The government wades into dangerous territory by getting "officially" cozy with the mainstream media

There's a Senate bill being pushed by democrats that would grant to the justice department the right to define who is a journalist and who isn't, based on who they work for. The reason for having to define "journalist" at all is when a story becomes part of the legal process, the question of revealing sources always comes up. But should the government be the sole judge as to who qualifies as a journalist and thereby confer onto the favored ones the right to keep a secret source?

Clearly the government being an arbiter of any kind when it comes to news gathering and dissemination is counter to the constitutional notion of a "free press" envisioned by the founders.

I can easily imagine a situation where a liberal blogger who freelances for an online news outlet whose parent company is NBC, publishes something slanderous and secretive he was told about Sarah Palin. Palin sues the person, but Eric Holder confers "journalist" status onto the blogger and protects him from having to reveal who told him the information. And we all know it's because, of the three major networks, NBC is the biggest supporter of the Obama administration. And Obama tells Holder that NBC must be kept happy as payback for all the friendly coverage.

This kind of thing happens every day in DC, and especially with this administration. Just imagine how much worse it'll be when the treachery is out in the open?

Brains vs brawn

A ridiculous study out of Emory University today suggests that men with large testicles are worse at being fathers and men with smaller testicles by comparison, were more involved with child rearing and parenting in general. The obvious evolutionary corollary, for you readers who aren't bright enough to understand the implications of this study, is that men who are more physically capable of killing predators and bringing home food are seen as more attractive and therefor better suited to compete for the right to breed the females, but are unconcerned with the offspring after breeding. 

That may have been true when we lived in caves, but is physical bruteness really that much of an attractant to women when looking for a mate today? More of an attractant than brains, earning potential, and being a general provider? How many women today when given the choice between a hunky career bartender with big biceps and a college educated geek with a good job, who would they pick for husband/father?

Given a side-by-side choice, I'd think all but the stupidest females would think long-term and pick the smart provider. Brains and earning potential ARE how modern men compete for the right to breed modern females. This observational truth would therefor lead to an obvious, but indelicate conclusion..... that men today with less evident intelligence, but greater physical competitiveness and breeding prowess, are less evolved than their less brawny but smart, employed counterparts.....no?

Luckily for polar bears, Earth stubbornly refuses to obey Al Gore

Over the past several years, we've been treated to wild-eyed accounts of how the arctic ice sheet would be essentially ice-less through out the summer months. Ice-less enough, they said, that boats could sail the Northwest Passage as if in the sub-tropics. Well, 20 yachts decided to do just that, and all 20 are now hopelessly and hilariously stuck in the arctic ice. Only the Canadian ice-breaker ships can get them out now.

How did this happen? How about there's no such thing as global warming, you idiots? In just one year, the same one year that Al Gore, James Hansen, Obama, and other moronic global-warming believers told us that the ice caps would be permanently melted and could not recover, it not only recovered, it added almost 1 million sq. miles of ice. That's a 60% increase from the year before.

Now these doomsday salesmen are screeching about a possible ice-age. Which is it, assholes? Global warming or ice age? You can't severely restrict human activities with punitive laws, taxes, and phony hysteria if you don't have a clue what's happening?

When are we going to stop paying these alarmists any attention at all? I guess when there are no more dumb-assed democrat voters who're too stupid not to be taken in by the snake-oil salesmen masquerading as environmental scientists.

Kerry stupidly issues another red-line and gives Assad an out

This is our esteemed, and very serious, secretary of state, John Kerry. He's doing some sort of clean-suit inspection here, but he just looks like Smurf sperm.

I used this picture because that's about how seriously the international community takes the US military and Obama/Kerry as head of it, right about now. We are cartoonish to people like Assad, Putin, Khomeni, et. al.
Anyway, Kerry gave Bashar al-Assad of Syria one week to turn over control of all his chemical weapons to international inspectors, or face military action.

Really? Another red-line? Do Obama and Kerry even talk to each other, I mean at all? Vlad. Putin called Kerry's bluff and promised that he would personally counsel Assad to submit to UN inspections of his chemical weapons. Kerry giving Assad this out, puts Obama in a tight, embarrassing spot politically if Assad agrees to it.

What a bunch of half-witted buffoons we have managing, and I use the term loosely, our foreign policy.

China joins the party

Terrific, China is coming to the Syria party with its own war ship. Quick, somebody tell me when's the last time the US, Russia, and China each had warships within sight of each other in a hostile war zone?

I think the likelihood of our respective navies mixing it up in the Med is remote, but what is highly likely, is that Obama loses badly the House vote, and our navy tucks it tail and skulks away from Syria having done nothing. How will that look on the world stage to have Russia and China being able to claim they intimidated the greatest Navy in the history of the world into non-action? It looks bad, that's how it looks.

Obama needs to drop some ordinance on somebody somewhere, even if just to save face at this point.

What happens in Syria.....if?

So Obama is determined to punish Bashar al-Assad come hell or high water. Fine, but has he or anybody in the administration thought this through? Here are a few what if's to consider before we insert ourselves into the Syrian civil war.....

-what if after we drop a Tomahawk into Syria, Iran follows through on her threat to drop some Scuds on Israel? Do we retaliate against Iran?

-what if Israel decides to not wait for Iran to attack and bombs all Iran's nuclear sites with devastating ordinance, killing thousands?

-what if Russia, Syria's strongest, long-time ally, decides to defend Syria and jumps into the action?

-what if any other Arab nations attack Israel to punish the US for sticking our nose into Assad's business?

-what do we do after bombing Syria? Just blithely sail away? What will have been accomplished by doing that? Even symbolically?

Doing anything in Syria at this point makes no sense.

Liberals argue that not punishing Assad, even symbolically, gives tacit permission for other countries to use chemical weapons, but that is wrong. Not bombing Syria in no way prevents us from punishing other users of chemical weapons. How does it, if that's your argument?

Putin and Obama contemplate WWIII

I can't recall a time in my life when US and Russian military assets were in as close proximity, and on opposing sides of a conflict, as they are in the eastern Mediterranean now. Syria is one of Russia's oldest middle east allies and Bashar al-Assad is probably guilty of numerous human-right violations. Combine that with US presidents fancying themselves the world's policemen, righting wrongs around the globe when nobody else will, and place them together in the world's hottest combat zone and that my friends is a recipe for heap big trouble.

Vlad. Putin promised today when Obama visited him in Russia that he would support Syria if the US attacked their friend Assad, but Obama has promised that he would punish Assad one way or the other for using chemical weapons.....so what's likely to happen?

Not to be alarmist, and I don't think this will happen, but a situation like this could easily spiral out of control and the US end up going toe to toe with Russia and Iran combined. If even a limited engagement took place between the US and Russia, there would be world wide chaos.

Americans instinctively know this. That's why 3 out of 4 of us demand that we NOT attack Syria with even a symbolic strike. What would that accomplish any way?

Obama goes off the rails

Obama has gone completely off the rails. In Sweden today, he tried to say with a straight face that he never set a "red line" threshold for chemical weapons in Syria, but is he not aware of recent advancements in modern audio/visual recording equipment?

This is Obama from just last year, from FoxNation -- “We have been very clear to the Assad regime, but also to other players on the ground, that a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around or being utilized. That would change my calculus,” Obama said. “That would change my equation. . . . We’re monitoring that situation very carefully. We have put together a range of contingency plans.”

Sounds like a "red line" ultimatum to me. We might be witnessing the collapse of a modern presidency that has been propped up by the fawning media. But even the media cannot ignore obvious conflicts like this. 

I will gladly kill you tomorrow with weapons you give me today

The "strategy" of arming those who will eventually turn those arms against you should heretofore be known as the Wimpy Doctrine, from the Popeye cartoon.

In their meeting this weekend John McCain and Obama agreed to send new weaponry to the largest rebel group in Syria to help them fight Assad's army.

This is sheer folly and stupidity. These weapons will be used against US personnel sooner or later.....it always is. We don't even know the political make-up of the various rebel groups. Are they Al-Qaeda, Taliban, Hezbollah, Brotherhood? Who knows? McCain certainly didn't which from which when he posed for a picture with Taliban fighters thinking they were pro-American rebel forces.

And what happens if and when we depose Bashar Assad? Has anybody thought that far? Apparently Obama, McCain, Lindsay, or Boehner. haven't either.

McCain and Graham....full-speed ahead war-hawks

This is why these two clowns need to be primaried in their next elections. RINO sen's McCain and Graham met with Obama over the weekend to discuss Syria. Both advise that any congressional vote against Obama at this point would be politically disastrous for the US, both agree that regime change in Syria is the only feasible strategy, and both criticized any Americans who dare disagree with them.

Syria already has military backing from Russia, Iran, and China. There are sophisticated, Russian air-defense networks peppered all over Syria manned by actual Russians. There is at least one Russian destroyer in the eastern Mediterranean alongside our 5 war ships. And Israel is staging missile tests out there. Is this really the time to be toppling, strictly on humanitarian grounds, a regime whose replacement might be worse than he is?

Obama stupidly painted himself into this corner with his rhetoric. This is what we get for allowing the media to install into the white house an inexperienced community agitator for no reason other than he's a black guy. He doesn't have a clue what he's doing.