Thank you, Arlen Specter. We appreciate that you finally joined the party you seem most likely to support on key issues.
This is the continuing of the purifying of the Republican party, and while losing a seat in this time when the Democrats are close to a super majority is painful, I think it is the beginning of the rebuilding of a truly conservative party. Senator Specter has for years frustrated true conservatives like myself, and has kept more conservative people from winning the seat he has held for 28 years. I recall when he ran back in 2004, and I was frustrated the President Bush campaigned for him against Pat Toomey in the primary. Specter won the primary, obviously, then the rest of the party had to bite their tongues, hold their noses, and vote for him, as the local standard bearer for the GOP. I thought that was bad then, and wonder how far it really got the party, in the long run.
I guess Senator Specter didn't like being in the minority this late in his career, and was neither sure he would win the primary, nor that the GOP would regain the majority during his next term. He may be right, but nothing in politics is certain these days.
So what can we learn from this? From Senator Specter's own words, he intended to stay with the GOP as late as March 17, 2009. As with President Obama, watch his actions, not his words. That is lesson one. Also, the GOP should not interfere with primary battles, but rather let the local people make a local choice, without outside heavy hitters influencing outcomes. I bet Toomey would have won Specter's seat if he had won the primary, and held it now, rather than switching parties for personal political gain.
Lest it seem that I am disparaging Senator Specter, I am saying he is doing this for personal gain base on his own words, that there needed to be a balance, not just a one-party representation for the Northeast. When he was appearing to be a committed Republican, Specter said all the right words when asked, but voted for higher spending, bailouts, and other things that are not conservative. Which words represent the true Specter: those that he said as a Republican, or those that he said as he switched to be a Democrat? One set, take your pick, was said for pure personal political gain.
So, Senator Specter, thanks for the help, and don't let the door hit you on the way out. Next?
Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Friday, April 17, 2009
GOP in a Battle for its Direction
I read an article that typifies for me the battle that the GOP finds itself in. You can find it from the link at the title of this post. The lines are drawn, and the party future is on the line. The party is going to have to decide if it is the party that is Democrat-Lite or Strongly Conservative.
In the article I read, McCain's former top campaign strategist Steve Schmidt laid out the argument for giving up our traditional values in search of voters. The values he wants us to drop are those that are based on the Bible, including our opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, as well as strong border enforcement, which is not a Biblical issue. He worries that younger voters will not give up their liberal social views, even as they age and become more fiscally conservative. Mr. Schmidt sees the Latino vote swinging away from the GOP as we do not adopt positions that appeal to them as a voter block, which he doesn't detail in the article I read. His fear is that the party will be left with a shrinking voter pool, even if they keep the "indispensable" social conservatives.
I understand his argument, I think, yet it misses a large point or two.
First, in Mr. Schmidt's view, there is no point in keeping socially conservative positions as a party, if you don't win power. This misses the point that if you give up your socially conservative positions, there is no need for social conservatives to stay with the party. By dropping opposition to gay marriage, dropping opposition to abortion, and allowing illegal immigration, those who are motivated by those issues will feel disenfranchised, and will not support the party. Those people would have no reason to vote with the Republicans, because the issues they hold as having high importance would have no hope that their party would enact laws to support their views, which is the whole point of supporting a party. The social conservatives are not interested in keeping a party in power, they are interested in getting their views to become policy in the USA! If the Democrats supported their views, guess what? They would support the Democrats! Abortion is taking a life, and life is precious to those who are Pro-Life. Homosexuality is wrong to social conservatives, and if they can find a party that will tolerate (now there's a lost art these days!) homosexuality without promoting or accepting it, they can put their support behind that party. Truth be told, most social conservatives don't hate or even dislike immigrants, it's the breaking of the law that they don't like. Illegal immigration is breaking the law, pure and simple, and social Conservatives don't approve of law-breakers whether the law-breaker is Latino, European, Asian, Arabic, African, or even American. When we allow people to flout the law, the fabric of society begins to unravel, and Social Conservatives don't want that for our country. Not to mention the possibility that the next major terrorist attack could come across our borders illegally.
A word about "Tolerance". Tolerance is allowing a view or position on an issue to exist or persist without approving of it, in a moral sense. To "Tolerate" something is most accurately applied to social issues such as homosexuality. American tolerates things pretty well, or at least, we used to. Christians say homosexuality is wrong, but tolerate homosexuals, because we recognize their right to hold their views and live their lives according to them, as long as they don't force them upon society. What tolerance does not include is approval of the behavior being tolerated. When homosexuals want to participate in marriage, they have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that society affords to all Americans. There is not the moral equivalence of marriage in so-called Gay-marriage. This points to a more basic underlying theme about America, that it is founded by God-fearing people, and it's laws and morals are based on the Judeo-Christian heritage. Homosexuals try to win approval of society, and call it "hate" when their behavior is not accepted in the same way as heterosexuals behavior is. Hate is a pretty strong word, and it does not need to be demeaned by being used in place of disapproval. The Christian position, based on the Bible, is to hate the sin while loving the sinner. That is a practical description of tolerance. Most Christians don't "hate" homosexuals. They may feel sorry for them. They may dislike their chosen lifestyle. They may not want to have their children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle, or have them taught by homosexuals, but that is not "hate". If a Christian "hates" homosexuals, they need to get right with the Lord. Jesus didn't hate homosexuals, he didn't hate the woman at the well, who was living a sexually sinful life. He hated sin, and told sinners to go and sin no more. He did not condemn the woman caught in adultery (BTW, where was the man?), but rather told her to go and sin no more. That should be the message of any loving person or group, including the GOP. Go and sin no more.
Alternatively, if the GOP does give up its socially conservative positions, to which I would add the Second Amendment Rights, First amendment rights of free speech, and the right to "pursue happiness" which encapsulates the goals of Capitalism, then there will be little difference between the parties. I suppose my biases are showing through, but I don't see how the GOP could win, much less prosper without those key socially conservative positions. A third party would arise, with the social conservatives in it, and the GOP party power would be split. Democrats would love that scenario, as they would have two or three more presidential cycle victories before either the GOP or some third party could mount any serious challenge for power. In that time, the Progressives and Liberals would so firmly plant the change of our country that it might not be able to recover.
In summary, the battle for the soul of the GOP (Great Opportunity Party) must be won by social Conservatives. We cannot afford to let the Democrats win, either by outright holding power into the indefinite future, nor by changing the GOP into a Democrat-lite party, which isn't significantly different from the Democrat party. The GOP needs to stand up for Conservative principles, social, fiscal, national security, border and immigration enforcement, free speech rights, right to own and bear arms, and to pursue happiness. If they can do that, unashamedly, they will attract scores of new voters, including legal Latino immigrants, African Americans, workers, Veterans, young voters who will be concerned about their financial futures, and of course, the base of the party. You will even attract thinking Homosexuals, because they will recognize that the best interests of the country and tolerance of their lifestyles are the best things for them personally. Otherwise, the GOP and the country are going to continue to go down in power and into irrelevance. God help us all!
In the article I read, McCain's former top campaign strategist Steve Schmidt laid out the argument for giving up our traditional values in search of voters. The values he wants us to drop are those that are based on the Bible, including our opposition to same-sex marriage and abortion, as well as strong border enforcement, which is not a Biblical issue. He worries that younger voters will not give up their liberal social views, even as they age and become more fiscally conservative. Mr. Schmidt sees the Latino vote swinging away from the GOP as we do not adopt positions that appeal to them as a voter block, which he doesn't detail in the article I read. His fear is that the party will be left with a shrinking voter pool, even if they keep the "indispensable" social conservatives.
I understand his argument, I think, yet it misses a large point or two.
First, in Mr. Schmidt's view, there is no point in keeping socially conservative positions as a party, if you don't win power. This misses the point that if you give up your socially conservative positions, there is no need for social conservatives to stay with the party. By dropping opposition to gay marriage, dropping opposition to abortion, and allowing illegal immigration, those who are motivated by those issues will feel disenfranchised, and will not support the party. Those people would have no reason to vote with the Republicans, because the issues they hold as having high importance would have no hope that their party would enact laws to support their views, which is the whole point of supporting a party. The social conservatives are not interested in keeping a party in power, they are interested in getting their views to become policy in the USA! If the Democrats supported their views, guess what? They would support the Democrats! Abortion is taking a life, and life is precious to those who are Pro-Life. Homosexuality is wrong to social conservatives, and if they can find a party that will tolerate (now there's a lost art these days!) homosexuality without promoting or accepting it, they can put their support behind that party. Truth be told, most social conservatives don't hate or even dislike immigrants, it's the breaking of the law that they don't like. Illegal immigration is breaking the law, pure and simple, and social Conservatives don't approve of law-breakers whether the law-breaker is Latino, European, Asian, Arabic, African, or even American. When we allow people to flout the law, the fabric of society begins to unravel, and Social Conservatives don't want that for our country. Not to mention the possibility that the next major terrorist attack could come across our borders illegally.
A word about "Tolerance". Tolerance is allowing a view or position on an issue to exist or persist without approving of it, in a moral sense. To "Tolerate" something is most accurately applied to social issues such as homosexuality. American tolerates things pretty well, or at least, we used to. Christians say homosexuality is wrong, but tolerate homosexuals, because we recognize their right to hold their views and live their lives according to them, as long as they don't force them upon society. What tolerance does not include is approval of the behavior being tolerated. When homosexuals want to participate in marriage, they have the same right to marry a member of the opposite sex that society affords to all Americans. There is not the moral equivalence of marriage in so-called Gay-marriage. This points to a more basic underlying theme about America, that it is founded by God-fearing people, and it's laws and morals are based on the Judeo-Christian heritage. Homosexuals try to win approval of society, and call it "hate" when their behavior is not accepted in the same way as heterosexuals behavior is. Hate is a pretty strong word, and it does not need to be demeaned by being used in place of disapproval. The Christian position, based on the Bible, is to hate the sin while loving the sinner. That is a practical description of tolerance. Most Christians don't "hate" homosexuals. They may feel sorry for them. They may dislike their chosen lifestyle. They may not want to have their children exposed to the homosexual lifestyle, or have them taught by homosexuals, but that is not "hate". If a Christian "hates" homosexuals, they need to get right with the Lord. Jesus didn't hate homosexuals, he didn't hate the woman at the well, who was living a sexually sinful life. He hated sin, and told sinners to go and sin no more. He did not condemn the woman caught in adultery (BTW, where was the man?), but rather told her to go and sin no more. That should be the message of any loving person or group, including the GOP. Go and sin no more.
Alternatively, if the GOP does give up its socially conservative positions, to which I would add the Second Amendment Rights, First amendment rights of free speech, and the right to "pursue happiness" which encapsulates the goals of Capitalism, then there will be little difference between the parties. I suppose my biases are showing through, but I don't see how the GOP could win, much less prosper without those key socially conservative positions. A third party would arise, with the social conservatives in it, and the GOP party power would be split. Democrats would love that scenario, as they would have two or three more presidential cycle victories before either the GOP or some third party could mount any serious challenge for power. In that time, the Progressives and Liberals would so firmly plant the change of our country that it might not be able to recover.
In summary, the battle for the soul of the GOP (Great Opportunity Party) must be won by social Conservatives. We cannot afford to let the Democrats win, either by outright holding power into the indefinite future, nor by changing the GOP into a Democrat-lite party, which isn't significantly different from the Democrat party. The GOP needs to stand up for Conservative principles, social, fiscal, national security, border and immigration enforcement, free speech rights, right to own and bear arms, and to pursue happiness. If they can do that, unashamedly, they will attract scores of new voters, including legal Latino immigrants, African Americans, workers, Veterans, young voters who will be concerned about their financial futures, and of course, the base of the party. You will even attract thinking Homosexuals, because they will recognize that the best interests of the country and tolerance of their lifestyles are the best things for them personally. Otherwise, the GOP and the country are going to continue to go down in power and into irrelevance. God help us all!
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Answer to a Polling Point Question
Polling Point asked me this question:
What do you think Rush Limbaugh meant by his comment, "I want Obama to fail."?
I answered as follows:
Rush wants policies that are harmful to America not to succeed, and he sees many of Obama's policies as bad for America. Rush sees Obama as perpetrating a multi-pronged plan to change America away from the free, prosperous land with choices for all, to a country ruled by elites, with high taxes for all, giving away our money to those who have not earned it, and to foreign countries in the name of helping them. He also sees punishment of achievement coming from Obama, so all of those things Mr. Limbaugh wants to fail. He wants America to succeed, which means Obama should fail at crippling America with his misguided policies.
What do you think Rush Limbaugh meant by his comment, "I want Obama to fail."?
I answered as follows:
Rush wants policies that are harmful to America not to succeed, and he sees many of Obama's policies as bad for America. Rush sees Obama as perpetrating a multi-pronged plan to change America away from the free, prosperous land with choices for all, to a country ruled by elites, with high taxes for all, giving away our money to those who have not earned it, and to foreign countries in the name of helping them. He also sees punishment of achievement coming from Obama, so all of those things Mr. Limbaugh wants to fail. He wants America to succeed, which means Obama should fail at crippling America with his misguided policies.
Friday, January 9, 2009
Obama Doublespeak Decoded (part 1)
As I listen to the President-elect speak about the various issues on his agenda, I often get frustrated. Yes, elections have consequences, and he is one of them. He seems to be trying to talk the economy down, disclose his private plans, and reveal his secrets while at the same time appearing to not do any of those things. So I think he is in the Doublespeak mode, and somebody had better start decoding what he means from what he says and does. Here is my first attempt.
- stimulus plan - plan to grow government in ways that take years to implement and even longer to recover from.
- clandestine meetings with Hamas - put pressure on Israel and Hamas to make concessions, because Hamas is being treated as an equal.
- Economy is getting worse - you need my plans so badly that they must be passed ASAP with no discussion or disagreement.
- work with Congress - let Congress put it together, so they can take the blame when it doesn't work.
- Bi-partisanship - include the Republicans so they can be blamed for the inevitable failure of the resulting bills including the stimulus plan.
- tax cuts for 95% of working families - wealth transfers to those who pay no Federal income tax, while soaking "The Rich".
- Secretary of State Clinton - safe place to keep Hillary so she stays away from health care, since she is poisonous, though her plan is not significantly different from my own plan, assuming she makes it through confirmation. Watch for some reasons to pop up to keep her from taking the Sec State post, and at the same time, make her irrelevant to the political scene - Obama doesn't need her or her husband to achieve his goals.
- 3 million jobs saved or created - take credit for Bush's stimulus that is beginning to take effect, and pull in however many jobs are needed in the "saved" category as necessary to claim victory.
- recession will last for years to come - my plans will deepen the recession, but I will blame it on Bush and the Republicans, so that you won't want to vote for them, even though my plans didn't make things any better.
- deepening crisis - more reason to change form free-market capitalism to socialism, because capitalism has failed this time.
- get American working - for the government.
- reward hard working taxpayers - let them give to support those who are not working, or who are in failing businesses. Hard work is its own reward.
- talk with Iran - Obama: use dialog to help them understand that the US is no longer like Bush, so we can be trusted, and they can stop their nuclear weapons programs. Reality: make concessions to Tehran that make it impossible to support Israel properly.
- Talk with Hugo Chavez - lower US diplomatic status to that of a third world dictatorship, which is what I think we should become.
- Leon Panetta is a fine choice for the CIA - I need someone over there who I can trust to tell me everything, not do much, and make the CIA a clean, friendly organization who will stop torturing those poor misunderstood Muslims, who really just want what's best for America and to be our friends.
- End the war in Iraq - quit irritating those nice middle-eastern countries who just want to peaceably co-exist with the rest of the world.
- make healthcare affordable for all Americans - nationalize healthcare, so you don't see the cost when you go to the doctor or hospital. Let the rich, the smokers, big business and the unhealthy pay more in penalties, taxes, and fees so the rest of us don't have to.
- Secure our borders - declare the borders secure, and provide a path to citizenship for thos illegals who are here now.
- One President at a time - I don't want to talk about that. Ask me later, if you dare. Does not apply to the economy, only to Israel, and heck, to foreign policy in total, since I don't have much interest in it, nor understanding of it.
Thursday, December 11, 2008
BlagObama Senate Seat Fiasco
For those of you who have read my other posts, you know that I am a Conservative. You also know that I think a lot. I have to, to get it right. I am still gathering information about the Blagojevich abuse of power allegations. I read the indictment submissions on The Smoking GUn, and they are devastating, and very graphic.
This whole Senate Seat for Sale scandal is not only disgusting, but illustrative of the seedy political arena President-Elect Barrack Obama willingly jumped into on his way from Hawaii to the White House. I have no evidence yet that Obama was involved in this, though there is that possibility. Here is why I think this:
This whole Senate Seat for Sale scandal is not only disgusting, but illustrative of the seedy political arena President-Elect Barrack Obama willingly jumped into on his way from Hawaii to the White House. I have no evidence yet that Obama was involved in this, though there is that possibility. Here is why I think this:
- David Axelrod, Obama's Rove (chief political advisor) said Obama had spoken with the Governor about this. He was on a TV show, it was taped, and it was dug up after the revelation of Blago trying to get whatever he could for himself and his wife to relieve the financial pressure on his family, due to his only being a governor. I guess that doesn't pay enough for him.
- A reporter at a local Illinois TV station reported the day after the election that Obama was scheduled to meet with the governor the next day, to discuss filling the impending vacancy. I have not seen any confirmation that any meeting actually took place, but then, I'm a consumer of news, not a producer of it. I'll await any confirmation.
- Governor Blago indicated on tape when discussing the matter that Obama wanted candidate #1 (That lady, Valerie Jarrett?) to fill his seat. He said that they were only willing to give him future appreciation. Blago wanted money, so he swore about Obama that he was a M-F-, and he repeated it in different conversations. How did he know that they would only offer appreciation, if he didn't talk with someone about some sort of compensation?
- Obama did not display outrage, disgust, or other anger that his still-warm Senate seat was up for bid by the governor. He said it was an ongoing investigation, so he could not comment on it. Really? Not even to say that it was a travesty, and he totally condemns that type of shameful corruption? Why not?
- Obama has helped Blago get elected over the years, as Blago has helped Obama over the years to do the same. The press is trying to say that the two of them travelled in different Democrat circles in Illinois, though I doubt there are different circles in that state. To quote Lincoln, a House divided cannot stand. Neither can the Illinois Democrat party.
Thursday, December 4, 2008
Is Gay the New Black?
I was just reading an article on some news website, and saw the headline above. I don't even have to read the article to give the answer: NO, by no means is "Gay the new Black".
One does not need to be gay to know that being gay is a choice or lifestyle one can make or hide. Even if you grant that Gays are genetically wired to not be straight, if the desires are not acted upon, if the lusts are not fulfilled, one can easily hide their homosexuality. Being gay doesn't necessarily mean one is effeminate. There are strong, big, successful Gays that don't give the outward appearance that they are gay. I occasionally hear of athletes who are outed, and people seem shocked! Shocked that such a talented, often masculine guy, or very feminine gal is lesbian.
But let's talk reality here. Who doesn't know that I am black? I once had a conversation with a well-intentioned white brother in Christ, who asked me, after I divulged my lineage as including my white mother and black father, if I identified myself as black or white. After my spontaneous laughter subsided, I told him to look at me, think about it, and ask me again if he still needed to. My race is as obvious as the nose on my face. No, in fact, it is more obvious, because if one is nearsighted, and has no glasses on while looking at me, they may not see my nose, but would still see my race. I have no choice. I cannot hide my race casually.
Sure, there are those who can "pass", but they still have the genes inside them. Michael Jackson may be able to obscure his race chemically or surgically, but his kids show his genes. So do pictures from his younger days. But for the rest of us average Joes, our race is set and obvious. As America mixes races more thoroughly, our descendants will all be a happy shade of brown; some more, some less. But Gays will continue to have the luxury of choosing. Choosing to openly be gay, or to hide their activities that define them as Gay.
So don't dare compare being Gay with being black. Compare being Gay with being a Liberal, or with any other group of Americans defined by their actions and beliefs. Gays were not brought to this continent in chains against their will. Gays may have come on ships, and some slaves may have been Gay, but they were not captured, sold shipped and auctioned because they were gay. Blacks have struggled mightily for civil rights which mostGays have always had. This brings up the issue of tolerance, which I will not expound upon here. Suffice it to say, Gays have been tolerated, but that is not enough these days for them. They want acceptance and normalcy to be conferred on them, which goes way beyond tolerance.If we grant special rights based on lifestyle choices, where does it stop? Which group will get special rights based on their particular lifestyle choices?
Let's suppose daredevils demand the right to low insurance rates, just like non-daredevils are given. Or that smokers demand acceptance of their lifestyle choices, so they should be able to smoke wherever they choose. Or that professional race drivers be allowed to drive on the roads and highways at speeds they have proven themselves to be able to safely drive on the track. Or that Republicans should be able to pay lower taxes because that is their lifestyle choice. I think the point is clear: no special rights for groups defined by their actions and feelings.
One does not need to be gay to know that being gay is a choice or lifestyle one can make or hide. Even if you grant that Gays are genetically wired to not be straight, if the desires are not acted upon, if the lusts are not fulfilled, one can easily hide their homosexuality. Being gay doesn't necessarily mean one is effeminate. There are strong, big, successful Gays that don't give the outward appearance that they are gay. I occasionally hear of athletes who are outed, and people seem shocked! Shocked that such a talented, often masculine guy, or very feminine gal is lesbian.
But let's talk reality here. Who doesn't know that I am black? I once had a conversation with a well-intentioned white brother in Christ, who asked me, after I divulged my lineage as including my white mother and black father, if I identified myself as black or white. After my spontaneous laughter subsided, I told him to look at me, think about it, and ask me again if he still needed to. My race is as obvious as the nose on my face. No, in fact, it is more obvious, because if one is nearsighted, and has no glasses on while looking at me, they may not see my nose, but would still see my race. I have no choice. I cannot hide my race casually.
Sure, there are those who can "pass", but they still have the genes inside them. Michael Jackson may be able to obscure his race chemically or surgically, but his kids show his genes. So do pictures from his younger days. But for the rest of us average Joes, our race is set and obvious. As America mixes races more thoroughly, our descendants will all be a happy shade of brown; some more, some less. But Gays will continue to have the luxury of choosing. Choosing to openly be gay, or to hide their activities that define them as Gay.
So don't dare compare being Gay with being black. Compare being Gay with being a Liberal, or with any other group of Americans defined by their actions and beliefs. Gays were not brought to this continent in chains against their will. Gays may have come on ships, and some slaves may have been Gay, but they were not captured, sold shipped and auctioned because they were gay. Blacks have struggled mightily for civil rights which mostGays have always had. This brings up the issue of tolerance, which I will not expound upon here. Suffice it to say, Gays have been tolerated, but that is not enough these days for them. They want acceptance and normalcy to be conferred on them, which goes way beyond tolerance.If we grant special rights based on lifestyle choices, where does it stop? Which group will get special rights based on their particular lifestyle choices?
Let's suppose daredevils demand the right to low insurance rates, just like non-daredevils are given. Or that smokers demand acceptance of their lifestyle choices, so they should be able to smoke wherever they choose. Or that professional race drivers be allowed to drive on the roads and highways at speeds they have proven themselves to be able to safely drive on the track. Or that Republicans should be able to pay lower taxes because that is their lifestyle choice. I think the point is clear: no special rights for groups defined by their actions and feelings.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Content of the Character
Well, we now know that Barrack Obama has won the 2008 Presidential Election. Congratulations are in order, and I think he might have won even if Acorn et al had not cheated. Senator Obama's victory is historic, in that he is the first black American to win the highest office in the land. In the generic sense, I am happy that bridge has been crossed.
Now we can not blame racism for our problems, not say "The Man" is holding us back, and we can now get off our collective behinds and take responsibility for our own lives and actions. Granted, there are many who have already taken that step, and are mainstream American conservatives, but I say it as an all-inclusive statement because we are all Americans, as Barrack likes to say.
Now we can say that the psychology of slavery has been overcome, and blacks are now just like the rest of the American society, full citizens able to reach the highest office in the land through peaceful means. There is nothing that American blacks cannot do, and nothing that any other self-identified sub-groups cannot do. Barrack has proven it, so let's get to work.
My brother called me last night to bask in the win of Senator Obama, and to ask a question. He asked if over the next four years Barrack Obama could win my vote. I immediately thought of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous line, which I have used as a guiding light in my life: Judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I already judged President-elect Obama by that standard, and decided not to vote for him for that reason. Too many things strike me as either bad, weak, or hidden to entrust him willingly to the highest office in the land. Need I list them? for posterity, I will:
- Jeremiah Wright and the hateful things he taught the Obamas over the past 20 years. Did he know and not care, or was he that politically deaf that he missed it?
- Bill Ayers. That 60's radical still wants to use his associations to bring an end to Capitalism in the USA, and will use his connections to Obama for that purpose. Mr. Ayers may have succeeded in moving the mainstream of American educational thought to the left, but it is still not in the mainstream of American values. I also believe Barrack will appoint people who think like Ayers to posts in his administration, to our country's detriment.
- Stealing Hillary's election. See HillBuzz.com, and see how it was done. Not the stuff of a candidate on the up and up.
- belief in man-made Global warming, against all the scientific evidence.
- naively thinking that we could negotiate with hostile countries without preconditions. To think that we can come to agreement with nut-jobs like Ahmadinejad of Iran, when what he/they want is the extermination of Israel belies his inexperience, and is a pipe dream. They will not compromise, as we should not either.
- Acorn. Obama's association with Acorn is obscured, and seems to be one of political expedience, and this is not the type of organization that a President should be involved with. Will they be called in to help set the agenda during the transition, as he said would happen if he won the White House?
- Franklin Raines. This former head of Fannie Mae is up to his eyeballs in the financial crisis, including being a CEO who took a large golden parachute, at the expense of a failing business which we had to bail out.
Am I without hope? No, not at all. First, God is still God, and He is still in control. Second, the GOP still has more than 40 seats in the Senate, so they can still filibuster, if it is necessary. Plus, Senator Obama plans to run again, so he will have to balance his extreme Liberal tendencies with his need to get moderate and Republican votes in four years.
To answer my brother's question, President-elect Obama can earn my vote, but it is unlikely he will try to. We will make it through the next four years, but the country will be weakened and damaged. Will we be able to repair it? I'm not sure, but it is worth trying. Next post: the judiciary, abortion, and the rest of the targets of Liberal assault.
Now we can not blame racism for our problems, not say "The Man" is holding us back, and we can now get off our collective behinds and take responsibility for our own lives and actions. Granted, there are many who have already taken that step, and are mainstream American conservatives, but I say it as an all-inclusive statement because we are all Americans, as Barrack likes to say.
Now we can say that the psychology of slavery has been overcome, and blacks are now just like the rest of the American society, full citizens able to reach the highest office in the land through peaceful means. There is nothing that American blacks cannot do, and nothing that any other self-identified sub-groups cannot do. Barrack has proven it, so let's get to work.
My brother called me last night to bask in the win of Senator Obama, and to ask a question. He asked if over the next four years Barrack Obama could win my vote. I immediately thought of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.'s famous line, which I have used as a guiding light in my life: Judge people not by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character. I already judged President-elect Obama by that standard, and decided not to vote for him for that reason. Too many things strike me as either bad, weak, or hidden to entrust him willingly to the highest office in the land. Need I list them? for posterity, I will:
- Jeremiah Wright and the hateful things he taught the Obamas over the past 20 years. Did he know and not care, or was he that politically deaf that he missed it?
- Bill Ayers. That 60's radical still wants to use his associations to bring an end to Capitalism in the USA, and will use his connections to Obama for that purpose. Mr. Ayers may have succeeded in moving the mainstream of American educational thought to the left, but it is still not in the mainstream of American values. I also believe Barrack will appoint people who think like Ayers to posts in his administration, to our country's detriment.
- Stealing Hillary's election. See HillBuzz.com, and see how it was done. Not the stuff of a candidate on the up and up.
- belief in man-made Global warming, against all the scientific evidence.
- naively thinking that we could negotiate with hostile countries without preconditions. To think that we can come to agreement with nut-jobs like Ahmadinejad of Iran, when what he/they want is the extermination of Israel belies his inexperience, and is a pipe dream. They will not compromise, as we should not either.
- Acorn. Obama's association with Acorn is obscured, and seems to be one of political expedience, and this is not the type of organization that a President should be involved with. Will they be called in to help set the agenda during the transition, as he said would happen if he won the White House?
- Franklin Raines. This former head of Fannie Mae is up to his eyeballs in the financial crisis, including being a CEO who took a large golden parachute, at the expense of a failing business which we had to bail out.
Am I without hope? No, not at all. First, God is still God, and He is still in control. Second, the GOP still has more than 40 seats in the Senate, so they can still filibuster, if it is necessary. Plus, Senator Obama plans to run again, so he will have to balance his extreme Liberal tendencies with his need to get moderate and Republican votes in four years.
To answer my brother's question, President-elect Obama can earn my vote, but it is unlikely he will try to. We will make it through the next four years, but the country will be weakened and damaged. Will we be able to repair it? I'm not sure, but it is worth trying. Next post: the judiciary, abortion, and the rest of the targets of Liberal assault.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)