Yes, I deliberately chose the Unflattering Photo on Drudge’s site! The 21st-Century version of Eva Peron has once again demanded from the UK the “return” of the “Malvinas”. How far will she get this time? Here’s the text of the letter, as reported in the UK Telegraph:
“One hundred and eighty years ago on this same date, January 3rd, in a blatant exercises of 19th century colonialism, Argentina was forcibly stripped of the Malvinas Islands, which are situated 14,000 km (8,700 miles) away from London.
“The Argentines on the Islands were expelled by the Royal Navy and the United Kingdom subsequently began a population implantation process similar to that applied to other territories under colonial rule.
“Since then, Britain, the colonial power, has refused to return the territories to the Argentine Republic, thus preventing it from restoring its territorial integrity.
“The question of the Malvinas is also a cause embraced by Latin America and by vast majority of peoples and governments around the world that reject colonialism.
“In 1960, the United Nations proclaimed the necessity of ‘bringing to an end colonialism in all its forms and manifestations’.
“In 1965, the General Assembly adopted, with no votes against (not even by the United Kingdom), a resolution considered the Malvinas Islands a colonial case and inviting the two countries to negotiate a solution to the sovereignty dispute between them.
“This was followed by many other resolutions to that effect. In the name of the Argentine people, I reiterate our invitation for us to abide by the resolutions of the United Nations.”
The residents of the FALKLAND ISLANDS have reiterated time and time again that they wish to remain part of the United Kingdom. They will get another opportunity this year to tell Argentina what to do with their demand.
Cristina had better be careful if she refuses to honor the wishes of those residents. One day she may wake up and find the following Special Delivery from London:
Sorry, Microsoft.
Tags: Falkland Islands, Malvinas
The economy in Argentina must really be bad if she is bringing this up. A nice shiny object to distract the masses. I was reading about looting in supermarkets in Argentina a few weeks ago. Its gonna get interesting.
@ MikeA:
She could wind up like Mussolini if she screws this up. I wonder if the average Argentinian is actually concerned about the fate of the Falklands? Somehow I doubt it.
Argentina can’t mount much of an invasion, but then, Britain can’t mount much of a defense, either.
Dear Leader has already picked sides on this issue and he’s certainly no fan of the UK. His anit-Brit policies almost guarantee that Argentina will make another play for the Falklands.
@ huckfunn:
The problem is that neither Argentina nor Britain can really project power into that region of the world. The Brit’s aircraft carriers are down until something like 2018, and Argentina doesn’t have any aircraft carriers even planned. The US being against the British, though, could be a telling blow to the Brits. It is going to be a rough four years for the “Special Relationship”. About as rough as it is going to be for the relationship with Israel. Elections have consequences.
@ Mike C.:
well Argentina did sink the HMS Sheffield
@ Iron Fist:
I’m guessing that the Args have figured out that sending large troop transport ships is a bad idea.
mawskrat wrote:
So what. They still lost the war.
mawskrat wrote:
That’s what having an aluminum superstructure will do for you. And the Brits sank the Belgrano.
The Brits do have one aircraft carrier, but they no longer have any planes to fly off of it, just choppers.
@ Da_Beerfreak:
what’s up with the little angry icon?
mawskrat wrote:
It’s one of my favorites.
Other than that, nothing special.
Illinois wants to ban almost all modern firearms:
The Dems are feeling their oats. This i son the heels of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals instructing Illinois to set up a concealed carry law, so it is clear that Illinois intends to simply ignore the Courts on the Second Amendment. That’ll be interesting.
The British always bitch at Israel about occupied territories. Now the Argies are doing it to the Brits. If the Brits do not like to be lectured by the Argies, they should not lecture Israel.
This is a publicity stunt by Kirshner. Argentina has no means of taking the Falklands. This also shows the treachery of the British Left. Someone demands territory from your country and you run the ads in your newspaper? This is treasonous in my opinion.
Mike C. wrote:
It’s like 2 drunks at a bar!
huckfunn wrote:
Yet the British love Obama. Go figure!
@ Iron Fist:
They are concerned about runaway inflation and lack of jobs. This is a publicity stunt aided by the British left.
@ Iron Fist:
Here’s the bill…
Hat tip -- rayra at GCP
OOps -- sorry about rogering the thread.
the Faulklands…Islams 2,932 most holy sight
it realy belongs to the Muslims,just ask em/
mawskrat wrote:
Don’t give them ideas!
@ Iron Fist:
It’s a Lame Duck Session. More proof that all Lame Duck Sessions need to be outlawed. ASAP
@ Mike C.:
I wonder how much chance they have of gettig it through? At any rate, it shows the contempt that the Left has for th eJudiciary branch if they aren’t doin gwhat the Left wants them to. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has ordered them to loosen their gun control laws. So they try to make things even more restrictive. I’d never move to Illinois. Not for half a million dollars a year in salary. What an awful state. They are going broke, too.
@ Iron Fist:
Well, the 7th circuit appeals court decision doesn’t address anything in the proposed bill.
@ Mike C.:
Not directly, but it is difficult to see how the proposed bill can be constitutional. The Democrats don’t care about that. They are goin gto ignore the Second Amendment until the Courts force them not to. I reckon that Chicago still effectively bars civillian gun ownership even after McDonald, so I am notsure how much relief the Court is going to be.
@ Iron Fist:
There’s a separate bill RE magazine capacity, you know.
Actually, this IL bill kind of mirrors the in-place CA laws, so it will probably withstand a court test if it passes.
@ Mike C.:
I don’t think that the Court has ever spoken on California’s rather draconian gun laws. We only have Heller and McDonald on the books. So far they don’t have much in the way of teeth. The Supreme Court is acting very restrained in the area of Second Amendment law, and now that Roberts appears to have turned Left there is no telling what the Court will do. There are a couple of cases working their way through righ tnow on whether the Second Amendment confers the right to carry a gun. The 7th Circuit decision on concealed carry in Illinois is on eof those. It will be interesting to see what the Court does with that. I[d say it’s a five-four decision, but I don’t know which way Roberts will tip.
Iron Fist wrote:
Who was it that said (during the Obamacare debate) that said the Federal Gov’t can do anything it wants? I think it was Pete Stark (Commie, Calif)
eaglesoars wrote:
I’ve said that for decades…it’s true
Mike C. wrote:
I listened to an officer from the UK describe his use of Apaches from a ship. Very interesting. If Argentina wants to go up against that officer and his team with Apaches, they will lose again.
If Boehner gets bumped, Obama is gonna laugh and laugh and laugh and laugh
waldensianspirit wrote:
Obama is laughing as we speak. Thanks to Media-Entertainment Industrial Complex he can kill someone on TV and no one will care.
@ waldensianspirit:
Why do we care?
Why do we keep feeding the left’s ego by reacting to them?
Let’s focus on our agenda for a change.
waldensianspirit wrote:
he should be already…the GOP allowed him to kick their asses
the level of dysfunction is astounding even by my standards…why hasn’t the GOP gone on tv to explain the Sandy bill?…wtf is wrong with these people? it’s like they are scared shitless of the media…why do you suppose that is?…it’s all about perception regarding re-election…they love the office but abhor governing
@ heysoos:
The national Republican Party is just a strawman for the Democrats. We do not have a serious opposition party.
Haw! Time Warner Cable Drops Current TV Upon Sale To Al Jazeera
Via WZ
Christina Kirchner: Obama with tits.
@ heysoos:
This is why Republicans lose.
That’s exactly what they need. A PR firm!
eaglesoars wrote:
here is the entire question and answer. He said, “the federal government can, yes, do most anything in this country.”
New thread.
@ huckfunn:
And why shouldn’t they drop it? They made a deal with one entity to run the channel, and it was always a ratings disaster. Then the ownership changes, so the entity with which they had dealt is gone. Good excuse to drop the turd.
Rodan wrote:
the way the dhimmicrats control everything, the Rs better be careful who they hire. they could end up with an agency with another master altogether -- ie, a double agent deliberately advising them to do things which are even more stupid that boners current strategy.
Alberta Oil Peon wrote:
normally contracts remain intact through ownership changes. or so i thought. kind of like how if you inherit an estate with real property, you can also inherit a mortgage.
@ Kirly:
Good point and I just realized. Most of Madison Ave is Progressive. They better search for a PR firm that has some Conservative or Libertarian leanings.
@ Rodan:
@ unclassifiable:
@ heysoos:
Yep, that’s why I added and extra laugh
@ Iron Fist:
Shit, I’d never move to Обамастан even if they paid me…
ONE!
MILLION!
DOLLARS!