"All of us who professionally use the mass media are the shapers of society. We can vulgarize that society. We can brutalize it. Or, we can help lift it onto a higher level." ~ William Bernbach
My newest Blogroll addition, Wintery Knight, has posted an interesting entry on media bias.
I copied his links and posted them, one by one, to my Facebook status in hopes that my Liberal Doctor nephew will see them, read them, and learn something about the media. He actually sees no bias in mainstream media reporting, except, of course, for FOX News, which he claims is basically the propaganda arm of the Republican party.
I find this interesting, to say the least, since he is a Professor of Media Studies at Eastern University in Pennsylvania. He has even earned a Doctorate in the field.
How can someone who is considered an expert in media not recognize obvious bias? It's not like it's subtle.
Giving my nephew the benefit of the doubt, perhaps he is too close. He can't see the forest for the trees. His blindness reminds me of Edgar Allen Poe's short story, "The Purloined Letter". The object of his search is in plain sight and in the open for all to see, if they merely open their eyes and look.
Of course, that would require objectivity, and being a Liberal, that isn't possible.
In any case, I believe posting some articles about anything concerning media should attract his attention, and perhaps even hold it long enough for him to learn something he may have previously dismissed.
We can only hope.
Wednesday, June 29, 2011
Sunday, June 19, 2011
Father's Day 2011
"And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord." ~ Ephesians 6:4
When I was a teenager, I was convinced my father was the stupidest man in the world. When I was in my twenties, with kids of my own, I was surprised how much the old man had learned in only about 10 years.
He is in Heaven now.
Today, in my late 50's (very late. I'm 59), with my 5 kids all grown up and with kids of their own, I realize that I am much more like my father than I ever thought or wanted to be.
But, it's OK. I kind of like myself now.
And, I love my father.
Happy Father's Day to all of you fathers out there in Blogland.
When I was a teenager, I was convinced my father was the stupidest man in the world. When I was in my twenties, with kids of my own, I was surprised how much the old man had learned in only about 10 years.
He is in Heaven now.
Today, in my late 50's (very late. I'm 59), with my 5 kids all grown up and with kids of their own, I realize that I am much more like my father than I ever thought or wanted to be.
But, it's OK. I kind of like myself now.
And, I love my father.
Happy Father's Day to all of you fathers out there in Blogland.
Monday, June 13, 2011
Palin Is Vindicated
"Though the vicious can sometimes pour affliction upon the good, their power is transient and their punishment certain; and that innocence, though oppressed by injustice, shall, supported by patience, finally triumph over misfortune!" ~ Ann Radcliffe
So, the Liberal Media hounds have pored through countless pages of Sarah Palin's e-mail documents ravenously looking for anything they could use to damage her reputation. Over 24,000 of them.
And what did they find?
The e-mails show that Sarah Palin is of stalwart character, a conscientious and effective Governor who actually did place the interests of her constituency and her state over her self interests. They showed a working mom who successfully balanced her time between her high pressure and highly scrutinized job with her personal time with her family.
A quote from this story: "Whether you like her or not is up to you, but the one big surprise coming out of an examination of 24,000 email messages is that there really is no surprise, no shocking inside story.
What you see with Palin is generally what you get."
What didn't they find?
No corruption. No dirt. No malfeasance. Not a smirch. Not one blot on her record out of 24,000 pages.
And, keep in mind this is only what the left wing Liberal media reported they found. What they said they found are simply snippets of the volumes of records they studiously and voraciously examined with a fine tooth comb. How many more records do you suppose they found that showed her to be even more intelligent and capable than anyone once thought?
Believe me, if there were any evidence at all of anything negative, you can be sure they would have gleefully announced it to the world, and by now, every single man woman and child in the world would know every detail.
In seeking to embarrass Palin, they have only managed to embarrass themselves. If it weren't so pathetic (and predictable)The Left wing Liberal State-run Media has egg on their faces, but I'll bet they won't apologize or even admit they are wrong about her. A perfect example of Liberal truth number 8:
Liberals cannot be embarrassed. They lack the gene to blush.
It surely must be a dark day in Liberal land today.
So, the Liberal Media hounds have pored through countless pages of Sarah Palin's e-mail documents ravenously looking for anything they could use to damage her reputation. Over 24,000 of them.
And what did they find?
The e-mails show that Sarah Palin is of stalwart character, a conscientious and effective Governor who actually did place the interests of her constituency and her state over her self interests. They showed a working mom who successfully balanced her time between her high pressure and highly scrutinized job with her personal time with her family.
A quote from this story: "Whether you like her or not is up to you, but the one big surprise coming out of an examination of 24,000 email messages is that there really is no surprise, no shocking inside story.
What you see with Palin is generally what you get."
What didn't they find?
No corruption. No dirt. No malfeasance. Not a smirch. Not one blot on her record out of 24,000 pages.
And, keep in mind this is only what the left wing Liberal media reported they found. What they said they found are simply snippets of the volumes of records they studiously and voraciously examined with a fine tooth comb. How many more records do you suppose they found that showed her to be even more intelligent and capable than anyone once thought?
Believe me, if there were any evidence at all of anything negative, you can be sure they would have gleefully announced it to the world, and by now, every single man woman and child in the world would know every detail.
In seeking to embarrass Palin, they have only managed to embarrass themselves. If it weren't so pathetic (and predictable)The Left wing Liberal State-run Media has egg on their faces, but I'll bet they won't apologize or even admit they are wrong about her. A perfect example of Liberal truth number 8:
Liberals cannot be embarrassed. They lack the gene to blush.
It surely must be a dark day in Liberal land today.
Saturday, June 11, 2011
Moron Liberal Stupididty
"Ordinarily he was insane, but he had lucid moments when he was merely stupid." ~ Heinrich Heine
(ol' Heinrich must know Chris Matthews personally)
Apparently, according to Chris "Obama sends a chill up my leg" Matthews, if you are outraged by Democrat Representative Anthony Wiener sending pictures of his namesake to young women through Twitter, you are "culturally backwards":
Obviously, Matthews is another one of the elite Liberal intelligentsia, who know better than us poor dumb Americans what's proper behavior.
This guy is shameless. So is Wiener. So is just about every Liberal.
Now, let's all sit back and enjoy as Jim and other psychotic Liberals try to defend this idiot.
(ol' Heinrich must know Chris Matthews personally)
Apparently, according to Chris "Obama sends a chill up my leg" Matthews, if you are outraged by Democrat Representative Anthony Wiener sending pictures of his namesake to young women through Twitter, you are "culturally backwards":
Obviously, Matthews is another one of the elite Liberal intelligentsia, who know better than us poor dumb Americans what's proper behavior.
This guy is shameless. So is Wiener. So is just about every Liberal.
Now, let's all sit back and enjoy as Jim and other psychotic Liberals try to defend this idiot.
Thursday, June 09, 2011
More Liberal Stupidity, With A Twist
"Deviant: Different from what is considered to be normal or morally correct." ~ Webster's Dictionary
In a Facebook discussion about the entrance of Rick Santorum into the 2012 Presidential race, I learned something new about Liberals. That is, how low Liberals will stoop to attack their ideological opponents.
Rick Santorum
One commenter in the thread said he wished Santorum would change his name, which prompted me to ask why. He responded that I should Google the name, "Santorum".
Well, I did as he suggested, and was appalled and sickened by what I found.
Is there a depth to which Liberals won't sink to disparage people?
From what I learned, an immoral, soulless, disgusting, perverted Sodomite named Dan Savage, feigned outrage at Former Senator Rick Santorum after he stood up for family values, and attacked the Senator by creating an alternative definition of the word, "santorum".
Disgusting little Pervert
As is typical of the Liberal mindset, Savage's hateful response to Santorum's somewhat innocuous statement was extremely disproportional to the alleged offense.
I use the words "alleged" and "feigned" purposely, because typically, these Liberals really know the truth but choose to deny the facts.
This is the sort of person who would have us accept his aberrant filthy, disgusting, immoral, deviant lifestyle as normal, and even worse, natural!
Do you think a mind capable of creating such a vile, disgusting, synonym for anyone's name is a natural, normal mind? Or is it a deviant mind?
A perverted mind-in-the gutter like that is the only sort of mind that could conceive such an absolutely revolting concept.
There is no love in this "man", and I use the term loosely. There is no honor. There is no respect. He is a vile, disgusting, little pervert. I cannot conceive the amount of self-loathing this deviant little creature possesses.
He is appropriately named.
Savage's entire biography reads like a litany of perversion.
He is nothing more than a savage. He is everything that is evil in the world and nothing that is good. He is evil incarnate.
And, like every other Liberal, he is unbelievably stupid.
In a Facebook discussion about the entrance of Rick Santorum into the 2012 Presidential race, I learned something new about Liberals. That is, how low Liberals will stoop to attack their ideological opponents.
Rick SantorumOne commenter in the thread said he wished Santorum would change his name, which prompted me to ask why. He responded that I should Google the name, "Santorum".
Well, I did as he suggested, and was appalled and sickened by what I found.
Is there a depth to which Liberals won't sink to disparage people?
From what I learned, an immoral, soulless, disgusting, perverted Sodomite named Dan Savage, feigned outrage at Former Senator Rick Santorum after he stood up for family values, and attacked the Senator by creating an alternative definition of the word, "santorum".
Disgusting little PervertI use the words "alleged" and "feigned" purposely, because typically, these Liberals really know the truth but choose to deny the facts.
This is the sort of person who would have us accept his aberrant filthy, disgusting, immoral, deviant lifestyle as normal, and even worse, natural!
Do you think a mind capable of creating such a vile, disgusting, synonym for anyone's name is a natural, normal mind? Or is it a deviant mind?
A perverted mind-in-the gutter like that is the only sort of mind that could conceive such an absolutely revolting concept.
There is no love in this "man", and I use the term loosely. There is no honor. There is no respect. He is a vile, disgusting, little pervert. I cannot conceive the amount of self-loathing this deviant little creature possesses.
He is appropriately named.
Savage's entire biography reads like a litany of perversion.
He is nothing more than a savage. He is everything that is evil in the world and nothing that is good. He is evil incarnate.
And, like every other Liberal, he is unbelievably stupid.
Wednesday, June 08, 2011
Obama Is Stupid
"Get all the fools on your side and you can be elected to anything." ~ Frank Dane
The second of my posts about how the leftists treat Conservatives as opposed to how they treat their own:
If Sarah Palin was really wrong about Paul Revere, her gaffe would still be less of a stupid idiotic statement than this one:
And yet, no Liberal so-called journalists dare admit the obvious.
Paul Revere's famous ride occurred over 225 years ago, during a time when the media was limited to writing, by hand, about events that transpired, after the fact, and before witnesses, and rarely were the events actually witnessed first hand by those who reported them in the newspapers of the day.
What Sarah Palin said was in response to a reporter asking her what she had learned about history on her stop in Boston.
She already knew what all the rest of us did, that Revere rode through the towns, alerting the people that the regulars were coming, but she had learned something else that day. She learned he also warned the British soldiers that the American patriots were ready to defend themselves.
Now, after 225 years plus, Sarah Palin knows more about the events on that day than Barack Hussein Obama knew about the current geographical boundaries of the United States of America!
And the Libs say she's stupid!
Well, if she's stupid for knowing facts that the reporters don't know, how stupid does that make Obama?
I mean, she has an excuse for possibly being slightly mistaken about something that happened 225 years ago.
Obama has no excuse.
He's just an imbecile.
And so are the rest of the Liberals.
The second of my posts about how the leftists treat Conservatives as opposed to how they treat their own:
If Sarah Palin was really wrong about Paul Revere, her gaffe would still be less of a stupid idiotic statement than this one:
And yet, no Liberal so-called journalists dare admit the obvious.
Paul Revere's famous ride occurred over 225 years ago, during a time when the media was limited to writing, by hand, about events that transpired, after the fact, and before witnesses, and rarely were the events actually witnessed first hand by those who reported them in the newspapers of the day.
What Sarah Palin said was in response to a reporter asking her what she had learned about history on her stop in Boston.
She already knew what all the rest of us did, that Revere rode through the towns, alerting the people that the regulars were coming, but she had learned something else that day. She learned he also warned the British soldiers that the American patriots were ready to defend themselves.
Now, after 225 years plus, Sarah Palin knows more about the events on that day than Barack Hussein Obama knew about the current geographical boundaries of the United States of America!
And the Libs say she's stupid!
Well, if she's stupid for knowing facts that the reporters don't know, how stupid does that make Obama?
I mean, she has an excuse for possibly being slightly mistaken about something that happened 225 years ago.
Obama has no excuse.
He's just an imbecile.
And so are the rest of the Liberals.
Tuesday, June 07, 2011
Taking Off The Gloves
"Women should be obscene and not heard." ~ Groucho Marx
Since my last post, I am still fuming over the treatment of Sarah Palin by so-called journalists and their mindless Liberal drones.
And, it's not just Sarah Palin. It's anyone who espouses Conservative values.
These reporters follow Palin around like vultures, hoping their victim will accidentally drop a tiny tibit of meat they can jump on and devour.
The recent video taken of Sarah Palin on her bus tour is only the latest example of the feeding frenzy that dogs her every move. And frankly, every highly visible Conservative has the same problem. She stumbled over her words (something all of us have done from time to time, by the way) while talking about the role Paul Revere served in the days before the outbreak of the War of Independence. Within minutes after her unfortunate choice of words were uttered, the video went viral and every Liberal in America was labeling her stupid, incompetent, and uneducated.
But, she was not wrong. What she said was historically accurate. It just didn't come out the way she intended (this happens sometimes, particularly when she isn't reading the words verbatim off a teleprompter). But the reporters didn't care. It sounded wrong to them, and that was enough.
The hounds were loosed.
This is the same playbook that is always used by Liberals:
Attack the messenger and don't address the message.
I don't know when it started, but this is the treatment all high profile Conservatives have received for as long as I can remember. I can remember how Richard Nixon was attacked. During the famous debates between he and JFK, the press never talked about the merits of his argument. They were too focused on his physical appearance. As if physical appearance has anything to do with ability.
If physical appearance is synonymous with stupidity, then Helen Thomas must be the stupidest person on earth.
Wait...
Since then, every Republican President and Presidential candidate has been ridiculed by the left. All of them have been described as stupid, ignorant, moronic, etc. They called Gerald Ford, an all star college athlete, stupid and clumsy. Ronald Reagan was forgetful, senile, too old, and yes, stupid. George H. W. Bush was stupid and a liar. We are all too familiar with the insults leveled at George W Bush; Stupid, a war criminal, a chimpanzee.
Through it all, Republicans and Conservatives have borne it all with grace and aplomb. We haven't sunk to their level. We have been far too noble. For the most part, we have steadfastly defended our leaders without resorting to ad hominen, vitriolic, hateful, personal attacks.
Basically, the same tactics the left have always used against us.
Well, I've had it with them.
From now on, I'm going on the offensive. I can play this game, too. I'm fighting fire with fire. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And, I'm starting with this following clip:
My God, Barbara Walters is an idiot! Listen to her stumble over her words (kind of like Sarah Plain did)and accidentally say, "If Sarah Palin can still ride around in her bus and be considered to the possible president, this man can override this, stay in Congress, and just hope there's another scandal..."
What? Hope there's another scandal? You think that will solve ol' Weiner boy's problems, you dumb broad? Boy, what a moron this BaBa WaWa is! What a waste of oxygen! She needs to just shut up, and let people think she's stupid instead of opening her mouth and removing all doubt!
Oh, and By the way, Anthony Wiener is a pervert.
But that's not a personal attack. It's a fact.
Since my last post, I am still fuming over the treatment of Sarah Palin by so-called journalists and their mindless Liberal drones.
And, it's not just Sarah Palin. It's anyone who espouses Conservative values.
These reporters follow Palin around like vultures, hoping their victim will accidentally drop a tiny tibit of meat they can jump on and devour.
The recent video taken of Sarah Palin on her bus tour is only the latest example of the feeding frenzy that dogs her every move. And frankly, every highly visible Conservative has the same problem. She stumbled over her words (something all of us have done from time to time, by the way) while talking about the role Paul Revere served in the days before the outbreak of the War of Independence. Within minutes after her unfortunate choice of words were uttered, the video went viral and every Liberal in America was labeling her stupid, incompetent, and uneducated.
But, she was not wrong. What she said was historically accurate. It just didn't come out the way she intended (this happens sometimes, particularly when she isn't reading the words verbatim off a teleprompter). But the reporters didn't care. It sounded wrong to them, and that was enough.
The hounds were loosed.
This is the same playbook that is always used by Liberals:
Attack the messenger and don't address the message.
I don't know when it started, but this is the treatment all high profile Conservatives have received for as long as I can remember. I can remember how Richard Nixon was attacked. During the famous debates between he and JFK, the press never talked about the merits of his argument. They were too focused on his physical appearance. As if physical appearance has anything to do with ability.
If physical appearance is synonymous with stupidity, then Helen Thomas must be the stupidest person on earth.
Wait...Since then, every Republican President and Presidential candidate has been ridiculed by the left. All of them have been described as stupid, ignorant, moronic, etc. They called Gerald Ford, an all star college athlete, stupid and clumsy. Ronald Reagan was forgetful, senile, too old, and yes, stupid. George H. W. Bush was stupid and a liar. We are all too familiar with the insults leveled at George W Bush; Stupid, a war criminal, a chimpanzee.
Through it all, Republicans and Conservatives have borne it all with grace and aplomb. We haven't sunk to their level. We have been far too noble. For the most part, we have steadfastly defended our leaders without resorting to ad hominen, vitriolic, hateful, personal attacks.
Basically, the same tactics the left have always used against us.
Well, I've had it with them.
From now on, I'm going on the offensive. I can play this game, too. I'm fighting fire with fire. What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
And, I'm starting with this following clip:
My God, Barbara Walters is an idiot! Listen to her stumble over her words (kind of like Sarah Plain did)and accidentally say, "If Sarah Palin can still ride around in her bus and be considered to the possible president, this man can override this, stay in Congress, and just hope there's another scandal..."
What? Hope there's another scandal? You think that will solve ol' Weiner boy's problems, you dumb broad? Boy, what a moron this BaBa WaWa is! What a waste of oxygen! She needs to just shut up, and let people think she's stupid instead of opening her mouth and removing all doubt!
Oh, and By the way, Anthony Wiener is a pervert.
But that's not a personal attack. It's a fact.
Friday, June 03, 2011
Family Feud?
"I didn't leave the Democrat party. The Democrat party left me." ~ Ronald Reagan
Tonight, I went too far, it appears. On Facebook, my lovely niece, who unfortunately, is an avid Obama supporter and a "progressive", posted a link to the following video with the accompanying comment, "Um.....Haha???" on her brother's (my Liberal Doctor nephew) wall:
Afterward, her Liberal friends posted these comments:
"Her ignorance is astounding!! I feel dumber just hearing her jabber :-D" -- (This from a woman who is a "Christian minister". Real Christian, eh?)
Then another comment from my niece: "Haha...me too! She was just making it up as she went along...she should really not speak to people when she's in public."
The last comment came from my nephew: "Maybe she should have written the Paul Revere poem on her hand?"
(Note to myself: Maybe my learned nephew should study his history instead of simply taking what amounts to poetic license as fact)
I couldn't resist responding. I posted a comment (without even viewing the video first) pointing out that their hero, Barack Hussein Obama once remarked that the United States has 60 states. He said, and I'm sure my two readers will remember, he had been in 57 states with one left to go and that he wanted to go also to Alaska and Hawaii, but his people wouldn't let him. That makes 60 states in all. I then wrote something like "everyone makes mistakes, but the difference between Obama and Palin is that Obama hates his country, and Palin doesn't."
I say I said "something like" because later, when I checked back, I found my comment had been deleted.
I later posted a link to the article linked below, but that,too was deleted.
I guess I went too far. I don't want to anger my relatives, of course, but they drew first blood, so to speak. I must admit I was a bit surprised that no one attempted to argue with me, and instead, took the cowardly way out. It embarrasses me to admit that these are my blood relatives, with college degrees (My nephew even has a PhD), and they display this type of ignorance.
So, since I obviously wasn't going to be allowed to post further comments there, I posted my thoughts in my own status. But not until after I found this story.
After I watched the video she posted, I became angry, to say the least. This is what I wrote on my status, along with the above article:
"I get really sick of "progressives" launching hateful, vitriolic, ad-hominen attacks against Conservatives. These cowards can't refute the message so they attack the messenger. Sarah Palin is a patriot. Their "hero" is a Marxist. They can't deny either of these facts."
I had more, but I went over the word limit, so I added a couple of comments to my comment, to wit:
"Can they point to anything Sarah Palin has ever said that indicates she hates America? No, but we can point to quote after quote that indicates Obama does. Does this make "Progressives" anti-American? Not necessarily, but it certainly makes them look ignorant. Now, we have proof that Palin was historically correct, and the egg is on the "progressives" faces. Payback's a bitch, aint it?"
And, lastly:
"Is there anyone who can tell me what exactly is it about Sarah Palin that so frightens Liberals? Is it because she loves America? Is it because she believes in God? Or is it because she proudly speaks the truth about the Marxists who are trying to destroy our country? What is it? I really want to know."
Still feeling righteously indignant, I continued with another post, with another link to accentuate my point:
"More on the media's lies about Sarah Palin. Are the Liberal's embarrassed to be proven wrong yet again? No. They lack the gene to blush."
I fear I have created a rift in my family. I may never be invited to Christmas Dinner again.
But, I can't sit back and take it. And, I won't.
Tonight, I went too far, it appears. On Facebook, my lovely niece, who unfortunately, is an avid Obama supporter and a "progressive", posted a link to the following video with the accompanying comment, "Um.....Haha???" on her brother's (my Liberal Doctor nephew) wall:
Afterward, her Liberal friends posted these comments:
"Her ignorance is astounding!! I feel dumber just hearing her jabber :-D" -- (This from a woman who is a "Christian minister". Real Christian, eh?)
Then another comment from my niece: "Haha...me too! She was just making it up as she went along...she should really not speak to people when she's in public."
The last comment came from my nephew: "Maybe she should have written the Paul Revere poem on her hand?"
(Note to myself: Maybe my learned nephew should study his history instead of simply taking what amounts to poetic license as fact)
I couldn't resist responding. I posted a comment (without even viewing the video first) pointing out that their hero, Barack Hussein Obama once remarked that the United States has 60 states. He said, and I'm sure my two readers will remember, he had been in 57 states with one left to go and that he wanted to go also to Alaska and Hawaii, but his people wouldn't let him. That makes 60 states in all. I then wrote something like "everyone makes mistakes, but the difference between Obama and Palin is that Obama hates his country, and Palin doesn't."
I say I said "something like" because later, when I checked back, I found my comment had been deleted.
I later posted a link to the article linked below, but that,too was deleted.
I guess I went too far. I don't want to anger my relatives, of course, but they drew first blood, so to speak. I must admit I was a bit surprised that no one attempted to argue with me, and instead, took the cowardly way out. It embarrasses me to admit that these are my blood relatives, with college degrees (My nephew even has a PhD), and they display this type of ignorance.
So, since I obviously wasn't going to be allowed to post further comments there, I posted my thoughts in my own status. But not until after I found this story.
After I watched the video she posted, I became angry, to say the least. This is what I wrote on my status, along with the above article:
"I get really sick of "progressives" launching hateful, vitriolic, ad-hominen attacks against Conservatives. These cowards can't refute the message so they attack the messenger. Sarah Palin is a patriot. Their "hero" is a Marxist. They can't deny either of these facts."
I had more, but I went over the word limit, so I added a couple of comments to my comment, to wit:
"Can they point to anything Sarah Palin has ever said that indicates she hates America? No, but we can point to quote after quote that indicates Obama does. Does this make "Progressives" anti-American? Not necessarily, but it certainly makes them look ignorant. Now, we have proof that Palin was historically correct, and the egg is on the "progressives" faces. Payback's a bitch, aint it?"
And, lastly:
"Is there anyone who can tell me what exactly is it about Sarah Palin that so frightens Liberals? Is it because she loves America? Is it because she believes in God? Or is it because she proudly speaks the truth about the Marxists who are trying to destroy our country? What is it? I really want to know."
Still feeling righteously indignant, I continued with another post, with another link to accentuate my point:
"More on the media's lies about Sarah Palin. Are the Liberal's embarrassed to be proven wrong yet again? No. They lack the gene to blush."
I fear I have created a rift in my family. I may never be invited to Christmas Dinner again.
But, I can't sit back and take it. And, I won't.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
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!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
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Convincing Proof: Obama Is A Phony
You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time.~ Abraham Lincoln
At long last, Barack Hussein Obama has released his birth certificate, and now the issue of his citizenship and subsequent eligibility to be President is finally put to rest, right?
Of course, who could argue with this solid proof?
Click to enlarge.I won't lie. I have thought this issue a mere distraction for a long time. There has been no question in my mind that Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States. Of that, I had no doubt. All the suppositions and assumptions and convincing arguments could not convince me that Obama is not a legal natural born citizen of the United States.
Now that he has released his "actual birth certificate", I'm no longer so sure. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the obvious problems with this "document".
Look at the upper left hand corner. And then, compare the left border with the right border. See anything strange?
The so-called birth certificate was obviously and poorly cut and pasted onto a background with a nearly identical pattern. My God, the forger didn't even bother to trim the edges to complete the illusion of authenticity. He simply cut the forgery out and pasted it onto a nearly identical background pattern.
One would think in three years the forger could have perfected his art.
My 7-year old grandson could do a better, more convincing job.
Next, and probably most damning, look at the box labeled, "Race" beside his father's name.
African?
Since when is Africa a race?
There are white people native to Africa. I'll bet there are Asians who are native to Africa. Is the continent of birth their race?
Obama was presumably born in 1961. (I say "presumably", because after this fallacy, nothing about the origins of Obama is certain) No one has ever disputed that fact.
But, I digress. Does anyone want to venture a guess as to what the proper and accepted term for a black person was in 1961? I'll spoil the fun for you.
It was "Negro".
Or, if that box on the document were to be consistent with the mother's race (which is recorded to be, "Caucasian") the race should read, "Negroid". Regardless, it certainly wouldn't be "African".
See, back in 1961, there were three sub races within the all encompassing human race:
Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid, although the third was sometimes called Asian instead. I have never heard of a fourth race called "African".
I really don't know what to think about Obama's intent here.
I can't decide whether I think Obama is stupid or he thinks we are stupid, or if he is simply so arrogant and narcissistic, he doesn't really care if we buy his flim-flam or not.
At any rate, I am no longer convinced he is legitimate.
And, I know I am not alone.
Cross posted at American Descent
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Potential Candidates I Like
"Give no decision till both sides thou'st heard." ~ Phocylides
Now, for the promised post on potential Republican Presidential candidates that I like.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I like Rick Santorum. He has already declared his candidacy. Democrats and their puppets in the media have long attacked him for his strong family values. I don't see them lightening up. If he is to prevail, he'd better not have any skeletons in his closet, and he'd better not utter any word that could conceivably be misunderstood. He will need to be squeaky clean and above reproach.
Just advocating family values is enough to set the hounds loose on him.
Michele Bachmann. I admit, I didn't think anyone would suggest she couldn't be President because Republicans won't nominate a woman, but Commenter Glenn Chatfield offered exactly that opinion in the comments section of my previous post. Perhaps Glenn buys into the Democrat propaganda that Republicans are sexist. I'd hate to think that. Perhaps he will clarify. I believe, for true Conservatives, Ms. Bachmann is an ideal candidate. She espouses not only the family values Conservatives cherish, but she embraces sound fiscal policies as well.
I like her.
That said, the Democrat attack machine media would have a field day with her. She is a woman, and an attractive woman to boot, and that combination scares the heck out of the Liberals:
A woman with a mind.
To Liberals, that is something with which they are unfamiliar. Contrary to what Democrats say, they are secretly sexist. If Bachmann runs for president, the Democrats true colors will likely be revealed. They will say, as a woman, she can't be as strong and decisive as a man would. She will have to prove her strength and tenacity to win the necessary respect from the American voters. Remember what I pointed out previously:
The average American voter knows little, if anything other than what the leftist media tells them.
Again, like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann will have to be squeaky clean to avoid the media's character assassination tactics
My favorite candidate in the previous election was Duncan Hunter, U.S. Representative from California. I still like him, though it is highly doubtful he will even consider running. However, his son, Duncan Hunter Jr, has taken his father's place in the House of Representatives, and he is as Conservative as his father.
I would gladly vote for either if either of them chose to run.
Name recognition is a huge problem for the Hunters, though. Senior wasn't able to garner much of a following in the last election, but that's largely due to being nearly completely ignored by the most influential Republican pundits. Ann Coulter supported Hunter, and even scolded Sean Hannity for not giving Hunter equal support. He clearly represented my personal views better than any other candidate, and still does.
Probably the most viable potential candidate, in my humble opinion, is Herman Cain. This guy (along with Alan West) is the Democrat's worst nightmare:
A black man who is a Conservative.
And, not only is he a Conservative, but a man with real solutions to the problems created by the history making Barack Hussein Obama. A Herman Cain candidacy will almost certainly force the Democrat run media to fish or cut bait. Will they treat Cain with the respect he deserves as a black American (who they claim they revere)? Or will they spit out cleverly but thinly disguised racial epithets in their attacks on Cain?
I'm betting they will do the latter. Then, pretend they didn't really mean it the way it sounded.
He also may present something of a dilemma to the black voters. In 2008, 96% of black voters voted for Obama.
Two years later, after proving himself both incompetent and inept, a recent poll reported 96% of black voters said they would still vote for the liar-in-chief.
It is painfully clear blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama simply because he is black.
If Herman Cain, a black man with obvious superior intellect runs against Obama, the choice will be a difficult one for those who vote based strictly on skin color. Especially if Cain can convince black voters that his economic recovery plan is the better of the two. And, he also has the added advantage of offering something Obama promised but failed to deliver:
True hope and change.
Obama had his chance and failed. Hopefully, enough black voters will recognize that fact and vote accordingly to make a difference. Many black voters may well throw their support in Cain's direction.
Obama won on a promise.
So can Cain. And, unlike Obama, Cain can deliver.
Alan West. This freshman Republican Representative from Florida has impressed Conservatives in the short time he's been a Representative. A former Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, he is skilled in military strategy which would be a great advantage while we are still engaged in three wars. Additionally, he is a brilliant man with brilliant ideas that could help alleviate the financial situation the nation now faces.
Also, like Herman Cain, West is a black man. And, being black, he has the same advantage Cain does. The only significant drawback is his relative inexperience in politics. Although, it could be argued that attaining the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Marine Corps requires the utilization of a certain amount of politics.
As we know, being inexperienced is not an issue for the media as their fawning love for Obama clearly indicates. Unless, of course, the candidate is a Republican. Then, it's open season.
Regardless, the Liberal media attack machine will find an easy target in Alan West. He will be derisively referred (as will Herman Cain, of course)to as an "Uncle Tom" or brainwashed by the White Republican rich man establishment. And, the obligatory attacks on West's lack of experience, thus demonstrating how low into the depths of hypocrisy the Democrats are willing to sink to champion their hero, Obama.
My dream ticket thus far? Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann.
I know there are others we can discuss, but I can't think of any more off hand.
If my two readers wish to add other potential candidates to this post, feel free.
I'd like to hear what you have to say.
Now, for the promised post on potential Republican Presidential candidates that I like.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I like Rick Santorum. He has already declared his candidacy. Democrats and their puppets in the media have long attacked him for his strong family values. I don't see them lightening up. If he is to prevail, he'd better not have any skeletons in his closet, and he'd better not utter any word that could conceivably be misunderstood. He will need to be squeaky clean and above reproach.
Just advocating family values is enough to set the hounds loose on him.
Michele Bachmann. I admit, I didn't think anyone would suggest she couldn't be President because Republicans won't nominate a woman, but Commenter Glenn Chatfield offered exactly that opinion in the comments section of my previous post. Perhaps Glenn buys into the Democrat propaganda that Republicans are sexist. I'd hate to think that. Perhaps he will clarify. I believe, for true Conservatives, Ms. Bachmann is an ideal candidate. She espouses not only the family values Conservatives cherish, but she embraces sound fiscal policies as well.
I like her.
That said, the Democrat attack machine media would have a field day with her. She is a woman, and an attractive woman to boot, and that combination scares the heck out of the Liberals:
A woman with a mind.
To Liberals, that is something with which they are unfamiliar. Contrary to what Democrats say, they are secretly sexist. If Bachmann runs for president, the Democrats true colors will likely be revealed. They will say, as a woman, she can't be as strong and decisive as a man would. She will have to prove her strength and tenacity to win the necessary respect from the American voters. Remember what I pointed out previously:
The average American voter knows little, if anything other than what the leftist media tells them.
Again, like Rick Santorum, Michele Bachmann will have to be squeaky clean to avoid the media's character assassination tactics
My favorite candidate in the previous election was Duncan Hunter, U.S. Representative from California. I still like him, though it is highly doubtful he will even consider running. However, his son, Duncan Hunter Jr, has taken his father's place in the House of Representatives, and he is as Conservative as his father.
I would gladly vote for either if either of them chose to run.
Name recognition is a huge problem for the Hunters, though. Senior wasn't able to garner much of a following in the last election, but that's largely due to being nearly completely ignored by the most influential Republican pundits. Ann Coulter supported Hunter, and even scolded Sean Hannity for not giving Hunter equal support. He clearly represented my personal views better than any other candidate, and still does.
Probably the most viable potential candidate, in my humble opinion, is Herman Cain. This guy (along with Alan West) is the Democrat's worst nightmare:
A black man who is a Conservative.
And, not only is he a Conservative, but a man with real solutions to the problems created by the history making Barack Hussein Obama. A Herman Cain candidacy will almost certainly force the Democrat run media to fish or cut bait. Will they treat Cain with the respect he deserves as a black American (who they claim they revere)? Or will they spit out cleverly but thinly disguised racial epithets in their attacks on Cain?
I'm betting they will do the latter. Then, pretend they didn't really mean it the way it sounded.
He also may present something of a dilemma to the black voters. In 2008, 96% of black voters voted for Obama.
Two years later, after proving himself both incompetent and inept, a recent poll reported 96% of black voters said they would still vote for the liar-in-chief.
It is painfully clear blacks overwhelmingly voted for Obama simply because he is black.
If Herman Cain, a black man with obvious superior intellect runs against Obama, the choice will be a difficult one for those who vote based strictly on skin color. Especially if Cain can convince black voters that his economic recovery plan is the better of the two. And, he also has the added advantage of offering something Obama promised but failed to deliver:
True hope and change.
Obama had his chance and failed. Hopefully, enough black voters will recognize that fact and vote accordingly to make a difference. Many black voters may well throw their support in Cain's direction.
Obama won on a promise.
So can Cain. And, unlike Obama, Cain can deliver.
Alan West. This freshman Republican Representative from Florida has impressed Conservatives in the short time he's been a Representative. A former Marine Corps Lieutenant Colonel, he is skilled in military strategy which would be a great advantage while we are still engaged in three wars. Additionally, he is a brilliant man with brilliant ideas that could help alleviate the financial situation the nation now faces.
Also, like Herman Cain, West is a black man. And, being black, he has the same advantage Cain does. The only significant drawback is his relative inexperience in politics. Although, it could be argued that attaining the rank of Lieutenant Colonel in the Marine Corps requires the utilization of a certain amount of politics.
As we know, being inexperienced is not an issue for the media as their fawning love for Obama clearly indicates. Unless, of course, the candidate is a Republican. Then, it's open season.
Regardless, the Liberal media attack machine will find an easy target in Alan West. He will be derisively referred (as will Herman Cain, of course)to as an "Uncle Tom" or brainwashed by the White Republican rich man establishment. And, the obligatory attacks on West's lack of experience, thus demonstrating how low into the depths of hypocrisy the Democrats are willing to sink to champion their hero, Obama.
My dream ticket thus far? Herman Cain and Michele Bachmann.
I know there are others we can discuss, but I can't think of any more off hand.
If my two readers wish to add other potential candidates to this post, feel free.
I'd like to hear what you have to say.
Monday, April 25, 2011
Sometimes, No Choice Is Better Than Poor Choice
"The more alternatives, the more difficult the choice." ~ Abbe' D'Allanival
Ive been thinking of what it will take to unseat Barack Hussein Obama in the next Presidential election, and, from where I sit, the prospect is not particularly rosy.
Short of some miraculous Devine intervention or Obama somehow self destructing, I don't think he will lose.
The current crop of Republican Presidential hopefuls fails to impress me.
Don't get me wrong. Many of them are very capable of leading this country out of the mess Obama has created, but between the Liberal state run media attack machine and the inability of Republicans to repel such attacks, in addition to the leading candidates lack of the necessary charisma, it appears those candidates have a long row to hoe. And, it's uphill all the way.
We have Donald Trump.
The Donald? Are you kidding me?
Trump may be a fiscal Conservative but he's no Conservative. His interest in running for President is a publicity stunt.
The only American that would benefit from a Trump presidency is Donald Trump.
We already have a Narcissist in the oval office. We don't need another one. He isn't serious and he shouldn't be seriously considered for president.
Chris Christie. I thought for a while that the New Jersey Governor would be a good choice, but now, after learning more about his more moderate positions on various social issues, I no longer support him. He isn't Conservative enough for me. We've had enough of these middle-of-the road Presidents. The last thing we need is another George H. W. Bush. Christie's a good man, but he's not Conservative enough.
Sarah Palin. I love Ms. Palin. I love her strong Conservatism. She has a Conservative fire in her belly that will never be quenched or watered down by compromise.
But, she is unelectable. She made one huge mistake:
She quit.
Yes, I know why she quit, and I understand she had very good solid reasons for resigning as Alaska's Governor. I don't fault her for that. At the time, it was probably the best decision she could have made, but it destroyed any presidential aspirations she may have had. If she runs for President on the Republican ticket, all you will hear from the Democrats and their supportive comrades in the media will be "Yes, but, she quit."
That's just too big a disadvantage considering most voters know little more than what the mainstream media tells them. She wouldn't stand a chance of being elected.
Tim Pawlenty. Remember the relatively uninformed American voters mentioned above? Pawlenty doesn't have name recognition. I don't know enough about him to have an opinion. And, unfortunately, neither does the average voter. If voters don't know about him, they won't vote for him.
Haley Barbour. I like him but, he has the same problem as Pawlenty's. Not enough name recognition.
Newt Gingrich. He's already been a victim of the Media attack machine. There's simply been too much negative press about him. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. He cannot overcome the negative stigma attached to him. He cannot win.
Mitt Romney. He couldn't even defeat half-Liberal John McCain in the Republican primaries of the previous election. How has he improved his status since then? By implementing his own version of Obamacare in Massachusetts? I think not.
Mike Huckabee. I can't figure this guy out. He's all over the board. I like his social Conservatism, but would he increase the taxes or decrease them? I get mixed messages from him depending on which interviewer interviews him. I just don't know what to think. And, if the average American voter gets the same vibe, he's unelectable.
I know I haven't covered all the potential candidates. Who have I missed? There's several more on whom I have opinions, but this post is already too long to hold my two readers attention.
There are some I like, but so far, the ones I like have indicated they will not seek the nomination at this time.
I will cover them in a future post.
But, tell me what you think so far. Am I reading these potentials wrong?
Who do you like? Who don't you like?
Ive been thinking of what it will take to unseat Barack Hussein Obama in the next Presidential election, and, from where I sit, the prospect is not particularly rosy.
Short of some miraculous Devine intervention or Obama somehow self destructing, I don't think he will lose.
The current crop of Republican Presidential hopefuls fails to impress me.
Don't get me wrong. Many of them are very capable of leading this country out of the mess Obama has created, but between the Liberal state run media attack machine and the inability of Republicans to repel such attacks, in addition to the leading candidates lack of the necessary charisma, it appears those candidates have a long row to hoe. And, it's uphill all the way.
We have Donald Trump.
The Donald? Are you kidding me?
Trump may be a fiscal Conservative but he's no Conservative. His interest in running for President is a publicity stunt.
The only American that would benefit from a Trump presidency is Donald Trump.
We already have a Narcissist in the oval office. We don't need another one. He isn't serious and he shouldn't be seriously considered for president.
Chris Christie. I thought for a while that the New Jersey Governor would be a good choice, but now, after learning more about his more moderate positions on various social issues, I no longer support him. He isn't Conservative enough for me. We've had enough of these middle-of-the road Presidents. The last thing we need is another George H. W. Bush. Christie's a good man, but he's not Conservative enough.
Sarah Palin. I love Ms. Palin. I love her strong Conservatism. She has a Conservative fire in her belly that will never be quenched or watered down by compromise.
But, she is unelectable. She made one huge mistake:
She quit.
Yes, I know why she quit, and I understand she had very good solid reasons for resigning as Alaska's Governor. I don't fault her for that. At the time, it was probably the best decision she could have made, but it destroyed any presidential aspirations she may have had. If she runs for President on the Republican ticket, all you will hear from the Democrats and their supportive comrades in the media will be "Yes, but, she quit."
That's just too big a disadvantage considering most voters know little more than what the mainstream media tells them. She wouldn't stand a chance of being elected.
Tim Pawlenty. Remember the relatively uninformed American voters mentioned above? Pawlenty doesn't have name recognition. I don't know enough about him to have an opinion. And, unfortunately, neither does the average voter. If voters don't know about him, they won't vote for him.
Haley Barbour. I like him but, he has the same problem as Pawlenty's. Not enough name recognition.
Newt Gingrich. He's already been a victim of the Media attack machine. There's simply been too much negative press about him. It doesn't matter if it's true or not. He cannot overcome the negative stigma attached to him. He cannot win.
Mitt Romney. He couldn't even defeat half-Liberal John McCain in the Republican primaries of the previous election. How has he improved his status since then? By implementing his own version of Obamacare in Massachusetts? I think not.
Mike Huckabee. I can't figure this guy out. He's all over the board. I like his social Conservatism, but would he increase the taxes or decrease them? I get mixed messages from him depending on which interviewer interviews him. I just don't know what to think. And, if the average American voter gets the same vibe, he's unelectable.
I know I haven't covered all the potential candidates. Who have I missed? There's several more on whom I have opinions, but this post is already too long to hold my two readers attention.
There are some I like, but so far, the ones I like have indicated they will not seek the nomination at this time.
I will cover them in a future post.
But, tell me what you think so far. Am I reading these potentials wrong?
Who do you like? Who don't you like?
Sunday, April 24, 2011
He's Alive!
"Now upon the first day of the week, very early in the morning, they came unto the sepulchre, bringing the spices which they had prepared, and certain others with them.
And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." ~ Luke 24:1-7
The founder of Islam, Mohammed, is dead. The founder of Buddhism, Buddha, is dead. The founder of Confucianism, Confucius, is dead. All founders of all the world's religions are dead.
Long dead.
Dead and gone.
Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, is alive.
And that is the reason we celebrate this day.
Have a blessed Easter.
And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre.
And they entered in, and found not the body of the Lord Jesus.
And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, two men stood by them in shining garments:
And as they were afraid, and bowed down their faces to the earth, they said unto them, Why seek ye the living among the dead?
He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." ~ Luke 24:1-7
The founder of Islam, Mohammed, is dead. The founder of Buddhism, Buddha, is dead. The founder of Confucianism, Confucius, is dead. All founders of all the world's religions are dead.
Long dead.
Dead and gone.
Jesus Christ, the founder of Christianity, is alive.
And that is the reason we celebrate this day.
Have a blessed Easter.
Friday, April 22, 2011
Good Friday
"Surely he hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon him; and with his stripes we are healed." ~ Isaiah 53: 4-5
The events that transpired on that day changed everything. Nothing has made more of an impact on the world and mankind as the death of this one solitary man.
And, nothing ever will.
The events that transpired on that day changed everything. Nothing has made more of an impact on the world and mankind as the death of this one solitary man.
And, nothing ever will.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
