For the last 3 years i have been disgusted by the way the democrats have used Katrina as a political football trying to take advantage of this tragedy for their gain...especially since i was in Southeastern Louisiana during the storm and witnessed the failure of state and local leaders as well as the lack of personal responsibility. I was once again sickened this past week during the dem's coronation of their messiah Barack Hussein Obama when i heard Katrina referenced time and again; but the following video takes the cake:
I'm glad Don Fowler, former National Chairman of the DNC, found a category 5 hurricane heading straight for the Louisiana coast to be funny and worth joking about. Sadly this is probably the mindset of the vast majority of those who polluted the Pepsi Center and called for "change".
Sickening at worst, classless at best.
Saturday, August 30, 2008
Wednesday, August 27, 2008
BHO says No-No
Barack Hussein Obama is grasping at straws this week and doing everything within his power...as well as in the power of his handlers (meaning those who picked Biden for his VP) to seem "mainstream". The last thing the junior Senator from Illinois and former community organizer wants people to know is just how far left he truly is and how out of touch he is with the average American due to his real political leanings. As a result the Obama camp is fighting to keep the following ad linking him to unrepentant terrorist William Ayers from airing:
Just what we need in the White House...someone who gets his advice and political cues from terrorists!
Just what we need in the White House...someone who gets his advice and political cues from terrorists!
Monday, August 25, 2008
From Hugh Hewitt
A commentary on the Obama/Biden ticket from radio talk show host Hugh Hewitt
"[Barack] Obama represents the merger of two of the worst aspects of Democratic politics---'60s radicalism and corrupt Chicago machine politics. With the addition of Slow Joe Biden to the ticket, Obama has added to his unsteady candidacy an epic amount of Beltway cluelessness and arrogance unsupported by anything except frequent flier miles and Delaware's love for a chuckle-headed fellow with a big smile... I was worried that the Dems had pointed out to Obama that his serial gaffing had brought the campaign close to a break point and that he needed Hillary. I was worried he'd actually go find Anthony Zinni or Sam Nunn or someone of accomplishment and purposefulness in foreign affairs. [Jim] Webb would have been hell on the stump. [Tim] Kaine or [Evan] Bayh would have put different states into play. [Kathleen]Sebelius was a wild card. But Biden?... Put Biden's obvious flaws aside and ask yourself how in the world Obama decided to go with Biden, and you'll quickly realize that the Democratic nominee must have been impressed with Biden on the long campaign trail of 2007 and 2008---even though voters weren't and even though Biden has no accomplishments of note after 36 years in the Senate.
Biden talked a great game and dropped some very interesting place names---and this impressed Obama. Talking the talk has been the key to Obama's success, and in Slow Joe he found an older, far better traveled but equally prolix gas bag... For Obama, it is all about politics and words, elections and poses. Slow Joe is the perfect running mate on a perfect ticket for a party betting on wind to solve the energy crisis."
"[Barack] Obama represents the merger of two of the worst aspects of Democratic politics---'60s radicalism and corrupt Chicago machine politics. With the addition of Slow Joe Biden to the ticket, Obama has added to his unsteady candidacy an epic amount of Beltway cluelessness and arrogance unsupported by anything except frequent flier miles and Delaware's love for a chuckle-headed fellow with a big smile... I was worried that the Dems had pointed out to Obama that his serial gaffing had brought the campaign close to a break point and that he needed Hillary. I was worried he'd actually go find Anthony Zinni or Sam Nunn or someone of accomplishment and purposefulness in foreign affairs. [Jim] Webb would have been hell on the stump. [Tim] Kaine or [Evan] Bayh would have put different states into play. [Kathleen]Sebelius was a wild card. But Biden?... Put Biden's obvious flaws aside and ask yourself how in the world Obama decided to go with Biden, and you'll quickly realize that the Democratic nominee must have been impressed with Biden on the long campaign trail of 2007 and 2008---even though voters weren't and even though Biden has no accomplishments of note after 36 years in the Senate.
Biden talked a great game and dropped some very interesting place names---and this impressed Obama. Talking the talk has been the key to Obama's success, and in Slow Joe he found an older, far better traveled but equally prolix gas bag... For Obama, it is all about politics and words, elections and poses. Slow Joe is the perfect running mate on a perfect ticket for a party betting on wind to solve the energy crisis."
Vetting of a VP
A little internet research and it is amazing what you can find. It would appear someone on liberal messiah Barack Hussein Obama slipped up and allowed the list of questions Caroline Kennedy used in vetting potential VP candidates. As you will see, they are thorough, in depth and hit the heart of democrat policies.
A. What’s the longest time you have ever been able to stare directly into the sun?
B. Which is more comfortable for you, bowing or kneeling?
C. Do you have any firmly held convictions?
D. If you answered ‘Yes’ to question #3: Are you willing to forsake them for the honor of serving with President Obama?
E. Which sounds like a better first line in a speech?
*My fellow Americans…
*People of the World…
F. If a crying baby falls to the floor of an abortion clinic, but no law is there to protect it, does it make a sound?
G. Choose the correct ending to this sentence: “I want to be vice president to…
*fix America’s deep flaws, to atone for the sins of her past, and to help set a course away from our shameful history.”
*serve the greatest nation under God that the planet has ever seen, out of gratitude for the freedom and opportunity she has granted me, and to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.”
H. If you chose the second answer to question #7, are you sure you aren’t on Sen. McCain’s short list instead?
I. What do you think is the worst evil in the world? (Choose 3 correct answers.)
*Radical Islam
*Unequal distribution of America’s obscene wealth
*Provincial attitudes that keep us from talking with our so-called ‘enemies’
*The United States of America itself
J. In the course of serving as Vice President, you may be required to attend funerals of respected world leaders to pay tribute to their lives of service. Are you willing to travel to all of the following: Cuba, North Korea, Iran, Syria, Venezuela?
There you go...this should give us a better picture of what can expect of the Obama-Biden ticket!
Kudos to Scott Ott over at ScrappleFace!
Saturday, August 23, 2008
The Liberal Messiah has Chosen...
It would appear that Osama Hussein Obama, the designated Messiah of the left has chosen a winner in the Lefty Veep-stakes and the winner (or loser) appears to be Joe Biden (D-DE), the 6 term Senator who has ran for and lost the Democrat presidential nomination on 3 different occasions.
I think this is going to be way too easy and way too much fun, especially considering some of the idiotic (borderline racist) comments Biden has made (or perhaps he just plagiarized them), and this dialogue from one of the hundred or so democrat debates from the primary season, this one hosted by ABC's De-Face The Nation host George Stephanopoulos:
STEPHANOPOULOS: You were asked, “Is he ready?” You said, “I think he can be ready, but right now I don’t believe he is. The presidency is not something that lends itself to on-the- job-training.”
BIDEN: I think that — I stand by the statement.
One more thing, if the message is "Change" why is he choosing someone who has been part of the problem in Washington for the last 30+ years????
Thursday, August 14, 2008
The Strange Persistence of Moral Sanity
Dr. Albert Mohler addressed the latest political sex scandal and it's roots in modern relativism that defines the left.
The fall of yet another politician in a sex scandal has added a note of Schadenfreude to the political season. Coming so quickly after the fall of former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer, the admission by former Senator John Edwards of an affair during his presidential campaign seemed to catch many observers off-guard.
Sexual immorality crosses all partisan lines. Spitzer and Edwards are prominent Democrats, but equally prominent Republicans have been caught in the same web. There is no room for partisan calculation here.
One interesting aspect of the Edwards saga is the near-universal assumption that, had Edwards won the primary race for the Democratic presidential nomination, he (and his party) would have been fatally wounded in terms of the November election. This assumption, revealed in media coverage of the scandal, seems to be common to both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. The assumption is probably valid.
The American people are incredibly forgiving, but John Edwards violated a basic sense of public dignity and personal morality. The fact that his wife, Elizabeth, is in the fight of her life with cancer only adds to the public's sense of outrage at his violation of his marital vows. His repeated lies added fuel to the fire. On top of all this, the narcissism and recklessness of his affair revealed a poisonous disregard for his responsibilities, his supporters, his family, his friends, and the public.
The American people were confronted once again with broken promises, broken commitments, and broken hearts laid bare in public. Even now, the public seems braced for further revelations in this scandal.
But what of that near-universal assumption that this scandal should end the political career of John Edwards? Some observers reject that assumption.
Writing for Psychology Today [warning: objectionable language], Roy F. Baumeister categorically rejects the idea that a sex scandal should be considered politically significant at all. He writes: "My thesis is that the American people and their chances for good government are the ones most harmed by these scandals. In fact, I recommend that we should stop considering sexual behavior as a qualification for political office."
That is an audacious recommendation, but it is not unprecedented. Similar arguments followed the fall of Elliot Spitzer. The public is not buying the argument.
Baumeister continues:
I can imagine people objecting that sexual decision making reveals a man's character. (I refer specifically to men here, because so far only men have had their political careers ruined by sex scandals.) This argument seems lame to me. A much better and more relevant test of character would involve how the person has managed his money. Has he always paid his bills on time? If the answer is no, that is much more reason to question his suitability for public office than an occasional bit of unsanctioned sex.
That is an amazing and revealing argument. Christians must reject that argument on its face. The Bible clearly affirms that what is done with the body is directly related to the soul. Christianity is incompatible with a Gnosticism that divides the body and soul so that sexual behavior and character can be separated.
Baumeister even goes so far as to argue that the public is drawn to support high-testosterone men who, by virtue of that testosterone, are also likely to seek multiple sex partners. "High testosterone does not promote sexual fidelity," he asserts. "It makes men want to have more different partners. On top of the self-selection of adultery-prone men into politics, the opportunities probably increase for a successful politician."
In the end, he warns that the nation is "not so oversupplied with brilliant, wonderful, effective politicians that we can afford to disqualify a substantial number of them based on something as irrelevant as a bit of wild oats." An extended adulterous affair encased in lies and betrayal is merely "a bit of wild oats?"
Well, there you have it -- it's not the man . . . it's the testosterone. It's not a moral scandal, just a bit of wild oats. Most Americans recognize those arguments to be patent nonsense. Even in these confused and confusing times, some moral sanity remains.
The fall of yet another politician in a sex scandal has added a note of Schadenfreude to the political season. Coming so quickly after the fall of former New York Governor Elliot Spitzer, the admission by former Senator John Edwards of an affair during his presidential campaign seemed to catch many observers off-guard.
Sexual immorality crosses all partisan lines. Spitzer and Edwards are prominent Democrats, but equally prominent Republicans have been caught in the same web. There is no room for partisan calculation here.
One interesting aspect of the Edwards saga is the near-universal assumption that, had Edwards won the primary race for the Democratic presidential nomination, he (and his party) would have been fatally wounded in terms of the November election. This assumption, revealed in media coverage of the scandal, seems to be common to both liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats. The assumption is probably valid.
The American people are incredibly forgiving, but John Edwards violated a basic sense of public dignity and personal morality. The fact that his wife, Elizabeth, is in the fight of her life with cancer only adds to the public's sense of outrage at his violation of his marital vows. His repeated lies added fuel to the fire. On top of all this, the narcissism and recklessness of his affair revealed a poisonous disregard for his responsibilities, his supporters, his family, his friends, and the public.
The American people were confronted once again with broken promises, broken commitments, and broken hearts laid bare in public. Even now, the public seems braced for further revelations in this scandal.
But what of that near-universal assumption that this scandal should end the political career of John Edwards? Some observers reject that assumption.
Writing for Psychology Today [warning: objectionable language], Roy F. Baumeister categorically rejects the idea that a sex scandal should be considered politically significant at all. He writes: "My thesis is that the American people and their chances for good government are the ones most harmed by these scandals. In fact, I recommend that we should stop considering sexual behavior as a qualification for political office."
That is an audacious recommendation, but it is not unprecedented. Similar arguments followed the fall of Elliot Spitzer. The public is not buying the argument.
Baumeister continues:
I can imagine people objecting that sexual decision making reveals a man's character. (I refer specifically to men here, because so far only men have had their political careers ruined by sex scandals.) This argument seems lame to me. A much better and more relevant test of character would involve how the person has managed his money. Has he always paid his bills on time? If the answer is no, that is much more reason to question his suitability for public office than an occasional bit of unsanctioned sex.
That is an amazing and revealing argument. Christians must reject that argument on its face. The Bible clearly affirms that what is done with the body is directly related to the soul. Christianity is incompatible with a Gnosticism that divides the body and soul so that sexual behavior and character can be separated.
Baumeister even goes so far as to argue that the public is drawn to support high-testosterone men who, by virtue of that testosterone, are also likely to seek multiple sex partners. "High testosterone does not promote sexual fidelity," he asserts. "It makes men want to have more different partners. On top of the self-selection of adultery-prone men into politics, the opportunities probably increase for a successful politician."
In the end, he warns that the nation is "not so oversupplied with brilliant, wonderful, effective politicians that we can afford to disqualify a substantial number of them based on something as irrelevant as a bit of wild oats." An extended adulterous affair encased in lies and betrayal is merely "a bit of wild oats?"
Well, there you have it -- it's not the man . . . it's the testosterone. It's not a moral scandal, just a bit of wild oats. Most Americans recognize those arguments to be patent nonsense. Even in these confused and confusing times, some moral sanity remains.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
