Thursday, April 19, 2007

Yes Virginia, liberals are cowards.

When we had the University shooting, folks from all over jumped on us as a gun nut/ violent culture.

When the British 15 surrendered without a shot, and then engaged in humiliating behavior within hours of their capture, the same anti-gun voices refused to call them cowards, and justified their behavior (both the capture and the immediate confessions). In my mind, the only link to these two positions is cowardice. The coward fears guns, because he will never have the guts to step up and try to stop evil. The coward makes excuses for people who surrender, and when faced with nothing more than blindfolds, threats, and being called "Mr. Bean" create propoganda movies for the enemy.

Now the American left agrees with this, but they are not yet the majority here. They are the majority in the UK and much of western Europe. Only 7% of the UK public supported preparations for attacking Iran if the hostages were not freed. Even with all our leftist cowards, I am sure that over 60% of Americans would have supported gearing up for invasion, just as about the same number support concealed carry of weapons.

These people, when faced with confronting evil in any form, prefer to negotiate for their rights, rather than fight for them. That they incrimentally give up their rights and manhood for short term safety seems to mean nothing to them.

Not that we are MUCH better, we had a state vote to keep guns off campus, then when trouble hit, young men of military age DID NOTHING to try and stop the killer. They hid, they fled like women. They let an old man guard the door for them. Where is the outrage at their cowardice?

Rather than face the demons of their own cowardice, the left attacks those that make them feel the smallest. Not the enemy, not the fellow cowards, but the real men. If a teacher had pulled out a gun, and shot the bad guy before victim #3 was dead, would the world have screamed about "how dare the teacher have a gun on campus"? Would they have worried "what if the teacher missed and hit a student"? Yes, they would have.

When our enemies see us behave this way, do you think it makes them happy?

If your hold the EXACT VIEW that makes your enemy the happiest, doesn't that make you question your view? Don't you think the criminals and terrorists and enemy nations want people to think like you? Don't you feel stupid? Or are you so afraid of being exposed as a coward that you will justify ANYTHING? Would you rather loose your nation, your life, your peace of mind rather than act like a man by defending yourself, or expecting honor from your soldiers? Are you trying to suck up to the enemy, hoping that he will kill you last, or run out of ammo?

I guess my point is, if you are willing to make your enemies stronger in the long run, out of fear for you skin now, then you are a coward. When the enemy is the enemy of your nation, that cowardice turns into treason. But the western traitor fears more from violent enemies than it fears being punished for treason, or simple cowardice, because western society has largely forgotten what it means to be strong.

Monday, April 09, 2007

The British have no balls.

There is no way, on god's green earth, that 15 US servicemen would have behaved with such craven cowardice. In the end, their spineless officers made excuses for them, and they went away clutching gift bags like teenage girls clutching "American Idol" consolation gifts. If those cowardly, disgraceful limeys don't kill themselves out of shame, they have none.

I think the biggest balls in Britain are 6 feet under, between the deceased Maggie Thatcher's legs. Only 7% of their population thought they should have geared up for war when the hostages were bing held.

And their Admiral said those sissies behaved with "dignity and courage". The woman rolled in 24 hours, several men not long after. Maybe the limeys need to read Admiral Denton's book.

The French need to move over, the British are joining them in the cowards club.