GASP! How Dare He!

Over at Mark's blog, Casting Pearls Before Swine, commenter Wade Moline had this bit of insight about Barry Obumble:

"...he has said the constitution doesn't give government enough power, he has said this country is fundamentally flawed because the constitution is fundamentally flawed."

After reading that, I thought about how in the execution of the War on Terror, President George W. Bush was constantly accused of usurping our rights and, heaven save us! trampling on the Constitution of these here United States of America. Now we hear that Barry is less than pleased with the manner in which the Constitution was written. His words suggest change indeed. But is this the type of change any true American should be expecting? Does the hope expressed by Barely and his minions include a hope to change our Constitution to give the federal government more power? I was under the impression that it was a document designed to limit government's power. This from a constitutional "scholar". Where are all those Bush haters now? Willingly bending over, I'm guessing. "Thank you, may I have another!"

One Will Make This Likely

The article in this link is about California's Proposition 8, which will establish a California State Constitution definition of marriage that will void the decision of radical state court justices which declared homosexual marriages legal and equal to traditional marriage. (I stole it from Neil's blog. He finds the best stuff.) The article could be another in the series of downsides of homosexual marriage that I've run in the past. But I present it for another purpose.

Of all the myriad reasons to oppose an Obama presidency, of which there are likely at least twenty as well, possibly the number one reason for me is the question of judicial nominees. As far as the Supreme Court, we already know that ol' Barry opposed the appointment of Alito and Roberts. We also know that he prefers another Ginsburg or Breyer or Souter. And we've gotten more confirmation, in the form of a 2001 radio interview, that the Obamanable one views the Constitution as most view used toilet paper. Being smarter than the authors of that noble note, he finds it greatly lacking.

I say all this to note that with an Obama presidency (GACK!), the likelihood of the type of dangers listed in the linked article is greatly enhanced, and horribly so. His vision for America is blatantly unAmerican. And he will ram that nightmare of a vision down the throats of normal Americans unaffected by his empty, but expertly delivered rhetoric (his only legitimate ability, used for ill rather than good) with the help of justices and judges handpicked from Baraboo, Wisconsin's RB,B&B Museum (or their winter home in Florida).

He thinks he's a uniter (which, according to spellcheck, isn't a word). Read the linked article again and you'll have a sense of just how divided our nation will become should the polls attract more idiots than people of good sense and Barry Obooboo's judicial nominations be confirmed. And that's just one issue. Add to it things like taxation, illegal immigration, abortion, foreign policy, and then consider he'll complete the double triumvirate of himself, Pelosi and Reid, and with his appointments the executive, legislative and judicial branches of government. The chances are very high that his thoughtless and buffalo'd lapdog supporters will find themselves wondering, "What the hell was I thinkin'?" Please. Obama supporters. GET A CLUE!

For Les

Bulls 108
Bucks 95

That's all I wanted to say.

Darn! Can't Blame Bush!

I lifted this from the Heritage Foundation from whom I receive email newsletters. Of course that means that it is all crap and probably racist, because y'know, if it's conservative, then it's biased and can't be trusted. Yet...

Another Stolen From Neil

I see stuff like this, and I just have to post it, too. If I didn't hate spam, and knew how to do it, I'd send this.

Stolen From Sister Toldjah's Blog

This thread at Sister Toldjah's reminds me of a discussion I once had somewhere regarding the fact that some people just shouldn't vote. That's not to say that I think the average American should in any way be prevented. Of course not. That would be wrong. But if there was some way to convince idiots to stay home and stop pretending like they know what they're talking about, that would be great. It would mean absolutely no Democratic votes of course, but if that's what has to happen, then so be it. In other words, if Dems really want to display their patriotism, they should stay home on election day. That one selfless act on each of their parts would be regarded by me (at least) as a true indication of patriotism unlike anything they could ever show by voting for Obama.

Of course there are socialists out there. They know that Obama's a socialist and that his policies reflect a socialist bent, so yeah, they'd be voting from an educated perspective. And there are America haters out there who think everything is our fault and as Barry has friendships with some people with some celebrity who are hateful of our country, then yes, they too are educated enough to know that an Obama presidency could be sympathetic to their pathetic sensibilities. And of course, those who insist on sex without consequence know which candidate will protect their ability to kill their kids.

But as the link to Sister Toldjah's blog clearly shows, as well as the links from that post of hers, the depth and breath of stupidity amongst Obama supporters is the stuff of legend. In my own corner of the world, I have been astounded by reasons people have given me for supporting the Obamanable One. A co-worker thinks voting for a good speaker is a good thing because you'll know what he's talking about. I suggested that perhaps he would have then supported one of the greatest speakers of the 20th century, Adolph Hitler. Another aquaintance was swayed by Obama's position on ethanol, due to the fact that we grow lots of corn here in the People's Republic of Illinois. I was stupified. Ethanol. That's his issue. Jeez. And of course, the usual "We need a change" without a clear explanation of just what the hell that means or how it would look. Just shoot me.

I could go on. Believe me, I could. But the question might be, what of you rightwingers? Surely there are rightwing counterparts to those you mock? And I'd say, get your own blog, ya loser! But seriously, if you put two chimps in a booth and they voted, the one who punched Johnny Mac's ticket is, by virtue of his choice, the smarter chimp. And it's not because the chimp is well versed on economics or foreign policy, but rather, considering their penchant for throwing pooh, they see Obama for what he is.

But truly, more stupid than those highlighted in Sis' post are the educated and political of the Democrat community. They see Obama for what he is but their hatred for the right leads them to deny it or ignore it or to pretend it isn't true. And what is Obama? For all his sorry policy positions, his alliances, his world view, he's simply wrong for this country. Don't be stupid.

Stolen From Neil's Blog...

...to present to my gentle readers here. This guy might very well be just another hack, like Thomas Sowell, but these same points have been presented by many, many others, and are legitimate concerns, except for those who insist on ignoring them in order to thwart right wingers at all costs. Brown's list seems a bit short, however, but as it stands, there is plenty that should provide a reason to absolutely anyone who is willing to vote based on objective review of reality. I tell ya, folks. This is likely the definitive "lesser of two evils" election that any of us old enough to vote has ever seen or will likely ever see. All other such elections will be compared to this one. This is the gold standard of "lesser of two evils" voting. And that Johnny Mac is indeed the lesser is without question for all of Brown's reasons and then some.

Tidbits

In this morning's paper I read that :

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper, the first major world leader to face voters since the global financial meltdown, led his Conservative Party to victory Tuesday, Canadian media projected. It was predicted the Conservatives would win enough Parliament seats to at least form another minority government."

Italy, Germany, France and now this. Cool. Seems our foreign friends are beginning to reject what some in this nation strangely think is a good thing.

Also, a letter writer opines that these were the facts on June 12, 2007:

-Stock market and 401(k)s at all time highs
-Unempolyment was at a 25 yr low
-Federal tax revenue was at an all-time high
-Income taxes at an all time low
-Federal deficit was down 50% from previous year
-Interest rates were down
-Home values were up
-Gas was about 2.35 per gallon

The writer goes on to point out that Bush's policies haven't changed in the last year and a half. "The only change has been the Democratic takeover of Congress." He then re-iterates what conservatives have been saying for awhile, that Bush's mistake was not weilding the veto pen on all those massively pork-laden and earmark burdened bills that came across his desk. But yeah, let's vote in more Democrats. Because we need change. Because prosperity just doesn't work.

Barry O Ads

I found this series of ads in an email this morning. The lot of them takes just a few minutes to view. It's basically a series of questions that doubters have of an Obama presidency that need to be answered before November. But then, he can't answer them in a manner that will dispell those doubts. We've already got spin.

Sowell's Perspective

From one who's likely smarter than all of us, I offer this, this, this, and this. Hmmm. Maybe "idiot" isn't the right word for Barry.

Anti-Religion From LBJ

This Townhall.com article expresses sentiments with which I agree regarding the muzzle placed on political speech from the pulpit. The efforts of LBJ were without a doubt a violation of the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution. It's a wonder that he was not soundly rejected for stifling free speech. But then, it's not uncommon for the left to redefine and re-interpret the Constitution to better suit their motivations.

The tax exempt status of the church was intended to honor the importance of faith in our lives. Before this nefarious deed was forced upon us, the church was always a voice that guided in a positive manner. Indeed, the church was a major factor in persuading the populace of the importance of independence prior to our fight for it in the early days of our nation. It stood against slavery throughout our early history and supported the movement against segregation. The church was our national conscience.

But then Johnson found himself and his policy proposals opposed by the church, so he moved to silence them or make them pay. Many churches are small. Possibly most of them. Every dime counts and to have to choose between preaching against the proponents of harmful policy or paying taxes runs counter to the intent of their exempt status. In other words, it is unAmerican. We have not been helped in the least by efforts to remove faith from the public square. Our culture wallows in the gutter as a reult. We need to support any efforts to overturn this self-serving act and return to a time when preachers were free to speak out against politicians directly if they so feel the need, without the risk of losing precious funds to taxation.

Some are concerned about the influence on people of a Bible-thumping preacher who's beliefs might be anti-science, based on that which cannot be proven. But this lame argument deflects attention from whether or not the idea proposed has merit. I think Fred Phelps is a good example of improper preaching being rejected, and his is rejected by people of faith more strongly than those without faith. Such concerns are baseless. I encourage everyone to add this to the list of things to change when contacting representatives. The government overstepped their Constitutional boundaries when they instituted this horrible policy.