"All propaganda has to be popular and has to accommodate itself to the comprehension of the least intelligent of those whom it seeks to reach." ~ Adolf Hitler
The world is coming to an end.
This, to my mind, is disturbing evidence that Pat Robertson is not Christ motivated, but money motivated. I have always believed he is a phony, and only in ministry for the money, and this ad appears to confirm my belief. If he truly believes in the power of God, he would believe man is not capable of destroying what God has made. He has, however, often demonstrated that he is more interested in the almighty dollar than the almighty God. Al Sharpton's presence in the ad is no surprise.
I'm not saying Robertson is not a man of faith. After all, it takes more faith to believe in Global Warming than it does to believe in God.
What's more troubling than the fact that two political opposites are appearing in an ad together for one cause is the cause itself.
I cannot state it often enough.
Global Warming is a myth.
And "Climate Change" is just a term for Global Warming that the Global Warming nuts use to cover their behinds in the inevitable case their wacky theories turn out to be wrong and the globe actually cools. If they say "Climate Change" instead of "Global Warming", they are right either way, and then they can say, "Nyah Nyah Nyah! We told you so!"
It's craziness that will end the world, not Climate Change.
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
The Case Against Obama
“A nation can survive its fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and carries his banner openly. But the traitor moves amongst those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and he wears their face and their arguments, he appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation, he works secretly and unknown in the night to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects the body politic so that it can no longer resist. A murderer is less to fear. The traitor is the plague.” ~ Marcus Tullius Cicero
The Dictionary defines Circumstantial Evidence as "(Law), evidence obtained from circumstances, which necessarily or usually attend facts of a particular nature, from which arises presumption. According to some authorities circumstantial is distinguished from positive evidence in that the latter is the testimony of eyewitnesses to a fact or the admission of a party; but the prevalent opinion now is that all such testimony is dependent on circumstances for its support."
In a court of law, circumstantial evidence isn't usually enough to secure a conviction, but it is enough to create a presumption of guilt. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but on the surface, Barack Hussein Obama is looking more and more like someone who is attempting to destroy this country from within. When one begins to put certain circumstantial evidence together, a picture of an anti-American begins to emerge.
Let's consider the evidence, shall we?
Exhibit 1: Obama refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin. On it's own, refusal to wear a simple lapel pin of any kind isn't necessarily indicative of un-American sentiment. Perhaps he just doesn't wear any kind of lapel pins as a matter of personal taste. After all, I won't put bumper stickers on my car. That doesn't mean I don't have any opinions. It's simply a matter of personal taste.
But that isn't the only evidence.
Exhibit 2: Obama has been photographed with his hands folded in front of him while the National anthem was being sung. This while the other Democratic candidates were all standing at attention with their hands over their hearts. Again, in and of itself, not proof of un-Americanism.
However...
Exhibit 3: His wife, Michelle announces she has never really been proud to be an American until her husband decided to run for President. Could that be because she knows he intends to undermine the America she apparently hates? Husbands and wives usually share ideals.
Exhibit 4: Obama was born to a Muslim father and partially educated in Muslim schools. He is as familiar with Islam laws and tradition as with Christian traditions. Perhaps, in view of the type of sermons heard in his "church" that he has been exposed to over the last 20+ years, he actually understands Islam teaching more accurately than Christian. And that brings up...
Exhibit 4: His self admitted "spiritual advisor" is an anti-Semitic, anti-American racist hate monger who blames White America for everything he thinks is wrong with the world. Obama has been seen not only attending and listening to these hate filled sermons, but nodding his head in agreement.
Exhibit 5: Obama is close friends with an admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist, William Ayres, of the infamous Weather Underground radical activist organization that bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol building, and other "establishment" structures in the 60's. Mr. Ayres has admitted he committed these crimes and feels he didn't do enough.
Exhibit 6: Obama has stated when president, he will sit down with terrorist nations and terrorist leaders to negotiate a peace. Anyone who pays even cursory attention to the news knows there is no negotiation with terrorists, short of agreeing to their demands, which are: 1. Convert to Islam or--2. Die. They offer no other option. If Obama intends to negotiate a peace with terrorists, he will have to agree to their demands or he will not succeed.
Exhibit 7: He has stated he will invade and attack our allies and talk to our enemies.
Exhibit 8: He has announced his intent to cut Defense funding, to the point where our military will be woefully unable to defend America in case of attack.
Exhibit 9: He wants to outlaw all guns, leaving Americans without an ability to defend ourselves against attacks from forces who will have become emboldened by the decimation of our military.
Exhibit 9: He is in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, many of whom are not just flooding across our borders in search of a better life for their families, but instead, have insidious terrorist plots in mind.
Exhibit 10: Obama has been quoted saying, "I revere the flag. I revere America." The word "revere" Means respect. Am I the only one who thinks "revere" is an odd choice of words?
Why can't Obama say he loves America? How difficult can pronouncing that word, "love" be? Could it be because he doesn't?
If Obama were on trial for treason, would there be enough evidence to convict him? Probably not, but it certainly raises some compelling questions about him.
As I said, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if I was, it seems I could make a pretty strong case, based on circumstantial evidence, that Barack Hussein Obama is involved in some insidious plot to destroy America and hand us over to the Islamic Jihadists for destruction.
Ridiculous? Wild conjecture? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
The Dictionary defines Circumstantial Evidence as "(Law), evidence obtained from circumstances, which necessarily or usually attend facts of a particular nature, from which arises presumption. According to some authorities circumstantial is distinguished from positive evidence in that the latter is the testimony of eyewitnesses to a fact or the admission of a party; but the prevalent opinion now is that all such testimony is dependent on circumstances for its support."
In a court of law, circumstantial evidence isn't usually enough to secure a conviction, but it is enough to create a presumption of guilt. I am not a conspiracy theorist, but on the surface, Barack Hussein Obama is looking more and more like someone who is attempting to destroy this country from within. When one begins to put certain circumstantial evidence together, a picture of an anti-American begins to emerge.
Let's consider the evidence, shall we?
Exhibit 1: Obama refusal to wear an American flag lapel pin. On it's own, refusal to wear a simple lapel pin of any kind isn't necessarily indicative of un-American sentiment. Perhaps he just doesn't wear any kind of lapel pins as a matter of personal taste. After all, I won't put bumper stickers on my car. That doesn't mean I don't have any opinions. It's simply a matter of personal taste.
But that isn't the only evidence.
Exhibit 2: Obama has been photographed with his hands folded in front of him while the National anthem was being sung. This while the other Democratic candidates were all standing at attention with their hands over their hearts. Again, in and of itself, not proof of un-Americanism.
However...
Exhibit 3: His wife, Michelle announces she has never really been proud to be an American until her husband decided to run for President. Could that be because she knows he intends to undermine the America she apparently hates? Husbands and wives usually share ideals.
Exhibit 4: Obama was born to a Muslim father and partially educated in Muslim schools. He is as familiar with Islam laws and tradition as with Christian traditions. Perhaps, in view of the type of sermons heard in his "church" that he has been exposed to over the last 20+ years, he actually understands Islam teaching more accurately than Christian. And that brings up...
Exhibit 4: His self admitted "spiritual advisor" is an anti-Semitic, anti-American racist hate monger who blames White America for everything he thinks is wrong with the world. Obama has been seen not only attending and listening to these hate filled sermons, but nodding his head in agreement.
Exhibit 5: Obama is close friends with an admitted unrepentant domestic terrorist, William Ayres, of the infamous Weather Underground radical activist organization that bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol building, and other "establishment" structures in the 60's. Mr. Ayres has admitted he committed these crimes and feels he didn't do enough.
Exhibit 6: Obama has stated when president, he will sit down with terrorist nations and terrorist leaders to negotiate a peace. Anyone who pays even cursory attention to the news knows there is no negotiation with terrorists, short of agreeing to their demands, which are: 1. Convert to Islam or--2. Die. They offer no other option. If Obama intends to negotiate a peace with terrorists, he will have to agree to their demands or he will not succeed.
Exhibit 7: He has stated he will invade and attack our allies and talk to our enemies.
Exhibit 8: He has announced his intent to cut Defense funding, to the point where our military will be woefully unable to defend America in case of attack.
Exhibit 9: He wants to outlaw all guns, leaving Americans without an ability to defend ourselves against attacks from forces who will have become emboldened by the decimation of our military.
Exhibit 9: He is in favor of amnesty for illegal aliens, many of whom are not just flooding across our borders in search of a better life for their families, but instead, have insidious terrorist plots in mind.
Exhibit 10: Obama has been quoted saying, "I revere the flag. I revere America." The word "revere" Means respect. Am I the only one who thinks "revere" is an odd choice of words?
Why can't Obama say he loves America? How difficult can pronouncing that word, "love" be? Could it be because he doesn't?
If Obama were on trial for treason, would there be enough evidence to convict him? Probably not, but it certainly raises some compelling questions about him.
As I said, I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if I was, it seems I could make a pretty strong case, based on circumstantial evidence, that Barack Hussein Obama is involved in some insidious plot to destroy America and hand us over to the Islamic Jihadists for destruction.
Ridiculous? Wild conjecture? Perhaps. Perhaps not.
Tuesday, April 15, 2008
Hillary And Hussein's Goal
"Communism doesn't work because people like to own stuff." ~ Frank Zappa
I found this on Five Boxes, a blog Lone Ranger discovered.
I have highlighted in Bolshevik red the things which they have already achieved and in blue, the things they are in the process of achieving, and my own thoughts in green.
The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69) in 1963. The list was published in the 1958 book The Naked Communist, by Cleon Skousen.
1. US acceptance of co-existence as the only alternative to atomic war
2. US willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the US would be a demonstration of "moral strength"
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long term loans to Russia and Soviet Satellites (I don't know about this one)
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination
7. Grant recognition of Red China, and admission of Red China to the UN.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the UN
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the US has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress (I'm not sure about this one, either. I welcome knowledgeable input by more informed readers)
10. Allow all Soviet Satellites individual representation in the UN
11. Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the UN as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party
13. Do away with loyalty oaths
14. Continue giving Russia access to the US Patent Office(Again, this has probably already been accomplished but I don't know)
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the US (this certainly explains the Democratic party platform well)
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in text books.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers (this may or may not be already accomplished. I am not sure)
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings", substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms.
Control art critics and directors of art museums. " Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art". (I don't know what this would accomplish, and since art is in the eye of the beholder, I can't say if the prevalence of senseless art in our culture is a result of this directive or not)
23. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. (Almost there, but thankfully, not quite yet.)
24. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
25. Present Homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy". (I wish I could make this double red)
26. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch"
27. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"
28. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
29. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man". (I don't think we're there yet, but I could be wrong)
30. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture:" Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
31. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture - - education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
32. Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
33. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. (I don't think there is any longer such a committee, but if there isn't, they have accomplished this goal)
34. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI
35. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of big business ( would say this could be amended to "Discredit big business", and that would make it red)
37. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
38. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
39. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
40. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
41. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.
42. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government. (Not sure about this one, unless we could categorize the push by some Democrats to surrender in Iraq here)
42. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
43. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the US can not prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over donations and individuals alike. (I am unfamiliar with the Connally reservation but the rest of this sounds like what's going on now)
I found this on Five Boxes, a blog Lone Ranger discovered.
I have highlighted in Bolshevik red the things which they have already achieved and in blue, the things they are in the process of achieving, and my own thoughts in green.
The following was entered into the Congressional record by Albert Herlong, Jr. (a Floridian who served in Congress from 1949-69) in 1963. The list was published in the 1958 book The Naked Communist, by Cleon Skousen.
1. US acceptance of co-existence as the only alternative to atomic war
2. US willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war
3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament by the US would be a demonstration of "moral strength"
4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
5. Extension of long term loans to Russia and Soviet Satellites (I don't know about this one)
6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination
7. Grant recognition of Red China, and admission of Red China to the UN.
8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev's promise in 1955 to settle the Germany question by free elections under supervision of the UN
9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the US has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress (I'm not sure about this one, either. I welcome knowledgeable input by more informed readers)
10. Allow all Soviet Satellites individual representation in the UN
11. Promote the UN as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the UN as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo)
12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party
13. Do away with loyalty oaths
14. Continue giving Russia access to the US Patent Office(Again, this has probably already been accomplished but I don't know)
15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the US (this certainly explains the Democratic party platform well)
16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions, by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for Socialism, and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers associations. Put the party line in text books.
18. Gain control of all student newspapers (this may or may not be already accomplished. I am not sure)
19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV & motion pictures.
22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all form of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to "eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings", substitute shapeless, awkward, and meaningless forms.
Control art critics and directors of art museums. " Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art". (I don't know what this would accomplish, and since art is in the eye of the beholder, I can't say if the prevalence of senseless art in our culture is a result of this directive or not)
23. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them "censorship" and a violation of free speech and free press. (Almost there, but thankfully, not quite yet.)
24. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography, and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio and TV.
25. Present Homosexuality, degeneracy, and promiscuity as "normal, natural, and healthy". (I wish I could make this double red)
26. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with "social" religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a "religious crutch"
27. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the grounds that it violates the principle of "separation of church and state"
28. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
29. Discredit the American founding fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the "common man". (I don't think we're there yet, but I could be wrong)
30. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of "the big picture:" Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
31. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture - - education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
32. Eliminate all laws or procedures, which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
33. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities. (I don't think there is any longer such a committee, but if there isn't, they have accomplished this goal)
34. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI
35. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
36. Infiltrate and gain control of big business ( would say this could be amended to "Discredit big business", and that would make it red)
37. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand or treat.
38. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
39. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
40. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
41. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special interest groups should rise up and make a "united force" to solve economic, political, or social problems.
42. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government. (Not sure about this one, unless we could categorize the push by some Democrats to surrender in Iraq here)
42. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
43. Repeal the Connally Reservation so the US can not prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction over donations and individuals alike. (I am unfamiliar with the Connally reservation but the rest of this sounds like what's going on now)
Many of these are subjective according to our interpretation of ideologies, I admit, but even if I am wrong on as many as 2/3 of them, I think it's pretty obvious that we are perilously close to losing America's sovereignty.
Monday, April 14, 2008
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Recognizing Cultural Differences Versus Racism
"Facts is facts" ~ Larry the Cable Guy
Probably the only thing I agree with Barack Hussein Obama about is the fact that his skin color shouldn't have any influence on his worthiness to be President. I personally have never considered his race to be a factor for making a decision on whether to vote for him. It is the content of his character, not his color, that concerns me.
And, in my humble opinion, his positions on the variety of vitally important issues disqualifies him from being a capable leader of my country.
I don't dislike him because he is black. I dislike him because he is completely wrong for this country.
My personal opinion notwithstanding, B. Hussein's campaign has made it crystal clear that his skin color has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to lead.
Or does it?
Over at Obama's official web site, the words color, race, minority, etc, pepper all of his media offerings. See for yourself. It would appear Obama intends to ride the wave of racism and white guilt all the way into the oval office. (for a laughable definition of "white Guilt" see Wikipedia's Liberally biased offering, here )
For someone who continually insists that his skin color doesn't make a difference he certainly expends a lot of energy attempting to point his ethnicity out to potential voters.
I have avoided discussing race in general because to do so would automatically bring accusations of racism and bigotry against me and anyone who might appear to agree with me, but since Obama's campaign has brought the subject up, I might as well toss in my two cents worth.
A couple of days ago, I heard a talk radio host ask a caller if he was black or white, and it occurred to me that we as a society have become politically correct to the point of absurdity.
Here's the impetus for the previous statement:
The caller had an unmistakable "black" accent. Even the best white impressionists cannot "fake" a black accent that well. The caller was black. That fact was obvious to even the most passive listener. The host didn't need to ask. And yet, he did.
No matter how a black man tries to hide a black accent, anyone who listens closely can detect the inflections of a black accent in his voice. With the exceptions of non-American blacks, such as British blacks, one only has to listen to know that whomever is talking is black.
I will never refer to any black person as "articulate". That is a term many racist white people use to avoid being called racist. It is a subtle racial epithet. It implies that most black people are not "articulate".
Listen to Alan Keyes, or Colin Powell, or Condaleeza Rice, or Bill Cosby sometime. Really listen. The accent is there.
That's not a bad thing. It is what it is.
As much as we wish to deny it, there are differences in black and white cultures. There are differences in all cultures, and it extends well beyond the obvious differences of skin color and accents in speech. There is no shame or honor in being different in any way.
All men, as God and the Declaration of Independence have so ably pointed out, are created equal.
But, as much as we would like to, inherent differences in racial cultures cannot be denied or even ignored.
And it's not racist to point it out. It is simply fact. It isn't an insult or a compliment.
In my estimation, pretending not to notice the obvious differences between race and culture is racist in and of itself. A couple of years ago, a black lawyer published an article in several newspapers in commemoration of Martin Luther King's birthday entitled, "America Should Honor The Teaching Of King", in which he equates poverty with being black. This is, of course, an opinion based on a racist viewpoint. Obviously, blacks are not the only people in America who are poor, but if one reads the essay, one gets that impression from the author.
On the other hand, whites, as a society, have become so race conscious that the pendulum has swung from blatant, mindless racism to oversensitivity about offensiveness well past the point of absurdity.
Differences in cultures create stereotypes. Stereotypes have basis in fact, or at least in our perception of the things we observe. For example:
In my dealings with the public throughout my life, I have observed certain behaviors that appear to be inherent in the black culture. They are not bad things. They are just inherent differences. Many black people stay up late at night and sleep late in the mornings, often into the afternoon if they don't have to work the next day.
That is not a negative or a positive. It is simply fact based on my personal observations over the years. And it's not exclusive to the black race. It is just more prevalent in the black race than in the white race from what I've observed.
There are more cultural differences between blacks and whites I've observed. Blacks seem to use the telephone more than whites. I don't know why, but they do. Again, it isn't a bad thing. Maybe they just have more friends than white people. That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
Blacks appear to be more emotionally demonstrative and passionate than whites in general. This is not true of all blacks and it isn't true of all whites, either, but it appears to be more prevalent in the black culture. Again, these things are based upon my own personal observance.
Blacks, for the most part, dress up for church more (and better) than whites. And, in my opinion, they are generally more respectful of God in the way they dress. It is a positive cultural aspect of growing up in an environment that teaches their children to dress up out of respect for God.
That is definitely not a bad thing.
My bride says she prefers white hairdressers over black hairdressers because black hair is different and requires different styling and cutting techniques. White hairdressers are usually better at styling white people's hair and blacks are usually better with black people's hair. That isn't racist. It is just fact.
It is not a coincidence that manufacturers of menthol cigarettes, malt liquors, and certain clothing designs place advertisements for their products in predominately black neighborhoods and publications. These advertisements are results of market research, which tells the advertisers that targeting the black market will generate more profit for their clients.
This targeting of the black market is based on cultural observation. It is intelligent marketing, not racism.
When someone points out there are differences between black and white cultures, it doesn't make that someone a racist.
It is time we stop pretending that noticing those differences somehow makes one a racist.
Probably the only thing I agree with Barack Hussein Obama about is the fact that his skin color shouldn't have any influence on his worthiness to be President. I personally have never considered his race to be a factor for making a decision on whether to vote for him. It is the content of his character, not his color, that concerns me.
And, in my humble opinion, his positions on the variety of vitally important issues disqualifies him from being a capable leader of my country.
I don't dislike him because he is black. I dislike him because he is completely wrong for this country.
My personal opinion notwithstanding, B. Hussein's campaign has made it crystal clear that his skin color has absolutely nothing to do with his ability to lead.
Or does it?
Over at Obama's official web site, the words color, race, minority, etc, pepper all of his media offerings. See for yourself. It would appear Obama intends to ride the wave of racism and white guilt all the way into the oval office. (for a laughable definition of "white Guilt" see Wikipedia's Liberally biased offering, here )
For someone who continually insists that his skin color doesn't make a difference he certainly expends a lot of energy attempting to point his ethnicity out to potential voters.
I have avoided discussing race in general because to do so would automatically bring accusations of racism and bigotry against me and anyone who might appear to agree with me, but since Obama's campaign has brought the subject up, I might as well toss in my two cents worth.
A couple of days ago, I heard a talk radio host ask a caller if he was black or white, and it occurred to me that we as a society have become politically correct to the point of absurdity.
Here's the impetus for the previous statement:
The caller had an unmistakable "black" accent. Even the best white impressionists cannot "fake" a black accent that well. The caller was black. That fact was obvious to even the most passive listener. The host didn't need to ask. And yet, he did.
No matter how a black man tries to hide a black accent, anyone who listens closely can detect the inflections of a black accent in his voice. With the exceptions of non-American blacks, such as British blacks, one only has to listen to know that whomever is talking is black.
I will never refer to any black person as "articulate". That is a term many racist white people use to avoid being called racist. It is a subtle racial epithet. It implies that most black people are not "articulate".
Listen to Alan Keyes, or Colin Powell, or Condaleeza Rice, or Bill Cosby sometime. Really listen. The accent is there.
That's not a bad thing. It is what it is.
As much as we wish to deny it, there are differences in black and white cultures. There are differences in all cultures, and it extends well beyond the obvious differences of skin color and accents in speech. There is no shame or honor in being different in any way.
All men, as God and the Declaration of Independence have so ably pointed out, are created equal.
But, as much as we would like to, inherent differences in racial cultures cannot be denied or even ignored.
And it's not racist to point it out. It is simply fact. It isn't an insult or a compliment.
In my estimation, pretending not to notice the obvious differences between race and culture is racist in and of itself. A couple of years ago, a black lawyer published an article in several newspapers in commemoration of Martin Luther King's birthday entitled, "America Should Honor The Teaching Of King", in which he equates poverty with being black. This is, of course, an opinion based on a racist viewpoint. Obviously, blacks are not the only people in America who are poor, but if one reads the essay, one gets that impression from the author.
On the other hand, whites, as a society, have become so race conscious that the pendulum has swung from blatant, mindless racism to oversensitivity about offensiveness well past the point of absurdity.
Differences in cultures create stereotypes. Stereotypes have basis in fact, or at least in our perception of the things we observe. For example:
In my dealings with the public throughout my life, I have observed certain behaviors that appear to be inherent in the black culture. They are not bad things. They are just inherent differences. Many black people stay up late at night and sleep late in the mornings, often into the afternoon if they don't have to work the next day.
That is not a negative or a positive. It is simply fact based on my personal observations over the years. And it's not exclusive to the black race. It is just more prevalent in the black race than in the white race from what I've observed.
There are more cultural differences between blacks and whites I've observed. Blacks seem to use the telephone more than whites. I don't know why, but they do. Again, it isn't a bad thing. Maybe they just have more friends than white people. That would be a good thing, wouldn't it?
Blacks appear to be more emotionally demonstrative and passionate than whites in general. This is not true of all blacks and it isn't true of all whites, either, but it appears to be more prevalent in the black culture. Again, these things are based upon my own personal observance.
Blacks, for the most part, dress up for church more (and better) than whites. And, in my opinion, they are generally more respectful of God in the way they dress. It is a positive cultural aspect of growing up in an environment that teaches their children to dress up out of respect for God.
That is definitely not a bad thing.
My bride says she prefers white hairdressers over black hairdressers because black hair is different and requires different styling and cutting techniques. White hairdressers are usually better at styling white people's hair and blacks are usually better with black people's hair. That isn't racist. It is just fact.
It is not a coincidence that manufacturers of menthol cigarettes, malt liquors, and certain clothing designs place advertisements for their products in predominately black neighborhoods and publications. These advertisements are results of market research, which tells the advertisers that targeting the black market will generate more profit for their clients.
This targeting of the black market is based on cultural observation. It is intelligent marketing, not racism.
When someone points out there are differences between black and white cultures, it doesn't make that someone a racist.
It is time we stop pretending that noticing those differences somehow makes one a racist.
Wednesday, April 09, 2008
Just Married
"I love being married. It's so great to find that one special person you want to annoy for the rest of your life." ~ Rita Rudner
I haven't posted lately, or even moderated because I have been on my honeymoon.
Yes, I've remarried.
I haven't posted lately, or even moderated because I have been on my honeymoon.
Yes, I've remarried.
My new bride and I.Check out my tie. It is my clan (Gunn) tartan plaid, ordered directly from Scotland.
I am woefully behind on my blogging, and it will be a few days yet before I can return to more than a comment or two on my favorite blogs.
I have created a new post on my other blog, Gods way/My way concerning a disturbing video about Oprah Winfrey my brother e-mailed me.
I'll see you later.
Friday, April 04, 2008
More Questions
"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~ Frank Dane
So, either DT or one of his com padre's anonymously left a new comment (which I rejected) questioning the assertions made against B. Hussein Obama in my post "Obama: Bad For America":
(Anonymous' comments and questions are in Bolshevik red and my responses in Patriot blue)
"Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate."
So, most of the country has liberal values. why shouldn't they support the candidate who most agrees with them?
Because they are bad policies. Duh.
DT (and/or anonymous)thinks most of the country agrees with him, so there must be some nefarious reason why his candidates always lose.
"...raise our taxes...military weakness...Mr. Obama is promising all those things."
This, of course, is an absurd lie.
A Lie? USA Today, certainly not a bastion of Conservatism, reports, "Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that currently is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits."
According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama has proposed at least $287 billion a year in new government spending. He also co-sponsored a Senate bill to spend at least $845 billion a year to fight global poverty.
Obama would pay for these increases with much higher taxes, including by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010.
(Note: This is only one of the tax increases Obama proposes. There are many more. Too many to list in this post)
As to being weak on defense, let Mr. Hussein Obama speak in his own words:
"Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan"
This is not true. He talked about going after bin Laden in Pakistan if we had the hard intelligence. This is quite different from "invading Pakistan." Furthermore, McCain has said the exact same thing.
Not true? The Washington Compost (another Liberal Media outlet) reported: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.
In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (note: He says America is "less safe" since 9/11, yet he wants to repeal the Patriot act, and outlaw electronic surveillance of known terrorists and terrorists sympathizers)
"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Partially true I guess. He said IF Pakistan wouldn't go after the terrorists, he would go into Pakistan. The problem with that is that Pakistan is our ally.
"nuclear option was off the table against terrorists". What terrorists are you going to nuke and where, exactly?
No one said anyone intends to nuke anybody. They just don't rule out the option. B. Hussein does.
"Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks." Yet many others agreed.
Yes, there are other Democrats just as stupid and foolish, but they are not running for Commander in Chief.
"For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world." This is an absurdity, of course. The US is rated 37th in the world for total quality of health care.
Anonymous is no doubt referring to the World Health Organization's Report. The report is based on availability of free health care in the world. In other words, "socialized Medicine". It doesn't refer to actual quality of health care which in those socialized medicine countries is woeful compared to the United States. The rest of the US's poor report is a direct cause of the Liberal influence in the over regulation of health care providers in America.
"He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing." This is an obvious smear. Put up the citations or take it back.
OK. You want citations? How about citations in Margaret Sanger's own words?
A quick google search produced this result: While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.
For the record, Webster's Dictionary defines "Eugenics" as "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed".
Now here's some questions for the Obamaniacs:
Will Obama capitulate to the terrorists demands and surrender America to them to do with us as they see fit?
Will Obama attempt to force every American to convert to Islam or will he just allow the terrorists to execute all of us?
Because that is the only two negotiables to which they will ever agree.
Does Obama has some other non-violent plan to end the war besides total surrender? If so, what is it?
In fact, what is his plan for anything he promises to do?
When he taxes the company you work for into bankruptcy and you lose your job, will you still believe in his policies?
When he orders the killing of babies to prevent them from being the "punishment" for mistakes, will you happily sacrifice your baby for the cause?
When he increases your taxes to the point where you can no longer afford even the most basic of essentials will you smile and say, "It's all for the good of the common man"?
When he dismantles the military, leaving America completely defenseless against attacks by foreign powers, and outlaws all guns regardless of their purpose, will you feel safer?
When he packs the Supreme Court with Justices who will legislate un-Constitutional Liberal policies from the bench, will you still back him?
When he demands that all Americans marry the same gender, and allow babies who survive abortion to slowly starve to death, and give up your motor vehicle to the state to protect the planet from global warming, and decrees that blacks are now the preferred race and whites are to be considered second class citizens, will you then be able to see him for what he really is?
Anyone that would vote for Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States of America is stupid.
So, either DT or one of his com padre's anonymously left a new comment (which I rejected) questioning the assertions made against B. Hussein Obama in my post "Obama: Bad For America":
(Anonymous' comments and questions are in Bolshevik red and my responses in Patriot blue)
"Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate."
So, most of the country has liberal values. why shouldn't they support the candidate who most agrees with them?
Because they are bad policies. Duh.
DT (and/or anonymous)thinks most of the country agrees with him, so there must be some nefarious reason why his candidates always lose.
"...raise our taxes...military weakness...Mr. Obama is promising all those things."
This, of course, is an absurd lie.
A Lie? USA Today, certainly not a bastion of Conservatism, reports, "Democrat Barack Obama said Sunday that if elected he will push to increase the amount of income that currently is taxed to provide monthly Social Security benefits."
According to the National Taxpayers Union, Obama has proposed at least $287 billion a year in new government spending. He also co-sponsored a Senate bill to spend at least $845 billion a year to fight global poverty.
Obama would pay for these increases with much higher taxes, including by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010.
(Note: This is only one of the tax increases Obama proposes. There are many more. Too many to list in this post)
As to being weak on defense, let Mr. Hussein Obama speak in his own words:
"Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan"
This is not true. He talked about going after bin Laden in Pakistan if we had the hard intelligence. This is quite different from "invading Pakistan." Furthermore, McCain has said the exact same thing.
Not true? The Washington Compost (another Liberal Media outlet) reported: Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama issued a pointed warning yesterday to Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf, saying that as president he would be prepared to order U.S. troops into that country unilaterally if it failed to act on its own against Islamic extremists.
In his most comprehensive statement on terrorism, the senator from Illinois said that the Iraq war has left the United States less safe than it was before the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that if elected he would seek to withdraw U.S. troops and shift the country's military focus to threats in Afghanistan and Pakistan. (note: He says America is "less safe" since 9/11, yet he wants to repeal the Patriot act, and outlaw electronic surveillance of known terrorists and terrorists sympathizers)
"When I am president, we will wage the war that has to be won," he told an audience at the Woodrow Wilson Center in the District. He added, "The first step must be to get off the wrong battlefield in Iraq and take the fight to the terrorists in Afghanistan and Pakistan."
Partially true I guess. He said IF Pakistan wouldn't go after the terrorists, he would go into Pakistan. The problem with that is that Pakistan is our ally.
"nuclear option was off the table against terrorists". What terrorists are you going to nuke and where, exactly?
No one said anyone intends to nuke anybody. They just don't rule out the option. B. Hussein does.
"Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks." Yet many others agreed.
Yes, there are other Democrats just as stupid and foolish, but they are not running for Commander in Chief.
"For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world." This is an absurdity, of course. The US is rated 37th in the world for total quality of health care.
Anonymous is no doubt referring to the World Health Organization's Report. The report is based on availability of free health care in the world. In other words, "socialized Medicine". It doesn't refer to actual quality of health care which in those socialized medicine countries is woeful compared to the United States. The rest of the US's poor report is a direct cause of the Liberal influence in the over regulation of health care providers in America.
"He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing." This is an obvious smear. Put up the citations or take it back.
OK. You want citations? How about citations in Margaret Sanger's own words?
A quick google search produced this result: While Planned Parenthood's current apologists try to place some distance between the eugenics and birth control movements, history definitively says otherwise. The eugenic theme figured prominently in the Birth Control Review, which Sanger founded in 1917. She published such articles as "Some Moral Aspects of Eugenics" (June 1920), "The Eugenic Conscience" (February 1921), "The purpose of Eugenics" (December 1924), "Birth Control and Positive Eugenics" (July 1925), "Birth Control: The True Eugenics" (August 1928), and many others.
For the record, Webster's Dictionary defines "Eugenics" as "a science that deals with the improvement (as by control of human mating) of hereditary qualities of a race or breed".
Now here's some questions for the Obamaniacs:
Will Obama capitulate to the terrorists demands and surrender America to them to do with us as they see fit?
Will Obama attempt to force every American to convert to Islam or will he just allow the terrorists to execute all of us?
Because that is the only two negotiables to which they will ever agree.
Does Obama has some other non-violent plan to end the war besides total surrender? If so, what is it?
In fact, what is his plan for anything he promises to do?
When he taxes the company you work for into bankruptcy and you lose your job, will you still believe in his policies?
When he orders the killing of babies to prevent them from being the "punishment" for mistakes, will you happily sacrifice your baby for the cause?
When he increases your taxes to the point where you can no longer afford even the most basic of essentials will you smile and say, "It's all for the good of the common man"?
When he dismantles the military, leaving America completely defenseless against attacks by foreign powers, and outlaws all guns regardless of their purpose, will you feel safer?
When he packs the Supreme Court with Justices who will legislate un-Constitutional Liberal policies from the bench, will you still back him?
When he demands that all Americans marry the same gender, and allow babies who survive abortion to slowly starve to death, and give up your motor vehicle to the state to protect the planet from global warming, and decrees that blacks are now the preferred race and whites are to be considered second class citizens, will you then be able to see him for what he really is?
Anyone that would vote for Barack Hussein Obama for President of the United States of America is stupid.
Tuesday, April 01, 2008
Obama: Bad For America
"Everyone rises to their level of incompetence. " ~ Laurence J. Peter
I don't have time to write my own blog entry today, but I received this in an e-mail earlier this week and Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun, says it almost as good as I could, except he is much nicer than I would be:
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since w e created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by you r paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
I don't have time to write my own blog entry today, but I received this in an e-mail earlier this week and Ken Blackwell - Columnist for the New York Sun, says it almost as good as I could, except he is much nicer than I would be:
It's an amazing time to be alive in America. We're in a year of firsts in this presidential election: the first viable woman candidate; the first viable African-American candidate; and, a candidate who is the first front-running freedom fighter over 70. The next president of America will be a first.
We won't truly be in an election of firsts, however, until we judge every candidate by where they stand. We won't arrive where we should be until we no longer talk about skin color or gender. Now that Barack Obama steps to the front of the Democratic field, we need to stop talking about his race, and start talking about his policies and his politics.
The reality is this: Though the Democrats will not have a nominee until August, unless Hillary Clinton drops out, Mr. Obama is now the frontrunner, and its time America takes a closer and deeper look at him.
Some pundits are calling him the next John F. Kennedy. He's not. He's the next George McGovern. And it's time people learned the facts.
Because the truth is that Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton. Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.
Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he's not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant. Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let's look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial "beauty."
Start with national security, since the president's most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists - something no president has ever taken off the table since w e created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.
Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on "the rich." How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by you r paycheck.
Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, "All praise and glory to God!" but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have "hijacked" - hijacked - Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban - ban - on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.
The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don't start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of "bringing America together" means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.
But right now everyone is talking about how eloquent of a speaker he is and - yes - they're talking about his race. Those should never be the factors on which we base our choice for president. Mr. Obama's radical agenda sets him far outside the American mainstream, to the left of Mrs. Clinton.
It's time to talk about the real Barack Obama. In an election of firsts, let's first make sure we elect the person who is qualified to be our president in a nuclear age during a global civilizational war.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
