Posts Tagged ‘Politics’

h1

What a week (ho, hum, howdy)

August 3, 2008

You know, I’m not going to come here and talk about the same old things, column after column.

Obama, what are you gonna say about this…broken record?  King of the flip flop?  Mr. Rope-a-dope?

Now that he realizes 75% of the country is serious about drilling, he’s reversing his stance.

Like a rock star who hides behind his body guards, Senator Obama has made it clear that he will not come out and debate Senator McCain.

McCain, literally, has Obama on the ropes, and Obama just keeps rolling on the them.

He’s rolled on the war (now suddenly he is no longer a pacifist).

He’s rolled on the economy (oh, we won’t tax you to death and beyond).

He’s rolled on offshore drilling.

The way this guy keeps rolling, America will wind up rolling right along with him…rolling right down the tubes.

His whorlwind world tour was designed to show a bunch of socialist foreigners that he cares what they think.

Now he is over here trying to reassure the conservative thought process (drill, stop the taxes, limit the government) – now he is trying to show that he is one of us.

He can’t have it both ways.  Sometimes you have to get off your fence and show your true colors.

The problem with Obama, I think, is that he himself does not even know his true colors.  Nobody knows what he is for, and no one is really sure what he has been for in the past.

Of one thing we can be certain…his history as a Senator demonstrates that he votes consistent with liberal philosophy.

Well hello Michael Moore and Madonna!  When you are down and troubled, you got a friend in Obama.

As a staunch conservative, I was a bit disappointed that “my boys” lost to McCain; now that I see McCain (I would say illuminated by Obama, but in Obama I can only see darkness) – but now that I see him in comparison to Obama – man, he looks like John Wayne.

So here is the deal…I’m not compromising in my vote for McCain…not picking the lesser of two evils.

What I am doing is seeing the true conservative in McCain, in some of McCain’s policies.  It is not rationalizing, but rather, picking my battles.

I know he is not the perfect conservative, but I ask you, where is Churchill in America today?  Where is Goldwater?

They are not found in Ann Coulter, Sean Hannity or even Rush Limbaugh.  These guys are not in the arena, they are on the sidelines.  Good commentators, but they are only ringside.

The men in the ring, the men in the arena…the gladiators – there I see very little of what resembles Conservative’s core.

So you see, it comes down to some degree of acceptance…with a commitment to never give up on your core beliefs.  You take what ground you can gain.

There is in no doubt a pall that rises and shadows when one considers the potential ramifications of a victory for either candidate.  There will be a lot of hurt feelings, either way.

But one thing is clear; we know for certain what we are getting with John McCain.

With Obama, we are only getting a dope on a rope.

h1

On Bi-Polarization

June 1, 2008

Does this somehow invoke the thought of something “quad” in anyone besides myself?

I mean, if it is polar, then that denotes dual…correct? North and South, East and West, Left and Right, Up and Down?

Then bi-polar is two sets of poles if I’m not mistaken in my logic. Like a Rubik’s cube, with multiple axis.

You know, for years people have been saying we are a polarized society. They’ve blamed it on Bush, of course.

Let’s think about this a moment, using current events as our “illuminating” (or perhaps rectifying or resolving) source.

What is going on in the DNC? Could one argue that it is polarized? Sure looks that way to me.

Now if the DNC is polarized, is this too George Bush’ fault?

Consider this. If the DNC is polarized between Hillary and Obama supporters, then where does that leave the GOP? Maybe we are on a plane of our own, eh?

I think so. I think that we are on the plane of good sense.

In a few weeks, you’ll see the DNC come together in one, big group hug (and you think my spider bite photos are gruesome).

They will kiss and make up and act as if the law never had to be called to a domestic disturbance that has involved the whole nation. They will simply kiss and pretend that the national nightmare never happened. Nary a dish or an unkind word hurled (of course the nation’s gut would have to tell you otherwise since it is “wrenched” up from some hurling of its own).

I have to ask myself – are we as a nation really defined simply by race and gender? I believe that this nation is more complex than a Rubik’s cube. I don’t think we can write everything off to duality. Move one cube-let here, and a whole plane of colors is out of kilter on another face…or perhaps kilter is the wrong word – a new pattern of color and state and character is born on another face; in fact, all the faces are effected by the move.

The purpose of that children’s puzzle was actually to demonstrate to physics students through visual representation what certain particles may look like when configured in different manners. The perfect cube, with all the face’s colors in harmony tells very little about the nature of particles and sub-atomic structures, but when configured in mesons, hadrons or quarks the cube takes on relevance for studies.

It is multi-dimensional from the perspective of being about more than simple duality of existence. It is an array of existence (like the lilies of the field).

Our political system is the same.

Take conservatism.

Many would like to define us as big tent, or single issue. I think we are neither.

We are not defined by abortion, or by who constitutes our ranks.

To be honest, I could care less if you are gay, an abortionist, or somebody from a race other than caucasoid.

I do not think our “thing” is based on these characterizations, but rather on the choices we would make that have effects on these issues, and many more.

Our totality is more than just setting definitions or performing rudimentary calculus on some abacus (this person fits here, that person fits there) – we are more than that.

A conservative (this conservative anyway) believes that we should protect our nation the same way that a father protects his home. Christ himself teaches that “even a strong man arms himself to protect his home”. This is a fundamental of parenting, and of leadership.

We further believe that peace is of the utmost importance and that to secure that state, force is sometimes unavoidably necessary.

The nature lovers on the left fight to preserve it so, and yet all through the animal kingdom the behavior I describe above is witnessed. Animals protect their brood. We must protect our nation. We must keep it on fertile ground. We must preserve and protect it.

I believe that 9/11 is prime in teaching us a vital lesson here. I also believe that George Bush could just as easily have sat on his hands the way that Jimmy Carter did while our fellow Americans were held hostage in Iran for all that agonizing time that he was in office.

He did not.

Like a true conservative, he took action. He charged, like a raging bull. I believe the world is safer today as the result. I believe that through conservative principles, it will continue to become safer still.

So what are these principles?

We do not abandon our allies, and we do not ignore our enemies.

We stay in the fight, until the fight is done.

We keep our nation strong, morally, physically and financially.

We continue to fight the good fight, so that men and women world-wide may live free and we try, try, try to export our prosperity. We must share in the wealth so that perhaps men will choose to build rather than to destroy. This would be the choice of the conservative. Freedom, for all.

Free from tyranny and its constraints.

I’m sorry, but the so-called global village looks more and more a global gulag to me.

Freedom means I can think what I want. Freedom means I can worship the way that I choose (of course, I think worshiping at the altar of bigots is a poor choice).

Nazi-ism, for example, could have been defined as a religion – a cult, really. I feel this sort of sting when I’m told to “get with the liberal agenda” – such as global warming and doing my part to lower my carbon footprint.

You know, freedom for me means that I can walk down the street without fear of terror – terror of any kind.

I’m beginning to wonder when the global warming al-Qaeda will burst down my door and change all the light bulbs in my house.

Now that’s almost as terrifying as that group hug at the DNC (I wonder how much hot air will be produced in that love fest).

I think we have true freedom right now as the result of the conservative cause and the efforts made by conservatives through history.

I thank God for men like Teddy Roosevelt, Winston Churchill, Ronald Reagan, and yes America, for George W. Bush.

Through their valiant efforts, their lone voices in the wilderness of populism, the conservative alone has secured freedom of thought and of being for the entire globe.

So for you bi-polars on the left I have but one thing to say…enjoy your damned hippie-hollow hug but keep in mind that it was multi-dimensional conservative thought that bought you that freedom to congregate and follow those superficial sweet nothings.

Xanax anyone? I hear they will be vending at the love fest.

h1

Rumors, rumors, rumors…

March 25, 2008

Are the rumors true?

Can the rumors be true?

We have a demonratic politician in New York who gets busted as a John in a prostitution ring.

Strike one.

Next, his successor admits to having numerous extra-marital affairs…and, oh, by the way, one of them “might” have been on the taxpayer dime…don’t worry, if it proves to be so, he’ll make it right (probably the same thing he told the dope pushers from whom he bought his wacky-weed and cocaine).

O.K. – strikes two (and possibly three with the added confession of drug use).

Now, let’s set strikes one and two aside and go back to our luckless pair above.

He has a minister who wants to see America condemned to hell.

Now, I don’t know about you, but I’m as picky about my minister as I am about my physician (one looks into the body, the other into the soul). They are both pretty important to me, and I don’t take choosing them lightly.

One of the reasons neither are Neo_Nazi’s.

OK, OK…so he made a mistake in choosing his minister.

What about his bedfellow?

Pundits on both the left and on the right are arguing over whether the two could “couple” up as running mates.

Now, personally, I don’t see it happening, but then there are plenty who make compelling arguments why it will (on both sides).

Imagine this “dream” ticket, if you would.

On the one hand we have a man who has “questionable” ties (in both senses – good sense, and just how strong the ties really are – perhaps it will come out in the lawsuit?) to a slum lord, to a former member of the Weathermen and without doubt to a minister who wants America condemned to hell.

Man, this seems like three strikes, in and of its own.

Now that we know he has poor judgment in picking his friends and ministers…now we are expected to trust his choice of a running mate?

Well, let’s just “peak” under the covers and have a gander (oh dear).

In Ms. Hillary we have a candidate who it would seem is already “in bed” with the Syrians.

She currently sleeps with an impeached former President (you’ll have to ask them more about their bedroom habits; it was all I could do to post the above photo and text – excuse me, I have to run to the bathroom again to purge; with the above scenario, who needs Epicac).

What strike are we on now?

Are we bowling or playing baseball?

I’m not too enthused about either candidate as singular entities…I can’t imagine being more enthralled by their climbing into bed with one another.

But, I do feel certain we have many “fireworks” ahead, should this marriage take place between these hapless heroes.

Katie bar the door, Mr. McCain. Katie bar the door!