Tuesday, May 31, 2011

Thoughts From A Left Field Perspective

"I'm not sure I want popular opinion on my side -- I've noticed those with the most opinions often have the fewest facts." ~ Bethania McKenstry

I've been busy/lazy lately. I have a day off today, so I've decided to offer my thoughts on a couple of things that have recently dominated the news, while I have time.

First, the Harold Camping "end of the world" fiasco. Of course, we all knew this was ridiculous. As soon as he decided on the exact day and hour the world would end, people who actually read the Bible (let alone understand it)automatically knew it wouldn't happen on May 21, 2011 at 6:00 P.M. EST.

It was a self defeating prediction.

If God had originally planned to end it all on that particular date and time, He would have simply changed His plans, right?

Perhaps not. The way I see it, even if Camping had been correct, it doesn't mean he knew when it was going to happen. It would have only meant he guessed right. One second after the event, all the world would have known that Camping's prediction was merely a coincidence.

Nevertheless, we quoted the verse in Mark 13:32, "No one knows about that day or hour, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.", but most of us left out the next verse, which reads, "Be on guard! Be alert! You do not know when that time will come."

It is in that context that I submit Camping did us all a service if, as the Bible says, "we have ears to hear".

I don't know about my two readers, but I have a renewed faith as a result of the "end of the world" thing. It has made me more cognizant of my responsibility to live and share my faith. By heeding the warning to be ready, we make more of an effort to try to be Christlike.

Camping has reminded us, in a bizarre, backwards kind of way, that we should live our lives as if Jesus is coming today. because, He just might.

I wish I could put it more clearly, but hopefully, my two readers will get my point.

Now, the entrance of Herman Cain into the 2012 Presidential race:

In the end, he probably won't be nominated to be the Republican candidate, but from my perspective (which, as my two long time readers may attest, is from about four rows back in the bleacher seats waaaaay out in left field), Herman Cain would have the best chance of all of the Republican hopefuls of defeating Obama in 2012.

Mind you, I do not say he is the best candidate. That remains to be seen. But, barring some revelation of malfeasance or impropriety or some other negative, besides being labeled an "Uncle Tom", an "Oreo", or a "house nigger" or some other racially tinged insult (because you know, the Democrats will make those charges and more), he can defeat Obama.

At this point, I believe the defeat of Obama is more important than putting the best Republican in the oval office.

Let's save the country first, then worry about improving it.

Here is the reason I say Herman Cain can defeat Obama:

96% of black voters voted for Obama in 2008. I saw a poll a couple of months ago (which I can't seem to find now. Perhaps a reader can have more success locating it than I did), which indicated that 96% of black voters still intend to vote for Obama in 2012.

Now, 96% of the black vote in 2008 can be a coincidence. Other conclusions can possibly be drawn from those numbers. There could well be some other reasons that so many black voters voted for Obama other than race. Even a white Democrat traditionally gets somewhere over 80% of the black vote regardless of his stance on the issues.

But, two years later, even after it became clear to black voters that Obama will not pay their mortgage, or buy them gas for their cars as he promised, the staggering percentage of blacks who would still vote for Obama makes it as clear as an azure sky of deepest summer that blacks overwhelmingly support Obama simply because he is, like them, black.

So, obviously, it doesn't matter that Obama has consistently betrayed the black voters in America. It doesn't matter that he has failed to keep any of the promises he made to his black constituency. It doesn't matter that many of his policies have been harmful rather than helpful to black Americans.

They will vote according to race.

He could be as discriminatory against blacks as the Ku Klux Klan, but because he is black himself, an overwhelming majority of blacks would still vote for him.

It is estimated that blacks make up approximately 12 to 13% of the United States' population. In the 2008 election, blacks turned out to vote in record numbers. Those black voters swept Obama into office. Without the black vote, McCain would have probably won.

Enter Herman Cain. A black man.

If Cain is the Republican nominee facing off against Barack Hussein Obama in the 2012 election, black voters will suddenly face a choice they have never had to make before.

They will have to choose between two black men for president.

And therefore, a dilemma.

The way I see it, there are more than two choices for blacks under this scenario:

1. A Democrat black candidate.

2. A Republican black candidate.

3. To vote for a black man who offers empty promises of "hope and change" but has failed to deliver.

4. To vote for a black man who offers real common sense solutions to the problems facing all Americans, including black Americans, and not just "bumper sticker" slogans..

5. Vote for a third party candidate.

6. Vote for a write-in candidate, or

7. Don't vote at all.

Recent polls (that I did find) indicate blacks are disappointed in Obama. Some estimate that as many as 15-20% of those who voted for Obama in 2008 do not approve of the job he's done thus far.

This doesn't necessarily mean they won't vote for him again in 2012.

However, if that disappointment manifests itself in the polls on election day, many of the above choices will no doubt be made.

If black voters make any of the above choices besides the first and third choices, Herman Cain can win in 2012.

Cross posted at American Descent

Friday, May 20, 2011

Surprise! The Media Lies!

“In light of new realities on the ground, including already existing major Israeli population centers, it is unrealistic to expect that the outcome of final status negotiations will be a full and complete return to the armistice lines of 1949.” ~ George W. Bush

The AOL/Huffington Post says, the US has always supported the 1967 borders thing.

It is a lie.

Here's an article that says exactly opposite.

Obviously, Barack Hussein Obama hates Israel.

Tuesday, May 17, 2011

A Funny Video

I love anything that's politically incorrect, except that horrible TV show of that name, which of course, was not politically incorrect at all.

Ladies, please understand. This is sarcastic comedy.

Saturday, May 14, 2011

A Clever Video

"Nothing is easier than to denounce the evildoer; nothing is more difficult than to understand him." ~ Fyodor Dostoevsky

A friend posted this on Facebook. I thought it was clever:

I don't need to comment. We all know, and have known for a long time that Obama is a Marxist.

Friday, May 06, 2011

Yet Another Question

"Something is rotten in the state of Denmark." ~ William Shakespeare

Look at the above picture. Does anyone think Obama looks apprehensive? Worried? Uncertain? If you do, do you wonder why?

Here is another issue that has me puzzled:

Obama wants us all to believe he is the one responsible for getting bin Laden.

At first, the story was Osama resisted and was armed.

Then, the story was changed. Now, we are supposed to believe Osama was unarmed. For the record, I've never seen a picture of bin Laden that didn't show him either holding a gun or where a gun was not within his reach. (Well, at least, none other than a close up, such as the one I posted in an earlier post) With all the noise and commotion on the lower floors of his compound, why would Osama have been unarmed?

If it's true that he was unarmed when he was shot, then his death is murder.

If it's true that Obama was really calling the shots, that makes Obama a murderer.

Does he still want to take the credit for killing Osama bin Laden?

Why would he want to admit any complicity in the murder of an unarmed man?

What possible reason would he have to put his presidency at risk (which is something completely un-Obama-like) over something that could have been so easily avoided? All he would have had to do was stick to the original story. What was the point of changing it?

Thursday, May 05, 2011

More Questions

"Truth is generally the best vindication against slander." ~ Abraham Lincoln

Now that Obama has finally decided (funny how it always takes him so long to decide anything) not to release any photos of bin Laden's dead body, I have a few questions.

It is said he doesn't want to give terrorists a reason to get violent.

They have no reason to get violent now? Since when have they needed a reason?

What is Obama hiding?

Why the hasty burial at sea?

And don't try to tell me the urgency to dispose of Osama's body was out of respect for Muslim tradition. According to what I've heard, Muslims bury their dead within 24 hours after death, in the land of their birth.

The Arabian Sea is not the land of Osama's birth. If we are going to respect Islamic tradition, why respect part of the tradition and not all of it?

If they had simply buried him somewhere in Pakistan and not revealed where, the same flimsy excuse, that of preventing followers from building a shrine at his grave site could have still been provided.

1. I understand Osama was buried at sea about 6 hours after death. That means they had 18 more hours in which to...

A, make sure the world got a chance to confirm the kill, and

B, make a better decision on what to do with the body.

The one chance Obama has to make a better, more thought out decision on something and he suddenly gets decisive. Why?

The manner in which these events transpired raises even more questions.

With nothing to prove Osama is really dead, could it be the Obama administration is up to something nefarious?

Would a former Marine drill sergeant make a bad therapist?

Is it just a coincidence that Osama was supposedly killed while questions about Obama's long form birth certificate's legitimacy are being asked?

For the record, I personally believe Osama bin Laden is dead.

But, why the secrecy? Why suppress evidence of Osama's death while revealing so much about how our clandestine covert operations operate?

Which is more harmful to the security of the United States? Proof of Osama's death or revealing our methods to our enemies?

I don't like Obama. I don't trust Obama. I think he's hiding something.

I think some kind of relationship between Obama and Osama existed, and Obama doesn't want us to know.

But, he can make all these questions go away by simply releasing bona fide photos of Osama's deceased body.

Tuesday, May 03, 2011

The "Paper Tiger" Has Teeth

"America is a paper tiger" ~ Osama bin Laden

I've been too busy to comment on the termination of Osama bin Laden, and, as it turns out, that may have been a blessing.

Now that further information has surfaced, I can make a more informed comment.

Stop! Don't shoot!

Upon first hearing that Osama was dead, my first thought was, "Big deal. Someone else will just step in and take his place. It's not over." I still think that, except, his death is a big deal.

Then, I heard that Obama "authorized" the operation. He gave the "Kill" order.

Now, I admit I have little to no knowledge of military operations, and certainly less knowledge of covert military operations, but I seem to remember President George W. Bush authorized the military to capture and kill bin Laden a decade ago.

Was this authorization ever rescinded?

If not, Obama did not need to authorize the operation that resulted in the death of Osama bin Laden. Taking out bin Laden was the armed forces' mission, and has been their mission for the last ten years.

Mission accomplished.

Now, Obama is taking credit for this victory. This is the same man who campaigned on getting the U.S. out of the war by surrendering. He is also the same man who promised to close GITMO, and aggressively pushed for the prosecution of the CIA operatives who interrogated the Muslim terrorist detainees, calling our techniques "torture".

And yet, it was those very "techniques" that gave us the information that, in turn, led to Osama bin Laden's demise.

So, apparently, Obama gets the credit in spite of himself.

Two things bother me about the subsequent burial of Osama at sea:

I understand the stated reasons for burying him at sea, but they don't pass muster with me.

1. The first reason stated was they buried him at sea to prevent Osama's rabid followers from building a shrine at the site of Osama's grave. OK. So they have prevented Muslim extremists from creating a shrine to Osama on his gravesite. But, nevertheless, shrines can, and likely will, be created at his place of birth, place of death, and any of thousands of sites scattered in between.

So, what, if anything, did burial at sea accomplish, other than generate speculation that Osama might not really be dead? You know conspiracy theorists will have a field day with that one.

Remember the theories that Hitler was still alive somewhere and plotting his revenge?

At least there was never any doubt that Mussolini was dead.

2. The second stated reason for burial at sea was because Obama (apparently, since he had the responsibility of making such decisions) insisted we give bin Laden a proper Muslim send-off out of respect for the Islamic traditions and customs.

This offends me. How does this vermin deserve respect from us? From anyone? In my opinion, his body should have been placed in some very public place and left there with 24 hour video surveillance until his body decays into dust.

To hell with respect for Muslim tradition and customs. They are a false religion in the first place.

In my opinion, he shouldn't have been killed at all. Rather, he should have been captured and incarcerated for the rest of his life in a prison with no other inmates and no outside contact at all, ala Rudolph Hess in Spandau Prison. No newspapers. No TV. No DVD's, No computers. No visitors. At all. Until his lonely, anonymous death.

In this way, he becomes virtually ineffective as a leader of terrorists. He cannot be a martyr because he has not died a martyr's death. He becomes his own worst nightmare:

He becomes insignificant.

Osama bin Laden once famously said, "America is a paper tiger".

Evidently, this "paper tiger" has some pretty sharp teeth.

Cross posted at American Descent