Obama is Cold

I have limited time tonight but wanted to copy down a great segment of the Rush show. It's been revealed that the lord, the most merciful, Barack Obama, who once said in a rally speech, "I am my brother's keeper...I am my sister's keeper" referring to how he'll "take care" of us helpless US citizens, has both a brother living in a hut in poverty in Nairobe and an aunt, who he praises in his book that made him millions, living in the slums of Boston. I ask, my faithful readers, what kind of compassion is that? He says he's concerned about the poor helpless widow working two jobs or the fat family from his infomercial last night complaining because they have to ration snack foods? He doesn't even care about his own family! Ya know why? Because he wants you and me to take care of his family. He'll tax what we earn and give it out as welfare to his beloved aunt who lives in the Boston projects. Anyway, here's the Rush transcript, immediately following an Obama sound bite where Obama said, "McCain and Palin call me socialistic; since when did they make a virtue out of selfishness?"
RUSH: A virtue out of selfishness? Lookit. We're not talking charity here, Senator Obama. When you use the government to take what people have produced, that's thug behaviour. When you force the long arm of government into people's bank accounts, that's not charity. And what is this virtue of selfishness? Sir, if there's anybody selfish in this race, it's you. Your aunt lives in a slum in boston. Your brother lives in a hut in Kenya. Hut sweet hut. Slum sweet slum. Selfish!

Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely

That statement can't be iterated enough. Since I'm knowledgeable and educated about the issues, I always choose to vote for those who will fight for conservative ideologies. That's not because my preacher tells me to or because I like the way candidates speak, it's because history, economics, philosophy, and psychology tell us conservative ideas are so much stronger and create the greatest good for the greatest number. So every election year, I go on my rant about these things and try to make my points. But this year is different from any other. Algore, the haughty John Kerry, and others have been liberal democrats whose ideologies I simply refute. Obama represents something I've never seen, though. I alluded in my last post to the pigs from Animal Farm but that's no longer a joke. In all seriousness, Obama is one of the pigs. I'm more disturbed now than ever about him. He has chosen for his entire political career to pal around with a riff-raff of capitalist haters, palestinian terrorists and bigots (and I can document every bit of that). There are recordings and videos of him all over the place saying crazy things like how it's sad that America today so closely resembles Nazi Germany and how the Constitution is fatally flawed. I think he has painted a picture that we're in a terrible position and he is the only one who can save us (he is, after all, the most merciful, the lord Barack Obama). That's not a disrespect to God, by the way, I'm mocking Obama because his bigot paster called him the messiah. I think he's out to assume a power like no US president has ever had. He's endorsed by Hugo Chavez, Fidell Castro, Iran's parliament, and Hamas. He's an Animal Farm pig. He will assume power and not want to give it up. This election year, forget all the other issues. This guy is the closest thing to a dictator we've ever had. We MUST keep him from having power. I don't have time to go more into it, but for any who haven't watched the new star wars movies, it's definitely worth a watch. The movies are all about a senator slowly but surely climbing the political ranks, scaring the people, getting himself elected as chancellor because he has good charisma, and ultimately, in the midst of a war, convincing the republic to vote him emergency empirical power, saying it's for their own safety that he, with sadness, assumes such power. The crowd cheers and applauds and celebrates as their new emperor stands before them. After becoming emperor, of course, he never gave it up. I'm not really saying that kind of extreme thing will happen, but I think Obama is trying to take us in similar directions. In the third movie, when all this finally comes to culmination, another senator says it best..."So this is how liberty dies...to thunderous applause."

Psychological Destruction

Election years are often full of concrete issues that really only scratch the surface, so let's go deeper into the driving forces of what liberalism does to a state of mind over time. Perhaps this will help explain why I believe so passionately in conservatism. It's not about abortion, lower taxes and immigration. I mean those things are definitely important, but the real driving forces are at the level of the psyche. I mentioned in the post "Conservatism 101" some of the reasons I can't support liberal ideas of Robin Hood tax policies, mainly that they don't work and it's unethical. Tip of the iceberg. The real issue here is about dignity and personal responsibility. Liberals pride themselves on being the party that cares about the little guy and is full of compassion, while accusing conservatives of being racist rich white guys that only care about their own greed. Liberals then promise if they're in power, they'll raise the taxes on the rich and "spread the wealth around." This might seem noble. After all, no one likes poverty. But this isn't Sherwood Forest. The problem with that mentality is that it breeds dependency. This is especially true with race issues. How long have liberals basically spread the message that, "you can't get out of your rut on your own because America is full of greedy white guys so let us do it for you. We'll give you some handouts." For that, the liberals get a lot of the black vote and the people get very meager handouts pried out of the hands of the people who actually earned the money. The handouts are not enough to help the receivers, though, so they remain poor. Then liberals preach the message again. "Why are you poor? Because America is racist and white folks are greedy." This trend continues and people are ultimately taught to believe that their poverty and difficult state of life is due to circumstances they can't control. They come to believe they can't help themselves even if they try because "the man" and "the system" are against them. Yes, in some cases, racism really does play a negative factor in this country. But while liberals are busy telling them, "it's not your fault" and "you can't help yourself," I'd rather get out the message that yes, you CAN help yourself. That's the principle the whole country is built on. Look at what Dr. King for this country. He didn't allow himself to be full of feelings of helplessness. He instead had the balls and the confidence to do something positive with his life even though, in his time, the country actually was against him. People can help themselves in this country, and for their own state of mind, self-sufficiency is the only way to go. But if you surround yourself with CNN or (P)MSNBC and constantly hear this negativity, you believe otherwise. If you go to churches led by bigots like Jeremiah Wright, who teaches little more than hate and rage, you believe otherwise. If you buy the lie that your circumstances are everyone else's fault but your own, you believe otherwise. That's why it's important to get away from these gloom-and-doomers and surround yourself with positive people. We all need help sometimes, but many poor people, especially black people, have gotten locked into a state of dependency by being taught their entire lives that they're not capable of helping themselves. They're taught that only Democrats can help them. After years and years of voting for Democrats, however, their situation only gets worse. FDR's New Deal didn't work, Johnson's Great Society didn't work and no handouts that take away a person's self-dignity are going to help. That's why conservatives are the truly compassionate. It was stated brilliantly by Rush this week...conservatives measure compassion not by how many people they give handouts to, but by how many people no longer need handouts at all. We tell people they CAN take care of themselves. They can be dignified productive members of society and become self-sufficient, living lives freed of the shackles of dependency. I believe this is the last thing liberals want them to understand. Like the pigs in Animal Farm, their whole success depends upon creating dependency. They scare us into thinking we can't get along without their help then keep propagating that lie until we know longer remember the truth that we DON'T need them wiping our butts for us. I realise this is a serious charge, but I would encourage anyone reading this to at least consider the possibility: Why has the black population continued to meet with little success in this country when other minorities have been doing well? Because liberals teaching hate and rage and helplessness have destroyed the black family. And now they claim they're the only ones that can help them, by giving handouts to the very people they have caused to be non self-sufficient. This liberal lie works because with the human psyche, it's the easy way out for people to be negative and blame their problems on others and hang their heads in defeat, doing none of the hard work of turning their lives around. It's easy to listen to bigots like Wright and Jesse Jackson who say it's not your fault because it makes you feel like you have an excuse for failure. The liberals have utilised this human trait to their advantage and it sickens me.

Obama Keeps Denying Ties

It seems every time I turn on the news, Barack Obama is having to defend himself against ties to a new shady character. First it was the biggot pastor of his church of 20 years, "Rev." Jeremiah Wright, a man who apparently uses the pulpit to spread racism, saying America is against black people and decreeing, therefore, "God damn America" to thunderous applause from the congregation. 20 years of going to this church and Obama apparently never heard anything he didn't like. But in an amazing coincidence, as soon as he runs for president and Wright's numbskullery becomes public knowledge, Obama suddenly hears the racism of Wright and denounces him. Next it was his ties to the liberal scum who have put us in a financial wreck by promoting affirmative action and giving outlandish mortgage loans to people who couldn't pay them back, all in the name of "trying to help the poor." There's a reason that form of "helping" the poor doesn't work and now we all see why. Of course the ones primarily responsible aren't man enough to admit it, but those who keep up know it was Franklin Raines (former CEO canned for embezzlement), Barnie Frank (ultra-liberal from New England who lies through his teeth about being responsible for this), Chris Dodd (another congressman) and Bill Clinton, who himself called out the other 3 but won't admit anything himself, even though this link http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260 provides proof that he was just as involved in lowering restrictions on what it took to get huge loans. Obama of course is tied to these idiots as well but as always has to deny it. After that, it was the domestic terrorist William Ayers who, with the group "Wesather Underground" bombed federal buildings and even a government official's home in the 1960's. News once again got out that Obama was buddies with him and Obama had to, once again, try to deny it, saying, "well, I didn't know at the time he had done this stuff." I doubt it...Obama read the man's entire book that he wrote in the '90's, giving it a great review, and appeared with him on stage at one point giving a joint speech with him. Does anyone really believe that in all that, he never caught wind of the fact that this guy had committed such crimes? Most recently, it's ACORN. He's trying to say he wasn't really involved with them. Well, as an attorney, he defended them in a lawsuit against Illinois. He has also spoken for them at least once at a meeting or rally or something like that and has been a guest trainer for some of their training programs. He has also been quoted as saying to ACORN at a speech, "I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career." (Summer 2008). The very latest I have now heard is people signing a petition in defense of William "The Domestic Terrorist" Ayers. Included in the list of petitioners is the infamous University of Colorado - Boulder professor Ward Churchill who made news after he taught his students that Sept. 11 victims were Nazis and was ultimately fired for plagiarism. Wow...how can I get on this petition of honourable men? Anyway, the point is, another signer is another professor, Rashid Khalidi, who is a university professor but also was a part of an organisation the US government labeled as a known terrorist organisation (the group is called the Palestinian Liberation Organisation). And guess who is buddies with him? You guessed it...Obama has reminisced about the guy's wife's good cooking and offered tribute to him at a farewell dinner (http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/22/academics-sign-pro-ayers-petition/) but now tries to say he never really liked him and the two were never close. Now, any of these Obama denials of knowing and liking all these scum bags might be true...who am I to say? I just can't help but notice the unusually large amount of shady characters that he has ties to. I mean who cares whether he was best friends with these people or not...the point is that with every new day, we learn of a new corrupt organisation or shady fellow that Obama has willingly associated himself with in the past and now has to defend himself. I'm getting tired of hearing it. At some point, whether we believe him or not, we have to realise that he knows a hell of a lot more sleezebags than any of us do and there is plenty of evidence that he not only knows these sleazebags but has willingly associated himself with them on multiple occasions. The election is close, peeps. McCain is not the perfect answer. No one is. But if you're planning to vote for Obama, you better seriously question your conscience on it. I've tried to get the word out about who he really is since the mainstream media won't do it. He's a shady, corrupt guy from the Windy City who just happens to speak very eloquently. I hope that latter point won't lead anyone to vote for him in spite of all the other evidence.

Still Proud to be Conservative

I'm a knock-off of John McCain, or at least I was. As an adademic and someone who loves intellectual discussions and productive debates, I've always tried to be very careful when approaching political issues. I want to assure the other person that I'm objective and neutral and open-minded. That I respect their ideas and opinions on these issues. I have always thought that's the best way to approach the situation. But the more this election year moves on, the more I move away from that kind of thinking. For one thing, I've learned that the average human being is little more than a hungry wolf who can and will walk all over and abuse anyone showing signs of weakness or submission. I've learned that for all I give, for all the times I keep my mouth shut in the name of preserving the peace, for all I try to put myself in the shoes of liberals to understand them better, there is only one result...they get more and more arrogant and mocking and disrespectful toward me and my viewpoints. They don't realise that I'm choosing to be soft and take it easy on them. They develop the false idea I don't really have a stance or that I don't really know what I'm talking about. Quite the illusion. I predict about 75% of the time I'm in a political discussion with people, I know more than they do. Yet, since the average person knows nothing of humility or wisdom, they naturally seize the offensive and try to tell me where I'm wrong while I, the one who actually knows more, take the low road and let them speak. Well lately I'm just pissed off and irritable enough to officially put an end to all this. I've tried to be patient and respectful to liberals and that time is over. They're going to the polls, knowing next to nothing about how economics works or what their candidate stands for, and they're gonna cast votes for a candidate who will play the same old Robin-Hood tax policies as all other democrats do...taking away money from hard working people, productive businesses and those not afraid to take risks and giving it to people who don't work and don't take risks and don't help the economy. I will hurt from this, as will everyone else. It's funny, I thought Obama claimed to be all about change? High taxes, especially on oil companies, appealing to poor people by giving them the warm fuzzies while he's actually got nothing of substance, accusing businesses of being big meanies, outrageous promises like how we'll be energy independent in 10 years (what??????!!!!!), raising my taxes even though I should be in about the lowest bracket in the country, fighting for the atrocity of abortion while calling it the "ethical" thing to do? Where the *$%& is the change? Doesn't anyone notice this? There's nothing new here! And why McCain doesn't jump on this is beyond my capacity. Another thing that makes me unashamedly proud to be conservative is, once again, the supporters of the liberals bring shame to themselves and the entire party. Madonna, as she's launching a new tour, says Palin isn't welcome to attend. In what universe is that acceptable? If a Republican entertainer (like they exist) said that about Obama, the news media would be all over it! PLUS, the entertainer would forever be billed as a racist. But as long as it's directed against Palin, it's OK. We've learned a valuable truth lately...there is no such thing as feminism. We've all been duped into thinking feminists are trying to empower women but these very people HATE Sarah Palin like nothing I've ever seen. It never was about feminism, it was about liberalism. Now I admit, this is not Obama's fault, but the fact is the Democrat party, much more prevalently than the other side, is constantly characterised by double standards, childish behaviour, and hypocracy. I'll take on anyone any day that disagrees with that. I compare myself to McCain because we're both too nice, too eager to see the other side's view point, too eager to give and give and give, too eager to get trampled over by wolves. I'm glad I've realised this. I hope McCain realises it too, like now, in time to save his campaign. And anyone who votes for Obama better be ready for a well-thought-out answer as to why you voted to raise my taxes and increase the government's authority over my liberties in the name of "social programs" that have failed miserably, from FDR's New Deal to Johnson's Great Society. Failure after failure after failure, just like communism. And yet more than half the nation is ready to walk right back into it again.

Addendum

There are many reasons to pray. Asking God for things we want is only one reason, but I erroneously used the word "prayer" in my last post. I should specify I'm talking about PETITION here, not prayer all together. So the question becomes, "Why Petition?"

Why Pray?

As I've experienced loneliness on and off over the last number of years, I've questioned more and more what is the purpose of praying? Growing up, I never questioned this, no doubt due to the fact that I had a more blessed upbringing, free of pain and hardship, than I could have ever imagined. When things went great, I thanked God for them and assumed he had granted my prayer requests. For those prayers he didn't grant, I praised him anyway, as prescribed by Scripture, thinking his denial would work out for my good. Now I'm not saying those ideas are wrong, but I've learned that a heavy dose of pain is a substantial force against a man's faith. In the last few years, in bitterness, frustration, and confusion, I've been unable to hold to that old attitude of mine and it's made me ponder the purpose of prayer all together. The Scripture, especially in the NT, goes on and on and on about the importance of praying constantly. It tells us to approach God humbly yet boldly and present our needs to him and to be persistent. I note on the latter point that I never cared for the idea of persistence and it was likely that point that was the catalyst in making me start questioning things. I mean, why should I have to be persistent? Doesn't that seem like a game? It seems more logical to me that a person comes before God and begs his help and God either says, "I am willing" or, "No, my grace is sufficient for you." But why the "game" of making us ask and ask and ask (be aware, I'm not trying to be demeaning or disrespectful to God; I'm just addressing philosophical ideas and asking questions about what I've experienced in life.) Aside from it seeming like a game, and almost patronising, I also don't care for the parable in Scripture that talks about being persistent. It's the only time, to my memory, God compares himself to a villain. He says, in this regard, that he's like an unrighteous judge. A widow goes to him begging for mercy and he has no interest in helping her, but since she bugs the crap of him, he finally helps her just to shut her up. Again, that just doesn't set well with me. That kind of comparison of how God responds to our desperate requests does not give me images of him being a refuge I can run to when I'm weak. To carry this even deeper, what happens when one does follow that prescription and is persistent for years and years and years and still doesn't see God's help? I've been praying for help with my loneliness for quite a long long time. And I'm not narrow-minded either. I pray for provision of an appropriate companion, or for the ability to go on alone, or for the faith to deal with the pain, or for some other option I haven't considered, yet the roller coaster of pain rolls right on as if I never spoke a word to God. I don't consider my request to be something out of selfish want either. Admittedly that's part of it, but it's also not like asking God for a hot new sports car. The need for companionship was built into us by him and there many other reasons why this is an important thing, even including needing the support of a helper to serve God better in a difficult life (I truly believe a married couple is worth more than the sum of the two individuals in serving God). I could certainly use some help with problems I've been unable to conquer. Yet still, every prayer I've prayed, through tears and grieving, has been denied as I've watched every one I know move on to companionship, leaving me feeling more alone than ever. But I digress...my point is NOT to complain about my love life but to question: why do we pray? I've spent, cummulatively, so many hours in prayer over this, it's unfathomable. And at least up to this point, it seems every one of them has proven to be a complete waste of time. Another major moment in my life that led to this is when my grandfather was dying in the hospital. I volunteered to stay up with him all night while my folks got some much-needed sleep. I won't get into the strange events of the evening, but in summary, my grandfather was afflicted by some unknown "suffering" that had him constantly looking down at his legs saying, "get away from me" and "leave me alone." I would go to the nurses' station for help and they would brush me off. I'd try to talk to my granddad and he'd say he was suffering and I didn't know what to do. I prayed and prayed and prayed in desperation, even taking trips down to the chapel every so often to kneel before God and beg for help, but it never came. For hours this went on, and I was completely alone. God was no where. And I finally, of course, lost it and broke down. I would say my relationship with God was never the same again after that night. I have never had as much trust in prayer since these events. Obviously, I want to be restored to the level of faith I used to have and I strive toward that, but I can't ignore the things I've seen either. Way too many times I've needed God badly and he has not come, so to this day, I have to struggle to force myself to pray. So why do I bother to force it if it's unproductive? The only answer I have is that I pray because Scripture tells me to. I hope that humble belief in Scripture, with no other evidence that prayer is worth anything, will be pleasing to God because at the moment, it's all I have to offer. I still petition but I long for my younger days when it made more sense to me to do so. It's hard to hold on to God's promises when they seem to abandon you. Perhaps the Teacher was right..."I consider the dead who have already died to be more fortunate than the living who are still alive. But better than both are those who have never been, who have never had to see the evil that occurs on the earth." In the mean time, I'll keep doing my best to pray as Scripture commands and trying to trust that there is a higher purpose for it. I look forward to the day this difficult life is past and we all have eternity to look forward to together. Unfortunately, to get to that point, there is a very difficult life ahead. And it looks like, for the moment, I'll have to keep facing that difficult life alone. Bummer.

Conservatism 101

In light of financial issues, a good question was brought to me a few days ago about how a Christian like myself, who tries to show love and sacrifice of himself to give to others, could vote for conservatives, who, as the argument goes, promote greed and making the rich richer. The idea was I should be voting for liberals because they try to help the poor more. I thought it was a just question and a chance for me to remember myself why I vote the way I do. (It should be noted that the argument that conservatives don't care about the poor is false, but it is a line the democrats have successfully used for years and lots of people eat it up.) There are two main reasons I feel convicted to vote against liberal ideas of "helping the poor". First is an issue of ethics. I hate it that some people are poor and have a hard time making it and I'm all for programs to try to help that situation, but I don't think that makes it ethical for government to make arbitrary decisions of who has more than they need and demand that rich people cough up their earned money so it can be redistributed. That kind of thinking is contrary to the foundations of liberty and independence the country is founded on and again is extremely unethical. They can't play their own personal Robin Hood. And let me stress since this is touchy...it's not that I want people to stay poor. I hope the rich will choose to be very generous in giving to those who have less. But in the end, it is just that...it is their CHOICE. Forcing people into charity sounds awfully socialist to me. And that leads into the second reason I vote conservative on economic issues relating to social status. The second point is no form of socialism has ever worked throughout history, so why should it work now? No, I'm not calling liberals socialists or communists, but their ideas of wealth redistribution with central government control is actually getting pretty close to some aspects of socialism. And it has never ever ever worked. There's a reason for that. Theoretically and on paper, communism as a system is brilliant. But in practice it fails because the model doesn't account for humanity, which makes all the difference. Factors like reduced desire to work hard, lack of independence and personal dignity, and the inevitable corruption that accompanies absolute power name a few human components that have always made the system come crashing down, and I don't see liberal ideas of social equality (the nice term they use for stealing from the rich and giving to the poor) to be immune to those destructive forces. When the settlers of this country fled England and started things here, they intentionally and explicitly set up a system different from what they had come from, a system where the free market ruled and the government stayed out of the way. What was the result? We shot to the world power in a scant century and have been there ever since. So why liberals want to revert to the old way is beyond me. A strong free market and strong business sector doesn't eliminate the potential for poverty...neither does wealth redistribution in any form. But it does work out for the greatest good for the greatest numbers. I'll be back with more brilliance soon.

Uplifting Thoughts

Since I've done nothing but rant and complain of late, I thought I'd take a day off from my duty of identifying BS and talk about something more pleasant. The Ike storm system moved through today bringing high winds; as a result a lot of beautiful old trees came down and the whole town is without power and internet, save for a small portion of campus where my office happens to be. Hence my ability to post a blog. But following a day of destruction, I attended my normal 9:30pm mass which was done out of necessity by candlelight. This was not only a beautiful and welcomed deviation from the norm, but, especially fitting, we had a guest speaker discussing mission work he had done in Trinidad and Haiti where the people have so little. It was ironic that such a talk came on a night when we all were remembering how to live without basic electricity and internet. It was a sobering yet great talk. I'm glad we have that kind of thing from time to time to remind us of our blessings and of the needs that God has given us arms and feet to go out and fill.

ABC Elevates Itself to My Hitlist

Never fear, fine readers...I'll continue to expose CNN for it's reporting malpractice. We'll just have added fun now as ABC will join them in receiving a well-needed dose of my wrath. Most of you (I say that as if I have a multitude of readers) probably know ABC's Charlie Gibson interviewed Sarah Palin recently. In a stunt truly worthy of the CNN Award for Insatiable Dishonesty, they edited the film to remove some of what she said in response to certain questions, thus changing the entire meaning of her answers for the global audience. Cheers to Gibson and his cronies for yet another example of why I have been forced out of retirement to start writing again. The good thing about all this is that it gives me confidence to see how badly the media is trying to tear her down. I figure if they didn't consider her a threat, they wouldn't waste their time. If that's an accurate assumption then it stands to reason that they're morbidly afraid of her based on how hard they're trying to beat her up with lies. And it makes me a bigger and bigger fan by the day. The more jerks like Gibson, Barbara Wa-Wa, and Hollywood dislike her, the more reason I have to assume she's great. Indeed, a political philosophy where one simply votes for a candidate those personalities despise would be quite a sound philosophy. So I beg the Hollywood celebutards, mainstream media and extremist bloggers to keep up the good work. I know it's making me a bigger Palin fan all the time and by the looks of the recent polls, I'm not alone in being affected that way. School has definitely gotten busy of late, but you can count on me to keep calling out the mainstream media for all their BS and giving you a more accurate side. The key point you should take from all this is that no matter what you read, no matter what the headline says, no matter how negative it sounds, you must question it and dig deeper. I've always accused the mainstream media of being biased and fudging some facts, but I've never known them to be this malicious. You're being blatantly lied to, peeps, so don't tolerate it. Take a stand and fight those who apparently think we're all blind followers of their false reality. You should all be offended. I certainly am. Dan Rather and others have actually lost their jobs from going too far with the bias and crossing that threshold from simply skewing information to completely lying. But the message didn't seem to stick because they're up to even worse tricks. We have to fight it and call them out.

A Nice Column

School duties have picked up quickly so I'll let someone else do my important work for me...this guy wrote a good short piece about the treatment of Palin, focusing on the corrupt media's reporting.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,420161,00.html

Snap!

It's late but I just heard a new Palin quote I had to share: "Just last night, Senator Obama finally broke and brought himself to admit what all the rest of us have known for quite some time, and that's thanks to the skill and valor of our troops, the surge in Iraq has succeeded. Senator Obama said, 'the surge succeeded beyond our wildest dreams.' 'I think,' said Senator Obama, 'that the surge succeeded in ways nobody anticipated.' I guess when you turn out to be profoundly wrong on a vital national security issue, maybe it's comforting to pretend that everyone else was wrong too." Wow. My friends, I don't mind admitting that my Alaskan bias is in full effect as long as you don't mind admitting that Sarah Palin is the real deal, not afraid of the arrogant Obama and ready to make it clear how wrong he is. I love it that Obama thought he was the young change the nation needed (arrogance in full effect) and here comes the obscure, unknown Palin annihilating his fortress of confidence and undeserved assuredness. Leno had a great joke tonight that isn't too terribly far from the truth: "A lot of Republicans aren't too [excited] about McCain's speech last night, in fact, Sarah Palin is thinking of dropping him from the ticket." Ya know, even if we (conservative thinkers) lose this election, it's nice to know we'll go down with pride. I have no problem losing with my support going to McCain and especially Palin. And be assured...even if they lose this one, the liberals and the corrupt are afraid of her. Why else would the media be assaulting her? If she's no threat, she'd be a wast of their time to focus on. And yet she's been assaulted like no one I've ever seen. She's a force and they know it and they'll have to contend with her again no matter what. Rock on. In fairness, we do have to see how this "abuse of power" accusation goes. I'm humble enough to jump off the ship if she turns out to be frauding us all. For now, however, I don't expect that and I think we've got a great future with her. And even if this probe turns out bad for her, I dare say she still seems more realistic than most other DC personalities.

Teleprompter

Did anyone know Sarah Palin's teleprompter broke during her speech Wednesday? I check CNN.com regularly throughout the day as well as some other news sources occasionally and never saw anything about this. Nor did I hear anything on (P)MSNBC or CSPAN which I saw a little of today. Nothing at all. And yet it happened. The fantastic speech she gave is now even better because apparently the prompter wasn't stopping (or the operator wasn't stopping it) when the audience applauded so after a while, she was way behind and did the whole thing by memory. Who knew? I never noticed it from her behaviour and she never complained about it. I learned of it from Rush and Leno, during a standup joke on his show tonight, confirmed it. I did hear reports on CNN about how her speech was written for her, blah blah blah. As if that's not standard practice. But they didn't bother to report that she did the speech more on her own than Obama or anyone else who also had their speech written for them AND a perfectly operating teleprompter. Once again, our fine companions in the media show how dishonourable they are and continue to erode the scant confidence I have left in them. My warning to all: question EVERYTHING. Everyone out there has an agenda, even me. We all have our biases that are hard to overcome. Some are ethical and acknowledge this, like myself. Others, like the media, are beyond unethical to the point of scandalous. But I will give kudos to Anderson Cooper from CNN. Apparently, when Campbell Brown (a fellow CNN reporter with him no less) asked him if he thought it was responsible for Palin to run for this office when she has 5 kids, he responded, "It's funny, I don't remember anyone asking Obama that." I'm always happy to give praise to a liberal media type when it is deserved, and he earned it with that. Good for him. Unfortunately, the fact that he holds a CNN microphone still has him on my blacklist. One more note, Palin made a funny comment during her speech saying she thought the former AK governor's private jet was over the top and a taxpayer burden, so she "put it on eBay." The media (you guessed it, CNN) now reports she did PUT it on eBay but it didn't sell and she had to sell it another way. OK, so MAYBE Palin fudged a fact there. I think, however, there was no deception intended at all...the logistics of how the jet was sold were irrelevant, the point is she did it and the eBay comment she made was not like a grandiose lie, it was just a humorous pop-culture line that elicited a number of laughs. They took a light hearted comment she made and are trying to make it sound like she's lying. But they won't report that she was completely on her own without a teleprompter. Scandalous. And one more note (really this time): Us Weekly magazine has a cover with Pain's picture and the caption, "Children, Lies, Scandal." The actual article when you read it inside links the lies and scandal part to bad things being projected AT her so it's actually a not-so-bad article about her. But the cover, it seems, is an intentional misrepresentation intended to catch the attention of supermarket check out line people who will read only that, associating her face with the words lies and scandal, people who will not actually read the article. Us Weekly is published by none other than the owner of Rolling Stone, one of the most liberal extremists out there. McCain and Palin have to fight not only Obama's campaign, but the media, Hollywood, and hippie protestors. That Bush won twice in a row against those odds is an accomplishment and McCain doesn't quite have the charisma of Bush. Let's hope Palin can help in that arena. I'll end on a couple of good comments from Rush about McCain's speech and Obama: "...the performance aspect might have been low, but the words were penetrating and they were from the heart and they were from the soul." "I don't think Obama thinks he needs to grow. Obama's it in his mind and in the minds of his supporters."

Protestors at McCain's Speech

This just in - John McCain is neither as good looking (few are) nor as interesting to listen to as Sarah Palin. His speech started quite slow but I was impressed by the end. Instead of making a series of promises, he gave a speech that showed he knows how to love and care about others over himself. He sold me with it much more than Obama's promises that he would provide us pretty much everything under the sun. But lately this has not been a blog of praise but rather a rant and while I don't consider myself a pessimist, I must take upon myself, once again, the unpleasant duty of pointing out ridiculousness. I'm not too keen on labels as I think labels too often stick us in a box and influence our thoughts through biases and feelings that we have to be a certain way to fit the label we've assigned ourselves. In other words, it can be an imprisonment that blinds us from objective thought. As such, I try not to ever call myself a Republican (for that matter, I generally even try to avoid referring to myself as a Christian, a term that has less and less objective meaning). But no matter how hard I try to avoid labeling myself a Republican, I'm always faced with a new reason why I should wear that title with pride. Tonight a shameful display was put on by liberal protestors of McCain...again. Outside, they had to be tear gassed because they were creating trouble, blocking streets, kicking police officers, etc. Inside, it seemed even worse. McCain's speech was interrupted multiple times as people yelled things and tried to get on stage to do who knows what. A particular organised group is wearing pink clothing with spray painted messages. I remember something like 5 different times the speech was interrupted tonight. Now I realise there are plenty of lunatics and weirdos that call themselves Republicans, just as there are plenty that are staunch Democrats. I don't pretend my side is without them. But I also never saw it from Republicans. Not once in Denver at the DNC did I see coverage of any rowdy protesting. Again, not once. Maybe I missed it, but as I watched it about as much as the RNC, it seems an unlikely coincidence that I saw it so much in Minnesota and not at all in Colorado. There are two possible explanations for this. Firstly, perhaps the one-sided media was not interested in letting anyone know that Democrats were being heckled and protested. This can't explain everything, however, because during McCain's speech, it was unavoidable. He had to completely stop multiple times. That's not something even the media can hide, and they're good at hiding news when they want to. So the only explanation I can think of is perhaps Republican leaning people are just a classier bunch. "Whoa, Jonathan," you say. "That's out of line to say such a thing." Perhaps. But, as I've mentioned the last few days, I'm done being nice, humble, and respectful to absurdity. I'm ready to call this crap out for what it is and, stereotyping as it might be, it seems a feasible explanation in my opinion, and very fitting with historical left extremists. Case in point, I just read a story about how hippie Miami students in the 70's protested the war by setting buildings on fire. What? That's not even close to consistent with a message of peace. Obviously, not all, or even most, Democrats are like this. And maybe it's not fair for me to make such a stereotype. But the point is this: When I see yahoos behaving with no respect or temperance and realise that they're all Obama supporters, it makes me very happy to know that I am not voting for the candidate that motivates them. My mind will now have a permanent association between disrespectful protestors and Obama supporters. I'm glad no one will be able to make an association like that with me because Republicans simply didn't do it in Denver. Call me unfair or biased if you want, but that's the fact. At least so far in this election, one side appears to be much classier and I'm happy to be a part of that side.

She Nailed It.

I've attempted the last couple of days to express my displeasure with unethical actions by the media, and quite right...there can not possibly be enough criticism for their one-sided atrocious attacks on Sarah Palin's family. I have by no means, however, intended to express any leaning toward one side of our dual party system or the other, although I admit it's probably hard to separate me from the cause of McCain and Palin just as it's difficult to tell the difference between the national media and Barack Obama's campaign. So since I'm exposed, I'll report that my former governor (of a way-too-short 8 months) did indeed knock it out of the park tonight with her speech. I couldn't have asked for a better combination of attacks, humour, charm, family and qualifications. I'm thrilled for her and since I firmly believe in the fundamental ideologies of conservatism (by the way, don't necessarily confuse that with republicanism - for anyone curious about the difference, I'll be happy to elaborate), I will continue to firmly support her and McCain. And if that team is unsuccessful in November, I'll go down swinging with pride, because I believe despite the outcome, the right decisions have been made in the selection of these two, especially Palin. She was great when I lived in Alaska and I think she'll be great in the White House. I'll end by quoting one of my favourite lines from the night: "Al Qaeda terrorists want to inflict pain on the United States and [Obama] is concerned about reading them their rights." I'll be back soon with more brilliant commentary and insightful analysis and I welcome any comments or points of debate. Let's get a productive intellectual discussion going.

More thoughts...

My rage against the media shall continue, and rightly so. Having grown up with reverence for God and trying to live a life that models the Scripture, I'm no stranger to the criticism of hypocrisy. I have spent my life reading the Bible in public places, attending church and, when asked, offering my views on life. As such, I have observed there are many people out there who are eager to scrutinize and call me out for wrongdoing. And while they are often correct in their assessment, it's the pleasure they receive in tearing me down that has always puzzled me. Since I have an increasingly unfavourable view of humanity in general (myself included), I've always attributed this to normal human hatred that runs through all our veins in varying degrees. But with the media's merciless assault on Sarah Palin's family, I decided to ponder this desire to destroy more psychologically. I came to the conclusion that Christians do put themselves in the realm of attack in the way we live (or try to live) our lives...by having standards to live by, we set ourselves up for defeat time and again because we will all stumble upon our weak moments when we don't meet the standards we've set for ourselves. But that fact brought up an interesting revelation...maybe that difficulty in life is one of the main reasons so many others refuse to live by any standards or scruples at all. A life lived that cannot be measured is quite convenient and safe. It frees the person from defeat and the scrutiny that comes with it. The cost is paramount, however...such a life is void of courage. And that's how I see so many of the media that feels compelled to destroy Palin and others. There's no defeat, no victory, no possibility of failure, no challenge, and in essence therefore, no life, when you live a life void of scruples, so I consider cowardice to be the driving force for people who choose to live such lives, and this definitely applies to the ravenous media dogs. Going even farther, the Scripture often refers to shallow livers as "blind," unable to see realistic truths that hurt; the human mind has a great ability to suppress truths that are unpleasant. So I doubt people like the media would ever be able to be cognitively aware of their cowardice, yet in some deep subconscious level, they know it. And it's that suppressed knowledge in the sub-conscience that brings out murderous jealousy when they encounter people of strength like Sarah Palin who aren't afraid to take the challenge to live something better. Because of her courage which they'll never know, they hate her and are doing everything they can to get her head on a platter. This is of course a very simplified analysis of human psychology that is ignoring many other factors that make people tick the way they do, but I think it is a useful model to help explain what we're seeing...insane jealousy that Palin is tougher and braver than anything they'll ever know. Luckily, I heard a story that when the McCain people warned Palin of the scrutiny she'd be under, she replied, "Do you know the difference between a hockey mom and a pit bull? Lipstick." I hope she knocks it out of the park tonight, right down the throats of CNN and all the children that report for them.

I return with fury

For any faithful readers who have wondered where I've been for the last year on my blog posts, the answer is no good pictures of Ohio and too much school work. I felt, however, that I must vent today out of an anger that I haven't felt for some time and this seemed the best way to do it. In a way, it pains me to contribute to the ridiculous discussions about Sarah Palin and her family. It is my usual policy to fight this kind of nonsense with silence and refusal to participate. It seems this time, my threshold has been crossed and I'll be fighting and arguing with anyone I have to in order to defeat something I consider to be a great evil. For 2 or 3 days now, I've listened to a repulsive rhetoric of double standards and maliciousness from the national news media against not only Palin herself, but her family as well, and I'll list just a few of these double standards. The strategy being carried out is one that has been embraced by terrorists and dictatorships throughout the ages...one of the best ways to destroy a person's resolve and threaten them is to attack not only that person, but their family as well. Viewers of movies like Braveheart and Gladiator watch in disgust as evil men slaughter innocent women and children and destroy families just to get under the skin of their real enemy. These same viewers, however, seem to relish the opportunity to watch the non-fictional demise of Palin and her family (double standard number 1). I also find it curious that the very liberal feminists who become outraged when told they can't do the same things as a man are criticizing Palin for taking this responsibility when she has children and a pregnant daughter..."stay home and be a mom" they now say in a stunning departure from their normal rant (double standard number 2). Liberals themselves are always the ones saying abstinence doesn't work and we should give out condoms and sex ed in the schools, that sex among teens is normal, but they're ready to crucify Palin and her family for a pregnant teen (double standard number 3). Also curious is the lack of news of Obama's failures. While he himself writes in his book that at 17 he "attended class sparingly, drank abundantly, and tried drugs enthusiastically," there is no mention of these events in the news. For Obama, these things are good because they make him one of us, they were obstacles he got over, he's stronger for them. But for Bristol Palin, they're ready to burn her at the stake (double standard number 4). Al Gore's son was busted for DUI just before the 2000 election. I remember slightly catching mention of that story then never hearing of it again unless it was in the form of sympathy for Gore's son facing a tough time (double standard number 5). I could go on with double standards but I think I've made my point. I'm not one for conspiracy theories but I can confidently say our liberal friends in the media want Obama to win so badly that nothing, not even the destruction of children, will get in their way. For my friends who read, I hope you'll be aware of this maliciousness and do your part to get the message out that this is intolerable.