AmeriCAN-DO Attitude

Are you an AmeriCAN or an AmeriCAN'T?

Um, Hello? 2010 is NOT the Start of the Next Decade

Has our society broken down so much that we have forgotten how to count to 10?!!?

Let me break it down for you…

There was no Year Zero. Is there a Month Yero? No, January is Month 1. Is there a Day Zero? No, today is Day 1 of Month 1 of Year 2010.

Now, expanding on that, we understand that 2010 is the 10th Year of the 1st Decade of the 21st Century. 2011 will be the start of the next decade. It will be the 1st Year of the 2nd Decade of the 21st Century.

1st Century: 1 AD – 100 AD
2nd Century: 101 AD to 200 AD
3rd Century: 201 AD to 300 AD
4th Century: 301 AD to 400 AD
5th Century: 401 AD to 500 AD
6th Century: 501 AD to 600 AD
7th Century: 601 AD to 700 AD
8th Century: 701 AD to 800 AD
9th Century: 801 AD to 900 AD
10th Century: 901 AD to 1000 AD
11th Century: 1001 AD to 1100 AD
12th Century: 1101 AD to 1200 AD
13th Century: 1201 AD to 1300 AD
14th Century: 1301 AD to 1400 AD
15th Century: 1401 AD to 1500 AD
16th Century: 1501 AD to 1600 AD
17th Century: 1601 AD to 1700 AD
18th Century: 1701 AD to 1800 AD
19th Century: 1801 AD to 1900 AD
20th Century: 1901 AD to 2000 AD
21st Century: 2001 AD to 2100 AD

———————————

1st Decade (of 1st Century): 1 AD to 10 AD
2nd Decade: 11 AD to 20 AD
3rd Decade: 21 AD to 30 AD
4th Decade: 31 AD to 40 AD
5th Decade: 41 AD to 50 AD
6th Decade: 51 AD to 60 AD
7th Decade: 61 AD to 70 AD
8th Decade: 71 AD to 80 AD
9th Decade: 81 AD to 90 AD
10th Decade: 91 AD to 100 AD

1st Decade (of 2nd Century): 101 AD to 110 AD

[ . . . ]

1st Decade (of 3rd Century): 201 AD to 210 AD

[ . . . ]

1st Decade (of 21st Century): 2001 AD to 2010 AD

————————————————-

And, for that matter, 2000 was not the start of the next millenium. 2001 was the start of the 3rd Millenium.

Millenium 1: 1 AD to 1000 AD
Millenium 2: 1001 AD to 2000 AD
Millenium 3: 2001 AD to 3000 AD

January 1, 2010 , 1:21PM Posted by | Life, Political Correctness, Public Education | 2 Comments

Is the Prosecution of the US NAVY SEALs Payback by Obama?

————————
Background info:

Powerful Ad – “Support the Persecuted NAVY SEALs” (VIDEO)

[Youtube=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MisF5xY5534]

Navy SEALs Charged Over Alleged Abuse of Terrorist Mastermind
Rep. Dan Burton On The Navy SEALS Court-Martial: ‘I Would Have Done MUCH Worse’…The Al Qaeda Manual Says Complain Of Torture If You’re Caught…UPDATE: Video Ad and Site Set Up In Support Of These SEALS (HEROES)
Unreal. Navy Seals Face Court-Martial After Capturing Al-Qaeda Leader
Hey, Don’t Give Terrorist Murderers a Fat Lip; Navy SEALS Criminally Charged
————————

That is the opinion of this gentleman from the intelligence community. And knowing how Obama and his minions hate the US military, it would not surprise me in the least.

CALLER: Good. I just wanted to call and kind of give a little more insight on this SEAL team situation. I was in the teams for 20 years. I have multiple-decade military service and came in not long after Vietnam. I also worked for Blackwater for a few years in Iraq and know one of the guys that was killed at Fallujah quite well. But, anyway, the point I’m going to get at here is that I think there’s quite a bit of evidence that this is kind of a backwash from the situation of a couple months ago when the SEAL operators rescued Captain Phillips off the coast of Somalia. You may recall that situation.

RUSH: Yes, I do.

CALLER: Well, the truth behind that situation is that the SEAL operators were kept off the scene for well over 36 hours. There was a lot of foot dragging by the commander-in-chief’s people in letting them in the theater. After they were in theater and in place they were given a very restrictive ROE: Rules Of Engagement. The ROE was so restrictive that really they couldn’t engage their targets. There were two previous opportunities to rescue Captain Phillips, and they were not allowed to take those opportunities.

RUSH: Let me stop you here because people may not know. We’re talking Somali pirates. We’re talking about the Maersk cargo ship that a bunch of Somali pirates, teenagers, took over. One of them eventually died, and the media credited Obama — honest to God, folks, the media credited Obama — with giving the order to pull the trigger. Now you may resume the story, sir.

CALLER: Okay. When they finally did engage the hostiles, they did it liberally interpreting the ROE, and the on-site commander finally was kind of fed up with the situation and gave them a weapons-free command and they were able to engage and rescue Captain Phillips. The fallout from that was immediate and rather violent in its anger. The White House people — I don’t know the president himself, I just know their representatives with the chain of command — were absolutely livid with this and they did not want the rescue to be conducted in the way that it was. You know, I cannot prove this because I would have to give names and I’m not giving names for obvious reasons. But the bottom line is that on very good, solid inside information, the national command authority past the Pentagon was not happy.

RUSH: So let me cut to the chase here. So what I think I hear you saying is the blowback that you mentioned is, this is payback for the SEALs violating the ROE on this captain of the Maersk; and this is the chain of command reasserting itself, letting everybody know who’s boss and what’s going to happen to you if you don’t follow orders?

CALLER: That is my rather experienced opinion — and, frankly, the opinion of others. I am very close to the special operations community here in North Carolina, and, you know, that opinion is surfacing. These people are very vindictive — and you have to understand, Mr. Limbaugh, you’re very pro-military, and you always say wonderful things about our people in service, and we greatly appreciate it. But I do have to say this, and I’d like to make this one point. I’ve had two sons, by the way. My two eldest sons have done multiple tours in Afghanistan and Iraq. The military of today is not the military that fought World War II. It is not even the military that fought the first Gulf War. It is a military that has been thoroughly politicized. It is a military that is suffering the fallout of Patricia Schroeder’s ridiculous, politically correct policies that still have great power and sway in the military. And I’m just going to have to tell you: I do not mean to impugn the junior personnel in the military, the line troops, the junior officers. I’m not talking about these people. These people are doing a fine job. They’re outstanding people. But the senior ranking, the civilian and senior ranking military personnel are thoroughly indoctrinated and on board with this politically correct agenda that’s in the military.

RUSH: Yeah. I’ll tell you the most recent example of it. A glaring example was General Casey, more concerned about the “diversity” in his Army than the loss of life at Fort Hood.

CALLER: General Casey, sir, and Wesley Clark are not the exceptions in the upper echelons. They are the rule. Those are the kinds of men that are running the show and they will throw the junior personnel under the bus to save themselves every time. And that is my opinion. Again, I don’t mean to impugn any of the junior people.

RUSH: We know what you mean. We know exactly what you mean.

CALLER: Okay.

RUSH: Everything’s been politically correctized — chickified, if you will. That’s one of the things I call it. Can you hold on for a break?

CALLER: Certainly.

RUSH: I want you to explain to people what you meant. I think I know what you meant by the Patsy Schroeder stuff, Tailhook and all that, but I want you to explain exactly what you mean by that ’cause I’m sure you’ve got a lot of people curious.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

RUSH: We rejoin our call with Greg from parts unknown in North Carolina, a former member of the Navy SEAL team who has two sons who served two tours each in Iraq and Afghanistan. What was it that Pat Schroeder did when she was a member of Congress from Colorado?

CALLER: I guess the question would be: What didn’t she do? She was very influential in passing legislation and putting pressure on the military to basically and fundamentally feminize the military. I can speak most clearly about the Navy, ’cause that was my experience at the time, especially when Admiral Kelso — who was the CNO at the time — kind of completely caved in after Tailhook and started instituting things like putting females on man-o-war, having the mixed training companies in boot camp and the like. And what Patricia Schroeder did was, with a really rather small cabal of very ambitious military officers — who, by the way, violated military rules and regulations by petitioning in uniform on Capitol Hill for these changes, but nobody seemed to notice that — were able to pass a lot of regulations through the Navy and the other branches that have, frankly, incorporated women into areas of the military where, being old-fashioned, I do not believe that they belong. And this has caused numerous problems throughout the military. Beyond that, I’m not exactly sure what else you would like me to add.

RUSH: No, I thought that’s what you were talking about but I wanted people to hear you say it. Pat Schroeder was very liberal, huge feminist, and I wanted you to say the feminization. My word for it is chickification. But it’s happening throughout our culture. It’s happening throughout the media as well. And it’s turning people soft and touchy-feely and so forth. And I know what you mean: There’s no room for that on the battlefield.

CALLER: There is none. And I’m very concerned about the future of our nation’s military. Again I do not mean to minimize the dangers that our military personnel are facing in this war. However, it isn’t a full-scale, knock-down-drag-out between conventional fighting forces. I am concerned that if we ever do engage in that sort of warfare again — and I think it’s ultimately inevitable, I’m afraid — that our military is not in the place where it needs to be.

November 25, 2009 , 11:33PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Liberalism, Military, Political Correctness, Somalia, Terrorism, US Navy | 1 Comment

Why it is Okay to Bash Christians and Jews, but no Other Group

Hmmm, this is actually a pretty interesting explanation. Makes sense. Thinking of the 10 Commandments — “Thou Shalt Not Have Any Other gods Before Me” — it makes sense than that any other religion other than Christianity/Judaism would be worshipping other gods before God and, thus, would be a-okay with the Devil. Anything which is in opposition to Christanity and Judaism is thus on the side of the Devil.

Never thought about it that way before, but it makes good sense.

“Why do LIBTARDS defend one, but not the other?”

Are you asking this in all seriousness? Why it is okay to bash Christians and Jews but no other group?

If yes: Because God is real, the Bible is true, and their spiritual father in hell knows this, and hates those who follow Him and his Word.

This is why it’s “ok” to teach Islam and the Quran in public schools, but don’t mention the Bible at all except to denigrate it. This is why it is “ok” to teach transcendental meditation and other new-age satanisms in gradeschool but not anything at all about the history of Israel prior to 1949. This is why cults like Scientology and JW’s and Heaven’s Gate and all the other twisted nonGospels are tolerated much moreso than Christianity and Judaism.

This might not be the answer you were looking for, but it’s the truth. Satan hates God and his people. EVERYTHING ELSE IS A-OK. Some wonder why the ACLU and N.O.W. are completely silent on the treatment of women and gays under Islamic governments. Well, it’s because the perpetrators are not Christians or Jews. Its simple, really, when you understand things of a spiritual nature.

If you believe that there are no things of a spiritual nature, then all of this would be incredibly confusing. It’s why most people are confused now, who went to public schools in America, about the Middle East. They were never taught about the entire history, only that some idiot crazy wingers think that Israel was a nation once in prehistoric times. But David? Saul? Philistia? Macabees? NO knowledge at all. It’s all been redacted, for the reason I stated. They are in service, whether they know it or not, of the Devil in hell.

Posted by: Taqiyy. at November 24, 2009 11:36 PM

November 25, 2009 , 1:04AM Posted by | Anti-Semitism, Christianity, Liberalism, Political Correctness | Comments Off on Why it is Okay to Bash Christians and Jews, but no Other Group

Group Think Mentality

248
Eman, thank you. You’re one of the few posters left I stick around to read in the comments.

And I don’t know who Anon is, but I can certainly understand why so many lurkers don’t post (and thank you, to you, too). The Group Think mentality has been pretty bad around here for some time.

Posted by: barbelle at November 10, 2009 01:07 AM

Sad, but true, in the case of the commenters at Ace of Spades HQ. Well, at least in terms of social issues. On political issues such as military issues, fiscal issues and general political strategery issues, there is quite a bit of diverse opinion expressed in the comment section. Granted, the blog authors are pretty much one big echo chamber on every issue, but that’s probably why ace chose them to be co-authors on his blog. So I can give that a pass.

But there is definitely a Group Think mentality when it comes to social issues at that site. Unless you agree with the ideas of promiscuous sex with every hot woman (or man, if you’re a ‘moronette’), looking at ‘pron’ and now apparently supporting women who make sex tapes, you are deemed a ‘concern troll’ or a prude or assumed to be fat and ugly.

Go against the social Group Think there and be prepared to be ridiculed until you stop commenting there (as I have). Want to share your sexual prowess, your lesbian fantasies (if you’re a ‘moronette’) or general love for being a pervert, you are welcomed with open arms and praised as ‘living the AoSHQ lifestyle’. But dare to hold a traditional, gentlemanly/lady-like view on sex and relationships and expect to be the butt of jokes, even when you’re not around to defend yourself from such.

There is really no difference between what the M&Ms there do with regards to sex and relationship issues and what commenters do at places like LGF and any Left-wing site with regards to political issues. Don’t agree with the Group Think, you’re a troll who’s fat and ugly.

Ironic too, since barbelle’s point was that they were defending Carrie Prejean based on her looks. Then, they turn around and just assume barbelle is fat and ugly, simply because she doesn’t agree with their opinions on the issue.

The fact is that AoSHQ has their own “political correctness” Group Think going on, and they seem to not even realize it. As barbelle noted, it’s no wonder that lurkers don’t comment more. Why would anyone want to, when they know if they disagree with the group think, they’ll be lambasted as a troll, ugly, fat — or, in my case, an ’emo-git’ — among other things.

Ah, the ‘joys’ of anonymous posting on the internet. Sad.

I will say, that I don’t understand her overall opinion on Carrie Prejean, that, seemingly, is that she cannot make mistakes early on in life, realize what she did was wrong and then repent for it later in life.  If that were the case, then pretty much none of us could ever hold any moral authority on anything, unless we never did anything wrong… ever.  And since none of  us are the Son of God, I doubt there are very many people who have never done anything wrong, unless they never leave their house to live life.

I understand her point about no longer holding up Carrie Prejean as a spokeswoman for anything on conservative issues — especially socially conservative issues — and not reflexively defending her on things simply because she won the lottery in the gene pool.  Personally, I could care less about Carrie Prejean.  She doesn’t speak for me, nor does she speak for any conservative movement.  However, she deserves people defending her, since she was unfairly and despicably smeared by the Left simply for expressing the same view on “same-sex marriage” as the majority of California voters, the majority of voters in every other State where “same-sex marriage” has been on the ballot and… the current President of the United States.

The simple fact is that Carrie Prejean would be hailed by the Left were it not for her answering honestly a bogus question at a Beauty Pageant.  Everything else — both the nasty smears and her media opportunities — came from that principled stand.

I really don’t care if she made every single bad decision imaginable in her teen years or not.  Criticize her and hold her accountable for her bad choices in the past, but defend her on her right to be able to speak her mind without being smeared.

Heh, nice:

I think it’s running about 20-1 that you’re troll, toots. And eman is only on your side because he thinks you’re cute.

Okay, activate the gray cells and figure out where eman ever saw a picture of me.

Consensus ain’t science.  It is, however, what I’d expect from the lot of you.

Posted by: barbelle at November 10, 2009 01:21 AM

Another good one:

I’ve read every comment down and that’s where I had to stop to answer. schizuki, are you a parent? If your teenage daughter asked you, would you tell her there’s nothing wrong with masturbating on tape for her boyfriend?

I’m pretty sure Hagar did that in the Old Testament, but considering the lack of recording tech, they just had to draw really fast on papyrus.

It’s all the rave at the Baptist church down the road.  But no worries, just say you regret it and you’re golden.

Posted by: barbelle at November 10, 2009 02:37 AM

And that’s really the difference between many of us on the Right.  Some of us have grown up and are thinking along the lines of being a parent and grown up, not sticking with frat boy mentalities into our late 20s and 30s (and beyond).

Yep, this is pretty much my opinion on all this Carrie Prejean stuff too:

Not that I give a sh!t what CP does or doesn’t do, but Barbelle you said she did this after promoting herself as some paragon of family vaules. Uhm, no. She made the tape as a kid, then grew up, became famous due to controversy and the douche she gave it to sold her out. She is dumber than a box of rocks, but no one really deserves that sh!teous treatment. I was a teen who wouldn’t want everything I did put up for public consumption, (or any of it), but if it came out, so what? I am an adult, that was the past, and I made many, many, many mistakes. She should be out of the limelight soon, anyway. I predict her book won’t do all that well, and she will fade into obscurity soon. So, no biggie.

Posted by: di butler at November 10, 2009 03:22 AM

I think the disconnect here is that people are reflexively defending *everything* about her because (1) she won the lottery in the gene pool and (2) she was despicably attacked and smeared by the Left for expressing a popular opinion (though, very unpopular with the Left).  The thing is, no one wants to join with the Left in their smears of her by criticizing Carrie Prejean, because people could turn around and say “see! even the Right sees that she’s pathetic!”  On the other hand though, defending her actions with which we disagree opens us up to “see!  Conservatives are a bunch of hypocrites who don’t stand for moral values at all, they’re just defending her because she’s hot and is against ‘same-sex marriage'”.  It’s a fine line to walk, but I’d rather take the side of barbelle and keep my principles in tact, while trying to get the focus of the issue back on the Left’s despicable smear of her over expressing an opinion only the Left thinks is wrong.

This is another good one:

Sorry, I didn’t read all 600+ posts to ascertain the sex of Barbelle’s sex (Sank).    I accept the correction.  Still, what is it with society that we must evicerate a conservative that chooses to take a moral stance when they have any incident in their past.

The woman stood up for traditional marriage. Where’s the crime.  If Bill Clinton stood up for traditional marriage , everyone would hail him as enlighteded.  She was a dumbass teenager.  Same goes for the way women came down on Sara Palin.  She was pretty and promoted traditional values and you would have thought she was evil incarnate.

It took a long time for societies to develop rules that increased health of the community.  Not screwing everything that walked reduced desease.  On man one woman for a lifetime made for healthier better adjusted children.  Self reliance freed man from government oppression.  Now, disease runs rampant, family structure is breaking down, jails are bulging at the seams, and government is taking ofer our lives.  A teenage girl sent a sex tape to a boy she thought she could trust.   Dumbass move.  Move on.

Posted by: Ohio Dan at November 10, 2009 09:32 AM

Again, I think the disconnect is that a couple of the things mentioned by Ohio Dan — screwing everything that walks, a girl making a sex tape for her boyfriend — are things that are praised as good in the “AoSHQ lifestyle”.  And if you dare come out and speak against those things, calling them wrong in any way, you are immediately attacked as a prude, ugly, fat, Taliban-like, etc.

Now, barbelle does come across as quite a b!tch, with a mouth slinging out insults which would make a US Marine blush.  To me, that is utterly unattractive and a complete turn-off and a very unattractive quality in a person in general, let alone a woman.  That said, the substance of her complaints, I think, is sound.  Carrie Prejean should not be a spokesperson for anything with all this baggage out there:  boob job, scantily-clad pictures for which she made lame excuses and now this sex tape she made.  She has no credibility when it comes to traditional values and should be held to account for that.  However, despite all that, she should still be defended 100% on the main issue of being able to speak your mind in this country, without the consequence of being personally smeared and destroyed by political enemies.

Good point:

Carrie would have been a lot better off had she claimed to be a recovering bad-girl before she went on the lecture circuit.

If she’d have said, I was an immodest, naughty girl in the past, but I’ve repented and am now a solid Christian, these little things popping out of the closet would have been no big deal.

She could have said, “See? I told you I used to be a bad girl”.

Posted by: pajama momma at November 10, 2009 01:23 PM

What lectures did she give on sexual modesty and when?

She gave a talk on her Christian values her at her home church here in San Diego. The Rock. One of the Christian values is modesty. Her talk was about standing strong in your Christian faith.

Posted by: pajama momma at November 10, 2009 01:57 PM

November 10, 2009 , 12:54PM Posted by | Life, Political Correctness, Relationships, Sex | 6 Comments

We are in a Political Fight to the Death with People Who Will Stop at Nothing

Hey ace and all the rest of you right-wing squishes out there… PAY.ATTENTION:

Saul Alinski wrote a book called Rules for Radicals. Hillary Clinton wrote about it in her senior’s thesis. And if Hillary Clinton learned from it, Barack Obama taught from it: the term community organizer was coined by Alinski and was the centerpiece of his theory that the socialization of America could best be accomplished from within the system since Americans were alert to revolutions forced upon them from the outside.

One of the Rules for Radicals is Make the enemy live up to his/her own book of rules. Think about the genius of that. Just let that sink in. When a Republican has an ethics scandal, it’s “hypocrisy” and “double standards” and all the rest. But when a Clinton or a Pelosi or a Charley Rangel or a Chris Dodd or a Barney Frank or a William Jefferson has an ethics scandal, no one bats an eye. Why? Because of course they’re immoral! They’re Democrats.

Alinski could see that moral people have to be held to moral standards when immoral people do not. We’d better learn a lesson from this, right quick. Here’s an example of the kind of lesson good and decent people must learn about people like Saul Alinski and his followers:

The Battle of Guadalcanal was the first real test of the US Marine Corps in World War II. There was real anger toward the Japanese after Pearl Harbor and the atrocities they had committed in China and to American prisoners at Bataan, but the Marines had not yet dealt with them face to face and still reserved a professional soldier’s decency towards surrendering troops.

A Marine recon unit reported seeing Japanese troops flying a white flag on an isolated spit of land near Guadalcanal, and so A Marine named Frank Goettge asked for volunteers to help rescue these surrendering Japanese soldiers. 25 men stepped forward, and when they reached the beach the Marines warily went ashore to help the trapped Japanese. Once they were all within range, the Japanese opened fire with machine guns, and after hours of fighting only one Marine was able to escape. As he swam away he looked over his shoulder, and saw the flashing Samurai swords of the Japanese officers as they hacked at and beheaded the survivors. When reinforcements returned they found that their buddies had been mutilated and dismembered, and any Marine corps tattoos had been hacked off their arms and stuffed into their mouths.

The Marines never treated the Japense the same way after that.

Alinski and his followers want you to believe that if you fight dirty in response to people fighting dirty with you, then you have lost your morals and in fact your identity. But that’s a lie.

We are in a political fight to the death with people who will stop at nothing – and I’m not talking about your average decent Democrat, but rather these Alinski radicals. And if we don’t face the same realization as those Marines on Guadalcanal and give back as brutally as we have taken, then we will lose.

Which is what they want. And if we do lose to these kind of tactics, there will be no more decent people left in politics. As of today, we’re one short already.

August 1, 2009 , 11:43PM Posted by | Barack Obama, Bill Whittle, Communism, Democrats, Hillary Clinton, Liberalism, Marxism, Military History, Political Correctness, Saul Alinsky, Socialism | 5 Comments