Ph: 36159673
skip to main | skip to sidebar
Showing posts with label Election '08. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Election '08. Show all posts

Life Begins at Conception According to the Experts

From First Things:

Dr. Hymie Gordon (Mayo Clinic): “By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception.”

Dr. Micheline Matthews-Roth (Harvard University Medical School): “It is scientifically correct to say that an individual human life begins at conception.”

Dr. Alfred Bongioanni (University of Pennsylvania): “I have learned from my earliest medical education that human life begins at the time of conception.”

Dr. Jerome LeJeune, “the Father of Modern Genetics” (University of Descartes, Paris): “To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion . . . it is plain experimental evidence.”

Rick Warren: At what point does a baby get human rights in your view?
Sen. Barack Obama: Well, I think that whether you are looking at it from a theological perspective or a scientific perspective, answering that question with specificity, you know, is above my pay grade.

BO Dollar Bill

A $3 Bill, that is, thanks to Townhall:

Obama is a Monkey?

Here's a post showing a Japanese cell-phone company ad that hints at mimicking Obama, but showing a monkey at the podium. CNN interviewed a group of outraged AA residents of Japan who feel that this should have been an obvious "faux pas".

A professor from Temple University explains that American politics are a part of a global dialogue and that the Japanese company failed to understand this.

In spite of this, the CEO of the company still didn't see anything wrong with the ad, nor did any Japanese people interviewed for the story even connect it with Obama.

It's so disappointing when the rest of the world doesn't revolve around us! Can't they see that our political race is important to them. Don't they know better not to make nuanced American racial slurs in their Japanese commercials? How is it possible that NO one in Japan was offended or outraged by this CLEAR insult to Obama and the AA community?

Like Prager says, you have to be taught to be a victim. Japan just didn't get that lesson, I guess.

Liberal Whiplash

This was just too funny to not post. From an editorial about Obama's shifting policies:
"If next week he named Dick Cheney as his running-mate and revealed that he spends his spare time drilling for oil in wildlife habitats, the only surprise would be that it took him so long.

Of course there's nothing much new in what the senator has done. In the lexicon of modern American politics, it's called a pivot. You campaign hard to the party's extreme in the primary election, where the base voters tend to be. Then, when the nomination is secure and there are no more idealists to be humoured, you pivot back to the centre. The only difference is that in Mr Obama's case the pivot is so hard and so fast that the entire Democratic Party is suffering from whiplash...."

Now THAT's change you can believe in!

THE List of Obama's Accomplishments

Here is THE list that I've been wanting to see for a long time now. It probably is the most concise and comprehensive review of Obama's political activity that I've seen. It is reasonably fair (meaning not overtly derogatory) and worth your full attention.

You Can't Lead if You Don't Show Up

The first priority of having any job is SHOWING UP! How can Obama continue to NOT Vote on issues in the Senate. This continues his political career as a Senator in name only.

Give the Speech!

From the Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer:
"...Obama and the Democrats would forfeit every one of these successes to a declared policy of fixed and unconditional withdrawal. If McCain cannot take to the American people the case for the folly of that policy, he will not be president. Nor should he be.

Give the speech, senator. Give it now."

Obama's "Muslim Background"

From the Jerusalem Post:

"Barack Obama's half brother Malik said Thursday that if elected his brother will be a good president for the Jewish people, despite his Muslim background.

In an interview with Army Radio he expressed a special salutation from the Obamas of Kenya."

But I thought he didn't have a Muslim background. Maybe someone should tell his brother that.

"He did not buckle..."

So if the Left thinks McCain has not changed his position on immigration, why should the Right? In an article that's actually discussing Obama's risk of loosing the Latino vote if he does not come around on "comprehensive immigration reform", this little nugget jumped out at me:

"But Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), Obama’s Republican opponent, is also liked by Latinos. He co-sponsored with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) the immigration bill that the CHC is demanding, which would put the country’s 12 million illegal immigrants on a path to citizenship. And he did not buckle under pressure to abandon that position during the GOP primary."

Speaking of Obama and McCain

Interesting post on Between Two Worlds:

George Will in Newsweek:

On Obama: "Obama's words mesmerize a nation accustomed to leaders who routinely use words with antic indifference to their accuracy."

On McCain: "If he really opposes torture, he will take pity on the public and master the use of a teleprompter."

Obama Doesn't Want Troop Withdrawal

Or at least he didn't want it in 2004. But wait, I thought he has ALWAYS been against the war and has been "consistent" with his position on this issue? Guess not.

This page contained an embedded video. Click here to view it.

Foreshadowing an Obama Administration?

Here are two pieces that might be insightful as to how Obama will lead on two very important areas (spending and the size of government, and security) based on how he is leading now.

The first, a look at his campaign team and spending.
"With a burn rate of 114 percent, the Obama campaign won't be able to maintain spending at primary levels even if fundraising were to remain constant--which is unlikely because so many Democratic donors have already given the maximum contribution. Makes you wonder what kind of tax-and-spend operation Obama will run once he doesn't have to depend on voluntary contributors to foot the bill. Also makes you wonder how biased the media must be that it would characterize the Obama campaign as lean and efficient when in reality it is desperate, spendthrift, and broke."
The second, a look at his website security problems.

"Maybe I’m old-fashioned, but shouldn’t they have enlisted a security expert before putting this site online? This isn’t somebody’s meaningless blog, it’s the web site of a presidential candidate, and they’re so lax about security that they’re only now getting around to doing something about it—after the problems came to light.

People who donate money to Barack Obama through his web site ought to be very concerned about giving this group of amateurs their personal information; the campaign apparently puts almost no value on internet security."

Take a Chance on Me

Here's the best John McCain ad evah! Yo, Hillary supporters...

Obama's Church Attacks... Obama?

Here's a clip from the Father Pflager's "sermon" from last Sunday at TUCC in Chicago (Obama's Church). This is one the MSM is not playing, in part, because it would incite too many white people.

In Obama's "Race and Religion" speech, he stated "...[black] anger is not always productive. Indeed, all too often it distracts attention from solving real problems. It keeps us from squarely facing our own complicity within the African American community...." He goes on to explain legitimate white underprivilege and resentment at Affirmative Action and middle class "corporate greed" that leads to some white anger. He ultimately explains, "...working together we can MOVE BEYOND some of our old racial wounds, and in fact we have no choice...if we are to continue on the path to a more perfect union...." I agree.

This page contained an embedded video. Click here to view it.


But interestingly, Pflager actually introduces his "rape" comments with an allusion to this exhortation by Obama for us to "Move on..." Pflager spent most of his "sermon" railing and mocking Hillary Clinton, but this clip seems to be a slap at Obama, and all the white people (other than Pflager himself). It truly is shocking.

Lessons from Negotiating

This NY Times Op Ed piece is a brilliant REMINDER of history (Remember, the opposite of remembering is not forgetting, but dismembering!). As it relates to Obama referencing Kennedy's meeting with Krushchev to support why an American President should sit down with our enemies, the NY Times explains:

"...Khrushchev’s aide, after the first day, said the American president seemed “very inexperienced, even immature.” Khrushchev agreed, noting that the youthful Kennedy was “too intelligent and too weak.” The Soviet leader left Vienna elated — and with a very low opinion of the leader of the free world.

Kennedy’s assessment of his own performance was no less severe. Only a few minutes after parting with Khrushchev, Kennedy, a World War II veteran, told James Reston of The New York Times that the summit meeting had been the “roughest thing in my life.” Kennedy went on: “He just beat the hell out of me. I’ve got a terrible problem if he thinks I’m inexperienced and have no guts. Until we remove those ideas we won’t get anywhere with him.”

A little more than two months later, Khrushchev gave the go-ahead to begin erecting what would become the Berlin Wall. Kennedy had resigned himself to it, telling his aides in private that “a wall is a hell of a lot better than a war.” The following spring, Khrushchev made plans to “throw a hedgehog at Uncle Sam’s pants”: nuclear missiles in Cuba. And while there were many factors that led to the missile crisis, it is no exaggeration to say that the impression Khrushchev formed at Vienna — of Kennedy as ineffective — was among them.

If Barack Obama wants to follow in Kennedy’s footsteps, he should heed the lesson that Kennedy learned in his first year in office: sometimes there is good reason to fear to negotiate."

Amen! Cal Thomas

Here's Cal Thomas's latest column that says, in essence, the same thing I mentioned in my "McCain Terrorist" post. From the article:
"...John McCain has promised to bring Democrats into his Cabinet and work with Democrats in Congress. Does that mean ideas don't matter? Does it mean that when Democrats disagree with him he will embrace their ideas just to get along? If so, why should voters vote Republican? They might as well vote for Democrats and get their liberalism straight-up.
...
Our party must be the party of the individual. It must not sell out the individual to cater to the group. No greater challenge faces our society today than ensuring that each one of us can maintain his dignity and his identity in an increasingly complex, centralized society."

For Republicans to win - and be worthy of winning - they need to get back to where they belong."

Is John McCain a Terrorist?

Ever since McCain took the lead in the primaries to become the presumptive Republican nominee for President, I have taken a break from commenting on him explicitly. I am now ready to articulate my thoughts as I have developed them thus far.

Conservatives have always argued "We don't negotiate with terrorists!" This has come into clear relief as President Bush's comments at the Knesset stoked a firestorm from Democrats who felt Bush's comments were directed at them, and more specifically, Obama, as it related to his willingness to meet with foreign dictators without preconditions, or what Bush labeled "appeasement."

Let me break down the logic as to why we don't negotiate with terrorists (and I welcome all to challenge me if my logic fails at any point):
Loosely, a terrorist is someone who uses force/threats to compel others to comply with his demands. It "almost never" (I never like to say "never") matters what the demands are: money, political asylum, etc. If someone uses force, their demands are not granted. Force can be defined as anything from hijacking an airplane to threatening to blow something up or kill someone, or any number of other dire consequences. If someone who threatens dire consequences to get what they want, and those who have the power to grant the request actually comply, this will promote/encourage others to use force/threats to get what they want. This would promote anarchy and violates one of the founding principles of democracy, the rule of law.
Therefore, we don't negotiate, nor comply with demands made by those who threaten us. Maybe you can see where I'm going with this. It is argued that conservatives must vote for John McCain or face dire consequences if a Democrat wins the White House in the fall. The consequences are laid out rather convincingly: withdrawal from Iraq and the following Genocide of Iraqis, the handing over of the Supreme Court to liberals with as many as 4 potential justice seats becoming vacant, the implosion of US business and our economy under higher taxes, etc. So, if we don't want to see these things happen, we MUST vote for John McCain. We have no other choice.

The thing is, we've heard this before. We have given in to demands such as this and it has predictably encouraged others to make similar demands (i.e. previously George Bush and now John McCain). Now, in the case of elections, the arm twisting and threats are unfortunately all legal (I will concede this point is not consistent with the general logic of dealing with terrorists). George bush was supposed to be better than John Kerry or Al Gore, and I believe all things considered, he has been. But that's not how we justify good decisions. It may actually be better to let a hostage live by merely giving a terrorist $1 million, but we don't do that.

When we "settle for the lessor of two evils", we fall into the trap of exchanging our principles for expedience and practicality. I'm tired of that. I'm tired of giving in, of blinking first in a game of political "chicken" with the king-makers who say we have to do it if we want a platform to speak from, or to save our place at the table, or whatever other good and strategic thing we are supposed to get out of it. I'm tired of negotiating with terrorists who threaten dire consequences if I don't give them my vote!

If anyone wants my vote, in this free society we live in, they will have to earn it and demonstrate by past experiences that they will support my view of what America ought to be. I won't accept a politician who promises the world and poll-tests his convictions in order to get into office, only to run like he had always run before.

I cannot vote for John McCain because:
The arm twisting by the conservative elite and the Republican leadership has become clear to me for what it is: terrorism. I don't agree with John McCain on global warming, immigration, campaign finance, etc. I don't trust John McCain to run to the right once he gets into office if he is more interested in running to the left to get in (those who do this only have more political IOU's to pay out, and most of them won't be in line with conservative ideas). John McCain's reputation as a maverick has only proven that he will run against the tide of Conservatism toward the tide of Liberalism. If that's an asset from a Conservative perspective, I'm not sure what to believe anymore. There are no guarantees that John McCain will do anything about the issues that Conservatives want him to. To prove this all you have to do is look at George Bush on Immigration, Government Spending, and Global Warming.
I hear those of you screaming: "BUT WHAT CHOICE DO WE HAVE? Are you just going to let the liberals have the White House?" Well, to this objection I go back to my terrorism analogy and reply, "Where will you draw the line and demand leaders that will advocate for Conservative ideas?" Who's fault is it if a terrorist shoots a hostage? The police for not granting his request within his timeframe? NEVER! Who's fault is it if a suicide bomber blows up a wedding party because political prisoners were not released? The Jail Warden? The Governor? The President? ABSOLUTELY NOT! The terrorist alone holds complete culpability for his actions and the negative consequences of those actions.

John McCain and the Republican king-makers will be solely responsible if he fails to get the true Conservative vote and loses the White House. I will not be guilted or shamed into voting for a man I do not agree with. If that's the case, why not vote for Hillary or Obama? The only difference is variation of degree.

Politicians my sell their souls to achieve certain ends; something they are despised for even though we almost expect it. But the day that voters sell their souls, we might as well start playing Taps on a muted trumpet! I expect more from myself, and hope for better from my government and its leaders.

The Difference Between the Candidates

From Bits and Pieces:

A Brief History Review for Obama

Here's a great post on HA to help explain 20th century history to Obama. HOPEfully it will help him CHANGE his policy of negotiating with terrorists, something every DEMOCRAT president has held as official policy (except Carter, but including Kennedy - whom they say Obama reflects).

Obama's Slash and Burn Politics

Here's a great video to show how much of a politician Obama is. It's particularly fitting to hear his summary statement after the McCain segment. Talk about slash and burn.

This page contained an embedded video. Click here to view it.
 


You are viewing a mobilized version of this site...
View original page here

Mobilized by Mowser Mowser