Holes of Your Own Creation: The Bright Side to Obama's Win.

As we mourn the "death" of our nation upon the victory of Barack Obama, we need to stop crying and whining and look on the bright.... and believe, there IS a bright side, and it has the potential to be so bright that it will blind us.
For several years now, a Democrat controlled congress has been screwing the economy, passing laws and actions that have put us into the mess we are in now. Why didn't they get blamed? Because all they had to do was point the finger at Bush and say "He took the cookie from the cookie jar."
Well, right now, we are tumbling down a steep slope, one that the Democrats have so blindly, but painstakingly created, with a giant hole at the bottom. Laws forcing banks to give out bad mortgage loans to unworthy applicants created the housing crisis and the credit crunch. Over-regulation and taxation of corporations have pushed them out of the country and overseas, where they can work without being hassled, and that created the massive layoffs, and finally, with all the whining and griping about the "cute widdle animals" has prevented us from drilling in our own country, as we are deathly afraid of somehow damaging the environment... or that's what they tell you. The pipeline in Alaska practically CREATED the environment around it, and the ONLY reason we don't have oil rigs off the coast of Florida is because the retirement communities didn't want to have their ocean view spoiled.

The list of laws continue, from government grants to useless companies, bailouts, to trying to instate universal healthcare..... which has proven so ineffective that even the CANADIANS are trying to get rid of it.
Long story short..... we have stepped into a cow-pie so deep we could sink a skyscraper into it.

So... where's the bright side? Why.... Barack Obama, of course. This dashing young gentleman has come down from Chicago and offered to work with our Democrat Congress to solve all of our problems, save us from our ignorance, relieve our suffering, end all hunger and strife, and create jobs!

That is a pretty tall list. Even someone who actually had a plan or knew how to would be hard pressed to fulfill all of those promises. To make things worse... Obama's "plans" to solve all these problems are almost guaranteed to make them worse.
STILL don't see it? Look closer:
Conservatives have been wrongly accused of causing many problems that we had nothing to do with. The public has blindly accepted this and believes that conservatives are ignorant, evil, and greedy. To make matters worse, Christians have slid into a frightening apathy, of not caring what happens to our nation, and just accepting whatever is being spoon-fed to them.
Obama getting elected, and pressuring Christians and conservatives will hopefully jar them back into awareness. Second, with a Democrat President, Congress, and soon-to-be Court, they will be in total control... meaning that they will have no one to blame when they make things worse and can't fix them. They can only accuse Bush so long before people start shaking their heads in disbelief. They will single-handedly tarnish they cause for a long time... and all we have to do is sit back and work at a local level to build a conservative base to undermine them when the time comes.

Obama plays catch up.

Since the unveiling of McCain's pick for his running mate, the Obama campaign has been ruthlessly attacking her like a pack of rabid wolves.
Why? Because Sarah Palin has the potential to become the most critical and influential VP in over 50 years. She's rammed the Obama boat, and the rocking is making some of its passengers seasick.

Barak has been comparing himself to Palin, trying to prove he is more experienced that she is.
This is MY question: Why is the Democrat "A" team, comparing itself to the Republican "B" team? Why would a star quarter back feel the need to go out of his way to try and prove that he is better than another team's second stringer?
Because, in this case, Obama knows that even the Republican VICE presidential canidate could beat him. Obama claims to have more responsibilities than Palin, and claims to handle more problems on a daily basis. Let's compare, shall we?


Obama's campaign has about 2500 paid employees in it, I believe.
Palin has about 71,000 people she has to supervise as a governor.

Obama's campaign rakes in several million dollars a month. (2.1 mil?)
Palin has to handle a money flow in the BILLIONS.

Obama is a senator. He is elected, goes to Washington, whines, and votes.
Palin is a governor. She has to handle the affairs of her state, and its success and welfare are her daily responsibilities.

Obama lives in the tiny state of Illinois. Yes, I'm going there, because he has frequently belittled the station of Palin, and her home state and town. If it weren't for Chicago, no one would care about Illinois at all.
Palin is the executive leader of the state of Alaska. Alaska is the largest state in the Union. It is more than twice the size of Texas. Granted, fewer people live there, but the amount of land and resources still makes it an incredible responsibilty.

Obama, as a Senator, does have to worry about international matters. Then why does Palin have almost the same number of overseas trips to our troops as Obama, and she is only a Governor. A governor's duties are to the state he/she is in charge of. Palin has risen above and beyond that basic requirement, and easily has as much, if not MORE experience that Obama in international matters. Come on. Her state borders Canada and Russia, and is not Physically connected to the 48 states. She has to work internationally on a regular basis, and lets be honest... being a neighbor of Russia can be a little difficult.

In short, yes, Obama has every right to be freaked. This woman, who in his own words, comes from a tiny backwater town, from an out of the way state, could outdo the "sophisticated" and "streetwise" Obama any day of the week.

And you know what? If they ever got into a fist fight, all my money would be on Palin. Dollars to donuts she could kick his keister within 10 minutes.

The Democrat's Broken Record.

I'm not sure what annoys me more about this campaign. The lack of good choice, or the sheer, monotonous repetition of material. Seriously people, it's getting boring. If I were voting solely based on who was more interesting, I'd have to go with McCain, because at least his ads are funny.

McCain is old enough to have hunted dinosaurs in his younger years.
Barack is black and has no idea what he's doing.

ALL I EVER HEAR ARE THESE TWO ARGUMENTS!!! I'm sick and tired of it! If you're going to bash each other, at least be creative! I watched the Democratic National Convention, and felt like killing myself. Not because of the crazy ideas, but because I can only handle so many hours, of so many speakers... ALL SAYING THE EXACT SAME FREAKIN' THING!
"Obama loves us, but McCain is going to kill our nation. Obama will save us, but McCain will kill our nation. Obama is for the people, but McCain hates all life as we know it. Obama loves us, but McCain doesn't care about people who don't have jobs. Obama will save us, but McCain will kill our nation. Obama is for the people, but McCain will kill our nation."

They went on and on and on and on like that... FOR HOURS! Every single person said the exact same thing! The ONLY interesting speeches came from Bill Richardson and Al Gore. Bill's because he occasionaly would start babbling in Spanish for no apparent reason, and Gore's because he spent the first 15 minutes whinging about his unfair loss back in 2000. Annoying, but it was a welcome refreshment from the same, boring, idiotic droning that predominated the convention.

Barack Obama has been brainwashing his supporters with the same drivel, given them the same scripts, and they are all militantly marching to his drum. I'm not being paranoid when I compare this to the rise of Hitler. Do some SERIOUS research on how the man came to power. Both Barack and Adolf are incredible speech makers. Both deliver moving speeches... without actually saying anything. Both inspired masses to follow them blindly, expecting to cash in on empty promises of hope, prosperity, and wealth for all. Both were elevated to an almost god-like status.
Anthems were sung about Hitler.
Obama's speeches were put to music, and artists sung his praise.

Obama's threat to our nation isn't just conservative yammering, trying to score a victory for our side. We have no side in this race. McCain is a centrist, one who walks down the middle, but quite frankly, he is the better choice right now.

This isn't paranoia you're hearing. It is fear.

Biden? Why Biden?

Obama is falling in the polls. Even liberal newspapers are being forced to admit it. Why? Because people are finally getting sick of Obama talking about change, while never actually saying anything. More and more, the facts of what he really plans for this country are coming to light, and people don't like it.
Obama is the ultimate liberal. He believes everything liberals do. He endorses gay marriage. He's in favor of higher taxes. He wants to take away all privately owned guns and ammunition. He is so pro-abortion, that he want to kill babies after they're out of the womb. I'm serious. He believes that if a child is born before the abortion was fully engaged, or if the child somehow survived the abortion, they should be killed anyway.
Obama is also struggling with his image. Thanks to the internet, his "exploits," (ignoring the troops, making huge blunders in his statements, etc) have been brought into the light. Obama has all the appearances of a political genious, but that's all it is. Appearance.

So, with all of this dragging him down.... Why on earth does he pick Joe Biden as a VP!?! It makes no sense. The only advantage is that Biden isn't going to try and kill Barack for the presidency. (Like some speculate Hillary would.)

In spite of what all the news outlets say, Biden is NOTHING spectacular. Heck, he isn't even that interesting. He's just a typical, rank and file, liberal Democrat. What? Is Obama trying to make sure that his victory in Delaware is assured? That state is a deep shade of navy blue. Obama doesn't have to worry.
So... Obama has made an idiotic choice for VP. He choice will neither garner him more votes, or really boost his polls. So why did he do it?

If McCain was smart, he would pick a strong conservative like Romney, or Thompson, or someone he ran against as VP, to solidify his base with the Republicans. My only hope is that McCain doesn't make a huge blunder with HIS VP selection too.

World War Three?

I'm sure you have all heard about Russia's invasion of Georgia, China's prejudice anthem fiasco, and their staged fireworks.
In my opinion, we should be sending military backup into Georgia under false pretenses. Granted, Bush has done that by sending troops essentially as a military escort for an over-sized meals on wheels. Although this is good idea, it essentially ties our hands in terms of aggresive defense of Georgia.
We SHOULD be sending in troops for the exact same claim Russia made: "To stabilize the region."

But we can't. Why? Because after disrupting Georgia's pipeline system, and trying to spear head their way to what could become their first warm water port, Russia has an economic strangle-hold on Europe, the major players in the U.N. Even if we could economically survive it, I don't know if we have the Military capability. Why? Because our army is spread across the globe. In spite of viewing us with a spitting hatred, the UN, Europe, and other smaller countries demand that we be the police of the world. We still have troops and bases in the Philippines from World War Two! We have bases and stations in Bosnia, Germany, Korea, and we still even have active military bases in VIETNAM! This isn't mentioning that the bulk of our army is in the middle east right now, playing umpire to a group of ungrateful Arabs. We are spread too thin. We are NOT the world's police force. We should get in, do what we have to do quickly, then get out and home.
Liberals insist that all our wars now have to be civilized. Got news for yah, friggin retards! WAR IS NOT CIVILIZED! Instead of dragging our feet, tiptoeing around, trying to be civilized, we should be fast, firm, and final in our military action. If we had invaded Japan in WWII, every Japanese man, woman, and child had been trained to fight us, and their head filled with stories about Americans eating prisoners, propogand to prevent them from surrendering. If we had landed, we would have had to fight our way up the entire island, with astronomical loss of life on BOTH sides. Normandy and Iwa Jima would have looked like a Kiwanis picnic by comparison. One, swift, terrifying act, the Atomic Bomb, forced Japan into surrendering without the incredible loss of life.

However, I fear we may be on the verge of World War Three. For the few of you who know me personally may also know that I have been insisting that we ARE in WWIII, Islam Vs. The World. I was wrong. We are not engaged in a world war.... yet. We are dangling on the very brink, and wiggling out toes. It is not a question of "if," but a question of "when."

Don't believe me? The circumstances speak for themselves. Lets take a look, shall we?

First, America is in the same position as we were in the late 30s. Our economy is falling. Our military then was small and outdated. Today our military is tired, and spread to thin for its own good. Hyper-pacifism was in fashion back then as much as it is today. History books don't teach it, because we tried the whole "Placate and they'll go away" tactic on Hitler. It didn't work, and Liberals don't like people knowing that. Today, the U.S. is going out of its way to placate and please our enemies.
The Olympics are being held in an arguable aggrisive and hostile Communist country. Before World War Two, the Olympics were held in Nazi Germany, and the Germans, like the Chinese, used it as a spectacle to prove their might.
WWII began with Hitler's invading the seemingly small, insignificant country of Poland. Russia just invaded the country of Georgia, who seems insignificant, but actually channels all the Asian out into Europe. Germay claimed Poland has fired on German troops. Russia claims Georgians fired upon people who wanted to secede to Russia. Hitler was lying, who says Putin is telling the truth?
To go back even farther, World War One was started because of massive networks of treaties dragging larger countries into a smaller country's war, and WWI started with the assasination of a leader in a small nation in Eastern Europe. I doubt Russia wants Georgia's president alive and free.
The circumstances are frighteningly the same. Logic gives us more reasons:
Russia has two choices: 1) make a lighting dash and sieze the capitol, 2) Fall back to what they claim as theirs, get UN approval to keep it, and use the fuel line that runs through it to force Georgia, then Europe to concede to Russian demands at a later date. Options 1 and 2 essentially lead to the same end result, they just take different amounts of time.
They DO have a third option. Pull out completely, apologize, admit they were wrong, and make all attempt to help Georgia rebuild.
Russia?
Ok, nevermind. Russia doesn't have a third option.

Ok, a nasty spat between Russia and the U.S. is not World War Three, is that what you're thinking? Wrong. It could quickly evovle into much more than a nasty spat. Do not forget that Russia was once a former superpower, and it obviously want to be one again. China has used the 2008 Olympics to declare that IT is a superpower now, and the United States, struggling with crazy arabs in the middle east, our economy tanking thanks to eco-freaks ungrounded fear of gasoline, and liberals corrupting the very bricks of our society, is reeling. The other nations have begun circling like vultures, seeing a chance at dethroning the most powerful nation in the world.

Remember that having the Olympics in their country does not mean the Chinese are not paying attention to the rest of the world. They are watching the events unfold in Georgia like hawks. Why? Because China has longed to do the same thing to Taiwan for years, and has only been deterred by the fact that Taiwan is an ally of the United States. If Russia pulls through in Georgia, then China is bound to pounce on Taiwan shortly after the Olympics are over. China is overpopulated, and their number of men outnumber their women. In other words, they have more single men than they know what to do with. The perfect ingredients for an army.

If this continues on a large scale, and Obama becomes president, he will do nothing, and Russia and China will carve up Asia between them, and Russia, being able to control Europe's energy after taking control of the pipelines in Georgia, will be able to force them to carry out their every whim. If this happens, and we are lucky, the nations of China and Russia will go to war, and destroy each other. If we are not lucky, they may come after us, and if we are being led by Obama, we might as well start learning either Russian, or Chinese.

Fine.
Call me an alarmist.
But if it happens, don't say I didn't tell you so.

Clinton's mixed messages.

Hillary Clinton, in this article, claims to be behind Obama 100%, and encourages her followers to vote for him and not McCain.

Why the sudden friendliness?
Is it because Obama paid a fraction of her enormous campaign debt?
Does she really hate McCain that much?
Is she hoping for a shot at vice-president?
What is it?

You see, I'm confused. Unless I'm mistaken, did not Hillary Clinton call for an open vote in the convention, between herself and the Chosen One (Barack)? Lets face it. No matter how many publicity pieces these jokers do, EVERYONE knows they don't like each other, and as long as Hillary has been active, she has never surrendered willingly.

Between McCain's ignorance and stupidity, Barack's smooth talking drivel, and Hillary's obvious scheming, I'm both worried, and intrigued by how things are going to pan out by September.

Conservative Bad! Liberal Good!

If I were to ask you, presuming you were the common layman, or a Democrat, and ask you which was the kinder, more compassionate of the two, the most common typical answer would be:

(average person, not involved in politics)"Why a Democrat or Liberal of course. They may not always be the smartest, but they tend to try and have our best interests at heart. They're just nice people who sometimes make a few mistakes."

(Democrat) "Unlike our counterparts, the Democrat party keeps the best interests of the people at, and we are always trying to to what's right. It can be hard work, fighting uphill against a lot of the hateful bigots who oppose us, but history shows that kindness and compassion always win the day!"

Both wrong.
Ever since the rise of the unions, the Democrat party has established themselves as "The Champions of the Underdog!" The western culture that so many liberals want to obliterate is what compels us to cheer for the underdog.
The Democrat party is a party of salesmen.
"It's not the product that matters, it's how you sell it." (Who said that? Did anyone say that? If not, then consider it a quote by me!)
Their product SUCKS. Everything they support is wrong, twisted, and borders on traitorous to our nation. BUT, they know how to sell it. Trying to pass a law no one likes? Say it's for the good of the children. P-ZAM! Instantly, half the elderly vote is behind you, and if you're lucky, you'll get the backing of the almighty AARP.
If you want to pass a heavy tax burden, just stand on the back of a truck in a minority community, and make a lot of gibberish up about how "the white man has raped their wealth," and if they support the tax measure, those freakishly pale, warmongering, hate-filled racists will suffer, but the minority will get a break.

Minorities and Special interests groups should be FURIOUS about how the Democrat party has lead them around on a leash. They sic them on their enemies as will. Not the enemies of the minority group, but the enemies of the liberal agenda.
Many of their "attack orders" will come from white men from the rich class, which they hate so much, and they blindly follow them. When confronted will this fact, the usual explanation basically says that they follow the orders because the guys giving them have their best interests in mind. What? No they don't!
Democrats were pushing to KEEP slaves, remember? And if you say that the party has since undergone an incredible metamorphosis, and they have SINCE become loving and kind and forgiving, then why can they never forgive mistakes that Republicans make, especially when the party itself has a LONG track record for major successes, even if Liberals refuse to acknowledge them.
Guess who screwed the economy? FDR, who was a democrat. Guess who created social security, the abused, misused fiasco that is a growing blight on our society? FDR, "D" for Democrat, not Deleno. He could arguable be called the founding father for welfare. Jimmy Carter, a Democrat, gave away the Panama canal, separating America from one of our greatest economic achievements. Heck, Teddy Roosevelt would probably be doing 360s in his grave right now, especially that China is buying up much of the control down there. I believe it was also Carter who oversaw the oil crisis. Can't pin it on him for certain, but that never stopped Dems from blaming Republican presidents for everything under the sun.

Ok, so the Democrats have a spotty track record, but suppose you look at the motives! Come on Mr. Watchman! They had good intentions at heart. They just wanted the best for the people!

Ok, let's presume for a minute that this is true. Isn't there a saying that says the "Road to Hell is paved with good intentions?" Or another one that says "The end doesn't justify the means?" In the Democrat case, the end doesn't justify ANYTHING. The end just makes a bigger mess, but in accordance with Liberal commandment #2: When something goes wrong, no matter how much evidence there is, it is NEVER your fault. Deny DENY DENY!!!!!!!!!! (#1 is: Bush is Hitler, Cheney is Satan.)

But Democrats rarely have peoples best interests in mind. I.E. They are ALWAYS waving kids around, using them like magic bullets.
"Higher taxes will help send children to school."
"Airbags keep our kids safe."
"We should melt our guns into jungle gyms... for the safety of children."
And yet, this is the SAME party that supports abortion, (the killing of children.) They are campaigning to let child molesters, rapers, and murderers escape the death penalty, and even prison. (These abominations have raped and KILLED young children, and the party that supposedly loves kids want to let these monsters walk free.)

I cannot speak for you, but to me, it sounds like they have some conflicting interests. Lets face it, if you examine their record, Democrats love money, they love power, and they love creating laws everyone must obey except them. If they have to lie and please a few people on their way to the top, that's fine by them.
Their untouchable, because they have no morals, or scruples, or ANY kind of code they have to live up to, therefore, they can't mess up, because according to them, there IS nothing to mess up. Republicans have standards, and it's easy to point and laugh when we stumble, or fall, but we have them, and we try to live up to them.

At this point, I usually get blustery comments about how I'm just bitter, and making things up, and it's a fact that all Republicans and so-called Christians are just so full of hate and bigotry that it is consuming us from within. We spew lies, condone ignorance, and purposely stymie progress because it does not fit our views. We are idiotic, Limbaugh-brainwashed freaks with no purpose but to sow hatred and destroy all life as we know it.

That's a pretty tall order to live up to. However, I, for one, am TIRED of playing Mr. Nice Guy. I am TIRED of incessantly and futilely trying to convince liberal idiots that I am not evil. It is an impossible task, one that they keep baiting us to do, and as a result, more and more conservatives keep rolling over to prove that they are not the devil. Democrats cannot be convinced, and as conservatives, we should not even CARE what they think.

With rare exceptions like Ann Coulter, conservatives tend to be stubborn, but genial. Often they can part ways, agreeing to disagree. I will be the FIRST to admit that we have used such names like "idiot," and adjectives like "traitorous," and "arrogant," both those are real words of description. With rare exceptions, we do NOT resort to name calling.
You want to see hatred?
You want to see such acidic loathing that it could make you cringe?

If you're a liberal, look at a mirror. I am serious. Ann Coulter may be a firebrand, and may not always know what she's talking about, but she is NOTHING compared the sheer loathing and despise that liberals generate.
You want examples?
Go to YouTube, and look up Ann Coulter, or Michelle Malkin. Click on any number of videos and scroll down to the comments. Race and gender slurs about. Words like (used in example, and not condoned by me) Bitch, cunt, slut, $2 whore, idiotic, neanderthal, fucktard, gook(what does that even mean?) frequent accusations accusing above listed women as actually being men in disguise.
Now look up names like Rush Limbaugh. Entire videos and sound bytes are devoted to flaming him, mocking him, slandering him. Glenn Beck, same thing.
Don't even bother looking up Bush or Cheney.
A prime example of liberal hatred is alleged comedian, Margaret Cho. ONLY look up her videos or routines if you have a strong stomach. Her entire routines, especially "Assassin," are just and endless flow of livid anger directed at Christians, family groups, Republicans, and anything associated with the Bush administration.

On second thought... look up her routines. Witness it. To use liberal terminology, she is "so consumed by hatred that it is eating away at her, and it shows on her face. I have NEVER seen someone, even a liberal Democrat, EVEN HOWARD DEAN, produce this much hatred, and flame so many people." She is the picture of the trenchant liberal. Bitter, angry, unhappy, miserable, and totally furious at the world. I always thought people were joking when they said that when a person stores up hatred, it eats away and shows on their face..... but it shows on Margaret Cho.


And you the REALLY sad part?
.... she isn't even a good comedian. The moral? If your jokes aren't funny, and you hate the world, then cater to people who hate it as much as you do.


Maybe the hypothetical democrat in the beginning was right. Kindness and Compassion, accompanied by INTELLIGENCE, historically win the day. But it is not the Democrats fighting the uphill battle, it's us. The conservative underdog.

Don't cave in. Stand up and fight the good fight!

Wait.... What?

Watch this video, and about two thirds of the way through, cover any younger kids ears, as there is one swear word.




wait for it.....

wait for it.....

Ok, there. My brain just imploded. Why? Lets see. Who was that on screen? Paris Hilton. What is Paris Hilton known for? Stupid stunts and an out of control life style. What did she just say?

Probably the smartest thing ANYONE has said about energy in the past two years. Paris said that? Really?
*pop*
Dang, my brain imploded again.

McCain, Obama, you just got owned.
Explain to me why the blond poster girl has been able to out think you both. Seriously guys, it's sad. you're running for president, SHE is planning a vacation, yet she still seems smarter that both of you put together.


You know what? Personally, I'm in favor of off-shore drilling, continental drilling, and drilling just about everywhere where we have oil. However, I'm not against new energy technology, as long as it performs well, which the current energy tech does not. Correction. SOME of it does, but the few that CAN perform as well as a combustion engine, are CRAZY expensive, so just making everyone drive electric poop shooters is NOT a good plan, and the odds are pretty good we'll be driving gas for a while, so we might as well get used to it.

Now, I'm not sure if I approve of environmental regulations, but even WITH that in there, it is STILL one of the smartest things I've heard.
I do back McCain's drilling plan, but lets face it. The Greenie Weenies will never let it get by.
Also, if her smart moment is as smart as it sounds, then by tax incentives, she means tax cuts for plants making hybrids.
(rule#1 of energy production. If cost of energy is too high, then don't tax it, because that makes it higher. Democrats failed that course.... over and over and over again.)

Final verdict? Considering our options.... letting Paris paint the White House pink, may not be such a bad idea. And hey, she can never top JFK and Bill Clinton in terms of scandal, and after 8 years of Bush, she can make all the grammar errors she wants.

Beware the Wolf in Sheep's Clothing.

Obama, in his usualy strategem, noticing that McCain is weak with Christian conservatives, has begun spilling out promises to evangelicals.
What has he promised to do? Well the article is here, but I'll sum it up for you.
Obama is promising to divert government funds to Christian charities, and allow evangelical groups to hire or fire based on what their faith says.

A person's first reaction is: "Wow! Really? That'd be great!"
However, their second reaction (if they have a brain, that is) is: "Wait a second... Obama? Anti-religon, pro-homosexual marriage Obama? What does he REALLY want?"

The article then describes Obama's given reasons. He wants to give money to Christian charities so they can pitch in with the anti-poverty campaigns and the fight against HIV/AIDS. Yep, that's right.
You know, 100 years ago, churches DID handle poverty in their neighborhoods. Then the government came along and federalized everything, essentially booting the church out of the picture with a pleasent little "You're not good enough, move over."
Now, Obama is wanting to dump things back onto Christian shoulders... why? Obama does NOT have a beneficial reason for this.
(Now, this is all presuming that Obama is not just blowing smoke, trying to mess up McCain, which is ALSO very possible.)

Reasons? They are difficult to notice at first.
Although one might at first assume it's because that government is overstretched, and running out of money. But that doesn't work. Obama is planning on funding the charities, in ADDITION to presently established government groups. That would just make the problem worse.

Here is my opinion... Control. Obama wants control. If you sink a large amount of money into something, you have the right to control your investment. If Christian charities start taking money from Obama's government, then the government will be allowed to establish their own treasurers, administrators, auditors, etc. Obama would cripple and conquer the Christian charities in one fell motion, and hardly anyone would see it coming, either.
He would even be able to redirect their very purpose and being. Instead of being independant groups with set beliefs and guidlines, they become government stooges, whose "missions" and "goals" are now dictated by a decidedly UN-Christian government.

Things would get messed up beyond all belief. We'd be allowed to hire/fire based on belief? Essentially, Obama is IMPLYING that christian groups would not be forced to hire gay/transsexual people under the obligation of the no discrimination laws. Once again, be careful. Obama, as usual, walk STRAIGHT down the middle of the road, never really saying anything, so, as usual, his statement is vague and pliable. What does hire/fire based on faith mean? Nothing, because no specifics were given.
(And if the charities are controlled by the government, then it won't matter, because they could be forced to support causes they don't believe in.)

Now, Christians have always given help without conditions. New Orleans, the center for homosexuals, liberals, and atheists was hit by a hurricane, and Salvation Army was right there, probably doing more good that ANY government organization. Along side of the Salvation Army was NUMEROUS groups from churches all over the nation, coming down to help rebuild.

However, helping someone get back on their feet, and supporting what they support, are two VERY different things.
However, with looming government control, they could soon become the same.

Many Christian charities will never see this coming. The funds strapped ministries will only see the prospect of getting more money to do the Lord's work.
But, in the Bible, in Matthew 10:16 it says: "I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves."

Too many Christians forget that we must be SHREWD. That was something that we have discarding, and we are going to suffer for it. If someone offers you money, always find out why. Nothing is free. Nothing.
If Obama gets elected, and makes good on his promises, then Christian charities are going to blindly accept the cash, without looking for the cost.

Be shrewd, because while you're one hand is accepting the money, the other is selling you soul.

Obama gets the Nod

Ol' Obama wins, Hillary loses. What does this mean for the rest of us?

In short.... we're screwed.
Of the two Democrats fiercely duking it out for the nomination, Hillary was the more conservative of the two. (Yes, I KNOW that sounds weird, but it's true.)
Why did Obama get a free ride from the press? Because any kind of negative comments could be billed as racism. Obama claims to be running to try and break those barriers, but instead, Obama just proves how alive racism is. If there was no racism in our country, we would not be afraid to criticize Obama, because his skin color wouldn't matter. However, when negative comments are given the title of "prejudice," then it just proves my point. Obama has used his minority status to try and get the American people to vote for him out of guilt.
Why?
Well, we thought our country was entering a "new age" of enlightenment and acceptance, and if we don't elect Obama, then obviously our nation is not truely open-mined or educated.
(I'm being sarcastic.)
Obama is getting a free ticket in and I don't know why.
For the record, I am not racist, but the sheer fact that I have to explain that I am not shows how deep the liberal brain-washing tendrils have gone. If Condi ran, I would vote for her. If Alan Keyes ran again, I would vote for him, but Obama is too much of a wacko liberal racist for me to even tolerate.

McCain? The guy is a closet Dem and everyone knows it. He is less liberal than Obama, but... it isn't much of a lead. He'll do whatever pleases whoever's around him. He has no backbone, and supports the tracking chip. (The one that is implanted in your arm,) Who know what other crazed ideas he has, BESIDES amnesty for illegals. His stance on important issues changes constantly, and overall, he would be a poor leader.

The final analysis?
We have ONE canidate trying to coast to victory on the fact that he is a minority, and to show our lack of prejudice, we should vote for him.
We have ANOTHER candidate tryong to coast to victory on his record in the military. (Which, considered he was SHOT DOWN and CAPTURED, isn't all that great.)

The press gave them both free passes, and for us conservatives, it appears we're screwed.


(Personally, I think I'll be pulling for Bob Barr now.)

More Democrat Whining.

Alright, dems, your incessant belly-aching about Rush Limbaugh screwing your chances of winning is REALLY getting old. I mean, come on, you guys have been doing since, what, when he first aired?
What happened? Well, Here is an article describing the details, but long story short, Obama's aides are accusing Rush of keeping Obama's numbers higher than they could have been. So what? He still won.
Point is, our options are crappy. That's the only word that comes to mind. Rush isn't the only one on Obama's case. Glenn Beck has had some probing things to say as well. Just face it, Barack, you have too much baggage. So far, most people view you as being very anti-american, not matter how many "wrap yourself in the flag" speeches you give. Come one man. EVERYTHING about your past SCREAMS "Anti-American."
No matter how much you try and distance yourself from your pastor, your family, and your history, it's still there, and it is still dragging you down.

But, you can relax, ol' Barack. It's not like the Democrats have anywhere else to go. Seriously, you dems are screwed when it comes to choices this year.

So, who are you gonna vote for? The May-be Muslim who wants to "change" America, or the devil in a pantsuit?

Superdelegate Fiasco

Oy. Hillary uses her kid to get a super from Puerto Rico, Obama sends a relative of one superdelegate to convince her to support ol' Barack, and the nation itself just gets more confused.

THIS is what happens when you have two, self-styled, minority candidates running AGAINST each other. It's sickening enough with one, who pulls every tear jerker out of the book against their non-minority opponent.
Now, it seems we have two candidates trying to see who can out.... "minoritize" the other one. It is sickening. Whatever happened to a country where everyone had equal rights, no matter who you were? Who decided that minorities deserve special treatment? If someone was abused or restricted in the past, the most we can do is apologize deeply, (happened) help them get back on their feet, (happened) and give them equal footing with everyone else. (also happened) It is not right to have one group obtain equality, just to turn around and start subjugating the other group with a "Now it's YOUR turn," attitude.
This race seems to be totally bypassing the majority of the public.
Obama and Hillary are running around, as fast as they can, pandering to all kinds of special interests groups. Contrary to popular opinion, big companies do not make up the majority of special interests groups, and these two are making sure they kiss up to every one of them.

Hillary changes her message every time the audience is different, and Obama never stops whining about racial issues, whether or not the issues were brought up by himself or not. (take the Pastor Wright fiasco for example)

It appears that all the high-minded, enlightened ideals, promises, and "righteous" goals that these two started their campaigns promising, have totally faded away. They have been replaced by petty bickering and fighting, each one trying to outdo the other with the minorities, and their arguments have become childish.

So, with crazy ol' McCain as the likely winner for the Republicans, it looks like we're screwed in Novemeber. *sigh*




Remember when we had those things called "options?" I miss those days

Obama ditches pastor

For the full story, read it here: Obama Story!
In short, Obama is saying he doesn't "share the views" of the man who "Officiated his wedding, baptized his two daughters, and has been his pastor for 20 years"

Excuse me? So is that his game? When a CRUCIAL piece of his life becomes inconvenient for him, he just distances himself from him and acts like he doesn't even know them? Is he planning on treating our nation that way? I AM not an Obama supporter, I am not a Clinton supporter, and i think McCain is nuts, but this raises some SERIOUS questions about Obama.

He's already shot his mouth off with at least one doozy, and it wound up losing him Pennsylvania, where I live. If people THINK about the ramifications of this, it is quite disturbing. If something, or someone, as the case is, does something to embarrass Obama, or harm his publicity, all of the sudden, he acts like he doesn't know them? So what, if Congress passes some law that other countries don't like or approve of, what is Obama going to do?
"I am afraid I do not share the same views as this body of men. I am trying to mend gaps, and they are tearing them down. I have known them for a long time, but the decisions they made were clearly not themselves."

You can't do that. If Obama treats our country the way he is treating his church, well, dang, we're screwed.
He claims that he knew his pastor for 20 years, and the man he "saw yesterday was not the same person [he] met 20 years ago." One problem. The footage was SEVERAL YEARS OLD! This is not new! Rev. Wright has been bashing "crackers" for YEARS now. He's even accused AIDS of being an engineered disease to "destroy people of color."

Excuse me? I am I the only one who is A) noticing inconsistencies in Obama's claims, and B) thinking the honorable Reverend is a little loony? AIDS kills ANYONE who gets it, black, white, red yellow, beige, purple, heliotrope, etc. AIDS is rather unbiased.

However, I AM willing to give Obama credit where credit is due. Unlike most liberals, he didn't sit there trying to justify himself and his pastor's actions, and he did accuse his pastor fairly accurately. To be honest, for Obama, it is a lose/lose situation. No matter what he would have done, he would have wound up with egg on his face. On the other hand, when considering a political career, you MUST remember that anything you have ever done, CAN and WILL be used against you.
Obama did not look ahead, and is now forced to try and dig himself out of a VERY deep and VERY muddy pit that he walked STRAIGHT into. Obama, old boy, you had best get started.



Hillary? Sheesh. Don't get me started. We could be here for days. That is for ANOTHER blog, ANOTHER time.