Thursday, August 28, 2008

Deeds Of The "Worst"

This article is like a "Part Two" of the previous post, which it pretty much is since it's by the same guy, Randall Hoven. An additional plus for me is considering how well the last one went over, this should bring lots of well documented counter arguments and/or guffaws by Dan meant to imply that he knows better, the thought of which brings guffaws from me.

But I think it should be kept in mind that the points made by Hoven are not hidden, they are not that which most are truly unaware, and they make it hard to take seriously anyone who claims that Bush is the "worst president ever". Seems to me a lot was accomplished for by a guy who's supposed to be a "moron".

But back to the fun. If the usual suspects want to dispute the points made and the sources used to support them, I'm gonna stick my neck way out there and assume they won't dispute those stats of the first paragraph. Those stats they'll likely leave alone. Let's watch.

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Illegal and Unjustified

From the racist and journalistically inferior comes this piece discussing the "lies" of the decision to invade Iraq. The source is the very Congressional document that justified the action as well as later intel.

More Lies And Slander? Not At All!

Matt Barber has a nice piece at I will continue to re-print articles such as these to re-iterate just what a lowlife Obama is for his support of this vile practice. Plus, it gives me an opportunity to comment on this "above my paygrade" remark regarding when one gains human rights.

This comment alone speaks volumes about the character and courage of this pretender to the throne. I suppose I should go easy on the guy. After all, one cannot have courage of his convictions if one has no convictions. I don't mean the type of convictions his friend Tony Rezko now has, but the type by which men are measured. But what kind of weenie can't muster the courage to answer this question? That's easy. One who doesn't want to highlight that which he knows is abominable. One who doesn't want to highlight what horror he supports.

Even most pro-abortion lefties see problems with both partial-birth abortions and denying medical care for living breathing infants. Not this guy. Screw the kids, we can't deprive women their right to do away with them. Hell no. What would this nation come to if people cared about the most innocent and helpless among us?

Geoffrey said something recently along the lines of abortion not even being on the radar in this election. More's the pity for this nation. And Les has big problems with the suggestion that he and other abortion "rights" supporters are labeled by some as equal to murderers. Hopefully, they don't disagree with the heinous nature of either partial-birth or opposing BAIPA. These are fully formed infants we're talking about here.

We can set aside every other position and issue and campaign promise. None of that matters. His position on these two issues are enough for honorable men and women. Barak Obama does NOT deserve consideration for President of the United States of America. Those who support him dishonor themselves.

I can smell another bumper sticker:

It's Obamanable!
It's an Obamanation!

Sunday, August 24, 2008

Litmus Test?

This Kathleen Parker article appeared in my local newspaper, but the link is to, which is good since my local paper's website doesn't reprint everything it printed in the paper. But anyway, Parker is considered a conservative pundit and I have found fault with her reasoning, which might cause heart palpitations in some of my liberal visitors.

Parker's concern is with the Saddleback event hosted by Rick Warren. She believes it constitutes a religious litmus test that is unAmerican. My problem with this is that this is one of those things from which the federal government is restricted, but not us. We are perfectly free to judge the worthiness of a candidate based on our own prejudices and guidelines. It is not unAmerican in the least. That is what voting is all about: voting for the candidate that we feel is the best for our nation. And in the deciding, we are free to use any "test" we so choose to satisfy our desire or anxiety regarding the course and future of the United States of America.

For myself, I enjoy knowing what shapes a candidate's world view. Upon what is it based? And if the candidate is a man/woman of faith, what faith and how does he/she understand it? Any insights into this are as important for me as their stances on the issues themselves.

It's all part of the pecking order of stats and minutia that help me determine which candidate gets my support. During the primaries, Romney's Mormonism was a mark against him. Not a big mark, because I've known a Mormon or two in my life and found them to be very Christian-like. And as it appeared he had a real shot at winning the nomination (at least for a while), I knew that his faith was not something that would be prohibitive in the face of an Obama, Clinton, Edwards, or any of the other Democratic jokers he might face in the general.

But it is a factor. I would prefer my president to be as typical of a true Bible-believing Christian as possible. I would prefer he be the type of Christian I myself strive to be. I know this probably scares some people. They might refer to Bush and make some crack about his quality (as if they were accurate in their assessment).

But the point is that we, as voters, have the right to judge candidates on their religious position as well as anything else. We, in fact, would be remiss as citizens if we ignored such things should we judge them important.

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Your Chance

Lately, but not only so, I have been accused of basically having no thoughts of my own, having never educated myself on political philosophy, of relying on sources that agree with me only, of relying on biased sources that spew lies and distortions. Naturally these accusations come from those who don't quite agree with my take on things. Apparently there is a wealth of knowledge heretofor unknown to me that will illuminate my mind and guide me to the realm left of center, and this knowledge base is comprised of solid truth, facts and common sense.

Thus, I invite my left of center friends to use this thread to inform me of just where I can find this totally reliable font that will generate the paradigm shift necessary for me to be as, uh, enlightened as are they. This could be books, periodicals, TV/radio shows, whatever. But, and this is an important "but", you must demonstrate in some way why I should believe that such sources are worthy of any faith.

Right wingers are welcome to do the same.

Just so everyone knows, I will not be offering any myself. I don't need to. I haven't made such accusations. The gauntlet of challenge is thrown. Good luck. I can't wait.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

They Call Him Funny

What a tool. I don't know if there's anyone who visits here who might find thougtfulness, intelligence or insight in the opinions and blatherings of a Bill Maher, but I just had to post about this.

Way back when Billy-boy was doing his "Politically Incorrect" on late night ABC, that was before it moved to HBO, I found his show to be pretty entertaining from a conversational point of view. He would often have comedians on as well as politicians, pundits, and others. I cannot recall a single event wherein I laughed at one of his "jokes". I used to think, "his monologue style reminds me of Carson without any laughs". He's just not funny.

So what can it be? How does this buffoon find an audience? It certainly isn't his intelligence, since I've seen no evidence of that either.

But when it comes to religion, he has to be one of the all-time Christophobes to ever soil the airwaves. He has absolutely no clue regarding Christianity or religion in general. Through the misfortune of having heard him spew on religion on a number of occasions, nothing he's ever said encourages me to believe he has ever truly studied or searched for the truth. He impresses me as one who may have read a bit, but always with the stern "convince me" attitude of one who insists on holding firmly to his atheist ways. And he's welcome to believe what he likes. But talk about hate(ben) and misrepresentations(Dan) and smearing.

So how can it be that he continues to hang onto his TV show? I know that some of the left-leaning amongst my humble readership will deny that he speaks for the average liberal. But how does he maintain not just any following at all, but one large enough to justify any broadcaster to keep him on the air? Who could be supporting him? Let's see, Christians? Republicans? Conservatives? Rhodes Scholars? I gotta think it has to be lefties. This unfunny lowlife represents a good portion of those wacky liberals. Who else would find him funny or clever or worth the time of day?

Sunday, August 17, 2008

The Cut Of His Jib

This AmericanThinker article puts Obama's character front and center very well. Kyle-Ann has had Barry's number for quite a while now. I find it particularly appalling that this entrail of a man would, as his first action as president, support more killing of innocent human beings. What a slug! And he dares call himself a Christian. Shame on those who support this jerk.