Monday, January 4, 2010

TERROR'S GRIP ON AMERICA

Terrorism has become a growth industry.
This Islamic behemoth is funded by the very people it seeks to destroy......the USA and the rest of the free world "infidels".

Oil and opiates are modern day symbols of power and the Middle East is the main producer of each. The enormous profits fuel the arsenal for their "hate delivery system".
To feed their insatiable addictions, America and the rest of the planet seem content to accept the consumer role for these goods; while providing weapons and huge chunks of global wealth in exchange.

We don't need their oil. 
America has enormous reserves of sweet crude, natural gas, coal and shale.  So what's up?  Big oil lobbyists, both domestic and foreign, feeding corrupt politicians, have stifled the exploration and production of our own natural resources.
The technology to "develop to market", alternative renewable energy options, have also been thwarted by big government; in spite of their pretense to the contrary.  Money talks and bullshit walks--simply put, the Feds can't think of a way to tax sunshine, wind or non-municipal water yet....as soon as they do, we'll have real energy options.
The private sector's drive and resolve to achieve greatness and excellence through innovation has been crippled by a system that rewards failure at the expense of  success.

America doesn't "need" illicit drugs either; she "demands" them. Stop the demand and drug problem solved.  Yes it really is that simple.
Drugs don't give anyone a new and improved reality as advertised, they destroy reality.
Drugs are an integral component of the dumbing down of America.
Minorities are disproportionately affected, but every American enslaved by the permissiveness of the drug culture is  "kept in their place" with the drug. 
Druggies have exchanged the drive and struggle for achievement with cultural acceptance at being driven like cattle to the slaughterhouse. 
So unless you want to be the next chicken fried steak, wake up and take responsibility for yourself, your family and your country.
The popular answer of: "you can't stop drug usage so you might as well decriminalize it" is as nonsensical as applying the same logic to rape. The widespread condoning of illicit drug use is advocating the wholesale rape of our youths' minds.
Now before criticism is levied at the failures of zero tolerance coupled with zero common sense and jail overcrowding by non violent substance abusers; instead approach the issue from the "tough love" stand point of a responsible parent towards his/her poorly behaving child. If you caught one of YOUR children smoking a little crack or simply found a pipe with a little residue hidden in his/her drawer would you simply say "it's okay suga', all your friends are engaging in similar activity and I just want to be your friend".  Of course not.  Notwithstanding,  it's not the government's duty, nor should it be, to raise kids from the cradle to the grave.  It is, however, society's responsibility, through it's laws and regulations to promote responsible behavior and provide consequences, rather than excuses, for bad behavior.

It is often said that an alcoholic must hit rock bottom before he has any real shot at success......we're there.
 
Who will challenge foreign interests and their domination over America if our own government is complicit?

And we have the audacity to call the terrorists crazy extremists....those bastards are as crazy as a den of foxes with a mission that they have no qualms dieing for.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Re: the decriminlization of drugs, wouldn't you at least agree that there isn't a reasonable argument to be made against the legalization of marihuana? We can grow it here and we can tax it here. And, unless the sale of alochol is once again prohibited, I believe our government is abundantly hypocritical in stifling the sale of pot; but embracing the commercialization of booze. Aren't I better off taking a few puffs on a joint each evening than I would be knocking down a sixer every night? I'll hang up and listen.

Anonymous said...

speaking of terror; How pathetically is inept is our government at preventing terror attacks? I am weary of our politically correct manner of administering an anti-terror policy. Regarding the Christmas Day bomber, what were the signs that this nut job might be a terrorist?

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He's Nigerian.

He's a Muslim.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He boarded a plane in Lagos, Nigeria.

He paid nearly $3,000 in cash for his ticket.

He had no luggage.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Two months ago, his father warned the U.S. that he was a radical Muslim and possibly dangerous. (To be fair, the father's warning might have been taken more seriously if he had not simultaneously asked for the U.S. Embassy's Social Security number and bank routing number in order to convey a $28$ million inheritance that was trapped in a Nigerian bank account.)

Anonymous said...

You just pissed off Residue Pat and DIVERT Roger.
Your computer will be remotely shut down.
You will be forcibly escorted from Harris County.
The Comical will libel your reputation in cyberspace and beyond.
The office dog hates you.
Your trailer park has banned Jack & Coke.
You can't smoke behind that truck in the basement anymore.
RP is your new girlfriend for life.

Anonymous said...

Speaking of terror; I am sick and tired of our government's hyper-sensitive politically correct manner of administering its anti-terror policy. How many clues did we have that the Christmas Day bomber was going to attempt to blow up a plane on the way to Detroit? The "warning signs" exhibited by this particular passenger included the following:

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He's Nigerian.

He's a Muslim.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

He boarded a plane in Lagos, Nigeria.

He paid nearly $3,000 in cash for his ticket.

He had no luggage.

His name was Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

Two months ago, his father warned the U.S. that he was a radical Muslim and possibly dangerous.
(To be fair, the father's warning might have been taken more seriously if he had not simultaneously asked for the U.S. Embassy's Social Security number and bank routing number in order to convey a $28$ million inheritance that was trapped in a Nigerian bank account.)

The warning from Abdulmutallab's father put his son on some list, but not the "no fly" list. Apparently, it's tougher to get on the "no fly" list than it is to get a pre-trial diversion from Madam Lykos. Currently, the only people on the "no fly" list" are the Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn.

BLACK INK said...

Anon 12:27,
The issue is responsible behavior and consequences for bad behavior.

When moderation is not adhered to, as is inevitably the case too often with alcohol and other mind altering substances; there need to be reasonable and consistent mechanisms in place to adequately assure the safety of others.
An individual's freedom to get hammered does not supersede his responsibility to not harm other members of society while in a state of intoxication/impairment.

I assume that if you have minor children you would not want them to smoke dope and/or drink alcohol for a myriad of reasons?

How about when your grown child smokes a big fat one to "unwind" before driving across the state? Are you good with that?
How about if: but for your child being stoned or otherwise chemically impaired he/she would not have caused the serious bodily injury or death to another?
How about reckless near misses?
Do you also support the idiotic Lykos divert program referenced by anon 12:44?

Would you agree that many folks do not have the great self control that you advocate and that the legalization of dope etc. will prompt an increase in use and acceptance of pot with the associated adverse consequences?
Would you agree that the excessive use of judgment altering substances would dumb down those with considerably less fortitude and self restraint than yourself? Alcohol abuse has borne that out and that is the issue.
How many legalized forms of mental impairment is enough?
The more the better?
If one is legal so shall all others?

Whether one vise is less dangerous than another does not render the less harmful product benign.
Containment, rather than proliferation of harmful behavior should be the goal.

In the alternative,if marijuana does become legalized it should not serve as a precedent for all illegal drugs to become legalized.

Further, consequences need to be in place and enforced in transparent fashion to effectively deter inappropriate substance use that impairs that individual to such a degree that he causes harm to innocent 3rd parties.

Enhancement rather than mitigation ought to be the benchmark when bad behavior is caused by substance abuse, regardless of it's legality.

Anonymous said...

Anon 2:21,

Tell us how you really feel. Referencing his name is inappropriate and racist.

BLUE said...

Anon 7:06,
You are the problem and a world class fool.

Anonymous said...

Blue,

Just because someone is an Arab doesn't make him a terrorist. The fiddles are playing.

BLUE said...

Anon 6:09,
Since you're hung up on political correctness the proper term would be violin. The derogatory implication in your fiddle reference is offensive to southerners and to the Appalachian banjo pickers. Go hug a fucking tree.

Anonymous said...

Query:

Since the Lockerbie bombing of a Pan-Am airliner in 1988, has there been a single act of commercial aviation terrorism not committed by a foreign born Muslim?

Answer: No.

And, by the way, half of those foreign born Muslims were named Mohammed.

So in why in the world do I have to take my shoes off, open my bags and otherwise inconvenience myself when I board an airplane?

Anonymous said...

Anon 6:09:
Just like quacking and waddling doesn't make you a duck. You're one of Judge Pat's new hire's aren't you?

Anonymous said...

anon 8:34,
damn right bro'.

Anonymous said...

Anon 8:34,

Why do you wear shoes? Why do you fastened your seatbelt?

Aggie Pct Chair said...

I understand Anon 2:21's anger.