Alaska Governor Sarah Palin is an outstanding choice for the Republican VP Nominee: my prediction is that she'll be President in four years. She is a spectacular candidate and she just clinched the election for McCain.
Of course, the know-nothing Democrats slammed her "lack of experience" and claimed that the issue of "experience" is now off the table. Allow me to squash their lunacy:
1. By simply suggesting that the "experience" issue is off the table, the Dems are admitting that Osama (I mean Obama) is not qualified. By proposing that experience is no longer vital, then they obviously know that Obama has no experience. They would not want it off the table if it was a positive factor for him.
2. Sarah Palin is not running for President, but Vice President, whereas Obama is running for President. Obama's lack of experience is far more relevant than her alleged lack of experience by virtue of the position each is running for. It is not an apples-to-apples comparison.
3. Even if you did compare Obama's and Palin's experience, she has far more than he does, anyway. One month of being Governor is far more relevant than one year of being a Senator. Governors make executive decisions each day. Senators make no executive decisions each day. They campaign, rather than lead, and they focus on a few specific issues rather than a broad spectrum of issues for that particular state.
4. In fact, Palin is so far more experienced compared to Obama, that Palin herself is far more qualified to be President than Obama.
5. Dems ripped her lack of foreign policy experience; yes, she does not have any foreign policy experience, but neither does Obama. And no, his speeches in Europe or elsewhere are not relevant. Those were foreign campaign speeches, not foreign policy speeches. He has claimed that his living in Indonesia and his undergraduate degree in international relations qualify him for foreign policy matters! Are you kidding me? That is not worthy of foreign policy experience.
6. I suggest that Sarah Palin has the right kind of experience by virtue of her conservative approach and values, her corruption-bashing experience, and her overall "balls," to confront every lunatic dictator far more than Obama does, again by virtue of her dealing with other matters in Alaska, which is far more than Obama can say.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Mercedes Marxists
The Democrats are all about the working man; sympathizing with their plight, and wallowing in the common sorrows of the "little man." Right? Meanwhile, the mean, old rich Republicans care nothing for the "working class" and therefore the Dems have to watch out for their interests. Yet at the Dem Convention, the "VIP" Democrats (that's a contradiction in terms, by the way) are being treated to the most lavish parties, with the greatest of culinary delights. They are renting out the luxury suites in the Pepsi Center and having gala events. The best chefs in the city are catering all sorts of fancy dinners, cocktail hours, etc. So much for their sympathizing with the little guys. Hypocrisy with a capital "H."
Meanwhile, Michelle Obama, the Annointed One's spouse (Mrs. Messiah), speaks last night at the Convention and promptly invokes Communist rhetoric. She quotes Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" in her speech, describing the "world as it is" and the "world as it should be." (Chapter 2 of the book.) If people aren't starting to get the idea that Obama is a closet fascist, Marxist, Communist, then I don't know what it is going to take. Try this: Obama worked under Jerry Kellman in Chicago's south side doing his "community activism." Kellman was a protege of Saul Alinsky. Alinsky and Kellman believed in radical socialism, redistribution of wealth, cradle-to-grave government control, and so on. When is it going to hit people in the head that we are thisclose to electing a Marxist/Communist to the presidency? I can't possibly believe that the U.S. is where it is at with the most liberal senator in Congress, and a running mate who is the third-most liberal senator in Congress.
Meanwhile, Michelle Obama, the Annointed One's spouse (Mrs. Messiah), speaks last night at the Convention and promptly invokes Communist rhetoric. She quotes Saul Alinsky's book "Rules for Radicals" in her speech, describing the "world as it is" and the "world as it should be." (Chapter 2 of the book.) If people aren't starting to get the idea that Obama is a closet fascist, Marxist, Communist, then I don't know what it is going to take. Try this: Obama worked under Jerry Kellman in Chicago's south side doing his "community activism." Kellman was a protege of Saul Alinsky. Alinsky and Kellman believed in radical socialism, redistribution of wealth, cradle-to-grave government control, and so on. When is it going to hit people in the head that we are thisclose to electing a Marxist/Communist to the presidency? I can't possibly believe that the U.S. is where it is at with the most liberal senator in Congress, and a running mate who is the third-most liberal senator in Congress.
Monday, August 25, 2008
Random updates
So Barack Obama has selected Joe Biden to be his running mate; Biden was the most critical of Obama during the early stages of the campaign, saying that he did not have anywhere near enough experience to be president. Now suddenly he does?
Columnist Ann Coulter made a brilliant observation about Obama, who recently declared that we should not define marriage with a Constitutional amendment since historically marriage has never been defined in the Constitution. That's interesting, she said, because the Constitution never defined slavery or involuntary servitude either until the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865 banning slavery. By Obama's logic, she concluded, we should never have passed the 13th amendment because historically slavery had never been defined in the Constitution either. Obama is quite the scholar, isn't he!
A few weeks ago, Obama was asked by a 7-year-old girl in Elkhart, IN, why he is running for President. Instead of an upbeat, positive image, especially to a young girl, he said that America is not what it once was, and that he did not want this kind of America for his kids. What on Earth is he saying? How could he be so ungrateful for all the opportunity that has been given to him and the wealth that he has earned, and for the great opportunities for his kids? That could be the most despicable response he has ever made -- and there are lots to choose from.
Columnist Ann Coulter made a brilliant observation about Obama, who recently declared that we should not define marriage with a Constitutional amendment since historically marriage has never been defined in the Constitution. That's interesting, she said, because the Constitution never defined slavery or involuntary servitude either until the 13th Amendment was passed in 1865 banning slavery. By Obama's logic, she concluded, we should never have passed the 13th amendment because historically slavery had never been defined in the Constitution either. Obama is quite the scholar, isn't he!
A few weeks ago, Obama was asked by a 7-year-old girl in Elkhart, IN, why he is running for President. Instead of an upbeat, positive image, especially to a young girl, he said that America is not what it once was, and that he did not want this kind of America for his kids. What on Earth is he saying? How could he be so ungrateful for all the opportunity that has been given to him and the wealth that he has earned, and for the great opportunities for his kids? That could be the most despicable response he has ever made -- and there are lots to choose from.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Obama's "Plan" for Energy
Obama has decided that the best thing to do is to tax the so-called "windfall profits" of "Big Oil." That's a really brilliant idea. What about during the '80s, when oil & gas companies were losing their shirts, and laid off thousands of people, and lost billions of dollars? What about a "windfall subsidy" for them then? Obama wants to give $1,000 from the oil companies to every American. His opinion is "How dare those mean old oil companies charge so much for gas, when most Americans are trying to get to the movies to watch Hollywood films."
Who does Obama think gets hurt when you tax the profits, windfall or not, from oil companies? The CEOs? Nope. Many, if not most of the oil companies' employees own stock in their own companies, and most people own oil stocks in their mutual funds or stock portfolios. These same employees, roughly half of whom are Democratic, get paid bonuses from those profits. And then where's the money to reinvest in better ways to extract oil and gas, and to develop alternative energies? If the liberals care so much about this, why don't they turn their car keys in and use a bicycle to get everywhere?
Speaking of windfall profits, why not tax the Hollywood entertainers for their windfall profits? The new movie The Dark Knight is likely going to earn up to $500 million in domestic ticket sales, and the profits on that movie should be considered windfall, and rebated to the consumers from the producer's pocketbook. How dare they charge $10 per ticket, and expect Americans to be able to afford going to the movies anymore. I want $2 back for every ticket I bought this year so that I can pay for my bill for movie tickets, plus I want $1 back for the popcorn and drinks that I bought, that also created windfall profits for the move theater chains. How dare they charge $8 for popcorn, when hard-working Americans can't afford to put food on their table, or have to choose between medicine or their house payment.
If Obama had any common sense (he doesn't) he'd really think this through. Instead, he's just mouthing off things that sound good in the liberal media, and numskull dopes in the country who buy all this phony-baloney talk lock, stock and barrel.
Who does Obama think gets hurt when you tax the profits, windfall or not, from oil companies? The CEOs? Nope. Many, if not most of the oil companies' employees own stock in their own companies, and most people own oil stocks in their mutual funds or stock portfolios. These same employees, roughly half of whom are Democratic, get paid bonuses from those profits. And then where's the money to reinvest in better ways to extract oil and gas, and to develop alternative energies? If the liberals care so much about this, why don't they turn their car keys in and use a bicycle to get everywhere?
Speaking of windfall profits, why not tax the Hollywood entertainers for their windfall profits? The new movie The Dark Knight is likely going to earn up to $500 million in domestic ticket sales, and the profits on that movie should be considered windfall, and rebated to the consumers from the producer's pocketbook. How dare they charge $10 per ticket, and expect Americans to be able to afford going to the movies anymore. I want $2 back for every ticket I bought this year so that I can pay for my bill for movie tickets, plus I want $1 back for the popcorn and drinks that I bought, that also created windfall profits for the move theater chains. How dare they charge $8 for popcorn, when hard-working Americans can't afford to put food on their table, or have to choose between medicine or their house payment.
If Obama had any common sense (he doesn't) he'd really think this through. Instead, he's just mouthing off things that sound good in the liberal media, and numskull dopes in the country who buy all this phony-baloney talk lock, stock and barrel.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
Democrat Hypocrisy at their National Convention
Let's see; the Pepsi Center in Denver is the host of this year's DNC convention. It is one of the very best sports venues in the U.S., home to the Nuggets and Avalanche. The DNC has decided that while they chose the building and city for the convention, it is not good enough for them as it is. They are going to rip out most of the luxury boxes' interiors, bring in their own lighting, wiring, and other utilities, and when the convention is all over, take it all out and remodel the boxes back to their original design.
So for the so-called "green" party and those proclaiming global warming and energy conservation, they are making a mockery of that by engaging in this lunacy. Think of all the energy required to make this happen, all the wasted resources, all the extra manpower and transportation of the materials for this lark. I guess they can buy their carbon offsets to make it all "OK." And after all this, they are going to have the final night at Denver's Invesco Field, outdoors. What a total sham.
What's even more hypocritical is that the Pepsi Center is owned by an heir to the Wal-Mart fortune, Stan Kronke. So for the party that constantly bashes Wal-Mart for everything they can think of, it sure is interesting that they are paying to use his facility. Shouldn't the convention be held at down at the wharf in Long Beach or something?
Speaking of Denver, what a total disgrace the black singer Rene Marie was at the mayor's State of the City address last week. Instead of singing the National Anthem like she was supposed to, she sang the so-called "Black National Anthem" instead. Of all the self-centered, egotistical things I have seen, that is one of the worst. She directly violated the specific agreement she had so that she could flaunt her own agenda. She should be barred forever from appearing in Colorado for any reason.
But what is almost as bad is that no one in the mayor's staff on the stage did anything to stop it. They are also disgraceful in their own right.
So for the so-called "green" party and those proclaiming global warming and energy conservation, they are making a mockery of that by engaging in this lunacy. Think of all the energy required to make this happen, all the wasted resources, all the extra manpower and transportation of the materials for this lark. I guess they can buy their carbon offsets to make it all "OK." And after all this, they are going to have the final night at Denver's Invesco Field, outdoors. What a total sham.
What's even more hypocritical is that the Pepsi Center is owned by an heir to the Wal-Mart fortune, Stan Kronke. So for the party that constantly bashes Wal-Mart for everything they can think of, it sure is interesting that they are paying to use his facility. Shouldn't the convention be held at down at the wharf in Long Beach or something?
Speaking of Denver, what a total disgrace the black singer Rene Marie was at the mayor's State of the City address last week. Instead of singing the National Anthem like she was supposed to, she sang the so-called "Black National Anthem" instead. Of all the self-centered, egotistical things I have seen, that is one of the worst. She directly violated the specific agreement she had so that she could flaunt her own agenda. She should be barred forever from appearing in Colorado for any reason.
But what is almost as bad is that no one in the mayor's staff on the stage did anything to stop it. They are also disgraceful in their own right.
Friday, July 4, 2008
Feelings vs. Common Sense
Neal Boortz, the Atlanta-based conservative radio host, recently gave the commencement address at Texas A&M University. His speech probably took many by surprise, as he proceeded to make dramatic comparisons between the phoniness of liberalism vs. the "factualness" of conservatism. He also bashed the liberal faculty, and all of their hypocrisy, including their group mentality, rather than their individualism.
His most important points to the graduates had to with the basic differences between liberalism (fascism, socialism, Marxism) and conservatism. First, liberalism is based on feelings vs. conservatism is based on thinking. Liberalism is about emotions and intentions whereas conservatism is about facts and common sense.
Furthermore, liberalism is about group identities, such as Rich, Poor, Blacks, Less Fortunate, etc., while conservatism is about individual identities, period. In college, the students learned about group behavior, but in the real world, it will be all about individual behavior.
He added that if the students have not changed to conservatism by age 30, then they should apply to be a teacher at a college, where they will fit right in with the liberal-fascist professors.
This goes right back to an earlier post about how impossible it is for the Democrats to unite the country; it is fundamentally against their philosophy to unite since they are all about groups. Meanwhile, Republicans talk about individualism, which is far more able to unite people, as they are all for the common goal of getting the government out of the way and letting people have the freedom to do what they want.
His most important points to the graduates had to with the basic differences between liberalism (fascism, socialism, Marxism) and conservatism. First, liberalism is based on feelings vs. conservatism is based on thinking. Liberalism is about emotions and intentions whereas conservatism is about facts and common sense.
Furthermore, liberalism is about group identities, such as Rich, Poor, Blacks, Less Fortunate, etc., while conservatism is about individual identities, period. In college, the students learned about group behavior, but in the real world, it will be all about individual behavior.
He added that if the students have not changed to conservatism by age 30, then they should apply to be a teacher at a college, where they will fit right in with the liberal-fascist professors.
This goes right back to an earlier post about how impossible it is for the Democrats to unite the country; it is fundamentally against their philosophy to unite since they are all about groups. Meanwhile, Republicans talk about individualism, which is far more able to unite people, as they are all for the common goal of getting the government out of the way and letting people have the freedom to do what they want.
Labels:
common sense,
emotions,
facts,
fascism,
feelings,
group identity
Friday, June 27, 2008
Current News Hypocrisy
I read the other day where San Francisco wants to name a sewage treatment plant in "honor" of President Bush. Well, since the plant is in San Francisco, and they want to put Bush's name on it, I think it would actually be appropriate because all of San Francisco is such a sewage dump, then for Bush to actually be able to clean it up (treat it), then that would be perfectly fine. Since the U.S. has enjoyed seven years of a strong economy, which has certainly benefited San Francisco, despite its best efforts to deter it with its liberal mandates on businesses, then it makes sense for Bush to be honored for cleaning up S.F.
In all seriousness, the treatment plant should be named the Willie Brown & Gavin Newsome Memorial Liberal Phoniness Sewage and Garbage Dump for the years of ever-growing insane liberal policies that they have thrown down the throats of the residents. Somebody stop me next time they find me heading to San Francisco.
Also, regarding the Second Amendment ruling on Thursday, what's the first thing the liberal, fascist mayor of D.C. had to say? "This will lead to an increase in handgun violence." Funny thing is, though, when the ban was enacted in 1976, the rate of handgun violence went UP, not down, as all of the so-called intelligent liberals thought would happen. So, as usual, it was just more of the same liberal nonsense talking points that people can't be trusted to protect themselves, and the nanny-state government must do it for them. I submit that the handgun violence rate will fall once the citizens start to arm themselves again.
In all seriousness, the treatment plant should be named the Willie Brown & Gavin Newsome Memorial Liberal Phoniness Sewage and Garbage Dump for the years of ever-growing insane liberal policies that they have thrown down the throats of the residents. Somebody stop me next time they find me heading to San Francisco.
Also, regarding the Second Amendment ruling on Thursday, what's the first thing the liberal, fascist mayor of D.C. had to say? "This will lead to an increase in handgun violence." Funny thing is, though, when the ban was enacted in 1976, the rate of handgun violence went UP, not down, as all of the so-called intelligent liberals thought would happen. So, as usual, it was just more of the same liberal nonsense talking points that people can't be trusted to protect themselves, and the nanny-state government must do it for them. I submit that the handgun violence rate will fall once the citizens start to arm themselves again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
