Thursday, December 25, 2008
Let nothing you dismay
Remember, Christ, our Saviour
Was born on Christmas day
To save us all from Satan's power
When we were gone astray" ~ Unknown
It's Christmas, and I feel obligated to once again point out that Jesus is the reason for the season.
My little piece of family here in Virginia celebrates Christmas in all the traditional ways.
We have Christmas lights strewn along the front of the house.
We have little white wire lighted reindeer seemingly feeding on the front lawn.
Two spiral abstract style Christmas trees, brightly lit with multi-colored lights and a plastic star on the tops.
A wreath on the door. With red lights.
A nativity scene positioned beneath a yard flag depicting an angel, illuminated by a spotlight so everyone who passes can see.
Santa Claus rocking back and forth on skis.
Of course, brightly colored Christmas lights decorating an evergreen tree out in front of it all.
Indoors, we have a tree.
Mistletoe and holly.
Angels and gingerbread houses and snowmen and even a toy stuffed dog wearing a Santa Claus hat that sings "Jingle Bell Rock" when you press it's paw.
We will enjoy a sumptuous feast of turkey, ham, and all the trimmings. We will watch Christmas movies on TV, such as "White Christmas", "It's a Wonderful Life", "Miracle on 34th Street", a brief viewing of that infernal 24 hour marathon of "The Christmas story" on TBS, and several versions of Dickens' "A Christmas Carol".
We will listen to a day long marathon of Christmas music, featuring songs about winter, snow, snowmen, sleighs, Santa Claus, red nosed reindeer, but very few about Jesus.
And we will exchange Christmas presents, usually silly but extravagant things we don't need and sometimes don't really want. We will feign surprise or gratefulness or both.
I get philosophical this time of year. If I didn't have a family obligation to participate in all these Christmas distractions, I wouldn't. I think the appropriate way to celebrate would be to focus on the birth of Jesus, even though, as it has been pointed out, Jesus likely wasn't actually born on December twenty-fifth.
I think I'd put up a nativity scene but nothing else. And then, in a spirit of giving, perhaps spend the day volunteering at a homeless shelter or other non-profit beneficial organization.
There's really nothing wrong with all these non-nativity related seasonal distractions. After all, many have their origins in traditional Christmas celebrations.
The name "Santa Claus" is a contraction of the words, "Saint Nicholas" who was a Christian saint, for one example.
So, when you celebrate your Christmas in your own personal unique tradition, try to remember the reason for the season.
You know, it's a tragedy that we even have to remind people.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Not surprisingly, another scandal revolving around Democrat corruption and Barack Obama has surfaced.
Now, Illinois Governor Rod (political opportunist) Blogojevich, has been arrested for attempting to sell the U.S. Senate seat recently vacated by Barack Hussein Obama, otherwise known as "President-elect Obama".
(Aside) I read several Liberally-biased mainstream media news reports about this scandal and not one of them mentioned the Governor's political party (He's a Democrat). Is that surprising?
One other point: The very fact that the Liberally-biased media actually reported this story rather than bury it tells us this is a major scandal that will not go away quickly.
Already, Conservative talk radio hosts are drawing conclusions that Obama is connected, even directly involved, in the Governor's scheme.
They are also implicating Jesse Jackson jr. (or is it the third?), albeit a little more subtly.
While I don't doubt Obama is probably connected to this latest scandal, so far there is no evidence to support that hypothesis.
Up to now, All we know for sure is that both Blogojevich and Obama came up through one of the most corrupt political machines in the country.
We know Obama has some disturbing connections with domestic terrorists, real estate swindlers, America hating, anti-semite, racist preachers, and hordes of other criminals and ne'er-do-wells.
For those reasons alone, it is not at all inconceivable that there may be a definite connection between Obama and Blogojevich. It is inconceivable that all these things were going on right under Obama's nose without his knowledge. And, as Lone Ranger says, "Even if this modern miracle were true, do we want a guy so clueless in charge of keeping this country safe and prosperous?"
I have to admit though, I'm rather annoyed by the Conservative pundits trying so desperately to link Obama with Blogojevich without a shred of evidence, other than catching Obama in a lie about whether he talked to the Governor.
So what if he talked to the Governor? That could mean he merely discussed his thoughts about his Senate replacement with the Governor, or it could mean that together they hatched some nefarious plan to sell the seat and split the profits.
With Obama, nothing remains out of the sphere of possibility.
Of course, Obama made things look worse for himself by denying he even talked with the Governor. Just two weeks prior to the stunning announcement of Blogojevich's arrest, David Axelrod stated, on tape, that Obama had talked to the Governor about his choice to fill the vacated seat.
In my opinion, Hannity, Levin (my personal favorite), and the others only need to wait until some real connection appears, as it likely will. Then, let him have it.
No doubt there will be plenty more scandals with more teeth in them than this before the fiasco of an Obama presidency runs it's course.
There's no need to get ahead of themselves.
Sunday, December 07, 2008
Someone sent this to me by e-mail. It is one of the best versions of the Battle Hymn of the Republic I have ever heard. Apparently, Patriotism is still alive and well in some of America's schools.
Not all the words are sung in this version, so I've pasted the complete lyrics below:
Mine eyes have seen the glory of the coming of the Lord;
He is trampling out the vintage where the grapes of wrath are stored;
He hath loosed the fateful lightning of His terrible swift sword;
His truth is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His truth is marching on.
I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps
They have builded Him an altar in the evening dews and damps;
I can read His righteous sentence by the dim and flaring lamps;
His day is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! His day is marching on.
I have read a fiery Gospel writ in burnished rows of steel;
“As ye deal with My contemners, so with you My grace shall deal”;
Let the Hero, born of woman, crush the serpent with His heel,
Since God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Since God is marching on.
He has sounded forth the trumpet that shall never call retreat;
He is sifting out the hearts of men before His judgment seat;
Oh, be swift, my soul, to answer Him! be jubilant, my feet;
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.
In the beauty of the lilies Christ was born across the sea,
With a glory in His bosom that transfigures you and me:
As He died to make men holy, let us live to make men free;
[originally …let us die to make men free]
While God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! While God is marching on.
He is coming like the glory of the morning on the wave,
He is wisdom to the mighty, He is honor to the brave;
So the world shall be His footstool, and the soul of wrong His slave,
Our God is marching on.
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Glory! Glory! Hallelujah!
Glory! Glory! Hallelujah! Our God is marching on.
It was this spirit that the egregious attack on Pearl Harbor, 67 years ago today, failed to quell, and the same spirit exists today in the breasts of our countrymen.
Remember Pearl Harbor.
Friday, December 05, 2008
"I am old enough to see how little I have done in so much time, and how much I have to do in so little." ~ Sheila Kaye-Smith
"Every man desires to live long, but no man would be old." ~ Jonathan Swift
"Life would be infinitely happier if we could only be born at the age of eighty and gradually approach eighteen." ~ Mark Twain
"Is that a birthday? 'tis, alas! too clear;
'Tis but the funeral of the former year." ~ Alexander Pope
"To get back my youth I would do anything in the world, except take exercise, get up early, or be respectable." ~ Oscar Wilde
"The first forty years of life give us the text; the next thirty supply the commentary on it." ~ Arthur Schopenhauer
"I fear vastly more a futile, incompetent old age than I do any form of death." ~ William Allen White
"A person is always startled when he hears himself seriously called an old man for the first time." ~ Oliver W. Holmes, Sr.
"Whatever poet, orator, or sage may say of it, old age is still old age." ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
"Growing old is mandatory; growing up is optional." ~ Chili Davis
"Age is an issue of mind over matter. If you don't mind, it doesn't matter." ~ Mark Twain
"If I have any beliefs about immortality, it is that certain dogs I have known will go to Heaven, and very, very few persons." ~ James Thurber
"The old dog barks backward without getting up. I can remember when he was a pup." ~ Robert Frost
"The prospect of dying doesn't bother me. It's the gettin' on with it" ~ William E. Maness (my grandfather)
"Everyone has senior moments. What scares me is when senior moments stretch into senior hours." ~ Me
In case you're wondering--I'm 57.
Sunday, November 30, 2008
When I was about twenty years old, after saving up what I considered enough money to strike out on my own, I told my parents I was at last leaving home. My mother told me I could leave as long as I understood I couldn't come back. She didn't mean I could never come back to visit. She only meant that I couldn't move back in. My departure was to be permanent.
And so it was. Except for one evening under an extreme circumstance I never moved back home.
I found a small one-bedroom apartment that rented for $115.00 a month (not including utilities, which turned out to be an expense to being on my own I hadn't previously considered), and moved in.
As was predictable, soon after, I was pleading with my parents to help me out of a financial predicament. I promised, "Just this once", and "I will pay you back", and "Just till I get back on my feet". The usual pleas from a prodigal son who's bit off more than he can chew.
All this because of my irresponsibility and ignorance about how to manage my finances responsibly.
Before I learned personal responsibility.
And it wasn't the only time I desperately asked my parents for help. I returned to the well many more times in the next several years.
It's called a bail-out, and it illustrates perfectly the current situation here in America. We're in the same predicament, but on a much larger scale.
Large corporations have made poor financial decisions, and put themselves in difficult financial positions, and, like an irresponsible child, have come to beg for financial assistance from their daddy government.
This will not end with one bail-out. They will continue to return to the well every time their irresponsibility lands them in financial straits.
The only difference between this government bail-out and my personal situation, is we (as in all) Americans are footing the bill.
I am not an economist, but the way I see it, we have lit the fuse on a barrel of gunpowder which will eventually blow up and plunge America into a depression not seen since the great depression of the 1930's. Possibly worse.
These bail-outs are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg.
We've now bailed out Fannie Mae, and Freddie Mac. We've bailed out AIG, and others. And now, other corporations are running to the well carrying empty buckets. The latest are the "Big Three" auto makers. If the automakers get the twenty-five billion in aid they are clamoring for, they will be back for more, after they've squandered the money we give them.
And squander it they will, mark my words. See, free money encourages irresponsibility.
Look at AIG, for example. As soon as the government bailed them out, the corporate officers blew millions of dollars on extravagant vacations.
Once the keg has been tapped, the drinker returns again and again until the keg is dry.
As long as we continue to finance irresponsibility and encourage wastefulness, corporations will continue to take advantage of us, and while they get wealthier, the rest of us will continue to bear the burden.
I cry out for common sense and logic from our lawmakers but my pleas fall on deaf ears.
I can only hope others take up the cause and call on our legislators to stop the bleeding before we all bleed to death.
Thursday, November 27, 2008
Saturday, November 22, 2008
"Jonestown ended in mass suicide, but the real horror was that ordinary people, Americans like you and I, had become so decoupled from reality and morality that they could be led to surrender everything, even their lives, intoxicated only with the venom of modern Leftism. These were Orwell's Children."
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
The reason I began this blog in the first place is news stories like this one. The original intent was to write opinions on news stories that left me thinking, "What the ...?"
This one is such a story.
The resident didn't talk to the intruder? He didn't question him? He didn't attempt to get him out of his house? I suppose it's possible he didn't do any of these things, but.... why not? I found an intruder in my house back in Kansas City once, and I grabbed him and slammed him against the wall, and demanded to know what he was doing in my house. And he was bigger and stronger than me, too.
The deputy got warrants? Why? Isn't the fact that a man has illegally entered another man's house enough of a reason to arrest him without the need for a warrant? Plural warrants?
There is no indication given for what reason the intruder might have entered the home, but it was very cold here yesterday. Maybe he was just trying to warm up. Or maybe he, like me, wanted to make sure he didn't miss the 3:00PM showing of "Monk".
I'll bet the next time I hear anything about this will be the day the intruder is indicted.
And, I bet they still won't explain.
Monday, November 17, 2008
President-elect Barack Hussein Obama, has stated his belief that the United States Constitution is "fundamentally flawed". Obviously, now that he has been elected President of the United States he is the unique position of being capable of using his power to correct whatever perceived flaws he sees in America's founding document.
I realize that without the backing of the legislature, he can do nothing more than make firm suggestions, but nevertheless, he is in a much better position to get something done than before the election.
Since Obama didn't elaborate on what parts of the Constitution he considers flawed, I decided to do a little research into what Obama believes, or appears to believe, that might provide us with some insight into what in the Constitution he might change, when and if given the opportunity.
I started with the first amendment. Subsequently, I will research further.
The first prevailing concern of the founding fathers was religious freedom. At the time the Constitution was penned, King George III of England was the head of the Church of England, and as head, had strongly urged all citizens of England, including those upstarts across the big pond, to worship exclusively within the Church of England. Those who refused were often persecuted in various degrees. The pilgrims made the perilous journey across the Atlantic in 1620 to escape religious persecution.
For this reason, the Framers of the Constitution considered it of utmost importance that the citizens of the new Republic be allowed to worship God, or not worship God as they choose. For this reason, the first amendment's first words are, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The idea was not to keep religion out of Government, but rather, to keep Government from establishing a National Church, such as the Governmental led Church of England.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote to Samuel Miller in 1808, "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."
I wanted to find out what newly elected President Obama might do to this first statement of the first amendment, the freedom of religion, so I googled "Obama's Christian faith" to see if there was any "Christianity" in Obama's stated faith.
Throughout Obama's campaign, I did not notice any reference to his own personal faith, except for the oft played "gaffe" when he accidentally said, "my Muslim faith" instead of "my Christian faith", in that now famous interview with George Stephanopolis. I will concede that he was responding to charges that he might be a Muslim, and not a Freudian slip, as I had inferred in previous posts. Beyond that, as far as I knew, Obama rarely did more than confirm that he is a Christian, without elaboration.
I found articles by Christianity Today, The Christian Science Monitor, Newsweek, The Chicago Sun-Times, and other, not so well known publications. All conclude that Obama is at least a professing Christian, if not so much a practicing Christian by my fundamentalist standards. I will concede also, for the record, that Obama is at least, as much a Christian as many of the self-professing Christians in America today.
I found that Obama is actually very vocal about his faith, but speaks of it in very antiseptic, almost secular terms, as if he fears he might be labeled a fundamentalist.
As if that would be unthinkable.
As if that would be a bad thing.
It is an unconvincing argument in light of what I consider his decidedly non-Christian world view. But I will not declare him to be heretic. That kind of judgment belongs to God alone. I cannot nor will not judge his heart. All I can judge him on is his actions and statements.
My conclusion, from reading the different articles, is that Obama will not significantly alter the first statement of the First amendment. He apparently believes, as I do, that Christians should not be compelled to leave their faith at the door when entering a government building, and he doesn't advocate restricting the practice of religion as each of us see fit.
In short, Obama does not appear to have an agenda of denying us any part of our freedom of religion.
However, I did find an interesting article on Obama's church and the peculiar brand of theology it embraces, Black Liberation Theology. In it, the author concludes that Obama's Christianity stems from Black Liberation Theology teaching, and is indeed, predicated on his understanding of that doctrine.
"Trinity United Church of Christ" , The author writes, "Obama's home church for 20 years, subscribes to and promotes the doctrine of 'Liberation Theology.' Exactly what is Liberation Theology?
Simply put, Liberation Theology is an attempt to interpret Scripture through the plight of the poor. It is largely a humanistic doctrine. It started in South America in the turbulent 1950s when Marxism was making great gains among the poor because of its emphasis on the redistribution of wealth, allowing poor peasants to share in the wealth of the colonial elite and thus upgrade their economic status in life. As a theology, it has very strong Roman Catholic roots.
Liberation Theology was bolstered in 1968 at the Second Latin American Bishops Conference which met in Medellin, Colombia. The idea was to study the Bible and to fight for social justice in Christian (Catholic) communities. Since the only governmental model for the redistribution of the wealth in a South American country was a Marxist model, the redistribution of wealth to raise the economic standards of the poor in South America took on a definite Marxist flavor. Since those who had money were very reluctant to part with it in any wealth redistribution model, the use of a populist (read poor) revolt was encouraged by those who worked most closely with the poor. As a result, the Liberation Theology model was mired in Marxist dogma and revolutionary causes.
The brand of Liberation Theology promoted by Trinity United Church of Christ is a blend of typical Marxist Liberation Theology combined with a highly charged racial component. This is called 'Black Liberation Theology.'
Obama initially defended his relationship with Rev. Wright, but then later had to distance himself from him after much media pressure. Yet he's never distanced himself from the Marxist Liberation Theology upon which Trinity United Church of Christ is built.
Let's face it, anyone who subscribes to the basic idea of Liberation Theology is a Marxist - at least in principle. There can be no doubt about it, since the doctrine is the epitome of Marxist theory. The real question here is this. Does Barack Obama subscribe to the Marxist Black Liberation Theology upon which 'Trinity United Church of Christ' is built?"
And now, we have come full circle. And with this article, my charge that Obama is a Marxist seems to be justified, as it is not out of line with Black Liberation Theology, as if any brand of Christianity can be compatible with Atheistic Marxism.
It certainly would explain a lot about Obama's political ideology.
But that isn't the point. I just thought it was interesting, and certainly explains how Obama's apparent adherence to Marxists teachings and his Christian faith are interconnected.
While Obama may monkey with the Constitution, and even the First amendment, I am fairly confident he will keep his hands off the establishment clause for now.
And I'm glad of that. Perverting the establishment clause would be the first big step to complete totalitarianism.
Friday, November 14, 2008
I snagged this from Ms Green's blog.
Obama Win Causes Obsessive Supporters To Realize How Empty Their Lives Are
Thursday, November 13, 2008
About 31 or so years since the last time, I once again have the flu. I am so healthy normally that anytime I get the least bit sick, I feel like I'm dying. So it is with this bout. If I stop blogging, it could be that I'm dead. I'm kidding, but I really feel horrible.
Right now, the way I'm feeling, death would be a relief.
Anyway, besides that, I am feeling rather proud of myself. I am not a mechanic, nor could I ever be mistaken for one. But I am proud to say I actually made a successful diagnosis of my car problem the other day.
Do you see this?
That little black flat rectangular thing attached to that hose is what's called a Mass Air Flow sensor (MAF). It is situated on the hose that links the air filter with the air intake. The MAF is supposed to sense and monitor the amount of air flowing between the air filter and the manifold. It is electronic. If it fails, or simply reads the air flow wrong, it causes major problems with the car.
In my case, the car runs but it runs badly. It chokes and sputters and stalls when the car is stopped. As long as I'm moving, the car runs fine. But whenever I stop the car at a red light or a stop sign, it has a tendency to stall. Although, if I put it in neutral while stopped it idles a little higher and lessens the chance for stalling. If it stalls anyway, it starts right up again.
I thought, because I really don't know much about cars, that it was a bad fuel filter, particularly after I took the car to AutoZone, and had them run a computer diagnosis on it. They will do that for free. That must be a little known secret because auto shops in the area here charge up to $100.00 for a computer diagnosis.
The computer said the the EGR valve (one of many Emissions control devices which bleeding heart liberal sob sisters pressured the automakers to start installing under the pretence of saving the Earth) was bad and the fuel/air mix was lean. That would mean the fuel injectors weren't getting enough fuel, or more air than fuel. That would logically explain the way it was acting.
So, I bought a fuel filter, which should have been easy to replace, but due to my clogging arteries, every time I attempted to get under the car to change it, I would get dizzy and light headed. So, I took it to my local mechanic and asked him if he could install it for me. He said he would do it for $59.00 but "It's not the fuel filter". Then he said he would run tests on the car for $80.00, but I turned him down.
Not only could I not afford eighty dollars just to find out what was wrong, but if he fixed the problem I knew it would cost much more. They are great guys there and are excellent mechanics but the last time I had him do a tune-up, it cost me over $600.00.
So, I returned the fuel filter and spent about $30.00 on a EGR sensor (Valve?) and installed it. It took two days due to the fact that it was difficult to get at, and because I was trying to turn the nut in the wrong direction. (it only took me two days and a broken socket wrench to figure that out) A mechanically-minded friend managed to get it off for me. From there, it was relatively simple to install the new one. Then I started and ran the car to see if that did the trick.
So, I took the car back to AutoZone and ran the computer test again. This time it indicated there was another problem with the air fuel mix, and said "Suspect bad MAF". I asked how much a new MAF sensor was, and was told it costs $121.00.
So, MAF-less, I went back home and started poking around that part of the engine with a screw driver. I took off both ends of the hose that the MAF is on and ran the engine with the hose (and MAF) disconnected. It ran perfect without the MAF sensor! That told me the MAF was definitely the problem.
After researching the internet to find out more about the MAF, (I was actually trying to find someplace that would tell me it's ok to drive without the MAF connected, which I didn't learn) I found I could clean the MAF, and that might actually solve the problem. That would save me a bundle!
Cost for a can of MAF cleaner? $6.49.
Ok, now we're cooking!
But then, it occurred to me that maybe I didn't previously run the car without the MAF long enough, as I had started it at the time, cold, and the car really doesn't start acting up until it has warmed up. So, after driving to AutoZone, the tool store, and Sears in a vain search for a screwdriver bit, I returned home and let the car run while I removed the air intake hose with MAF attached. While I was loosening the screws that hold the hose on, the car died. I finished taking the hose off and then re-started the car. It ran perfect again, and this time, I let it run for about 20 minutes to see if it would die.
It didn't. Then, I was absolutely sure the MAF is the problem.
One small problem however: The MAF is held on by two tiny screws with a star shaped hole in the heads, unlike any screw I had ever seen before. The can of MAF cleaner directions said the removal of them would take a "T20 Torx* security bit". That is a screwdriver bit, made specifically for removal of MAF screws in Fords.
Naturally AutoZone doesn't stock T20 Torx security bits, but they referred me to a tool store down the block, and said they would have one.
They did, but it was one bit in a huge tool kit with about a hundred various types and sizes of screwdriver bits. Cost: $10.00. But I have absolutely no use for all those other bits. I didn't want to spend $10.00 for a fifty-nine cent part, besides, I have only $10.00 until a week from Friday.
I need a bare minimum $16.49 plus tax.
So, the actual repair will have wait a while.
I said all that to say this: I correctly diagnosed the problem using logic and common sense. I am very proud of myself. And I'm not even a mechanic!
But I am sick.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
I found this at Poison Pero's blog, The Right is Right. It says what I want to say much more eloquently than I could:
WHAT IS A VET?
By: Father Dennis Edward O'Brien, Lt. Col., USMC
Originally Posted @ http://mrmom.amaonline.com/special/whatisavet.htm
Some veterans bear visible signs of their service: a missing limb, a jagged scar, a certain look in the eye. Others may carry the evidence inside them: a pin holding a bone together, a piece of shrapnel in the leg - or perhaps another sort of inner steel: the soul's ally forged in the refinery of adversity. Except in parades, however, the men and women who have kept America safe wear no badge or emblem. You can't tell a vet just by looking.
What is a vet?
He is the cop on the beat who spent six months in Saudi Arabia sweating two gallons a day making sure the armored personnel carriers didn't run out of fuel.
He is the barroom loudmouth, dumber than five wooden planks, whose overgrown frat-boy behavior is outweighed a hundred times in the cosmic scales by four hours of exquisite bravery near the 38th parallel.
She or he - is the nurse who fought against futility and went to sleep sobbing every night for two solid years in Da Nang.
He is the POW who went away one person and came back another—or didn't come back AT ALL.
He is the Quantico drill instructor who has never seen combat - but has saved countless lives by turning slouchy, no-account rednecks and gang members into Marines, and teaching them to watch each other's backs.
He is the parade - riding Legionnaire who pins on his ribbons and medals with a prosthetic hand.
He is the career quartermaster who watches the ribbons and medals pass him by.
He is the three anonymous heroes in The Tomb Of The Unknowns, whose presence at the Arlington National Cemetery must forever preserve the memory of all the anonymous heroes whose valor dies unrecognized with them on the battlefield or in the ocean's sunless deep.
He is the old guy bagging groceries at the supermarket - palsied now and aggravatingly slow - who helped liberate a Nazi death camp and who wishes all day long that his wife were still alive to hold him when the nightmares come.
He is an ordinary and yet an extraordinary human being - a person who offered some of his life's most vital years in the service of his country, and who sacrificed his ambitions so others would not have to sacrifice theirs.
He is a soldier and a savior and a sword against the darkness, and he is nothing more than the finest, greatest testimony on behalf of the finest, greatest nation ever known.
So remember, each time you see someone who has served our country, just lean over and say Thank You. That's all most people need, and in most cases it will mean more than any medals they could have been awarded or were awarded.
Two little words that mean a lot, "THANK YOU."
Monday, November 10, 2008
I lift up my voice and to heaven, I cry:
'Lord, I am trusting. Give guidance to me,
And steady my boat on life's troubled sea.'
Then gently I'm feeling the touch of his hand,
Guiding my boat in safely to land.
Leading the way to heaven's bright shore,
Where troublesome waters I'm fearing no more." ~ Iris Dement
Here is a photo I took with my fairly cheap Kodak Easy Share digital camera:
In case you can't tell, the untroubled lake creates a mirror image of the trees above it on shore. My wife says it is the best of all the photos I took on this particular memory card. I'm not so sure. Here are some others. I'm thinking of making one of these photos the wallpaper on my desktop, but I haven't yet made up my mind which one. What do you think?
This photo, and the one below it were taken at a different location. The one on top is kind of spoiled by the prescence of houses in the background. I've always been kind of a purist when it comes to landscapes. I don't like people, or anything man-made in them, but without trekking through acres of weeds and underbrush, it's hard to find places unspoiled by civilization. I prefer to take pictures of interesting sights I see as I drive.
I like the one below better, but the reflection of the sun was a little too bright.
So, which photo do you think would make the best wallpaper?
By the way, I have been invited to be part of a brand new team blog called American Descent, although I have no idea why. I was flattered to be asked, anyway. I have put a link to it on my sidebar with a fancy shmancy thing-a-ma-jig. (it's the thing-a-ma-jig at the top of my sidebar) In the upcoming days, I will be editing my blogroll. It is getting too long, and there are some blogs on it that I rarely visit anymore, and some that rarely visit mine, if at all. Those will go. The new and favorite ones will, of course, stay.
Friday, November 07, 2008
One of the positives of Tuesdays elections was the California initiative in which voters reversed the District Court's ruling on Gay marriage. The measure was voted down by a majority of California voters, proving that California hasn't yet gone completely insane. They have voted against allowing same sex couples to marry.
As was expected, the pro-gay lobby in California is filing lawsuits.
Hand-in-hand with that ruling was the less publicized vote in Arkansas where voters passed Initiative Act 1 with 57% of the vote. The measure bans unmarried couples in that state from adopting or foster parenting.
Opponents of this initiative charged that it is a veiled attempt to prevent same sex couples from adopting children.
It probably is, at least in the minds of the majority of those who voted.
Personally, while I think it's disgusting that same sexes would even want to marry, I nevertheless believe they have the right to do so if they want.
It is still a free country, at least until after January 20th.
On the other hand, it can be argued that allowing same sex marriages could lead down the proverbial slippery slope towards all kinds of deviations, including lawful polygamy, bestiality, and pedophilia.
There are merits to both arguments.
However, I am firmly resolved that homosexual unions should not be allowed to adopt children.
Allowing same sex couples to adopt children is child abuse.
In spite of the gay lobby's protestations to the contrary, there is no way children would not be adversely affected by this kind of relationship.
First, it is obvious that a child growing up in a home with two same sex parents would be indoctrinated into accepting the gay lifestyle as normal and natural, leading to confusion of the child's own sexual identity. Despite any unlikely efforts on the part of homosexual parents to raise their children to be heterosexual (as if they would), a child living in a home with same sex parents would grow up with the belief that homosexuality is normal, rather than the perversion we know it to be. That can't be avoided.
If a child is brought up by a father who routinely beats his wife, the child almost always grows up to be a spouse abuser himself. This is not a mere hypotheses. It is a psychological fact. It is also a fact that not all children of abusers grow up to be abusers also. But the fact that some children of fathers that abuse their spouses don't grow up to be abusers themselves is not an excuse to continue to allow spousal abuse to happen. Or to continue to allow children to be exposed to the crime.
The same would be true of children of same sex parents. I have no doubt that some, upon reaching adulthood, might choose to be heterosexual, however, it doesn't alter the fact that raising a child in such a perverse environment could have many detrimental consequences, including an intense sexual identity confusion.
In a home where a child is subjected to abnormal lifestyles such as a mother who is a prostitute, parents who are drug addicts, or either parent is psychological defective, etc, Social Services are called in and the child removed from the home to prevent any further possible psychological damage to the child.
Why would this be different in the case of homosexual parents?
Second, is there any doubt that some same sex parents would sexually abuse their children? Particularly those who adopted the children? I have no doubt that there are indeed some homosexuals whose sole purpose in adopting children is to have their own personal sex toy that they can abuse at will.
How much more convenient to a pedophile is that?
In their efforts to stop war and the Republicans, Liberal Democrats often use the line, "If it saves just one life, it will be worth it." Using the same logic, is not one child escaping the horrors of child abuse worth preventing same sex couples from adopting?
Liberals continually plead for bigger government using the argument that it is "for the children", yet they scream discrimination when it comes to homosexual adoption.
Where is the concern for the welfare of children in this case?
Wednesday, November 05, 2008
By this time we now know Barack Hussein Obama has been elected President of the United States of America. I haven't quite sorted out my thoughts on this yet, but suffice it to say for now, I am disappointed in the gullibility of the American people. I really thought the majority of this country was smarter than this.
I guess I was wrong.
How anyone could have fallen for this untested neophyte's lies is beyond my comprehension.
I will share one thought:
We can only hope that President-elect Obama's administration is as effective as the Democratically controlled Congress and Senator Obama has been in the last two years. The absolute best that we can hope for now is that the Democrats continue to be a do-nothing political party. Then, although America will not have improved, at least it won't have gotten much worse.
More on this when I have collected my thoughts.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
I can't let this go. This election is too important. Lone Ranger asks how much damage can one man do it two years?
I don't want to find out.
If Obama has the added benefit of a filibuster proof Congress, who knows what damage he is capable of in two years?
This morning I sent Poison Pero's (From the Right is Right blog) "15 reasons to vote for McCain" to my mother, my 5 siblings, and my kids who have e-mail.
I believe all but one are Democrats. I know I risk creating hard feelings with my family, but I feel this election is too important not to take the risk.
To my Conservative friends: If you haven't yet, please take the time to e-mail all your family members and friends and tell them to vote for McCain, or at least, against Obama on Tuesday.
To my Liberal friends: They moved election day back one day. Election day is Wednesday, November 5th, this year.
Update: My brother, who is a minister, sent a couple of e-mails to me regarding the election. I posted them, since they are semi-religious, on my other blog, God's Way/My Way.
Wednesday, October 29, 2008
As I promised in my previous post, here is a brief history of Communism, and it‘s negative effect on the citizenry who have had to live under it’s oppression. It is vital to understand how dangerous it would be to allow any form of Marxism to attain a foothold in The United States of America.
Let us be clear here, lest some take exception to my characterization of the Soviet Union’s governmental system as Communism. Communism, Socialism, and Marxism are varying extremes of the same concept.
A rose, by any other name…
If you know of anyone who needs to be educated about this evil, please share this post with them. Edit it accordingly if you feel the need.
In 1848, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels published “The Communist Manifesto”, a book which has since become more or less the Socialist’s Bible. In it, Marx and Engels envisioned a society which would be, for all intents and purposes, truly equal.
This profoundly idealistic system of government is best encapsulated in the famous quotation by Marx, "From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
The society which Marx and Engels advocated proposed to eliminate the “divide” between the bourgeois and the proletariat, that is, the ruling class and the labor class. According to the Manifesto, capitalism creates classes among the citizens, and leads to the oppression and exploitation of the lower classes.
Communism, and socialism in general, is designed to cultivate a classless society in which everyone is truly equal, and such social problems as racism, sexism and oppression are eliminated.
The core belief of Socialism hinges upon the idea that no man should be independent, but instead part of a “cooperative” group that wholly depends upon each other to accomplish the goals of the “Collective“.
Let me add here, also, that God has no place in Marx’s concept of Communism. Communism is a necessarily atheistic system.
It is a noble idea, and, were it possible, would be a Utopian form of Government. A Government in which all citizens would have equal opportunity to become self sufficient. However, as was soon discovered, the Utopia of Socialism proved to be, and always will be, virtually impossible. Indeed, it was self sufficiency itself that was most problematic to this Utopian ideology.
In 1917, Vladimir I. Lenin took the basic principles of the Communist Manifesto, and bastardized them, creating through force, a Socialist government in Russia.
This emergence of Communism, as a “legitimate” government, was accomplished during what is known as the Bolshevik Revolution, in which Lenin led a revolution against the czar, Queen Alexandra, catching the monarchy off guard during World War One. After three years of struggle, Lenin finally took control.
The revolution itself costs thousands of lives, but the following years proved to be much more deadly to Russia’s citizens.
During the ensuing years, an increasingly paranoid Lenin instigated what is known as “The Purge”, in which thousands of Russian citizens were rounded up and placed in gulags (also known as “re-education camps“) in Siberia, where they were tortured, sometimes for decades and often resulting in a painful and prolonged death. Others were lucky by comparison. They were simply executed, often times without the formality of a trial, or even any evidence of wrong doing. People were routinely executed and tortured for very minor offenses.
Naturally, what misgivings the Russian people may have had about this new system of government were effectively squelched. It became life threatening to complain about the government’s policies.
In all, it has been estimated that Lenin and his successor, Josef Stalin, exterminated 20 million or more Russian citizens, often for the crime of merely thinking negative thoughts about the ruling Politburo, which was by that time, a devastatingly repressive dictatorship.
The Communist government was characterized by repression, oppression, and depression, both economic and physical.
In the schools, students were indoctrinated into the Socialist theory of Government, and were instructed not to doubt the party’s stated intentions. Eventually, any student that departed from the party line could have been punished, often by torture or death, depending on the severity of the perceived offense.
In an effort to eliminate any possible dissent, citizens were encouraged to report any suspicious talk or activity by their neighbors and friends to the police, and were rewarded if they did, and often punished if there were any suspicions by the Government police that they knew about said offense but failed to report them.
Newspapers were expressly forbidden to write about anything without approval of the state, under penalty of law. Citizens were forbidden to listen to radio and television programs that originated outside the Soviet union, and if discovered, were subject to be sentenced to abnormally long prison sentences.
National Elections did not offer a choice of candidates. The only choice citizens had was between yes, do you affirm this candidate or no, you don’t. Ballots were open so election officials knew how one voted. Voting was potentially dangerous.
Children were trained for whatever occupation the ruling party deemed appropriate, regardless of the child’s aptitude or desire. For instance, a child may be blessed with a talent for art, but if the party decided the child should be a bricklayer, the child’s aspiration to art would be squelched in favor of creating a career as a productive bricklayer.
Citizens were told what to do, what not to do, how much they were allowed to earn, where they could or could not go, and in many cases, with whom they could associate. And they were threatened with punishment if they failed to comply.
Every aspect of life in Communist Russia was intensely monitored and scrutinized. One could not trust friends, neighbors, or even family to keep secret anything expressly forbidden by the Communist party.
No one was allowed to own property. No one was allowed to have more money than his neighbors. Anyone who was found to be hoarding any money, food, or goods not approved by the state had their money or property confiscated, and were often imprisoned.
The people of Russia soon became ensconced in poverty, mostly because the Government leaders took more money from them through excessive taxation than they could afford to part with, and used the ill gotten gains to lead exceedingly extravagant lifestyles. Each person, whether educated or not, skilled or not, lived on a limited income. All people earned the same amount of income regardless of their abilities. And this income was not adequate to live comfortably. Meanwhile, the Russian leaders lived sumptuously off the labor of the ordinary citizens.
Karl Marx's concept of equality was ignored by those in power.
This resulted in a lack of incentive and an apathetic attitude towards industriousness.
And a pervading feeling of hopelessness.
In short, freedoms were limited to the point of absurdity in the interest of maintaining order.
Other repressive Socialist systems of government, some better, some worse, still exist in some countries in the world, such as China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cuba, and Venezuela. Like the USSR, all have failed to create a successful working model of Marx’s idealistic vision of Utopia.
In China there is currently mandatory abortion. That's not choice.
None can duplicate, or even come close to the freedoms we enjoy as free Americans.
There are several schools of thought on the eventual cause of the failure of Socialism to live up to the ideals proposed by Karl Marx, but in the end, I would have to say that the root cause of Socialism’s failure is the fact that people are simply not wired to be equal. It is unfortunate, but true. While some people are ambitious, others are complacent. While some are hard working, others are lazy. Some people are content with things as they are, while others are continually striving for bigger and better opportunities.
All men are created equal, but no man can be coerced into equality. It is not the government’s right to dictate the dispersal of wealth to the people. Nor is it their right to deny basic human rights to any individual based on class distinctions and level of wealth.
Man has the inherent right to be what he can be, and no entity, regardless of intent, may usurp that right.
And yet, this type of Government is exactly the type of government Barack Hussein Obama has in mind for the people of the United States of America. The words and phrases he himself has used in his speeches and interviews are damning evidence of his true vision for an American utopia.
Words such as “redistribution” and “middle class” and phrases such as “Spreading the wealth” and “social and economic justice” are indicative of the kind of language employed by what I call “closeted Socialists“.
Those are Obama’s words.
He may win the election for President, and if he has the benefit of a filibuster-proof Democratic majority in Congress, many of the freedoms we now take for granted may be suppressed. He desires control, above everything else. He places utmost importance on personal power, rather than the power of a free society. Indeed, a free society is in direct juxtaposition to Obama‘s aspirations.
He wants you to be subservient to the state. The state, according to the typical Marxist, is to be your God.
Mr. Obama may try to control our people, but he cannot control our minds. He may break our backs, but he will never break our spirit.
Regardless, whatever transpires in the coming Presidential election, one positive remains:
Americans will rise to the occasion. Despite being bruised, battered, and bloody, tyranny shall be defeated, and this nation, under God, will emerge victorious.
Tuesday, October 28, 2008
It is imperative that we Conservatives get this audio out to all those who still fail to understand the implications of living in a Socialist State. The future of our country, our liberty, and the American way of life is at stake.
In a future post, when I have time, I will address the history of Marxism, Communism, and Socialism, and attempt to explain why they are extremely dangerous to the concepts of liberty and freedom. Those old enough to remember apparently don't remember, and those too young to remember haven't been educated.
We must get the word out.
Obama must be stopped!
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
Today's quotation (above) isn't just the quotation. Today it's the post. Read the quotation by Joe(Plugs)Biden, and analyze.
First, try to explain it if you can. Then explain why he made the statement.
Here's my take: He is telling Obama supporters they should be prepared for a huge disappointment. He is admitting a President Obama will have a low approval rating, and will make stupid decisions.
Because he knows Obama is a disaster waiting to happen, and he is warning them.
Now, it's your turn to analyze Plugs' quote. You Liberals can play, too. It's a free country. For now.
But I warn you. Don't comment just to argue, or I will reject your comment. I ask you to analyze and explain only. If you ask a question, I may answer your question, but that isn't an invitation for you to start an argument. It is simply my answer. You are free to present your opinion providing it does not include profanity, but don't attempt to argue. This will be my new comment policy.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
The upcoming Presidential election on November fourth is not about whether one candidate is more experienced than the other. It isn’t about whether Obama is a Marxist, or Socialist, or whatever. It isn’t about whether McCain is too old, or whether Sarah Plain is unqualified.
It isn’t about their associations, friends, relatives, or past scandals.
This election is about security.
Not just the security needed to protect our physical selves against harm from outside terrorists and various domestic threats to our personal security, but about financial and economic security as well.
First, let’s discuss financial security.
People are worried about their financial security. My own personal business is suffering due to the impact of the collapse of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae. People with 401k’s are losing money. Banks are closing. All kinds of businesses are going bankrupt all over the country.
Democratic and Republican candidates alike are appealing to their constituencies to use their votes to turn this crisis around.
Both candidates say they know how to “fix it.”
While I am not entirely convinced McCain knows how to fix this mess, I am positive Obama doesn't.
Obama’s plan to get us out of this mess in to increase taxes, spend trillions more on social programs, and distribute handouts to people who don’t pay taxes in the first place.
By the way, that’s called “Welfare”.
If one believes we are in a financial crisis, (and, for the record, I believe we are) Obama’s plan seems to defy logic. How do we relieve the burden on the taxpayers by taxing them more? How do we limit spending by spending more? How do we decrease Government spending by sending checks to over one third of the ninety-five per cent of the populace Obama has referenced?
Where does Mr. Obama intend to get all that extra money?
That leads me to my next point:
How does Mr. Obama intend to defend this country against threats to our security?
Obama is on record saying he will cut defense spending, and reduce our nuclear arms stockpile, and call on other world leaders to do the same.
Undoubtedly, this plan would work in Fantasy Land, but other world leaders are not necessarily as committed to world peace as the United States of America. In fact, some are committed to the destruction of the United States.
One would think a President would understand this concept.
Obama has said he will sit down with leaders of terrorist nations and other countries that don't like us without pre-conditions and talk to them. Maybe he will talk them out of attacking us anymore?
Maybe “That one” can do that, but “This one” can't.
Then, he has gone on record saying he will seek an end to the war in Iraq, and discussed a timeline in which we can “draw down” the number of troops currently fighting overseas.
I personally don't know that he has supported the repeal of the Patriot act, but, being the most liberal Senator in the Senate, I have no doubt that is his position.
How will withdrawing troops before the mission is completed and Iraq stabilized improve the security of the United States?
He also says he will cut defense spending. We are at war. How will cutting spending help us end the war without surrendering? How can we effectively fight and win that war, or any other, by limiting the amount of money spent on defense? How can we be expected to defend ourselves against enemies, both foreign and domestic, who are bent on our destruction?
If, as President, he works to successfully repeal the Patriot act, how are we to discover and prevent future terrorist’s attacks against our nation?
We know he has promised to finance myriad social programs to the tune of billions, even trillions of taxpayer funded dollars, and we know he has promised to cut spending on Defense. We know he is promising to cut taxes on 95% of all working class Americans, which would have to include a tax break for those who don't pay taxes, which is really a government hand-out program.
He wants to cut taxes and increase spending at the same time. One wonders what kind of magic wand he will need.
And we ask, "Where will he get the money to accomplish these tasks"?
Naturally, he will take the money away from our Defense department, and apply it to his tax breaks and social programs, and there would appear to be enough money to go around.
But that comes at the risk of compromising America’s security. Many of us can use a few extra dollars, but that is a temporary fix at best. What happens when that money runs out and America is left with less money with which to defend herself?
If Obama as President manages to do what he says he will do, America will be more insecure than at any time in our history.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
These are the kinds of people organizations such as ACORN are registering to vote:
Here's an idea!
Since Obama's supporters believe absolutely everything he says, let's spread the word that Obama says election day is Wednesday, November 5th.
Sorry folks, because of an annoying Liberal troll, who visits here just because he wants to argue, I have been forced to re-enable comment moderation. It isn't just his long, incomprehensible and illogical off-topic rants, but some of my preferred readers don't visit here to argue, and he drives them away. If your comment doesn't appear for several hours, thank Feodor.
Friday, October 17, 2008
"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody" ~ Barack Hussein Obama
Once again, the Obama apologists in the media have released the hounds.
After some time spent overturning every stone, searching every closet, and poking under every bed in a vain attempt to find dirt on Ms. Sarah Palin, Republican Governor and candidate for Vice President, the thundering hordes of mass media have now set their sights upon a previously unknown and unassuming Mr. Average Working man, also known as "Joe the Plumber". For what vile seditious crime is Joe the Plumber guilty?
He asked a question.
From the many newspapers breaking this earth shattering news story across this great nation, The New York Slimes has this feature, entitled "Joe in the Spotlight".
This innocuous appearing headline belies the hatchet job that follows, which reads, in part:
Turns out that “Joe the Plumber,” as he became nationally known when Senator John McCain made him a theme at Wednesday night’s third and final presidential debate, may run a plumbing business but he is not a licensed plumber. His full name is Samuel J. Wurzelbacher. And he owes a bit in back taxes.
Interestingly enough, I have seen parts of this exact paragraph posted in the comments of several Conservative blogs (posted by Liberal blog cruisers) with the theme, "The real winner of the debate was Joe the Plumber". I suppose Liberals feel they don't have the intelligence or expertise to form their own opinions, so they rip off the Slimes, which, as it happens, is probably the most leftist publication this side of Cuba.
But I digress.
Now, I don't have any reason whatsoever to doubt the veracity of these charges against Mr. Wurzelbacher. Nor do I do rule out the possibility that some idiot, somewhere, at one of John McCain's many campaign rallies, may have shouted the phrase, "Kill him".
The fact is, neither of those two so-called "news worthy" events negatively reflect on the character or capabilities of the candidates themselves.
But, the suspect credentials of Joe the Plumber are irrelevant to the true issue.
Joe the Plumber, in reality, may be unlicensed, and delinquent on his taxes, and he may even be an ax murderer. He may be a welfare recipient, or a disgustingly filthy rich Corporate magnate. He could be a nearly perfect example of the typical hard working, church going, flag waving, gun toting, Conservative redneck, or he could be a God-hating, (or God-loving) Liberal yet "moderate", pro-choice, gay elitist. He could be a member of the John Birch Society, or a member of the Communist Party of America. He could be either Republican or Democrat.
What he is, in spite of all his faults, is irrelevant.
It really doesn't matter if he's Joe the Plumber or Joe the Mafioso.
Because the issue isn't who asked the question of Obama. It isn't even what question Joe the Plumber asked.
The issue is about the answer that Obama gave:
"I think when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody."
That statement is a paraphrase of a famous quotation, ripped right out of "The Communist Manifesto", by Karl Marx, which is the basis of Marxism, succinctly encapsulated into one sentence:
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs."
But, instead of dealing with a statement that the majority of Americans would roundly reject as un-American, The Obama apologists in the media attack the man who's only crime was asking an honest question. A question that would help him understand Obama's policy on taxation.
It is frankly deplorable and dishonest. There appears to be no longer any honor in journalism.
This is the simply the typical Liberally biased media, also known as Obama apologists, doing what they do best.
Distract and obfuscate.
They are hoping that ordinary Americans like me will focus their attention of the dubious character of Joe the Plumber instead of focusing on Obama's answer to Joe's question. If they can distract the public's attention away from the real issue, an issue which goes to the heart of Obama's Marxist agenda, that we the public will allow Obama's answer to quietly slip away into obscurity, never to raise it's ugly head again.
I say again:
The story is not the personal character of the questioner. It is the political agenda of the questionee.
Thursday, October 16, 2008
"I think that when you spread the wealth around, it’s good for everybody" ~ Barack Hussein Obama
Fox news has an over optimistic opinion of last nights Presidential debate. They think he won. I don't see it that way. I see it as a draw at best. And McCain needed much more than a mere tie.
Although he scored a couple of points with his line, "Sen. Obama, I am not President Bush. If you wanted to run against President Bush, you should have run four years ago", and one or two others, it was, in my opinion, too little, too late.
I also was left with the sinking feeling that McCain spent way too much time defending himself and not enough time going on the offensive.
For instance, at one point, McCain said, "And I regret some of the negative aspects of both campaigns. But the fact is that it has taken many turns which I think are unacceptable.
One of them happened just the other day, when a man I admire and respect -- I've written about him -- Congressman John Lewis, an American hero, made allegations that Sarah Palin and I were somehow associated with the worst chapter in American history, segregation, deaths of children in church bombings, George Wallace. That, to me, was so hurtful."
[Somehow, the image of a war hero who survived 7 years of brutal torture in a North Vietnamese prisoner of war camp standing their whining about a stupid remark by a rogue Congressman disquiets me to some extent.]
"And, Senator Obama, you didn't repudiate those remarks. Every time there's been an out-of-bounds remark made by a Republican, no matter where they are, I have repudiated them. I hope that Senator Obama will repudiate those remarks that were made by Congressman John Lewis, very unfair and totally inappropriate."
He actually appeared to be whining about Lewis's attack on him.
Instead of whining, he needed to address Obama's questionable associations with unsavory people and organizations such as ACORN and William Ayers. While he brought those associations up, he failed to elaborate sufficiently.
Frankly, McCain had the opportunity on several occasions to deliver a knock-out blow to Obama in last night's debate, but instead, every time he had Obama backed into the corner and against the ropes, he backed off and allowed Obama to recover.
His reluctance to stand and return blow for blow may very well have sunk his chances to win the election in November.
To say I am disappointed would be the understatement of the year.
Another thing which struck me as particularly significant:
Obama continually mentioned his plan for spending trillions of dollars with no mention of how he would go about providing the funds for such plans.
I think we all know how he plans to finance his many social programs, to wit:.
Here are some examples of Obama's pie-in-the-sky unrealistic ambitions:
"And 95 percent of working families, 95 percent of you out there, will get a tax cut."
Considering that one third of those Americans who make up that 95% don't pay taxes at all, any "tax cut" they will receive will amount to Government sponsored welfare. Where will the money to implement that plan come from? Well, Obama answers that question, too. I think:
"I mentioned health care earlier.
If we make investments now so that people have coverage, that we are preventing diseases, that will save on Medicare and Medicaid in the future.
If we invest in a serious energy policy, that will save in the amount of money we're borrowing from China to send to Saudi Arabia.
If we invest now in our young people and their ability to go to college, that will allow them to drive this economy into the 21st century."
We are going to invest in information technology to eliminate bureaucracy and make the system more efficient.
And that's why I've proposed a $4,000 tuition credit, every student, every year..."
$4,000.00? Every student? Every year? That, along with cutting taxes on 95% of Americans, which he really wouldn't do, would bankrupt America.
Notice the liberal use of the term, "invest". That means he wants to spend money.
By the way, he also said he doesn't mind paying higher taxes, yet his record of charitable donations over the last several years would seem to indicate he does very much mind paying out his money.
"I do want to just point out that autism, for example, or other special needs will require some additional funding, if we're going to get serious in terms of research."
"[A]dditional funding". More spending. Still no mention of where he will get the money if 95% have their taxes reduced.
"I think that in ten years, we can reduce our dependence so that we no longer have to import oil from the Middle East or Venezuela. I think that's about a realistic time frame."
Where does he plan to get energy from? Up until last night's debate, Obama was against drilling for oil in any part of America, including offshore and ANWR. He was against nuclear energy. He was against coal.
Now all of a sudden he supports all those things? When was Obama lying? Then? Or now?
I repeat: Where does Obama plan to get the resources to reduce our dependence on foreign oil if he doesn't want us to produce our own?
He also re-used the same old oxymoronic line, "we can't drill our way out of the (oil) problem".
That's like saying "We can't eat our way out of starvation".
How absolutely stunningly stupid is that position!
Overall, I'd say McCain scored more points than Obama, but his points were weakened by his inability to follow up on his assertions and failure to hold Obama accountable to all of Obama's obvious lies and misleading statements. Whatever points McCain scored were lost in Obama's superior rhetorical skills.
Assuming Obama wins, which seems to be a slam dunk in light of last nights milquetoast performance by McCain, all I can say now, is this:
To my Conservative friends: I hope you are all ready for Socialism in America. Hide your cash, guns, and Bibles. Keep quiet and keep a low profile. Stay out of Obama's cross hairs.
To my Liberal "friends": Now you'll get a chance to see what your Liberal ideology hath wrought. In four years from now, you might very well become Conservatives out of desperation.