November 27, 2009

Hyphens That Come Between Us?

Chuck reporting for duty.

As I’ve more or less written before, my home is what could arguably be called a small yacht, as she is fifty feet long and fairly luxurious, the good part being that while she cost quite a bit of money, I was fortunate, at the time I acquired her, to possess the means with which to pay for her in full.

This was made possible by the U.S. Armed Forces, since after I retired with twenty, entering the private sector, I brought my experience and skills overseas to help some good guys solve some problems with bad guys and made a couple of good scores along the way.

She’s parked among the pleasure craft, at a marina located within the boundaries of Los Angeles County, California, of a number of individuals whose personal assets make mine look like fly specks, but then, friends of mine tell me I’m essentially a “boat bum” (as opposed to a beach one, I suppose), and they’re not far off the mark: it took practically every penny I had at the time to buy and equip her to my specifications, with a permanent and totally mobile home in mind.

My bank balance is anything but impressive, and my modest pension takes care of my month-to-month expenses.

Even so, I’m the original happy camper as what little I have constitutes, in its entirety, everything I want or need.

Having said that, I’ve been all for the modest, quiet life since buying her and going to live aboard; Entertaining friends or neighbors, taking her out for a cruise either down to Coronado or, still further south, to Mexico, or north for a visit to the Bay Area now and then, or wandering around, landlubber style, in questionable neighborhoods like Venice Beach or Hollywood.

Yesterday evening, a friend and I got together for a Thanksgiving feast at a place on Sunset Blvd in Hollywood. Having nothing planned, other than swinging by a couple of local bars I occasionally visit in nearby Venice, I spent the day wandering around and made an observation I thought I’d share.

I was down in the vicinity of Santa Monica Blvd and Western Avenue, which is as Mexican a neighborhood as you’ll find outside Mexico (along with a significant sized sprinkling of South Americans). There must be one “hellified” number of illegals saturating that community.

While practically every place of business in L.A. County that wasn’t selling food, gas or booze was closed for Thanksgiving, every business in that ‘hood was open as though there were no holiday: even the clothing stores, check cashing establishments, electronics businesses (cell phones, stereo equipment, etc), and the locals were going about their normal routines as though it were just another day.

Thanksgiving is an American holiday, one of the most prominent of American holidays, yet the folks in that Mexican enclave could care less, it was nothing to them, just something the gringos celebrate.

Theoretically, most of these happen to be among those people liberals in our society refer to as “Mexican - hyphen - Americans”.

Here at Hard Astarboard we do not believe in hyphenated Americans.

Either someone’s an American or not, they can’t be both an American and something else.

This hyphenating business came along as a liberal Democrat ploy to maintain differences between white and non-white Americans, the ultimate purpose being to exploit those perceived differences, through race-card politics, to get votes.

One of their primary explanations for this pitiful, very desperately conceived precurser of oppressive political correctness is that they “feel” all people of foreign extraction should, the poor wretches, be able to embrace their respective heritages.

If you are an American, you have the same heritage shared by all Americans. If you don’t, why be here? Wouldn’t it just be cozier to return to the land that you feel is the land of your heritage?

Now, here’s what makes me scratch my head:

Mexican-Americans. Most “Mexican-Americans” are here because they want to be able to find work, earn money, eat. Feed their families.

Back next door in the old country, many of them didn’t have those luxuries, couldn’t find ‘em, so they came up here.

By being “Mexican-Americans”, then, they are able to celebrate their “heritage” of poverty and squalor, hunger and disease in a politically corrupt shithole.

“African-Americans”. Hmmmph! How many American born black people with American born grand parents do you know that can tell you which tribe their ancestors came from and the names of those ancestors?

The reality is that American black folks are 100% American, the same as the rest of us, no different, except that their first generation ancestors paid harder than most of the rest of ours on the way to becoming free men in a free country. Granted, those unfortunates back then hadn’t been given a choice as far as coming over here to begin with, but looking at the way life has always been in sub-Saharan Africa, I hardly think the average black American, or white, yellow, red or brown one for that matter, would want to live there, anyway.

Moving on, though, slavery flourished and died long before any American now living was born, and there has not been a human being in this country alive for decades who even knew any slaves, let alone having been slaves themselves.

It’s over, it is the worst black mark on the history of this nation, but it ended, and it ended on fields covered with blood spilled by white boys and white men. It was time to move on a long time ago.

Liberals don’t want to move on, because they gain votes by pimping guilt to whites and resentment to blacks, using both to keep a wedge between false perceptions and reality, because it’s in the best political interests of the Democrats to keep alive the illusion that we are different. Keep the hate in place as best you can, so the differences remain in plain sight as well.

These are the same Democrats who founded and filled the member roles of the Ku Klux Klan, and the same Democrats who voted solidly against the Civil Rights Bill, yet they have run a hell of a good con, making it “a given” that they are the black man’s best friend.

Most of the blacks I know are pretty smart, which causes me some disappointment when I realize that so many of them are gullible enough to be made asses of by the Democrats decade after decade without waking up and smelling the proverbial coffee.

In summation, the hyphen thing seems to be working, if the people in the Mexican neighborhood I mentioned above don’t even take the fact of Thanksgiving seriously. On the other hand, look for lots of liberals to show up for the next Cinco de Mayo celebration.

After all, we American-Americans must be as multicultural as it takes us being in order to stand our own culture aside for the collective heritages of everyone else, mainly so Democrats can get more votes.


by @ 9:59 pm. Filed under American Patriotism, Liberal Agendas, Liberal Hypocrisy

November 23, 2009

Honesty and Liberals

Chuck here, “the boss man” put me back to work. No sweat, friends, I really enjoy this. :-)

So, honesty and liberals.

Apples and oranges. Rocks and books. Pterodactyls and aardvarks. Paper clips and fish.

In today’s Best Of The Web Today, James Taranto writes about some emails industrious hackers wrenched from the hallowed files of your garden variety liberal academics whom, no doubt, would be the first to become outraged/ indignant/ majorly offended (take your pick) if accused of even considering anything like that which Mr. Taranto describes in Settled Science?

“Officials at the University of East Anglia confirmed in a statement on Friday that files had been stolen from a university server and that the police had been brought in to investigate the breach,” the New York Times reports. “They added, however, that they could not confirm that all the material circulating on the Internet was authentic.” But some scientists have confirmed that their emails were quoted accurately.

The files–which can be downloaded here–surely have not been fully plumbed. The ZIP archive weighs in at just under 62 megabytes, or more than 157 MB when uncompressed. But bits that have already been analyzed, as the Washington Post reports, “reveal an intellectual circle that appears to feel very much under attack, and eager to punish its enemies”:

In one e-mail, the center’s director, Phil Jones, writes Pennsylvania State University’s Michael E.
Mann and questions whether the work of academics that question the link between human activities and global warming deserve to make it into the prestigious IPCC report, which represents the global consensus view on climate science.

“I can’t see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report,” Jones writes. “Kevin and I will keep them out somehow–even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

In another, Jones and Mann discuss how they can pressure an academic journal not to accept the work of climate skeptics with whom they disagree. “Perhaps we should encourage our colleagues in the climate research community to no longer submit to, or cite papers in, this journal,” Mann writes. . . .

Mann, who directs Penn State’s Earth System Science Center, said the e-mails reflected the sort of “vigorous debate” researchers engage in before reaching scientific conclusions. “We shouldn’t expect the sort of refined statements that scientists make when they’re speaking in public,” he said.

This is downright Orwellian. What the Post describes is not a vigorous debate but an attempt to suppress debate–to politicize the process of scientific inquiry so that it yields a predetermined result. This does not, in itself, prove the global warmists wrong. But it raises a glaring question: If they have the facts on their side, why do they need to resort to tactics of suppression and intimidation?

It is hard to see how this is anything less than a definitive refutation of the popular press’s contention that global warmism is settled science–a contention that both the Times and the Post repeat in their articles on the revelations: “The evidence pointing to a growing human contribution to global warming is so widely accepted that the hacked material is unlikely to erode the overall argument,” the Times claims. The Post leads its story by observing that “few U.S. politicians bother to question whether humans are changing the world’s climate,” and that “nearly three years ago the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change concluded the evidence was unequivocal.” (As blogger Tom Maguire notes, this actually overstates even the IPCC’s conclusions.)

The press’s view on global warming rests on an appeal to authority: the consensus among scientists that it is real, dangerous and man-caused. But the authority of scientists rests on the integrity of the scientific process, and a “consensus” based on the suppression of alternative hypotheses is, quite simply, a fraudulent one.

Yes, honesty and liberals, rifles and feather dusters, automobiles and coral reefs, steel and rhubarb…

November 16, 2009

Two On A Monday Morning

1.1. In for a penny, in for 3/4 of a cent?

In the battle on the U.S.-Mexico border, the fight against illegal immigration often loses out to environmental laws that have blocked construction of parts of the “virtual fence” and that threaten to create places where agents can’t easily track illegal immigrants.

Documents obtained by Rep. Rob Bishop and shared with The Washington Times show National Park Service staffers have tried to stop the U.S. Border Patrol from placing some towers associated with the virtual fence, known as the Secure Border Initiative or SBInet, on wilderness lands in parks along the border.

In a remarkably candid letter to members of Congress, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said her department could have to delay pursuits of illegal immigrants while waiting for horses to be brought in so agents don’t trample protected lands, and warns that illegal immigrants will increasingly make use of remote, protected areas to avoid being caught.

The documents also show the Interior Department has charged the Homeland Security Department $10 million over the past two years as a “mitigation” penalty to pay for damage to public lands that agencies say has been caused by Border Patrol agents chasing illegal immigrants.

By all means, let’s protect our nation from illegal immigration and terrorism, but let’s do so only where it coincides with the precious concerns of the enviro-weenies.

Maybe the government can strike a deal with the coyotes to smuggle their illicit human cargos only in areas first approved by those whose environmental concerns take precedence over the lives and wellbeing of Americans, and make a similar arrangement with any terrorists or MS-13 gangs wishing to come into the U.S. to wreak their havoc.


2. Our esteemed Ego-In-Chief:

PRESIDENT OBAMA was too busy to attend the celebrations in Germany this week marking the fall of the Berlin Wall 20 years ago. But he did appear by video, delivering a few brief and bloodless remarks about how the wall was “a painful barrier between family and friends” that symbolized “a system that denied people the freedoms that should be the right of every human being.” He referred to “tyranny,” but never identified the tyrants — he never uttered the words “Soviet Union” or “communism,” for example. He said nothing about the men and women who died trying to cross the wall. Nor did he mention Harry Truman or Ronald Reagan — or even Mikhail Gorbachev.

He did, however, talk about Barack Obama.

Of course he did. He is, after all, his favorite subject.

It’s been a point of debate between Chuck and I whether he was this big a self worshiper before he ran for his present position (Chuck’s opinion) or his ego was hyper-inflated by the messiah building PR showered upon him by the mainstream media, and the adulation he received from millions of gullible mental zeros or overreactive Bush-haters who elected him (my opinion).

If I’m right, my flashback to Peter Finch as Howard Beale in Network (you know, “Go to the window…”) is almost spot-on.

“Few would have foreseen,” declared the president, “that a united Germany would be led by a woman from [the former East German state of] Brandenburg or that their American ally would be led by a man of African descent. But human destiny is what human beings make of it.”

As presidential rhetoric goes, this was hardly a match for “Ich bin ein Berliner,” still less another “Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” But as a specimen of presidential narcissism, it is hard to beat. Obama couldn’t be troubled to visit Berlin to commemorate a momentous milestone in the history of human liberty. But he was glad to explain to those who were there why reflections on that milestone should inspire appreciation for the self-made “destiny” of his own rise to power.

Was there ever a president as deeply enamored of himself as Barack Obama?

The first President Bush, taught from childhood to shun what his mother called “The Great I Am,” regularly instructed his speechwriters not to include too many “I’s” in his prepared remarks. Ronald Reagan maintained that there was no limit to what someone could achieve if he didn’t mind who got the credit. George Washington, one of the most accomplished men of his day, said with characteristic modesty on becoming president that he was “peculiarly conscious of his own deficiencies.”

Obama, on the other hand, positively revels in The Great I Am.

“I think that I’m a better speechwriter than my speechwriters,” he told campaign aides when he was running for the White House. “I know more about policies on any particular issue than my policy directors. And I’ll tell you right now that . . . I’m a better political director than my political director.”

At the start of his presidency, Obama seemed to content himself with the royal “we” — “We will build the roads and bridges . . . We will restore science to its rightful place . . . We will harness the sun and winds,” he declaimed at his inauguration.

But as the literary theorist Stanley Fish points out, “By the time of the address to the Congress on Feb. 24, the royal we [had] flowered into the naked ‘I’: ‘As soon as I took office, I asked this Congress.’ ‘I called for action.’ ‘I pushed for quick action.’ ‘I have told each of my cabinet.’ ‘I’ve appointed a proven and aggressive inspector general.’ ‘I refuse to let that happen.’ ‘I will not spend a single penny.’ ‘I reject the view that says our problems will simply take care of themselves.’ ‘I held a fiscal summit where I pledged to cut the deficit in half.’” In his speech on the federal takeover of GM, Obama likewise found it necessary to use the first-person singular pronoun 34 times. (”Congress” he mentioned just once.)

The writer of the linked column, Jeff Jacoby, knows his subject:

At this rate, it won’t be long before the president’s ego is so inflated that it will require a ZIP code of its own.

by @ 10:34 am. Filed under Border Security, Homeland Security, The President

November 15, 2009

I May Have Figured Out What’s Wrong…

…at the White House and in Congress, and the simplicity is startling, to say the least!

It happens to all of us on occasion, we figure we know how to do something, or we’re confident that we can figure it out on our own, so we don’t bother to waste time reading the instructions. We’re in too big a hurry.

That’s what the problem is!

It’s little more than an innocent mistake, a small but correctable error: President Obama, and the Democrats running the House and Senate, forgot to read the instructions, the employee handbook for those running the United States Government.

As I intimated above, this cannot be an irretrievable error, not in Washington, D.C. Why, I’ll bet copies can be found all over the place in that town!

If they can get directions or get a cab, these politicians can head over to a sure-fire place that their job instructions can be found. It is at 700 Pennsylvania Avenue N.W. and has entrances on both Pennsylvania and Constitution Avenues N.W. between 7th and 9th Streets.

It’s called the National Archives Building, and from what I’ve heard, it just might be the ideal place for a whole passel of elected officials to do some serious reading, and brush up on the entailments of the jobs for which they were hired.

Such a refresher course could only make these politicians perform more like patriotic…uh, patriotic… Americans! That’s it! Americans!

by @ 12:06 pm. Filed under Uncategorized

November 13, 2009

The Way Liberals And The MSM…

…which, as we know, is their not-too-subtle public relations machine, get their backs up with profound indignancy, if not shock, when anyone infers, even remotely, that Barack Hussein Obama is in any way pro-Muslim, anyone who is unfamiliar with histrionics would take them seriously.

I will admit that I’m both Jewish and pro-Israel, and that I have little use for the “Palestinians”, a collective who have built up a well deserved reputation as a spawn of terrorism and a people who, as Abba Eban once said, “never miss a chance to miss an opportunity”, but even if I entertained totally neutral feelings between both the Jews and the “Palestinians”, I would have to be either completely obtuse or a bald faced liar if I failed to note that the Obama Administration is very much anti-Israel and pro-”Palestinian”.

The “Palestinians”, those fine folks who brought us Hamas.

In fact, there would seem to be a certain almost malevolent tone to Barack Hussein’s treatment of Israel, as is well defined in a column by Caroline Glick.

Once again, US President Barack Obama has demonstrated his intention of “putting light” between America and Israel. His hostility towards Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu during the latter’s visit to Washington this week was breathtaking.

It isn’t every day that you can see an American President leaving the Prime Minister of an allied government twisting in the wind for weeks before deciding to grant him an audience at the White House.

It isn’t every day that a visiting leader from a strategically vital US ally is brought into the White House in an unmarked van in the middle of the night rather than greeted like a friend at the front door; is forbidden to have his picture taken with the President; is forced to leave the White House alone, through a side exit; and is ordered to keep the contents of his meeting with the President secret.

You know, the very blatancy of this move speaks volumes.

I don’t guess the Chicago machine is what you’d call a bastion of discretion where its corruption is concerned — after all, in one of those few large U.S. cities where racketeering, graft and corruption are historically hallmarks of day-to-day reality, there is little need to try and mask what the people expect, anyway, as a matter of course.

Therefore, the Chicago Machine© product B. Hussein Obama brought to the White House is, for lack of any previous need for subtlety, is transparently obvious for what it is.

As a result, no amount of lying, nor third rate subterfuge performed under the nom de guerre of a “transparent administration” could be expected to fool anyone who wasn’t deaf, dumb, blind and brain dead — we’ve learned that nothing Obama says is worth taking seriously, that his actions will tell us the truth long before he will.

The fun part is that the mainstream media, liberal rodents that they are, will go with the program no matter what O says or does.

Knowing this, the president, feeling, I suppose, like any worthy communist party general secretary who knows he is well shielded by a strong propaganda ministry (or, in this case, the MSM), charges ahead with even his most extreme agendas, including that of bringing down Israel, taking the Jewish state away from the Jewish people.

Ahead of Obama’s meeting with Netanyahu, the Wall Street Journal reported that Obama was effectively attempting to blackmail the Israeli premier by conditioning the meeting on Netanyahu’s willingness to make tangible concessions to the Palestinians during his speech before the General Assembly of the Jewish Federations of North America.

Jumpin’ Jehoshaphat!” you exclaim.

Although the report was denied by the Obama administration, if it was true, such a move by the White House would be without precedent in the history of US relations with Israel. And if untrue, the very fact that the story rings true is indicative of the wretched state of US relations with Israel since Obama entered office.

Obama’s hostility was evident as well during his meeting with fifty Jewish leaders at the White House this week. In an obvious bid to split American Jewry away from Israel, Obama refused to discuss Israel or Iran with the concerned American Jewish leaders. As far as Obama was concerned, all they deserved from him was a primer on the brilliance of his economic policies and the worthiness of his plan to socialize the American healthcare industry. His foreign policy is none of their business.

Obama’s meeting with American Jewish leaders was supposed to be a consolation prize for American Jews after Obama cancelled his first public address to American Jews since taking office. The White House claimed that he cancelled the speech because his visit to the Fort Hood memorial service made it impossible for him to attend. But then the conference was a three-day affair. The organizers would probably have been happy to reschedule.

Although the report was denied by the Obama Administration…; Whose word is as good as what?

Uh oh, here’s the kicker!

Instead, as Iran races to the nuclear finish line, America’s Jewish leaders were forced to sit through White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emmanuel’s kitschy Borscht Belt schmooze about his bar mitzvah.

When you take all the above into consideration, the entire exercise was a calculated insult to Jews and Israel, a veritable slap in the face!

The ironic thing about Obama’s nastiness towards Netanyahu and his arrogant treatment of the American Jewish community is that while it has made him the first US president to have no credibility among Israelis and has caused a 14 percent drop in his support among American Jews, it has failed utterly to earn him the trust of the Muslim world.

Today the Fatah movement is in disarray. Last week its leader Mahmoud Abbas announced his intention to retire and has placed the blame for his decision on the Obama administration as well as on Israel. Key Palestinian spokesmen like Saeb Erekat have declared the death of the peace process and called for the renewal of the jihad against Israel.

As for the larger Muslim world, a report this week in the New York Timesstated that the US’s key Arab allies Egypt and Saudi Arabia have been perilously weakened since Obama took office. Their diminished influence has been accompanied by the rapid rise of Iran and Syria. Both of these rogue states have been on the receiving end of continuous wooing by Obama administration officials who seem ready to do just about anything to appease them.

And this is the president of what country? The U.S.? My country?


Read the rest of the column here.

Having read the book of Revelations before, I wonder how many Christians there are out there who think of the Antichrist in the same context as they do B. Hussein Obama…

November 12, 2009

“Health Care”

Yesterday being Veterans Day, I opted to let this one go until today, as it was a day for lounging around aboard my boat with a few other ‘Nam vets, imbibing heavily, reminiscing and both praying for our brethren who are at war today and honoring those we served with who never made it home.


John Stossel wrote a column, published yesterday, that I think summed everything up in simple, to the point, “no muss, no fuss” manner where the government’s health care bill, fresh from the leftists in the House of representatives (representative of who is anybody’s guess) is concerned.

As an American, I am embarrassed that the U.S. House of Representatives has 220 members who actually believe the government can successfully centrally plan the medical and insurance industries.

I’m embarrassed that my representatives think that government can subsidize the consumption of medical care without increasing the budget deficit or interfering with free choice.

It’s a triumph of mindless wishful thinking over logic and experience.

I couldn’t have said it better myself.

The 1,990-page bill is breathtaking in its bone-headed audacity. The notion that a small group of politicians can know enough to design something so complex and so personal is astounding. That they were advised by “experts” means nothing since no one is expert enough to do that. There are too many tradeoffs faced by unique individuals with infinitely varying needs.

Government cannot do simple things efficiently. The bureaucrats struggle to count votes correctly.

They give subsidized loans to “homeowners” who turn out to be 4-year-olds. Yet congressmen want government to manage our medicine and insurance.

And we once thought that the United States Government would always have adult leadership.

Read the rest here.

Who knows what’s next?

by @ 4:51 pm. Filed under Great Commentary, Liberal Agendas, Politicians, Weasels

November 7, 2009

They Never Sleep

No, they really don’t, these members of the current majority festering in Congress. Anytime any opportunity arises where they have the chance to sabotage our economy, our freedom of speech or our security in the name of liberal quagmirism, they’re wide awake and on it with a vengeance.

The Senate rejected a move Thursday to block the Obama administration from using ordinary federal courts to prosecute those alleged to have plotted the Sept. 11 attacks.

On a 54-45 vote, the Senate tabled an amendment from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) that would have left military commissions as the only option for prosecuting Sept. 11 suspects.

All 40 Republicans supported the amendment, along with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) and four Democrats: Sen. Jim Webb (D-Va.), Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark.) and Sen. Mark Pryor (D-Ark.)

Graham said the measure, offered as an amendment to the annual appropriations bill for the Commerce and Justice Departments, was needed to head off what he said were plans by the Obama administration to send Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and others allegedly involved in the Sept. 11 plot to trials before civilian courts in the U.S.

Of course, we were expecting something like that, the left having discussed it for a long time, often with comparisons of the gulag and Nazi death camps when referring to the Camp Delta incarceration facility at Guantanamo Bay, the feeble argument that these Butchers For Allah are mere felons, not captured prisoners in a war between civilizations we did not start, but to now see that they’ve actually done it, well, is nevertheless disconcerting.

The more sensible among our leaders, mostly Republicans, were, rightly, completely for the bill.

“These people are not criminals. They’re warriors — and they need to be dealt with in a legal system that recognizes that,” Graham said. “Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind of 9/11, did not rob a liquor store.”

“The attacks of 9/11 were not a crime. They were a war crime,” Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) said.

Some Democrats flatly disagreed, arguing that military trials could play into the Al Qaeda operatives’ claims that they are fighters in a holy war against America.

“They are criminals. They committed murder,” Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) said. “These are not holy warriors. They are criminals.”

Here, here!

Jim Webb, one of the few smart Democrats present:

“I have consistently argued that the appropriate venue for trying perpetrators of international terrorism who are in fact enemy combatants is a military tribunal,” Webb said. He said federal court procedures for turning over evidence to defense lawyers and for calling military and intelligence agency witnesses “could lead to the exposure of classified materials.”

My emphasis, there, and the man said a mouthful.

Regular court procedures would require the prosecution to produce evidence that might consist of disclosure of methods, means and personnel we can’t afford to have the enemy read about in the New York Times.

Then again, that precedent was already set back when the NYT was printing the details of Bush terrorist surveillance strategies, so I don’t suppose it would be anything new.

Webb also indicated he was concerned that a terror suspect sent to federal court could be released in the U.S. if he was found not guilty.

Fancy that!

The whole story is here.

November 1, 2009

Will This One Piss Off PC Liberals?

I hope so.

I’ve been trolling various blogs in Seth’s blogroll and came across this French guy who, unlike so many, definitely does not qualify for Seth’s usual ….“the French (spit!)”….

Au contraire, this guy deserves accolades in an extreme. He’s a Frenchman who tells it like it is from a pro-America perspective, rather than spewing the usual anti-America drivel while pandering for alms or military protection.

He is called The Dissident Frogman, and he’s definitely gained a fan in this old frogman.

Anyway, I was speaking of aggravating politically correct liberals, wasn’t I?

If anything should do it, I’d say this one should.

Viva la Frogman and happy reading!

by @ 4:21 pm. Filed under Good Blogs, Great Commentary