Proud to be a Texan Part 1

Although many liberals I know would never admit to this, our press has given Barack Obama, potentially the next president of the United States, a free pass. I found one story so far which really knew anything at all about his political past—written by the Houston Press, a liberal paper—but which actually covered what Obama has done and the political tactics which he has used. I covered this in the last issue.

So, Obama is in San Antonio for another love fest and some reporters start asking him some tough questions, mostly about Tony Reszko. There may or may not be anything here; we don’t really know. But, these reporters wanted some real answers. Obama finally, after answering nearly 10 questions, walked away from the press corps, saying, “Come on, guys, I have answered like eight questions already!” I must admit, I heard that quote several times on Wednesday, and laughed every time I heard it.

I spend an hour looking for this clip on YouTube and it is not there (they have been known to remove videos that they don’t like; although, if you are persistent, you can get a video posted there). I could not find this vid on the ABC site, even though they did, to their credit, run this story.

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=be6_1204641497

Barack is a man who says he is going to talk to our enemies; but will he talk to news reporters asking difficult questions? Nope. Will he go on FoxNews? Not yet (even Hillary has done that). But somehow, we are suppose to believe that he can meet face to face with our enemies and cause them to pass out and give in to this silver tongued devil. If the election was held tomorrow, Obama would probably win. He would probably become the most powerful man in the world, and without most of his voters being able to name one thing that he has accomplished in politics except for being a Black man running for president.

There is some good commentary on this story:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/03/03/726268.aspx

Embarrassed about Texas

When Barack Obama came to Texas and campaigned here, in at least one speech in Beaumont, he told the mothers in the audience, "And you need to see that your children have a good breakfast in the morning" (or words to that effect) AND HE WAS CHEERED; PEOPLE CLAPPED. So, I mention this to a girl I know, who is a Democrat, and she says, "Yes, this makes sense, because studies have shown that kids who have a good breakfast can learn more easily than hungry children." And she was serious. We now need a president who tells us that we need to feed our own kids? We have gotten to that point? Are we so stupid that it takes Obama to tell us that making sure your children eat food is a good idea.

He also pointed out to this audience that you ought to help your kids with their homework and turn off the video games and turn of the tv. Oh, yeah, keep them off the streets. Make them go to bed at a reasonable time. And the crowd goes wild with each suggestion. Bill Cosby has been saying these things for years.

What's next? When will Obama say, "And when your baby has poopy diapers, then you need to change out those poopy diapers! I am a man, and I have changed out my children's poopy diapers many times. I believe in change. You need to make that a part of your life and a part of your responsibility. You are the change, that baby has been waiting for." [Loud cheers and clapping from the audience].

Here is the speech, if you think I am kidding:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=auojND6kIbA

If you want the rock and roll version:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=fYgbGIGBU7Q

If these crowds are too stupid to know these things, Obama needs to go across the country with this message.

Just give us a straight answer

I was told the other day by someone that she would not vote for McCain because he is a war-monger; and this person voted for Obama in the primary.

On almost every speech, Obama tells us over and over again that he voted against the war in Iraq. However, in 2004, when running for the US Senate, said that it would be ill-advised to pull troops out of Iraq in the middle of a mission. Just lately, he sounds like he wants to pull the troops out. However, if Al-Qaeda is in Iraq, then he says, we will go back in. But Al-Qaeda is in Iraq? Of course, I have heard him say, "Well, they weren't there until Bush and McCain sent invaded Iraq." It does not matter if this was the best or the stupidest foreign policy move ever; or somewhere in between...the question is, what are you going to do now? Al-Qaeda is there. Even you have admitted that. Are you going to pull our troops out and then send them back in? Are you going to pull them out and not go back in?

I have no problem understanding John McCain's position. He makes it clear that we will be victorious over Al-qaeda in Iraq and we will bring stability to that region and make them self-sufficient in the realm of protection from Al-queda and Iran. However, you, Senator Obama, seem to be all over the map with your explanation. Isn't it time that you laid out a specific easy to understand plan? Or, isn't it time for you to name a few scenarios and how you will deal with them? Give us a clue, B man.

So that you know Obama’s true position, here is a timeline of Obama’s evolving position on Iraq:

1. Obama has been consistent in his opposition to the Iraq war. His Oct. 2, 2002, speech opposing the war stands in clear contrast to Clinton's vote later that same month to authorize military action.

2. Once the U.S. went into Iraq, Obama's position became much more nuanced. While he still opposed the war, he was not in favor of an early pullout. In 2004, he even talked about sending more U.S. troops to Iraq in order to stabilize the country as a prelude to an eventual withdrawal.

3. His Senate voting record on Iraq is quite similar to that of Hillary Clinton. Both senators waited until May 2007 before they finally voted to cut off funds for the war, on the grounds that the administration had not agreed to a firm timetable for withdrawal. They both voted against a June 2006 amendment proposed by John Kerry (D-Mass.) for the redeployment of U.S. troops.

Timeline is from:

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/fact-checker/2008/01/clinton_vs_obama_on_iraq.html

This is an excellent article from the Washington Post, and it covers in great detail both Clinton and Obama’s positions and how they voted and what they said, along with a number of links.

Robot Sex

On Laura Ingraham, there was an author who wrote a book about robot love, which deals with sex and "relationships" with robots. She asks him if he sees any moral issues with robot love, and he suggests that, maybe you have sex with your robot and they don't want to have sex...could that be considered rape. I kid you not! Laura is thinking about the morality of people and robots, and this is the moral dilemma this author has come up with.

Anyway, caller calls in and asks, "What if the robot wants a divorce but you don't?" So the author begins talking about the legal aspects of this and legislation that may need to be passed; and the moral dilemma of reprogramming a robot so that they would not want a divorce (he did not seem to have a moral objection to this).

Have I stepped out into the twilight zone?

USA Today story:

http://www.usatoday.com/life/books/reviews/2007-12-17-robot-sex-book_N.htm

Here is the ultimate book on this topic:

http://www.amazon.com/Love-Sex-Robots-Human-Robot-Relationships/dp/0061359750/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1205086889&sr=1-1

And, only for the perverted, here is a related vid:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/robots/robot-sex-its-here-240486.php Not recommended.

The Politics of Fear/Our True Enemies

Demonization: both political parties offer up enemies whom we should fear, dislike, distrust, or demonize. The Democrats offer up big oil, George Bush, special interest groups, lobbyists, big business and big corporations, and wall street; oh yeah, and Al-Qaeda, IF they are in Iraq.

Republicans tend to offer up those who publically state that they are our enemies: Al-Qaeda (who are in Iraq--and it does not matter when they arrived, that is a moot question at this point) and Muslim groups who publically state that American is the big Satan. As a conservative, having only a slight understanding of everything involved in moving oil out of the ground and to our gas pumps and houses, I tend to view Big Oil (which involves, actually, tens of thousands of businesses) as a good thing. The fact that I can drive a few miles and gas up and then go wherever I want to go, that is freedom. The fact that it is freezing outside my house on 2 or 3 winter days (or the 20 or 30 wintery days this year), and toasty warm inside is also a good thing. Furthermore, I have no problem with "Big Oil" making money. That is the American way.

I Predict: McCain campaign

The McCain campaign has been running an ad about a Mike Christian, a prisoner of war with John McCain who somehow was able to make an American flag while in prison camp which they pledged their allegiance to. Mike Christian was beaten for this, and the flag destroyed; after which, he made another. Look for them to present this ad along with Obama's statement that those who have to wear some kind of flag pin as not real patriotism.

Story with Obama’s quote:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,299578,00.html

Similar story with better quotes:

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/barack-obama-wont-wear-american-flag-pin

Proud to be a Texas Part 2

Frank Luntz does focus groups dealing with the various presidential candidates and he is often found on Hannity and Combs. He will take a group of 30 or so Democrats or Republicans and get their impressions before and after a debate, or right prior to an election in a state.

In past debates, I have seen Democrats talk about Senator Clinton or Senator Obama, and so many of them express opinions which I would be embarrassed to express on television. When asked about Obama, they give the vaguest generalities, like, "He stands for real change; not just the status quo" or "He gets me." With Clinton, I have heard them actually remark about how it is time to have a woman in the White House as president.

Last night, I must say, I was proud of Texas. Frank had 30 Republicans from Houston and one of them was an 18 year old who was for McCain. So Frank asks him, "Why aren't you voting for Obama, like most of your contemporaries?" And this kid, in 20 or 30 seconds, lays out several key issues, no generalities, as to why he believed McCain is the better candidate. When the other people were questioned, they spoke about specific issues, specific things which they had confidence that McCain would do.

Some in this focus group were going to vote for Huckabee, and only one of them gave a general answer as to why ("He better represents my Christian values"). I think if he had been asked to enumerate these values, however, I believe this person could have done it.

Now, this could be my own conservative values which colors my observations here, mixed in with some hometown pride, but I felt that the focus group from Houston, Texas was the most informed and knowledgeable group that I have seen so far in this election.

Democratic President/Vice President Ticket

If you have read this publication regularly, you know that I think Clinton will probably be the presidential candidate, despite the fact that Obama is ahead in popular votes and delegates. Again, I may be overestimating the raw power of the Clinton machine, and obviously, I could be wrong, as few people are making this same prediction nowadays.

However, notice what comments that Senator Clinton has been making nowadays: she has made several positive comments about the Democratic dream ticket (Obama has made a few comments, but mostly to say, it is too early to talk about such a ticket).

Now, they don’t like each other. Obama and Clinton don’t go out for beers together after a debate. The Obama campaign person who called Clinton a monster more accurately portrays how Obama and his campaign people view Senator Clinton.

Neither Clinton nor Obama wants the other person on the ticket, but Clinton realizes that this is going to be a political necessity. If on is the presidential nominee, but the other is not, the Democratic party is not going to come together (especially if Clinton is the nominee). Can she convince Obama to be her VP if she steals the nomination? He will be tied to her administration and he will play no meaningful part in her administration, and the Obama first love newness is going to wear off 4 or 8 years from now. However, if he does not join her on the ticket, the Republicans will prevail.

On the other hand, if Obama is the presidential candidate, he may be convinced to take Clinton as his VP. And, unlike Obama, she will readily take the VP position and the Clinton’s will undermine Obama at every turn. If you think they have played dirty politics now, wait until she is #2 in the White House. Now that there are other sources of news, those who are interested will actually find out, now and again, what is really going on.

Now, you may wonder, how can Clinton possibly be #1 on the Democratic ticket. Here are some of the arguments which will be used, behind closed doors, at the Democratic convention:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/03/obama_is_weak_in_key_general_e.html

Obama on Abortion

If you don’t think the media is biased for Obama, then, quick, give me his position on abortion.

Barack's Abortion View: Sometimes an abortion is botched, and a baby, who was supposed to be killed prior to birth is born alive. Even liberal Clinton voted to save that baby; Obama has voted to kill any child born alive as the result of a botched abortion, so that Row v. Wade is not undermined.

Republicans Voting for Clinton in Texas

No doubt, you have heard about Rush Limbaugh suggesting to his Republican and independent listeners that they ought to vote for Clinton in the Texas primary. I was one of those people, and that was my intention to vote for her a couple weeks before Rush suggested to do this.

On the news, there have been quite a number of stories about how this is evil and bad for Republicans to vote for Clinton in the primary. Here is the story you have not heard:

Barack's Texas Troops: I received no fewer than 6 calls from the Obama camp on the day prior to and on the day of the Texas primary. 3 came from workers or volunteers, 1 came from Michelle Obama, and 2 from Barack Obama himself. During my "conversation" with Michelle, I would interrupt with a comment, and Michelle would very patiently go back and start from the beginning, apparently assuming that I did not quite get all the fine points of her rap. Barack was equally persistent. When he called back a second time, I hung up on him, because I had already heard the Obama rap that day. However, every time I picked up the phone over the next few minutes, old Barack was still there, talking away. One of my conversations with one of the Obama faithful was quite pleasant. I told him if I went Democratic, I'd vote for Hillary and if I went Republican, I would vote for the squirrel eater. He, of course knew who I was talking about, because the press made a concerted effrot to make the basic associations of Romney, Mormon; McCain war hero (but soon he will be known as the old angry guy with all the lobbyists); and Huckabee as the squirrel eater.

But, I digress. Now, if it is okay for Obama to call Republicans an pester them to vote for him, why is it somehow wrong for these same voters to vote for Hillary Clinton instead?

My Naivete

I must admit that it never occurred to me in the beginning that the Clinton's would use racial attacks against Obama. Perhaps if I thought about it, it would have occurred to me, but it never occurred to me to even think about it until South Carolina.

All along, even during the great Obama state knock down, I have been saying, don't count Hillary out. I have even suggested a VP for her. However, based upon the appeal to racism --all of which has come from the Clinton camp; none of which has come from Republicans (with the exception of those who forward that silly Obama is a Muslim email)--puts the Democratic party in a tenuous predicament. I still lean toward Hillary being the Democratic nominee for president. Obviously, she would like to pick her own candidate. Obviously, the Democrats do not want a woman AND an African American on the same ticket, because they think in terms of race and gender (how many people do you know who will vote for Hillary and for Obama because she is a woman and because he is a Black man?).

However, given that the delegate count is going to be very nearly tied and that Hillary will pull it out because of Florida and Michigan, and given that African Americans all over the US are going to feel like they got robbed, Obama will have to be put on the ticket as VP.

Now, before I stated that Hillary does not need Obama on the ticket, because he does not give her any votes that she does not already have. The racist attacks from the Clinton camp has changed all of that. If she does not put him on the ticket, many African Americans will not vote in this election. Some might even vote Republican (I don't know if they will go that far unless the Republican VP is someone like Michael Steel).

Now, at these debates, Obama keeps saying, "Hillary was my friend before this primary and she will be my friend after this primary." These two do not like each other. The presidency is why Hillary has been after almost her entire life; and for Barack, his desire for power is extremely strong as well (he has wanted to be president since kindergarten ☺). Both of these candidates will say and do almost anything to become president (although I think Obama would be more restrained in his power lust).

In any case, if Obama is not on the ticket, Democrats cannot win this next election.

A Theological Moment

Evil, the United States, Israel and Radical Islam: as with Hitler, there are a huge number of people who do not recognize either the evil of or the danger of radical Islam. This is actually discernable by simply knowing the Bible. The Jews are God’s people, and even as far back as Lev. 26—before they marched into the Land of Promise—God told them that He would throw them out of the land. Later prophecies have made it clear that Israel as a nation has a future and that the Jewish race (albeit, not a precise term) is going to be scattered throughout the earth, throughout every nation. In the end times, these Jews are going to become evangelists (they are called the 144,000 in the book of Revelation).

I believe in a real Satan—let me state that right up front—and that he will, throughout history, inspire men to kill Jews. If Jews are wiped out at any point in history, the Bible no longer stands as the Word of God, because Jews play a big part in eschatology (a study of the end times). Therefore, we are going to see various points of time when Jews are threatened.

In retrospect, almost everyone agrees that Hitler was evil, he was dangerous, and that he should have been stopped, and that had the US entered into the war earlier, that would have been a good thing. Even most people on the far left recognize Hitler as being truly evil, because they continually compare Bush to Hitler.

About 20–30 years from now, we will recognize that radical Islam is just as evil, and we will also be confused as to why it took us so long to recognize just how evil this movement it.

See www.thereligionofpeace.com

Here is the deal: if a group of people, a movement and/or a nation speaks about killing Jews, wiping out Israel, and if this same entity is willing to destroy their own children (and I mean children younger than 10) in order to advance their philosophy, that is an evil entity. If this entity becomes large and powerful, that entity is going to have to be destroyed. Hitler had to be destroyed; Hitler had to be killed. Very few people will argue this point. 20 or 30 years from now, we will view radical Islam in the same way (assuming that we destroy it and its adherents).

The United States has enjoyed great prosperity. There are 3 reasons for this: (1) we have been a great ally of Israel; (2) we treat Jews in our land no differently than anyone else; and (3) when some evil son of a bitch like Hitler comes along, we are willing to kill him and his loyal followers. God told Abraham, “I will bless those who bless you and I will curse those who curse you.” We, in the United States have, in the past, taken up this cause; and we have enjoyed great prosperity because of that.

Speaking of prosperity, we have been in the longest non-stop growth period ever in our history; home-ownership rate is near all-time highs and unemployment is hovering near all-time lows. The hue and cry throughout the land about a recession is empty. Here is their evidence: (1) a high foreclosure rate (to people and investors who should never have been given loans in the first place); (2) jobs are going overseas (a nonissue if there is low unemployment); (3) high debt (as a percentage of the national output, we are lower on average than during the Clinton administration—and this is the most reasonable comparison, as a person who makes $400,000/year might have a $10,000 credit debt, and such debt is meaningless in the big picture; a person with a $4000/year salary is in trouble with the same size debt). (4) Middle class people are working hard and sometimes, they don’t feel like they are getting ahead (my comment: boo hoo).

God has given us great prosperity, and if we continue to support those who have Jewish ancestry and we continue to be at enmity with those who are Israel’s enemies, we will continue in this grand prosperity.