Theodore Roosevelt, 1903

"Let us speak courteously, deal fairly, and keep ourselves armed and ready." - Theodore Roosevelt, 1903

Friday, February 17, 2012

Random Shots - 4th Best President? Sean Penn? Dipsticks!

First Shot!

Sean Penn Warns Great Britain! 

Yes, that's right! Another American Hollywood Leftist thinks he's important enough to have his or her words count as something more than Hot Air!

The Associated Press reported that while in Buenos Aires, Argentina, Hollywood's Left-wing ambassador Sean Penn is now taking Argentina's side in the latest Falkland Islands dispute between Great Britain and Argentina.

How or why anyone who allow Sean Penn to meet with Argentine President Cristina Kirchner is a question that many people really can't understand. But after his meeting, the leftist actor then had the gaul to think he's important enough to actually issue a "warning" to Great Britain and to join the United Nations sponsored talks over what Penn is calling "the Malvinas Islands of Argentina."

The actor's warning to Great Britain, "the world today is not going to tolerate any ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology" Penn said.

As if that were the case, which it is not. Colonialzation went out years ago, but please try explaining that to High School dropouts who take up acting.
Great Britain has refused to negotiate with Argentina for a reason. As long as the citizens living on the Falkland Islands want to remain part of Great Britain, then they will remain British citizens and part of Great Britain.

Known as "Falklanders," they have recently started increasing the island's military defenses ahead of the 30th anniversary of the Falkland's War.

It is amazing how a ultra-left winger like Sean Penn can skip over the history of almost any subject and take the position he does.

So allow me to help the dipstick. The Falkland Islands were uninhabited when first discovered by Europeans. The islands were first discovered by British navigator John Davis s in 1592. The islands were called the "Davis Islands" for a few years.

In 1594, the islands were visited by English commander Richard Hawkins, who, combining his own name with that of Queen Elizabeth I, the "Virgin Queen", gave the islands the name of "Hawkins' Maidenland."


In 1600, Sebald de Weert, a Dutchman, visited them and called them the Sebald Islands (in Spanish, "Islas Sebaldinas" or "Sebaldes"), a name which they bore on some Dutch maps into the 19th century. Please remember that Spain had influence on the Dutch for many many years.

English Captain John Strong sailed between the two principal islands in 1690 and called the passage "Falkland Channel" - it is now known as Falkland Sound, after Anthony Cary, 5th Viscount Falkland, who as Commissioner of the Admiralty had financed the expedition and later became First Lord of the Admiralty.

From that body of water, Falkland Sound, the island group later took its collective name.

So where does Sean Penn's ""the Malvinas Islands" come from? Well, the French! I bet you though Spain!  
 
You see, France established a colony at Port St. Louis, on East Falkland's Berkeley Sound coast in 1764. The French name "Îles Malouines" was given to the islands – "malouin" being the adjective for the Breton port of Saint-Malo. In 1766, the French left.
 
The Spanish translation for the French name "Îles Malouines" is "Islas Malvinas."  It is a direct Spanish translation of the French name for the islands.
 
In 1765, Capt. John Byron, who was unaware of the French presence in the east, explored Saunders Island, in the west, named the harbour Port Egmont, and claimed this and other islands for Britain on the grounds of prior discovery. The next year Captain John MacBride established a British settlement at Port Egmont.
 
The population, estimated at 3,140, primarily consists of Falkland Islanders, the majority of British descent. Other ethnicities include French, Gibraltarian, and Scandinavian. Immigration from the United Kingdom, Saint Helena, and Chile has reversed a former population decline. The predominant and official language is English. Under the British Nationality Act of 1983, Falkland Islanders are British citizens.

It was almost 200 years later, that Argentina first made its claim to the islands - that was in 1938.

Their claim died off and no further interst was made, especially during World War II when German warships were patroling the islands. The Argentine government at the time had no opposition to Great Britain having ownership of the islands while the Nazi War Machine was in the picture.

Argintine interest in the Falkland Islands only resurfaced as a diversion while the Argentine "Dirty War" was underway and thousands upon thousands of Argentine citizens were killed by it's dictatorships.

In early 1982, President Leopoldo Galtieri, the head of the Argentina's ruling military junta, authorized the invasion of the British Falkland Islands.

The whole reason for the operation was to draw attention away from Argentina's Human Rights Violations, and the economic crisis that plagued Argentina. It was in the middle of their so-called "Dirty War" where the Argentine govenment slaughtered thousands upon thousands of their own citizens. They epitimized the term, "Gone Missing" when it came to their citizens being arrested, taken into custody, and simply disappearing. 

It seems that Socialist all seem to use the same playbook. At the time, Argentine President Galtieri used his invasion of the Falklands in an attempt to bolster National Pride and take the heat off his regime.

After an incident between British and Argentine forces on nearby South Georgia Island, where Argentine forces landed in the Falklands on April 2nd. The small garrison of Royal Marines resisted, however by April 4th, the Argentines had captured the capital at Port Stanley.

Of course, the Falklands War was the last time Argentina tried seizing the islands using military force.

On April 2nd, 1982, a huge Argentine force landed in the Falklands. Two days later it captured the islands. After the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands, which resulted in the imprisonment of all of the islands inhabitants, Great Britain reacted with huge public support and a sense of overwhelming justification to rescue its citizens.

On the 5th of April, a large British naval task force set out on the 7500 mile journey to liberate the tiny group of small fairly flat windswept islands in the South Atlantic.

On 1st of May, the British began the biggest naval action to take place since World War II. The initial phases of the conflict occurred mainly at sea between elements of the Royal Navy and the Argentine Air Force.

On May 21st, British troops landed on the island to confront the Argentine troops. Ironically, because of military spending on the part of Argentina, both nations had armed there forces with similar infantry rifles.

Though the Argentine forces heavily outnumbered the British, by June 14th the British had compelled the Argentine occupiers to surrender.

In 1982, during the military engagement to rescue the "Falklanders" and regain the islands, the British lost 255 men and women. And of course, that doesn't even count the almost 800 wounded.

Of the 28,000 British Airmen, Sailors, Soldiers and Marines who sailed south in May of 1982, 255 did not return.

Sources state that there were 123 British Army personnel, 88 Royal Navy, 10 Royal Fleet Auxiliary, 9 Merchant Navy, 25 Royal Marines, 1 RAF, and 3 women civilian casualties - for a total of 255 British men and women killed during the Falklands War.
So why did I repeat myself so many times with the numbers of British servicemen and women lost in the Falklands War?

Well, it's because I really feel that Left-wingers don't care about those who have died in the service of their nation. It really appears as though they simply do not matter to the Left, especially those Leftist in Hollywood. 

I really believe, in my opinion, that people like Sean Penn have absolutely no respect for those who have made the ultimate sacrifice in the military - especially in the service of a democratic nation like Great Britain.

Unlike years ago when actors served their country proudly, I see today's Hollywood left as being made up of the spineless and the loud, the creepy, the queer, the uneducated, the shallow, the extreme, the anti-American, the puppet, and the used.

Second Shot!

Dipsticks Running Loose All Over Washington DC!

Liberal Democrats Accuse Clergy of Acting in Complicity with Republicans

Today, a panel of Religious leaders testified in front of Congress about the Obama mandate for all religious organization to provide contraceptives supplies and abortion needs - even though directly goes against Catholic beliefs and violates Church teachings and policy.

Democrats got pretty testy with their Republican counterparts at a House hearing that has intensified the debate over Obama Care and the president's recent mandate.

One ultra-left Democrat even went so far as to call into question the motives of the clergymen who were there.

"I believe today's hearing is a sham!" said Rep. Gerald Connolly, D-Va., of the first of two session held by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee during the day.

His angry tone was sharp as he pointed his finger. Then Connolly went on to declare the witnesses - who included a Catholic bishop, a Lutheran reverend, an Orthodox rabbi, and two Baptist theologians, all opposed to the Obama mandate as being "complicit" with the Republicans.

Complicit how? Well, Connolly believes that the Republicans' were "trampling" on House traditions that would, if observed, have produced a more balanced panel - that was his opinion.  And yes, I can't help but wonder if that dipstick would have wanted Planned Parenthood to be present at the hearing.

"You are being used for a political agenda," Connolly told the religious panel, after Republicans brandished images of President John F Kennedy and others to enforce their points. "This is a panel designed - with your conscious participation or not - to try, one more time, to embarrass the President of the United States and his administration, by overstating an issue which is sacred to all Americans: religious freedom. But of course, in order to do it, we have to, in an almost Stalinist-like fashion, have signs of Democratic icons to rub Democratic faces in it, as if those icons would be on the same side of this dispute today."

Yes, he called President John F Kennedy a "Democratic icon"! Image the cojones on this guy! Well folks, I hate to be the one to enlighten this Congressman - but just for the record, President John F Kennedy is an American Icon. And that trumps his political affiliation.

Besides, the truth is the truth. Like it or not, President Obama is the first president to be anti-American in his beliefs and attitudes toward the Bill of Rights and the U.S. Constitution.  He has demonstrated himself to be openly anti-Christian.

And yes, if one is to look at the policies of President Kennedy, anyone would see that he has nothing in common with the Modern Democratic Party of Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.

Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton, the Democrat who serves as the District of Columbia's non-voting representative in the House, clashed with the Hearing's Chairman, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., about the composition of the religious panel - screaming out - "I want to have the right to make a parliamentary inquiry!"

Issa rejected the minority members' complaints about the witness list, offering a timeline by which the list was developed and noting that he had included some witnesses at their behest, even though House rules did not require him to do so.

Rep. Carolyn Maloney, D-N.Y., who sat next to Norton and averted her gaze when the D.C. delegate yelled at Representative Issa, then registered her own objection to the religious composition of the witness panel.

"What I want to know is, where are the women?" she asked. "I don't see one single woman representing the tens of millions of women across the country who want and need insurance coverage for basic preventive health care services, including family planning."

Imagine that! Give me a break! It was a Religious panel there to discuss the Obama Contraceptive and Abortion policy mandate. What would non-Religious clergy woman be doing on that panel? Nothing, other then supporting the use of contraceptives and abortions as a means of Birth Control.

Then another Democrat Rep. Elijah Cummings, of Maryland, the son of two ministers, took up the Liberal Birth Control mantel to underscored Maloney's point.

He wanted to get his colleagues to consider the "interests of women" as well as Religious Freedoms. "The pill has had a profound impact on their well-being - far more than any man in this room can possibly know,"
Then the liberal Cummings went on to accuse Representative Issa of "promoting a conspiracy theory that the federal government is conducting a war against religion."

At issue is the Obama Care policy that mandates all employers to provide free contraception and abortion counseling to women as part of their health care plans - Religious groups included - even if it goes directly against the beliefs of that religion.

Under pressure from religious groups like the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Obama announced an "accommodation" under which Catholic-affiliated charities, hospitals, and schools - where the use of birth control is opposed on doctrinal grounds - would still have to provide the contraception and abortion counseling - but their insurers would have to pick up the tab.

Just for the record, yes, it's a perfect example of Chicago Politics 101: If you want them on your side - tell them that someone else is paying for it.

They believe that anyone can be bought! Too bad it didn't work!
The Conference of Catholic Bishops rejected the Obama bribe, as did the witnesses on the House panel. Reverend William E. Lori, the bishop of Bridgeport, Conn., and chairman of a committee on religious liberty at the Conference, related "the parable of the Kosher Deli" to make his point.

"It is absurd for someone to come into a kosher deli and demand a ham sandwich," Lori said. "But it is beyond absurd for that demand to be backed up with the coercive power of the state."

"While we are grandfathered under the very narrow provisions of the HHS policy," testified Reverend Dr. Matthew C. Harrison, president of the Lutheran Church's Missouri Synod, "we are deeply concerned that our consciences may soon be martyred by a few strokes on the keyboard."

Rabbi Meir Soloveichik, director of the Straus Center for Torah and Western Thought at Yeshiva University, said Obama's attempted compromise had proved "no accommodation at all."

"The religious organizations would still be obligated to provide employees with an insurance policy that facilitates acts violating the organization's religious tenets," Soloveichik told the lawmakers.

To that Rep. Carolyn Maloney, of New York, angrily said, "You can have your own beliefs about birth control, but Americans are entitled to theirs, and I don't think they agree with you."

And no, I don't think she is a practicing Catholic or Christian. If she were, then I don't think she would have made such an asinine statement!

Third Shot! 

California Judge deems ramming a Jewish Woman with a Shopping Cart is "Free Speech."

This is a story from last month, and honestly, I found it hard to believe that this can happen in America.

Back in June of 2010, a so-called leader of a pro-Palestinian student group at California State University  Berkeley allegedly rammed a Jewish woman with a shopping cart as she staged a counter-protest to an anti-Israel "Apartheid Week" rally conducted by the Muslim Student Association and Students for Justice in Palestine.

The counter-protest was dubbed "Israel Wants Peace Week."

In January, U.S. District Court Judge Richard Seeborg deemed that the Muslim students who harassed Jessica Felber and other Jewish students were simply engaging in "protected political speech."

U.S. District Judge Richard Seeborg said the harassment, even if true, constituted protected political speech and dismissed the case against the university.

Judge Seeborg went on to say that the University of Berkeley did not have any obligation to intervene in any dispute where a private individual on campus was allegedly interfering with another’s constitutional rights. He instead appeared to indicate that the incident was an outcome of Felber’s counter protest.

Felber and another Jewish student claimed the University did not do enough to prevent the harassment which included the Muslim group conducting checkpoints around the campus. Students were asked if they were Jewish while passing the checkpoints.

"The incident in which Felber was assaulted with a shopping cart, for example, did not occur in the context of her educational pursuit," Judge Seeborg stated. "Rather, that event occurred when she, as one person attempting to exercise free speech rights in a public forum, was allegedly attacked by another person who likewise was participating in a public protest in a public forum."

According to the San Francisco Chronicle, Seeborg said that much of the conduct involved "pure political speech" that is constitutionally protected even if it "contained language that plaintiffs believe was inflammatory, offensive or untrue."

Jihad Watch founder Robert Spencer said, the judge’s decision affirms that Muslims assaulting Jewish students is now protected speech.

"This is an outrageous decision. The Muslim students were trying to silence the freedom of speech of the Jewish students. The judge says this is a ruling in favor of free speech, but actually the freedom of speech was being infringed and the judge is saying that is ok to protect the freedom of speech of the Muslim students. Don’t the Jewish students have freedom of speech as well?"

My question is this, say those Muslims on campus decided to use baseball bats instead of a shopping cart? Or let's say they used a car instead of a shopping cart? When does their "freedom of speech" become simple Assault and Battery?

I also can't help but wonder if the roles were reversed, and it was a Jewish man who rammed a Muslim woman, would the ruling be the same? For some reason, I think not!

Last Shot! 

"I'm the Fourth Best President in American History!"

This is too funny! It happened during an interview on 60 Minutes last December. 

During the interview, Barack Obama said, "I'm the fourth best President in American History!" 

So you don't think that Obama could possibly be so full of himself? And what, you really don't believe me. Well, he can thank 60 Minutes for editing it out when it was first aired.

But if you want to hear him say it, click here!

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504803_162-57341009-10391709/president-obama-the-full-60-minutes-interview/?tag=contentBody;listingLeadStories

http://youtu.be/TxvSjDkF7HE

It might give you a great laugh.

 
Story by Tom Correa

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thank you for your comment.