I find that hard to believe.
Time and again I see this kind of story--which is not covered by the mainstream media!--in which we are shown the actual perversions of the "homosexual lifestyle". EXTREMELY NSFW even though I am linking to a page which has no pictures on it, because that page links--sooner or later--to a page with pictures of what a homosexual "event" is like.
Same here: close your curtains and make sure no kids can see these images, because they are nasty.
Recall, if you will, that in January of this year a homosexual group had planned an orgy at some hotel in Washington, D.C., and that one planned feature of this orgy was a line of commodes with pillows under them. Why the pillows? So that the man being defecated and urinated on by a complete stranger would have a place to rest his head.
Look, if the homosexual movement was just about people who loved other people of the same sex it wouldn't be nearly as troubling as it is. But all the perversion that is proudly displayed as part of the lifestyle--and which is never, never, ever mentioned or covered in any way by the mainstream media--gives the lie to what these people are really all about.
* * *
Bulldozing slums is a third-world solution.
I am starting to get concerned much the same way Francis Poretto is--what the hell are the Democrats doing, here? Are they really so stupid as not to understand that Obama's policies are going to ruin the economy, to cause runaway inflation and unemployment? I can't believe they don't understand this; WTF, I went to a 5th-rate school and I understand it, so why do these Ivy-leaguers not get it? Increasing spending and taxation during a record economic downturn is stupid, yet the Democrats are planning still more, and trying to ram through socialized medicine before they lose their momentum.
* * *
Boortz makes a good point: "Under the Geneva Convention enemy combatants dressed in civilian clothes can be summarily executed. No Miranda rights necessary."
It's true. You know that famous photograph showing a South Vietnamese army dude shooting some other guy in the head with his pistol? Guess what: the guy being shot was an enemy combatant, working in South Vietnamese territory, in civilian clothes. (In fact, as I recall, he was a spy.) And according to the Geneva convention--as Boortz says--it's perfectly all right to summarily execute such combatants. ("Summarily" meaning "without trial, representation, or even an apology", I might add.)
In a saner world that is exactly what we'd do: shoot the motherfuckers dead. This is a war which has approximated a shooting war since 1979, only the United States has displayed great forbearance in not applying all of its muscle in stopping this nonsense. Until 9/11/01 the terror attacks amounted to pinpricks, heinous but not rising to the level of requiring any great response. 9/11, however, was the game-changer.
Our response was a calmly reasoned and measured response, but perhaps it should not have been. Maybe instead we should have gone all-out, spooled up the machines of war, and wiped out every last single trace of Al Qaeda from the face of the planet no matter where they hid. Any muslim country might have been targeted, and the pain inflicted great if they failed to give up the terrorist thugs they hid.
While the Bush administration prosecuted the war well enough (not great, but tolerably), the Obama administration is now undoing everything good that came from the post-9/11 foreign policy of the Bush administration, and I fear that we're now inching ever-closer to a terror attack which will make 9/11 look like a walk in the park.
Iran is pursuing nuclear weapons; North Korea is actively promising nuclear war with the United States. Both countries have sufficient missile technology to put satellites into low orbit, and it's a mere hop-skip-jump (technologically speaking) from there to an ICBM.
There are many ways to produce nuclear power without enriching uranium, yet Iran is using hundreds of centrifuges to enrich uranium and is trying to get more uranium ore. Why? A nuclear power plant requires its fuel to be enriched to about 5-10% U-235. (Unenriched uranium is 0.7% U-235.) But weapons-grade uranium is around 80-95% U-235, and it takes processing a ton of uranium to produce enough U-235 for one bomb. (More or less, that is, assuming you get all the U-235...and I'm betting the Iranians aren't.)
Meanwhile Obama intends to dismantle the ballistic missile defense system. Why? Seems to me that we need such a system now more than ever!
Hell, you don't even need to have a real ICBM to pull a surprise attack on the US. All you really need is a ship crewed by some dedicated people, in which you've installed a launcher for the missiles that you do have. The ship could navigate so that it's close enough to the USA that the missile will reach; the guys could abandon ship and light the fuses. (I say this because a missile launch from a common ocean freighter would likely blast a hole in the hull of the ship, sending it to the bottom in relatively short order. Rocket exhaust is hot.)
And as I've said many times before, a missile strike on the US need not actually hit the ground. An EMP attack would do a hell of a lot more damage, and over a much wider area, than simply nuking a city would do. And nuking a city would, itself, inflict an incredible amount of economic damage. Recall what Katrina did? And that city was mostly usable once the flooding was over. If you nuke a city it's wrecked.
And Katrina only affected one small area. An EMP attack could wipe out every computer from New York City to Boston and quite possibly farther than that--every computer, nearly every car, every cell phone, every TV, in fact everything that relies on integrated circuits.
Muslim extremists have been at war with us at least since 1979. Why can't we take that seriously?