I will admit that when this election cycle started 100 years ago that although I had heard Sen. Obama's speech in 2004 and knew of his victory and ensuing speech I never really paid much attention to him or his message. I had the general idea, liberal with seemingly good intentions probably into taxes etc. It wasn't until recently as in the last several months that I've started to actually make an effort to hear him speak whenever possible, so as to get a more specific feel for his politics, values, beliefs and judgement.
What I've been able to deduce from this little experience is that more people should listen to what Barrack H. Obama is saying...I mean they should really listen and they should be Terrified! After listening to him at Saddleback I thought surely, his poll numbers would fall and McCain should have a shot at saving us from ourselves. I think it's important to note...this was long before the Palin announcement. This was straight up Barrack Obama vs. Crusty Ol' John McCain. Long committed to voting for McCain, my vote was with him, but my heart really wasn't. Then I watched Saddleback. As I watched the first hour with Sen Obama his answers were flowery and often tangent filled as I friend and I watched we soon started counting the number of times he used the term "judgement call" and "you have to be careful". We later played a fun game of guess the question, the trick was one of us would listen to the question the other would then listen to his response and have to guess what the original question was. This game had a much higher level of difficulty than one would expect.
What happened next is what changed this campaign in my mind forever. After Sen Obama finished, he said his goodbyes and John McCain was introduced. An amazing thing happened. When John McCain was asked the same questions as Barrack Obama, his answers were assertive and succinct. In other words, John McCain knew the answers. He didn't need to use moral equivocations in each sentence to explain himself or his positions. He knew where he stood and he wasn't afraid to say so in a way that normal people would know what he was talking about.
Barrack Obama talks around every issue, because if he says what he truly believes in plain english, the American people would be running the other direction. Most recently I've watched the over hyped O'Reilly interviews. I will go on the record that I am not a regular O'Reilly viewer, the man makes for good Tv and doesn't need my endorsement, but I personally feel O'Reilly's #1 cause is O'Reilly. But say what you will about him at least he asked Obama some issue related questions and allowed Obama the time to sell his story. Here's what I've gleaned from Obama on the issues: Class Warfare is his game on the economy. He's all tax the rich, well under his plan my family is Rich. I assure you this is not the case.
When pressed on his plan to tax some Americans 50% of their income he deferred saying they could afford it. Well he's wrong I can't. What Sen Obama fails to realize is that's just the start of my tax burden. I mean It is still my money right? That's just the federal government's cut. Throw in all his plans to increase payroll tax, increase minimum wage and you've just eliminated the largest growing segment of the American economy, Small Businesses. So I begin to think and O'Reilly comes right out and says something to the effect that is a socialist plan. Barrack then begins to espouse the wonders of China, so I guess socialism is thinking too small, Meet Our Good Leader Obama!
I watched Obama slither and slide through questions about his ties to Bill Ayers, Rev Wright, and Daily Kos among others, with his answers always leading him back to a stump speech, but never to the heart of the question. Why do you hang out with these people? I thought is was great political theater as he managed to get through the interview without condemning nor denying his association with any of them with a smile fit for a Cheshire. He appears to think that Americans have never heard the saying "you can tell a lot about a person by their friends". He downplayed his relationship to Ayers over the last 15 years, first by saying that they barely knew each other then by reciting the old "I was only 8 " when my friend planned to blow up the Capital line. But he refused to admit there was a possible pattern of behavior in his life of associating with those in the extreme left. Those who are heroes in radical circles. For a man that seems to have an answer for everything on that he has no answer....
His ideas on National Security and Foreign Policy sound very similar to another treasure of a president given to us from the democratic party Jimmy Carter. He's found of referencing Directed diplomacy. It's as though he's missed the last 15 years of international diplomacy failures without consequences to back them up. In layman's terms: It's not like we haven't tried that! Do these people really think that the first option on the table is the Military Option? The idea that you can negotiate with Radical Islamic Terrorists is ludicrous. Al-Queda and others want you dead. Do you get that? They don't care if you voted for Bush or Gore. They still want you dead. How do you negotiate with that? Where do you find the middle ground? Well you can't kill me today, but how about you give me five more years? Carter's brand of appeasement led to the international Terrorist organizations we are still dealing with today. Yet Obama is using the same basic principles for his foreign policy 'plan' we'll call it, can't we as Americans realize we don't have to go through another Carter Administration to get to the good stuff? We've got McCain and Palin right now!
On the other hot topic of the year, Independence from Foreign Oil, when Obama is quick to point out that he's open to all kinds of explorations...except for those that are already proven to work. He opposes clean nuclear energy, but highly recommends Wind and discussed his conversations with T. Boone Pickens. You hear a great deal about "Big Oil" but what about "Big Wind" as it should be called with all the money being poured into Washington by those with personal investment in the success of Wind technology . He is currently saying he might possibly be open to off shore drilling , but I have a feeling come Nov 5 he'll change his mind. But he's vehemently opposed to drilling in ANWAR but wasn't pressed on whether or not he'd actually ever visited the place. He did struggle with the tough one of which was more important the family needing reasonable gas prices to drive to work or the emotional stability of the caribou.
Barrack Obama's followers have been spouted nonsense for months about this Candidate of change and hope, suggesting that those of us who "don't get it" missed the message because it went over our heads. But when you really listen to what the Man is saying hope and change have nothing to do with it, He clearly just likes hearing himself talk. I'm pretty sure if American is really listening they are not going to like what he is saying......
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Monday, September 8, 2008
Calling An Insurgent a Terrorist.....
I was sitting around this weekend watching all the Sunday morning talk shows, as the hot topic continued to be Sarah Palin and her injection of reality into this election, when I turned to one of the cable networks, one that doesn't really subscribe to the "fair and balanced" method of reporting, to find this exchange: Cable Anchor: What three foreign policy areas are really the most important to the upcoming election? Employee of Washington Newspaper of High Regard: Iraq, the war on terror* and global warming. Then my head exploded.
There are several things wrong with this answer and I bet you can guess one right off the bat, but the anchor never challenged this so-called logic. Allow me to help you out there are right answers to questions and there are wrong answers to questions. For example the correct answer to this question using the same guys' ideals would be: The War on Terror, National Security and Energy independence. But this guy thinks that the war on terror is only being fought in Afghanistan, I think there are soldiers all over the world that would disagree. The idea that Iraq is just one theatre in the international war against Radical Islamic terrorists is apparently too vivid a reality for them to confront. Yet I never hear anyone correctly explaining after a leftist makes a claim about the War in Iraq, that in fact we are at war in Iraq, standing side by side with Iraqis who are fighting Al-Queda terrorists who are trying to take over their homeland. These Al-Queda in Iraq are also known to the media as "Insurgents". They are not insurgents, they are terrorists and who are we benefiting by not calling them what they really are? The terrorists?
So just for the record his answer by my count is still only two things, one of which is Global Warming. This term has worn out it's welcome in my life. I have found that when liberals come up with a concept too ridiculous to sell on it's merits they invent a term, something "catchy" that can devolve complex ideals into a repeatable chant. "Stop Global Warming!" is easy to say, but what does it mean? And can we really do anything to stop it? Then won't we have to "Stop Global Cooling!" as they suggested we needed to do in the 1970's. It all gets a bit confusing...since the further explanation that although the temperature of the earth has indeed increased just around .007 of a degree in the last 100 years, it has not been determined what caused the increase in temperature and more to the point, should we even be concerned about it? The reality is that climate changes, and is cyclical. With 50% of the published studies in 2007 debunking the "global warming" myth why is it that Liberals still throw it around like it's fact? Remember that denying "global warming" is like denying the holocaust, except for It's NOTHING LIKE THAT. The correct non-partisan response should have been Energy Independence. I don't think there is an American drawing breathe that would disagree that it's time for America to develop a plan that leads us away from dependency on foreign oil while creating clean energy opportunities to flourish and grow our economy.
The problem is we have allowed them to control the language , as the hero of the left, Marx suggests they then have the upper hand. We need to insert reality into our conversations by disallowing the use of "Liberalspeak" politically correct but useless terms that do nothing but frame the debate for them. I pledge from this moment forward, I will not use Liberal Speak nor will I allow it in my conversations, I am taking back the issues, by debating them on merit not on catch phrases!
There are several things wrong with this answer and I bet you can guess one right off the bat, but the anchor never challenged this so-called logic. Allow me to help you out there are right answers to questions and there are wrong answers to questions. For example the correct answer to this question using the same guys' ideals would be: The War on Terror, National Security and Energy independence. But this guy thinks that the war on terror is only being fought in Afghanistan, I think there are soldiers all over the world that would disagree. The idea that Iraq is just one theatre in the international war against Radical Islamic terrorists is apparently too vivid a reality for them to confront. Yet I never hear anyone correctly explaining after a leftist makes a claim about the War in Iraq, that in fact we are at war in Iraq, standing side by side with Iraqis who are fighting Al-Queda terrorists who are trying to take over their homeland. These Al-Queda in Iraq are also known to the media as "Insurgents". They are not insurgents, they are terrorists and who are we benefiting by not calling them what they really are? The terrorists?
So just for the record his answer by my count is still only two things, one of which is Global Warming. This term has worn out it's welcome in my life. I have found that when liberals come up with a concept too ridiculous to sell on it's merits they invent a term, something "catchy" that can devolve complex ideals into a repeatable chant. "Stop Global Warming!" is easy to say, but what does it mean? And can we really do anything to stop it? Then won't we have to "Stop Global Cooling!" as they suggested we needed to do in the 1970's. It all gets a bit confusing...since the further explanation that although the temperature of the earth has indeed increased just around .007 of a degree in the last 100 years, it has not been determined what caused the increase in temperature and more to the point, should we even be concerned about it? The reality is that climate changes, and is cyclical. With 50% of the published studies in 2007 debunking the "global warming" myth why is it that Liberals still throw it around like it's fact? Remember that denying "global warming" is like denying the holocaust, except for It's NOTHING LIKE THAT. The correct non-partisan response should have been Energy Independence. I don't think there is an American drawing breathe that would disagree that it's time for America to develop a plan that leads us away from dependency on foreign oil while creating clean energy opportunities to flourish and grow our economy.
The problem is we have allowed them to control the language , as the hero of the left, Marx suggests they then have the upper hand. We need to insert reality into our conversations by disallowing the use of "Liberalspeak" politically correct but useless terms that do nothing but frame the debate for them. I pledge from this moment forward, I will not use Liberal Speak nor will I allow it in my conversations, I am taking back the issues, by debating them on merit not on catch phrases!
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Sarah Palin, The Feminists and Me...
I've been listening to feminists "womyn" tell me all my life that they are concerned about "Women's Rights" yet what Sarah Palin's mere appearance has made perfectly clear is what many of us have suspected all along: Major Women's Organizations think the only issue important to women is abortion on demand. Maybe they think we shouldn't worry our little heads about more macho issues like National Security, Energy Development and the Economy. I guess we should just leave that to the men.
I first denounced the Major Feminists Organizations when they backed Bill Clinton during that whole "Paula to Monica " thing....I mention the former only to point out that NOW and others should have denounced Governor Clinton prior to the 1992 election and defended the women he allegedly assaulted, but instead choose the political leverage the Clintons would bring to the supposed Women's Movement over helping an ACTUAL woman.
Now that the Left wing media and Barrack Obama's surrogates are out questioning Governor Palin's experience while quietly hiding Sen. Obama in a corner until the dust settles, Where is the outrage from NOW? And oh so many others.....There is no outrage now, nor will there be. They will instead criticize her for choosing to be a mother and woman who stands by her pro-life belief. But is she not still a Woman? Isn't that supposed to be the point of their entire organization? To help and support women in the big bad world of men who are out to get us? Well the Men are obviously out to get Sarah Palin, and so are many woman. Some very sad women.
Why aren't the major feminist women's organizations thrilled with Sarah Palin? Isn't she precisely what they are supposed to want for all of us, the chance to be seated at the Grown Up table? We will have a woman who has executive experience at both the state and local level, with a record of demanding reform of her own political party, Does she not have the most experience when dealing with alternative energy? She has a plan that helps both the economy and the environment at the same time. Sarah Palin is a proud member of the NRA and lifelong hunter, is that not an embodiment of someone who understands and respects the 2nd amendment? She has balanced a $12 Billion dollar budget and rebated surplus dollars to her constituents. Tell me again why you don't like this woman?
Those same Bra burning women of the '60's and '70's are now heading into their fifties and sixties but still believe they are have their finger on the heartbeat of American Women in 2008.
Apparently they stopped being able to absorb new information after all those drugs, because in case you missed it Roe V. Wade has stood as a law for twice as many republican presidency as democrats, so can we please move on perhaps to something more important to all of us in 2008....And I think Sarah Palin started that conversation for us last night.....
I first denounced the Major Feminists Organizations when they backed Bill Clinton during that whole "Paula to Monica " thing....I mention the former only to point out that NOW and others should have denounced Governor Clinton prior to the 1992 election and defended the women he allegedly assaulted, but instead choose the political leverage the Clintons would bring to the supposed Women's Movement over helping an ACTUAL woman.
Now that the Left wing media and Barrack Obama's surrogates are out questioning Governor Palin's experience while quietly hiding Sen. Obama in a corner until the dust settles, Where is the outrage from NOW? And oh so many others.....There is no outrage now, nor will there be. They will instead criticize her for choosing to be a mother and woman who stands by her pro-life belief. But is she not still a Woman? Isn't that supposed to be the point of their entire organization? To help and support women in the big bad world of men who are out to get us? Well the Men are obviously out to get Sarah Palin, and so are many woman. Some very sad women.
Why aren't the major feminist women's organizations thrilled with Sarah Palin? Isn't she precisely what they are supposed to want for all of us, the chance to be seated at the Grown Up table? We will have a woman who has executive experience at both the state and local level, with a record of demanding reform of her own political party, Does she not have the most experience when dealing with alternative energy? She has a plan that helps both the economy and the environment at the same time. Sarah Palin is a proud member of the NRA and lifelong hunter, is that not an embodiment of someone who understands and respects the 2nd amendment? She has balanced a $12 Billion dollar budget and rebated surplus dollars to her constituents. Tell me again why you don't like this woman?
Those same Bra burning women of the '60's and '70's are now heading into their fifties and sixties but still believe they are have their finger on the heartbeat of American Women in 2008.
Apparently they stopped being able to absorb new information after all those drugs, because in case you missed it Roe V. Wade has stood as a law for twice as many republican presidency as democrats, so can we please move on perhaps to something more important to all of us in 2008....And I think Sarah Palin started that conversation for us last night.....
Tuesday, September 18, 2007
Spectator Nation
With all the political rangling going on in Washington these days, it occurred to me that Congress has nothing on the WWE. Politics have become the latest blood sport. Now I happen to enjoy a good sporting event as much as the next, but not when it comes to the security of our country.
The bottom line in modern politics is get elected, then get re-elected. That appears to be as far as the plan goes....everyone has come to realize it really doesn't matter if anything ever gets accomplished as long as you retain your seat (and of course all the cushy benefits). I am exhausted with Democrats pointing fingers and name calling without ever coming up with an actual viable solution. Instead of chanting "Defense" from the stands, their battle cry is " Get out of Iraq" "Impeach Bush" "No Blood for Oil" and the last one might iritate me the most as I've seen our prices at the pump increase two fold since we invaded Iraq, so if the plan was to get free Oil I can see why they think we've failed.
This nation was founded on the principle that the congress was to represent the will of the people, not as is happening now that the people were to conform to the wills of the congress. Who is actually out there asking the people what they want? Who is not using the media to convince us of what we should be thinking and feeling and of course driving?
Part of the problem clearly lies in the lap of the American people. We used to be a people with willing to question authority, educate ourselves on the issues, since when do we believe everything we are spoonfed from the mainstream media? I'm not sure when it started but I'm guessing that since we no longer have gas lines, 30% unemployment, and astronomical interest rates, that we can blame Reagan. He took this waining country from the depths of dispair and turned it into the prosperous nation we now enjoy, and we got fat and happy. American's are now happy to play armchair qb on the nations issues, as long as it doesn't require them to get really involved or at the very least moderately educated. We live in the most coddled nation on the planet, we don't even have to leave our house to get food anymore. When a man no longer has to struggle for survival he loses those instincts, and we can Thank Reagan for that loss. (or do I mean gain?)
As long as we continue to sit on the sidelines, can we really complain that no one is getting the job done?
The bottom line in modern politics is get elected, then get re-elected. That appears to be as far as the plan goes....everyone has come to realize it really doesn't matter if anything ever gets accomplished as long as you retain your seat (and of course all the cushy benefits). I am exhausted with Democrats pointing fingers and name calling without ever coming up with an actual viable solution. Instead of chanting "Defense" from the stands, their battle cry is " Get out of Iraq" "Impeach Bush" "No Blood for Oil" and the last one might iritate me the most as I've seen our prices at the pump increase two fold since we invaded Iraq, so if the plan was to get free Oil I can see why they think we've failed.
This nation was founded on the principle that the congress was to represent the will of the people, not as is happening now that the people were to conform to the wills of the congress. Who is actually out there asking the people what they want? Who is not using the media to convince us of what we should be thinking and feeling and of course driving?
Part of the problem clearly lies in the lap of the American people. We used to be a people with willing to question authority, educate ourselves on the issues, since when do we believe everything we are spoonfed from the mainstream media? I'm not sure when it started but I'm guessing that since we no longer have gas lines, 30% unemployment, and astronomical interest rates, that we can blame Reagan. He took this waining country from the depths of dispair and turned it into the prosperous nation we now enjoy, and we got fat and happy. American's are now happy to play armchair qb on the nations issues, as long as it doesn't require them to get really involved or at the very least moderately educated. We live in the most coddled nation on the planet, we don't even have to leave our house to get food anymore. When a man no longer has to struggle for survival he loses those instincts, and we can Thank Reagan for that loss. (or do I mean gain?)
As long as we continue to sit on the sidelines, can we really complain that no one is getting the job done?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)