of this law. I believe this will eventually end up in the Supreme Court where the law will be rejected. By this time, the Democrats will have already suffered a crushing defeat in 2010 and 2012. After all, as The One said: “This is what elections are for”.

Rest in pieces.

From: http://www.newgeography.com/content/001110-the-white-city

So much for “diversity”…

The progressive paragon of Portland is the whitest on the list, with an African American population less than half the national average. It is America’s ultimate White City. The contrast with other, supposedly less advanced cities is stark.

Why is it that progressivism in smaller metros is so often associated with low numbers of African Americans? Can you have a progressive city properly so-called with only a disproportionate handful of African Americans in it? In addition, why has no one called these cities on it?

interesting article…