I was going to do another post on Global Warming…..


Especially after Al Gore again put his foot in his mouth the other day saying that he wanted all of America to get rid of their Carbon footprint, and go totally electric in ten years. Here is the problem with that folks. Most all of our electric plants here in the United States are coal fired plants, as the nuclear plants that we have or had, have been systematically shut down by the rhetoric of the Liberal Democrats and the environmentalists.

That being said, I have to go onto the subject that I want to talk about today. Barack Hussein Obama and his speeches giving the impression that he is already president of the United States. Folks, he is not….and hopefully he will never be. First, we do not need a bumbling boob in the White House who cannot speak when not in front of a teleprompter.

Rush Limbaugh today had a montage of clips from Obama’s speech in the warzone today, and it went for about 5 minutes, just from one speech of his studdering and stammering, and his “Uhm….uh…..uh…..we uh….” talk. how would it look, if we had an emergency, say the scope of another 9/11, with Barack Obama as president. We would get stuff like this: “We uh….were attacked uh…today…uh….we uh…have….uh…well…we….uh….don’t know….uh….we uh….don’t know who…..uh….were the uh….uh…u-u-uh….the culprits, who were the ones….uh…we uh….at fault.” Now I do not know about you people, but I for one do not want a bumbling idiot for president, and if we elect Barack Hussein Obama, not only will we get one, but the enemies will see this as an opportunity to put one over on us, in the war on Terror, and our allies will have much less confidence in us.

Now, I know that the enemies of the state, the Terrorists, and the liberals in our government, do not care about this…but mark my words here people, and as Rush Limbaugh says, DO NOT DOUBT ME…..this country cannot afford a Barack Obama presidency. If you think things are bad now…………..just wait.

God Bless America
God Bless our Troops always
God Bless my readers, my listeners on BTR, and my viewers on Youtube

-Robert-
-Seane Anna-

About Robert P. Garding

I am a Reagan Conservative, who is very alarmed at the Liberals who have just lost their majority over our government, but continue to act like it never happened. They have to be stopped. NOW or even sooner.
This entry was posted in Conservative Talk Blog host. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to I was going to do another post on Global Warming…..

  1. Zack says:

    I think liberals are stupid in that they don’t want us drilling oil that would give our economy a huge boost though looking towards alternative like ethanol and electric would also help the state of our economy. Drill our own oil is important in the short term survival of our economy but drilling and refining oil then shipping that gasoline to pumps is far less efficient than electric car that pug into the wall at night when the power grid has excess power. The best way to make traveling better for US and our economy is to diversify they types of cars we drive. Some electric cars here, some ethanol car there; so people can buy cars that carter to there needs and wants. Overall this diversifying of the cars we drive should be up to us and not the government.
    For me I think owning an electric car would be great. Electric cars have a huge initial cost but are far more efficient and cost of operating one is far less since there are so few moving part as apposed to an internal combustion engine. Battery technology has come a long way but still has a while before they are cheap enough for mass market. Hopefully one day they will have electric cars that have a 600 mile range, charge in less than 20 minutes and go 0-60 in less then 5 seconds all under $40,000. EV’s have come a long way since the GM EV1 and soon they will be a reality not just a concept.

  2. Seane-Anna says:

    Actually Robert, I don’t think that Obama is a bumbling idiot. I think he’s a smart, calculating socialist who’s trying to look like a centrist to appeal to just enough voters to get elected. And that is what makes him so scary.

  3. I just watched … The Speech in Berlin… creeped me out. Obama, a bunch of Germans chanting his name…icky.

  4. Angel says:

    it appears he’s runnin for Pres in Germany too..what an idiot!

  5. Steve Higgins says:

    Robert… I googled “liberalism destroy america” and came across your blog. I am glad to have found it and look forward to consistent discussion with you and other bloggers. Also, I posted a response under “how to destroy america” under the July 2007 archive. Time willing, I would appreciate your- and others feedback.

  6. Dave says:

    Has anyone ever noticed that the United States is mired in the 80’s when it comes to onservative politics? The soviets aren’t out there anymore folks, it is time to join the 21st century. I don’t want socialism for our country, but I don’t want “business as usual” either. I think we should look toward Europe, they have a admirable balance across the boards. I don’t know, I would like to see a move toward the center from all sides. A divided government isn’t really going to help anyone. Those are my thoughts, great blog BTW.

  7. Seane-Anna says:

    Dave, you miss the point. Just because the Soviets “aren’t out there anymore” doesn’t mean that evil is gone and no more threats to our way of life exist. What conservative politics is “mired” in is the understanding that only steely resolve and confidence in our own rightness legitimacy will give us victory over all threats and enemies we face. You won’t get that looking to Euorpe, a continent singularly cowardly in the face of Islamic fascism and, in many ways, economically stagnant, with some countries suffering double digit unemployment rates.

    I also don’t want “business as usual” Dave, but we must not cast reason to the wind and mindlessly follow someone just because he promises some nebulous “change”. Remember, Lenin and Hitler promised “change” to their respective countries, and we all know how that turned out.

  8. zardozz says:

    The writers and moderators at ZardozZ News & Satire search constantly for interesting feed content and we came across your site today. We would like to invite you to add your site to our blogring as your material appears interesting and aligned with our readership. If you are interested, you can find further information at the ZZ OpenRing. This is not meant as spam but as a sincere invitation. Hope you’ll join us…
    ZZ N&S Staff

  9. shea says:

    So, what you are saying is essentially if Barrack Obama becomes President, he will be just like President George W. Bush.
    I have to disagree with this

  10. elwoodin says:

    shea, you just do not listen. G.W. in history will be seen as a good president. Barack Obama never will be. Granted, to the end of his presidency, G.W. has fallen down a bit, doing some things that are rather dumb, like giving in to the whims of the liberals who have hounded him during his whole presidency, but I do not know anyone with the stamina to hold up under the intense stupid false pressure that the liberals have kept him under, during his whole presidency, and then having war thrust on him like it was. The same as G.W.? No…..not even close. G.W. will be seen as a much much better president than Barack Obama ever will be.

  11. Jinno says:

    “No…..not even close. G.W. will be seen as a much much better president than Barack Obama ever will be.”

    I’m going to have to disagree with you on that note, and this is not even on the grounds of my personal disagreement with the policies and things that George W. Bush has approved.

    History will remember Bush for his record low approval ratings, for the highly unpopular War in Iraq, for the many economic crashes that have been occurring this past year (and the bailouts that went with them). Bush will be remembered for his stance on the Patriot act, and his refusal to acknowledge the Geneva Conventions (a treaty ratified by Congress and thus law of the land by the constitution), his stance on waterboarding, his inability to agree upon the Kyoto treaty as the rest of the world has.

    History will remember Bush’s many “I *a* *b*, I’m an *b* *a*-er”, his inconsistent communications with foreign leaders, his goofy dancing, his belief that he and his department are entitled to an executive privilege not denoted to them in the constitution.

    History will NOT look kindly on President Bush, because of how unpopular he has been. This is regardless of whether his effects actually have any sort of positive effect or not. This is an unavoidable fact.

  12. Seane-Anna says:

    Jinno, a couple of things stood out in your view of how history will judge George W. Bush.

    First, you said that history will look askance at Bush’s “inability to agree upon the Kyoto treaty as the rest of the world has.” Question: Why do liberals like you treat the Kyoto treaty like a divinely inspired document which people must accept blindly? The treaty exempted Third World countries, including the big polluters China and India, from the regulations it slapped on First World countries. Tell me Jinno, why are liberals, who claim to be so committed to the environment, so devoted to a treaty that allows massive pollution to continue uncheck? I think history will judge Bush well for having the courage to say no to something as flawed as Kyoto. And it will judge liberals harshly for supporting something that undermined their stated beliefs and goals.

    Second, you claimed that Bush thinks he’s “entitled to an executive privilege not denoted to [him] in the constitution”. Since when do liberals care what the Constitution says? I think you liberals will be judged very harshly by history for mangling the Constitution, violating it’s rules on the proper powers of each branch of government, for trampling Constitutional rights they don’t like, e.g. the 2nd Amendment, and for creating “constitutional” rights out of thin air, e.g. the right to abortion, and illegally enforcing them on the nation.

    George W. Bush has made some big mistakes and has failed this country on some key issues. But so have liberals. Don’t be so quick, Jinno, to conclude that people years from now will see Bush through the biased prism that you do. In deed, time may make it more possible to see the truth clearly and that will be good for everyone, especially Bush.

  13. Jinno says:

    “Jinno, a couple of things stood out in your view of how history will judge George W. Bush.

    First, you said that history will look askance at Bush’s “inability to agree upon the Kyoto treaty as the rest of the world has.” Question: Why do liberals like you treat the Kyoto treaty like a divinely inspired document which people must accept blindly? The treaty exempted Third World countries, including the big polluters China and India, from the regulations it slapped on First World countries. ”

    The Kyoto Protocol was drafted in the late nineties before India and china became such large polluters. George W. Bush has been against it since before it became evident of the high levels of pollution those two countries would generate it.

    Regardless of whether or not the protocol has some flaws that are more evident now that more countries are industrializing, George W. Bush has never once supported a policy that would in anyway fulfill a similar niche to bring down our national pollution. Environmentalists, and thus liberals because apparently the two are synonymous to you (not true. I know a few environmentalists who are conservatives), favor the Kyoto Protocol for international use because it solves the larger issue of the currently developed countries, and with a small change to allow for some sort of bi-yearly audit to redefine the list of developed countries, our entire issue would be solved. The process by which the protocol itself works is not flawed, simply the way that countries were deemed developing.

    Furthermore, I don’t think there’s a single person in this country who doesn’t value the Constitution. But alas, you’ve claimed that anyone with a liberal lean seems to not give a crap, why don’t we just go through some things?

    Is it okay to restrict ownership of weapons based on age? By the conservative point of view, which tends to be a fundamentalist reading of the 2nd ammendment, the answer to that should be “No.” Why? Because of the words “the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” It’s a stated right to all citizens of the country, and thus children are included in that. But yet it’s legal to restrict them based on age.

    Liberal candidates have imposed restrictions on what types of firearms can be carried in which areas. They’ve imposed regulations on how weapons must be concealed. There has been no more infringement upon the right to be able to bear arms here, than restricting ownership and carrying based on age and licensing. It is in the interest of general safety that firearm carrying is restricted, just as the requirement of a license and proper age are.

    “for creating “constitutional” rights out of thin air, e.g. the right to abortion, and illegally enforcing them on the nation.” I’d rather like to see proof of someone claiming that it is the abortion that people have a right to. Rather it’s the idea that people have the right to make their own choices in their pursuit of happiness among all things that are legal. Roe Vs. Wade was decided on by the Supreme Court, saying that it was legal for abortions to occur until a certain point in development. Like it or not (I’m not particularly a fan, myself) until either a Constitutional Amendment or a Supreme Court decision that sets a contrary precedent occurs, it is legal for abortions to occur in this nation. And in the interest of safety it is preferable for women to be able to do this with safe, sterile instruments where they don’t risk causing major harm to themselves by doing so without a professional.

    Meanwhile, George W Bush has been against the Constitution in the following ways:

    The Patriot Act. Which allows for unwarranted taps of civilian phone lines, unwarranted reading of emails, unwarranted searching of homes. Americans are entitled to privacy by the constitution, regardless of what suspicions you may have, unless a warrant is served it is illegal to perform such a search.

    And considering that ratified treaties are the supreme law of the land, Bush and the Republicans’ support for the waterboarding of POW’s, and the lack of action taken against the soldiers who severely mistreated POW’s at Abu Ghraib, he has endorsed and allowed breaking of the Geneva conventions, which are constitutionally enforceable.

    So yeah, both sides seem to have some disagreement for portions of the Constitution here, which is more damaging, though? Not being able to carry a weapon, or the ability for the government to seize whatever of yours they want if they so much as think that you have a terrorist association, without having to establish reasonable suspicion to a court.

    I say that history will look back negatively on Bush because it already does. It looks back on his blunders after Katrina, his misleading statements to the American people regarding both Iraq and Iran, and his inability to push for any sort of definition of what success would mean in Iraq or Afghanistan so that the wars that he has pushed for may someday end. These are the things that are already reflected on negatively, and have no evidence of ever getting less negative as time goes on.

  14. Seane-Anna says:

    Jinno, I was beginning to think you were coming out of your leftist fog and starting to actually think, but your response above to my critique of your previous comment shows me you’re still drinking the Kool-Aid. Let’s start with the last parts of your response first.

    You say “history will look back negatively on [Bush’s]…blunders after Katrina”. Well, what about the local and state officials who did little or nothing to help Katrina’s victims or properly prepare New Orleans’ citizens BEFORE the Big One hit? Why do liberals like you start with the utterly false assumption that protecting the people of New Orleans from hurricanes was Bush’s, and only Bush’s, responsibility? I’ll tell you why, because it props up your virulent and completely irrational, preconceived hatred for Bush.

    Here’s a dose of reality, Jinno. Ray Nagin, mayor of New Orleans during Katrina, and other local officials, knew the dynamics of that city much better than Bush, who resides thousands of miles away. It was Nagin’s responsibilty to know who in New Orleans would be most vulnerable during a severe hurricane, and to draft plans to evacuate them to safety. It was also Nagin’s responsibility to continually asses the capabilities of New Orlean’s levees and to strengthen them when necessary. Of course, state and federal governments have their roles to play, but the first line of defense for New Orleans, or any city, is the mayor and other municipal officials. But you’ll never admit that, Jinno, because it would undermine your demonization of Bush.

    Now on to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.

    Frankly, Jinno, I was floored by a couple of the things you said about those wars. First, you accuse Bush of making “misleading statements regarding BOTH Iraq and Iran” (emphasis added). What misleading statements? I know you liberals LOVE to say Bush lied about WMDs being in Iraq. What you consistently fail to acknowledge is that world leaders from former president Clinton to Putin of Russia ALSO BELIEVED THAT IRAQ HAD WMD’S. So, if Bush lied on that issue, all those other leaders did, too. Why don’t you liberals ever rake THEM over the coals for that? And, just so you know, it was Clinton, not Bush, who made regime change in Iraq official US policy.

    Now to Iran. When did Bush ever make misleading statements about Iran? Or do you deny, Jinno, that Iran is trying to build nuclear weapons? I’m so disgusted by you liberals’ foaming-at-the-mouth hatred for Bush while straining to give our enemies the benefit of every doubt. You just keep on thinking that Iran, which has tons of oil, is just trying to create nuclear energy. Yeah, right.

    But what really got me in your critique of Bush’s foreign policy, Jinno, was your description of BOTH the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan as “wars that [Bush] pushed for”. Huh? While you might, MIGHT, be able to say that about Iraq, when did Bush “push for” war in Afghanistan? Oh, yeah, after that trivial incident on 9/11. Oh, what was it? Ah, now I remember! The killing of more Americans than died at Pearl Harbor, murders committed by people trained and supported by Afghanistan. That’s when Bush pushed for war with that country. But hey, what’s a little mass murder? Surely it doesn’t warrant going to war over, especially when the victims were just a bunch of little Eichmans serving the bestial capitalist system. Kool-Aid, Jinno?

    I could go on, but I think you get the picture. Besides, repeatedly dealing with your leftist ignorance and fanaticsim is tiresome. I will say this, though. Your claim that no action was taken against the soldiers at Abu Ghraib is utterly false, and reflects your liberalism-induced eargerness to believe the worst about America, not just George W. Bush. For your information, Jinno, multiple soldiers were charged, tried, and convicted for the AG scandal. Perhaps the most well known are Specialists Charles Garner and Lynndie Englund, who received ten and three year sentences, respectively, for their part in the fiasco. So, Jinno, your claim that the Abu Ghraib perps got off scott free is a blatant lie. Yet, your willingness to believe that nothing was done to the AG soldiers reveals how you liberals really view this country.

    But let’s be honest here. You liberals are not the least bit upset by torture. If you were, you would’ve been the first people dancing in the streets at the overthrow, capture, trial, conviction, and execution of Saddam Hussein, one of the most sadistic torturerers in recent times. And you would’ve been overcome with revulsion at the al-Qaeda torture chambers US troops found in Fallujah, chambers where people were burned alive and had gasoline injected into their veins, among other things.

    But you liberals don’t think about that. It doesn’t even cross your radar screens. No, you obssess over the Mickey Mouse antics of a few US soldiers at Abu Ghraib, and three–THREE–cases of water boarding in order to support your desperate, sordid desire to believe the worst about America, her leaders, her military, and her people. No, Jinno, it’s not George W. Bush who will be judged harshly by history. It is you liberals, who’ve done everything you could to undermine your country in a time of war. Oh yes, history will judge. I’m glad I won’t be standing in your shoes when it does.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s