adcount=1;
"A cruel debate opponent" "Pagan blasphemer" "Reverse-iconoclast" "don't get pissed at him b/c he pwn yalls whiney asses"
My Photo
Name:
Location: Indiana, United States

Miscellaneous meanderings and philosophical ramblings. The title from a spiral notebook I used to jot down my thoughts on religion and other matters some years ago. I like to write, think and express my views on various issues. Robust discussion is welcome.


Chris of Rights and Charles Martin <-- Lists of debunked Sarah Palin rumors

"Lan astaslem."
I will not submit. I will not surrender.

Thursday, August 28, 2008

Class vs the old politics


Quite a few hours before Obama gave his acceptance speech, the McCain campaign released this video. (Thanks to Rightwingsparkle)

The speech Obama still delivered speaks for itself.

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Who covers up good news?


Politicians certainly don't, especially when it's about them. What then should be thought of a politician who uses strong arm tactics and attempts to bring down the power of the federal government on someone over a video? Such actions, in place of simply refuting the content, say very little about that politicians views on free speech or tolerance for disagreement or criticism.

Michelle Malkin has the details of how Barack Obama is attempting to suppress this video, including the attempt to bring the U.S. Dept. of Justice into the matter. A small excerpt:

...Obama’s attempt to bully TV stations airing the ad and stop scrutiny of his radical ties is part and parcel of a larger campaign to chill the free speech of conservative political activists and donors. (her entire post here)

As she says, "Pass it on." Let's not let such tactics prevent the truth from being seen.

The Obama Campaign has responded by saying Barack was only a child at the time. That is simply irrelevant. Barack Obama was an adult when he began to work with Ayers, the history of whom was not a guarded secret. Obama claims to have condemned those actions, yet still calls Ayers mainstream and lies about his ties with the man. The issue is the judgement of Barack Obama as an adult. His decisions to work with an unrepentant domestic terrorist and to start his political career at a funding raising event at Ayers home, show very poor judgement. His several years work with Ayers in a failed and money wasting education reform project, does not match with Obama claiming Ayers was just another guy in the neighborhood, giving us another example of Barack Obama lying about his past.

Clearly, Barack Obama does not see this information as good news. If it could be shown to be inaccurate, so be it. Instead, we have the attempt to enlist an arm of the federal government to suppress something Barack Obama doesn't like. Shouldn't this give everyone pause, to consider what he would do if he actually had the power of the presidency in his hands?

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Reasoned discourse


Or, how to show your man boobs in public.

If you're very talented, like say, Alex Jones, you can also ignore the irony of yelling fascist at someone so much that you prevent them from speaking or being heard. And let's not skip over the unidentified asshole who started the "Kill Michelle Malkin" chant. The action starts at about the 2:39 mark.

Thanks to Ace of Spades. For even more entertainment check out the conspiracy twats commenting at Rightwingsparkle's post here.

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Sunday, August 24, 2008

OTA Open Trackback 08.25.08


As the lovely Samantha Burns says:

Please use this space to trackback your best, main page articles (I just require a link to this article, as always). Also, if you have something to discuss, it is welcomed here as well.

ADVICE: Trackback main blog page articles to showcase your work (and it will help to attract readers).

Yep, I was in a plagiarizing mood ;-) Nevertheless, it's a good way to draw more attention to your blog, so trackback away :-) I'll have one of these each Monday, because, well, I hate Mondays ;-p

Please refrain from using international accent marks in your post URL. The inline trackback script will fail if those are used.

Do NOT link your open trackback post here. Use Linkfest Haven instead.

63126210_cf86211d09_o

More trackback partys, open posts and linkfests can be found at:

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis

Support This Site

---

Filed under: OpenTrackback

Disclaimer: trackbacks do not necessarily represent the opinions or standards of Mark My Words

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

"That's a storybook man!"


What do the words clean, articulate, bright and African American have in common?

See the new product section "That's a storybook man!" at the Mark My Words online store to find out. Don't forget to check out the full story on the back of the items.

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Saturday, August 23, 2008

Barack Obama shows his love for gun owners


There has been much analysis concerning Barack choosing Joe Biden as his Vice President. In all seriousness, he just wants to show us gun owners how much he loves us.

Oh wait, that's in all serious sarcastic-ness.

Thanks to HotAir, which also has links to Libertarian reaction to the above insulting blather.

This election is going to be fun. Thank you Barack Obama for picking Joe "clean and articulate" Biden.

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

New product at Mark My Words online store


What do non sequitur, Obama and infanticide have in common?

See the new product section at my store to find out.

Mark My Words online store

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Friday, August 22, 2008

Stem cells, minus the embryo?


When discussing stem cell research one must keep in mind that embryos are not the only source. The problem is that so much is made of the versatility of the stem cells from embryos, that despite lacking success with actual treatments, we are implored to continue and to just gloss over the moral issue of destroying human life for our own benefit.

Fortunately, there have been tantalizing advances that may provide various levels of that versatility, while avoiding the moral problems. I've covered a few before, but now there's another report of a non-controversial source that could result in embryonic like stem cells for research and medical treatments.

Stem cells from wisdom teeth Japanese scientists said Friday they had derived stem cells from wisdom teeth, opening another way to study deadly diseases without the ethical controversy of using embryos.

Researchers at the government-backed National Institute of Advanced Industrial Science and Technology said they created stem cells of the type found in human embryos using the removed wisdom teeth of a 10-year-old girl.

[...]

(Thanks to Jill Stanek and be sure to check out the other links at her post as well)

There are far more successful treatments using "adult" stem cells, than for embryonic stem cells. In fact, the versatility of embryonic stem cells has been part of the problem. That hasn't stopped some from constantly pleading for more time and money, despite the vaporware results thus far.

It would be nice if such people would focus on where there has been actual successful use of stem cells, further develop these other sources and not act as if it's a horrible thing that the destruction of embryos is not required.

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Thursday, August 21, 2008

Promote capitalism and irritate the right people


The link below is also now at the top of my blog and provides a sure way to irritate Barack Obama, liberals and other moonbats. The first product is a very simple design, but should only be the beginning.

Mark My Words Online Store

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Monday, August 18, 2008

Obama campaign admits he lied about infanticide


After much criticism, we now have this from the Obama campaign.

Indeed, Mr. Obama appeared to misstate his position in the CBN interview on Saturday when he said the federal version he supported "was not the bill that was presented at the state level."

His campaign yesterday acknowledged that he had voted against an identical bill in the state Senate...

Let's briefly review how we arrived at this point. Obama has stated numerous times that he did not vote for the Illinois legislation because it did not have the neutrality clause that the federal legislation contained. He repeated this as recently as this past Saturday and called his critics liars because they knew the truth yet kept repeating their claim. Now, his campaign admits that the state law did contain the clause that Obama said it did not. But of course, following the lie of their dear leader, they attempt another excuse.

...and a spokesman, Hari Sevugan, said the senator and other lawmakers had concerns that even as worded, the legislation could have undermined existing Illinois abortion law. Those concerns did not exist for the federal bill, because there is no federal abortion law.

This excuse of Obama's is on the record, at least for the 2001 version of the legislation. Yet instead, he has offered the lack of a neutrality clause as his reason, before he had to drop it, once it was shown to be a lie.

But let's give him the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he just forgot about this other justification. Although it is instructive that he would resort to a lie, when an apparent truth is available, let's put that aside for now and just take the campaign statement at face value. Problem is, that doesn't help when Obama's entire history on this matter is considered.

In 2001, as a state senator, Obama spoke against similar legislation in Illinois. Links to Obama's votes on the state legislation here.

That would seem quite brave, but keep in mind that he represented a very liberal part of Chicago. In addition to that fact, when it came time to vote, Obama didn't vote against the bill he just severely criticized, he merely voted present. Apparently, Barack Obama decided to bust out his M.C. Hammer impersonation when push came to shove.

Fast forward to 2003. Obama is now on a committee dealing with this legislation. The record shows that the committee he presided over added the neutrality clause, that until now, he said was absent from the bill and was the reason he voted against it.
So what of this other excuse, that the legislation did not explicitly say it would not affect current state abortion laws? A reasonable reading of the bill indicates that this interpretation is merely hogwash.

Told of the campaign's explanation, the legislative director of the National Right to Life Committee, Douglas Johnson, was dubious. "These are newly manufactured and highly implausible excuses," he said. "There is no way that the bill would have had any effect on any method of abortion." Mr. Johnson said the version Mr. Obama voted down clearly applied only to fetuses that emerged from the womb alive. (source, thanks to HotAir)

But even if we give Obama every benefit of the doubt, all it shows is that when he had the power to fix the bill, he chose not to. After all, he presided over the very committee that added the neutrality clause, that was supposedly the one thing keeping him from supporting the bill.

The Obama campaign has now admitted that the facts contradict what Barack Obama has been claiming. Their new attempt at excusing Obama's vote only shows that when he had the ability to make the bill acceptable to himself, he chose to do nothing and by that choice, allowed infanticide to continue.

One does not have to be pro-life to be offended at this. Even pro-choice politicians overwhelmingly voted for the Born Alive act in the U.S. Congress. Even NARAL supported the final legislation, that had the neutrality clause Obama falsely claimed did not exist in the state legislation.

At the Saddleback Civil Forum Barack Obama claimed this is what it meant for him to live out Christianity on a daily basis.

....but what it also means, I think, is a sense of obligation to embrace not just words but through deeds the expectations that God has for us. And that means thinking about the least of these. It means acting -- well, acting justly and loving mercy and walking humbly with our God... (Video and transcripts here)

Clearly, Obama was referring to the following words of Jesus:

Then shall the King say unto them on his right hand, Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: For I was hungry, and ye gave me meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me in: Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me.

Then shall the righteous answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee hungry, and fed thee? or thirsty, and gave thee drink?  When saw we thee a stranger, and took thee in? or naked, and clothed thee? Or when saw we thee sick, or in prison, and came unto thee? And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me. (Mat 25:34-40)

It says little of a man that would reference that passage, while he knows what his own record is regarding infanticide, and while he continues to lie about it. Barack Obama can not be trusted to protect babies against infanticide or to tell the truth about his position on the matter. The record shows this, his campaign unwittingly admits to it while trying to spin Obama out from under his own lies and he damns himself while pandering to evangelicals. Perhaps Barack Obama should consider what else scripture has to say.

But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea. (Mat 18:6)

---

Related posts:
Barack Obama needs to talk to Inigo Montoya
Excessive word count...
Moral equivalency did not stop the Soviet Union
Words do matter
Finally! Democrats are being listened to regarding Iraq
He means his ears are bigger - right?
A tale of a speech and a mustache
Sincerity vs political calculation
Barack Obama finds he has a third foot

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

OTA Open Trackback 08.18.08


As the lovely Samantha Burns says:

Please use this space to trackback your best, main page articles (I just require a link to this article, as always). Also, if you have something to discuss, it is welcomed here as well.

ADVICE: Trackback main blog page articles to showcase your work (and it will help to attract readers).

Yep, I was in a plagiarizing mood ;-) Nevertheless, it's a good way to draw more attention to your blog, so trackback away :-) I'll have one of these each Monday, because, well, I hate Mondays ;-p

Please refrain from using international accent marks in your post URL. The inline trackback script will fail if those are used.

Do NOT link your open trackback post here. Use Linkfest Haven instead.

63126210_cf86211d09_o

More trackback partys, open posts and linkfests can be found at:

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis

Filed under: OpenTrackback

Disclaimer: trackbacks do not necessarily represent the opinions or standards of Mark My Words

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Sunday, August 17, 2008

Barack Obama needs to talk to Inigo Montoya


The justice seeking, sword wielding Spaniard of The Princess Bride had more to say than, "My name is Inigo Montoya,you killed my father, now prepare to die."

Lying, would be the word Barack Obama has used.

Brody: Real quick, the Born Alive Infant Protection Act. I gotta tell you that's the one thing I get a lot of emails about and it's just not just from Evangelicals, it about Catholics, Protestants, main — they're trying to understand it because there was some literature put out by the National Right to Life Committee. And they're basically saying they felt like you misrepresented your position on that bill.

Obama: Let me clarify this right now.

Brody: Because it's getting a lot of play.

Obama: Well and because they have not been telling the truth. And I hate to say that people are lying, but here's a situation where folks are lying. I have said repeatedly that I would have been completely in, fully in support of the federal bill that everybody supported - which was to say —that you should provide assistance to any infant that was born - even if it was as a consequence of an induced abortion. That was not the bill that was presented at the state level. What that bill also was doing was trying to undermine Roe vs. Wade. By the way, we also had a bill, a law already in place in Illinois that insured life saving treatment was given to infants.

So for people to suggest that I and the Illinois medical society, so Illinois doctors were somehow in favor of withholding life saving support from an infant born alive is ridiculous. It defies commonsense and it defies imagination and for people to keep on pushing this is offensive and it's an example of the kind of politics that we have to get beyond. It's one thing for people to disagree with me about the issue of choice, it's another thing for people to out and out misrepresent my positions repeatedly, even after they know that they're wrong. And that's what's been happening. (source)

Does anyone with honor and integrity see any way to explain how the record does not contradict what Obama is now saying? It seems painfully obvious Obama either does not know what the word lying means, or he doesn't care, because he knows that he's lying about his own record.

---

Related posts:
Excessive word count...
Moral equivalency did not stop the Soviet Union
Words do matter
Finally! Democrats are being listened to regarding Iraq
He means his ears are bigger - right?
A tale of a speech and a mustache
Sincerity vs political calculation
Barack Obama finds he has a third foot

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Some contests are not so cool to win


It appears that the UK Observer had a competition for most vapid and uninformed and then ran an article spotlighting the winners in their review section today.

linky (thanks to Ace)

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Excessive word count...


doesn't always change the meaning.

I didn't watch the Rick Warren "Saddleback Civil Forum on the Presidency". I may explain my views on Rick Warren in another post, as excessive word count is the issue here, and I would prefer to avoid making myself the target ;)

In that forum, Barack Obama nearly said a word that would be fatal to his run for president. He saved it by catching himself and then adding more words, but really, did the meaning get changed at all?

(Thanks to HotAir)

So, Barack Obama clearly meant he would not have nominated Clarence Thomas because Thomas was not experienced enough.

As for his dig at Clarence Thomas, others have compared Barack's books to what Thomas has written and said there is no contest. I'll let those who have read both make that determination.

I would like to thank Barack Obama for agreeing that experience is important and the actual experience level of a candidate should be considered.

Unfortunately, Obama's criticism of a black Supreme Court justice also reveals that he's racist.

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Wednesday, August 13, 2008

Barack Obama and pro-life voters?


There's been talk lately that the Democrat party may be more open to those who are pro-life, even to the point of having a pro-life Catholic Democrat possibly speak at the convention. Barack Obama has even met with pro-life groups, as part of this outreach. But can Barack Obama overcome his own record with mere words?

That would be quite a trick though, considering what his record is, and the words he has already used to try and explain it.

Let's review that record. While an Illinois State Senator, Barack Obama voted against legislation that would require medical treatment for babies that somehow survived abortion. It may be surprising, even to some who are pro-choice, that such legislation is even necessary. Sadly, it is required, and some still would vote against such laws. By comparison, similar federal legislation passed Congress, and yet somehow Barack Obama voted against the legislation in Illinois.

That somehow is actually no mystery as Barack has been asked about this already. His explanation is that the state legislation did not have a neutrality clause. That means the law would be limited to only those who survived abortion and made no statement regarding the pre-born, leaving Roe-vs-Wade intact. Obama said if he had been in Congress at the time, he would have voted for the federal law, which included that feature.

Now some may not be satisfied with that explanation, but it is what is. Except that it isn't, which may surprise those who felt it was a reasonable position. What has happened, is that documents have been found that make it very difficult to see Barack's explanation as anything but a lie.

Newly obtained documents prove that in 2003, Barack Obama, as chairman of an IL state Senate committee, voted down a bill to protect live-born survivors of abortion - even after the panel had amended the bill to contain verbatim language, copied from a federal bill passed by Congress without objection in 2002, explicitly foreclosing any impact on abortion. Obama’s legislative actions in 2003 - denying effective protection even to babies born alive during abortions - were contrary to the position taken on the same language by even the most liberal members of Congress. The bill Obama killed was virtually identical to the federal bill that even NARAL ultimately did not oppose. (source)

Be sure to follow the links at Michelle Malkin's post for all the documentation. This is a serious issue and being informed is important, as Barack Obama has shown that he cares little for truth and even less for the most helpless, children who survive abortions. For those who may not be aware of the practice, here is testimony regarding one birth (there are more), which can be found at the NRLC document trail link as part of item B3 (emphasis in bold added):

Mrs. Stanek, who testified in front of the Subcommittee on the
Constitution during its hearing on H.R. 4292 and H.R. 2175, testified
regarding numerous live-birth abortions that she alleges have
occurred at Christ Hospital. The first she described as follows:

One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted
Down’s Syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled
Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold
him, and she did not have time to hold him. I could not
bear the thought of this suffering child dying alone in a
Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the
45 minutes that he lived. He was 21 to 22 weeks old,
weighed about 1⁄2 pound, and was about 10 inches long. He
was too weak to move very much, expending any energy
he had trying to breathe. Toward the end he was so quiet
that I couldn’t tell if he was still alive unless I held him
up to the light to see if his heart was still beating through
his chest wall. After he was pronounced dead, we folded
his little arms across his chest, wrapped him in a tiny
shroud, and carried him to the hospital morgue where all
of our dead patients are taken.

To some of us, it's bad enough to support the intentional neglect, so that they die, of babies who survived an abortion, simply to make certain that nothing would even slightly endanger Roe-vs-Wade. But with the neutrality clause, even NARAL no longer opposed the federal legislation, that passed 380-15 in the House and unanimously in the Senate.

Barack Obama said he would have voted for such legislation, if only he had the chance. The fact of the matter is that he did have that chance and he voted against it. Barack Obama is more radical than NARAL and nearly all of the U.S. Congress when it comes to abortion. That he adds to this lie, the condescending belief that he can convince pro-life and moderate pro-choice voters, that he's actually moderate on abortion, reveals an arrogance and callous disregard not only for the truth, but for those very voters he hopes to sway.

Barack Obama is no doubt insulting many voters with his thus far successful attempt to lie about his abortion record. Unfortunately, that insult and his disdain for the truth are sadly quite trivial compared to the tragedy of Obama allowing live babies to continue to be neglected and suffering until they die.

*Update*

Obama campaign responds

---

Related posts:
Moral equivalency did not stop the Soviet Union
Words do matter
Finally! Democrats are being listened to regarding Iraq
He means his ears are bigger - right?
A tale of a speech and a mustache
Sincerity vs political calculation
Barack Obama finds he has a third foot

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Monday, August 11, 2008

OTA Open Trackback 08.11.08


As the lovely Samantha Burns says:

Please use this space to trackback your best, main page articles (I just require a link to this article, as always). Also, if you have something to discuss, it is welcomed here as well.

ADVICE: Trackback main blog page articles to showcase your work (and it will help to attract readers).

Yep, I was in a plagiarizing mood ;-) Nevertheless, it's a good way to draw more attention to your blog, so trackback away :-) I'll have one of these each Monday, because, well, I hate Mondays ;-p

Please refrain from using international accent marks in your post URL. The inline trackback script will fail if those are used.

Do NOT link your open trackback post here. Use Linkfest Haven instead.

63126210_cf86211d09_o

More trackback partys, open posts and linkfests can be found at:

Linkfest Haven, the Blogger's Oasis

Filed under: OpenTrackback

Disclaimer: trackbacks do not necessarily represent the opinions or standards of Mark My Words

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Sunday, August 10, 2008

More Barack Obama phallicisms


It must be horrible for a particular NYT columnist, who saw phallic symbols used against Barack Obama, in a McCain ad, to have to deal with the latest imagery involving Barack Obama.

US Election 2008: The joke is finally on Barack Obama

At least the article also has some good jokes. Though Jon Stewart would probably agree and come up with his own jokes, I'm not sure Bob Herbert would approve of laughing at The Obama.

BTW, where were Obama's hands?

I hope Barack Obama supporter, Father Micheal Pfleger can forgive me for my overt racism, white entitlement and supremacy.

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Moral equivalency did not stop the Soviet Union


Shouldn't we be worried when a presidential candidate's first instinct, when Russia is bombing civilian targets of a western ally, is to resort to moral equivalency? Barack Obama has shown this to be his first reaction to the Russian attack on Georgia.

“I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict. Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full scale war. [...] (Source, Thanks to Ace of Spades)

As noted, here at Ace of Spades, Barack Obama was slick enough to offer an additional statement after John McCain spoke much more clearly and forcefully.

Now that he's had time to crib from McCain's paper, Obama has released a new statement that sounds a little more like someone who knows what the hell they are talking about and not some inexperienced 'citizen of the world'.

Perhaps those "300" advisors finally had a chat with the junior Senator? This however, does not give much reason for confidence should Barack Obama gain the presidency. Do we really want on the job training in such dangerous times? Such a first reaction from a U.S. President, certainly would to no good in restraining another country, it took quite a bit more to stop the Soviet Union as Victor Davis Hanson noted when he pointed out Obama's lack of historical knowledge.

Perhaps Obama needs a remedial course in Cold War history, but the Berlin Wall most certainly did not come down because “the world stood as one.” The wall fell because of a decades-long, existential struggle against one of the greatest totalitarian ideologies mankind has ever faced. It was a struggle in which strong and determined U.S. leadership was constantly questioned, both in Europe and by substantial segments of the senator’s own Democratic Party. In Germany in the later years of the Cold War, Ostpolitik — “eastern politics,” a policy of rapprochement rather than resistance — continuously risked a split in the Western alliance and might have allowed communism to survive. The U.S. president who made the final successful assault on communism, Ronald Reagan, was derided by many in Europe as not very bright, too unilateralist and too provocative. (source)

This insight into Barack Obama's core, contrasts rather sharply with how he reacts to American troops. As I covered in a previous post, Barack offered no moral equivalency when speaking of American and coalition forces in Afghanistan, fighting the Taliban.

Asked whether he would move U.S. troops out of Iraq to better fight terrorism elsewhere, he brought up Afghanistan and said, "We've got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we're not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous pressure over there." (source - with video)

That's quite a combination in one individual. On the one hand, falsely describe the tactics American and Western forces are using in the war against terrorists, who intentionally target innocent civilians, and on the other, initially declare that Russia and Georgia, who has supplied troops in Iraq, are morally equivalent.

Let's add one more data point to this collection. In Barack Obama's own words:

Let's take a tally of all this.

  • Reflexively criticizes American and Western forces fighting terrorists - check
  • First instinct is to equalize Russian bombing of civilians to the western ally they're bombing - check
  • States clearly that he will reduce the armed readiness of the United States - check

On that last point, one could argue that such is not Barack Obama's intent. Well, hell, paved and road are words that come to mind when such an argument is raised. To think we would be militarily stronger is wishful thinking on a grand scale, despite attempting to label that dreamy state with the word intentions.

Is it any surprise that Barack Obama has been photographed not saluting the flag and that he's also made an issue of wearing/not wearing a flag lapel pin? In comparison, that photo and lapel pin are rather minor issues. After all, if Barack Obama did salute the flag and wear a pin, without complaint, it would do nothing to override the serious matter of his criticizing an ally while that ally is still being bombed, castigating American forces while we are still fighting terrorists, and his promise to reduce our military strength.

Is someone like this, with Russia, once again, attempting to ascend and expand by force, displaying the judgement necessary to be President of the United States?

---

Related posts:
Words do matter
Finally! Democrats are being listened to regarding Iraq
He means his ears are bigger - right?
A tale of a speech and a mustache
Sincerity vs political calculation
Barack Obama finds he has a third foot

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Saturday, August 09, 2008

Words do matter


So says Barack Obama. But one could easily get the impression that he means words matter as a tool for deceiving others.

Recently, I had a friend say he didn't think Barack Obama would ever support reparations. At the time, I had no response as I'd not looked at Obama's position on the matter. Seems that perhaps more of us should look into this, as my friend's opinion may be off by quite a bit.

'I consistently believe that when it comes to . . . reparations," Obama recently told a gathering of minority journalists, "the most important thing for the U.S. government to do is not just offer words, but offer deeds."

[...]

In other words, reparations by another name.

Obama knows that if he pushes too hard on reparations, he might scare off white voters. So he couches race-specific welfare as "universal" social programs that appeal to broad-based political coalitions — "even if they disproportionately help minorities," he confides in his book, "Audacity of Hope."

Obama has a name for his scheme: "universal strategies."

"An emphasis on universal, as opposed to race-specific, programs isn't just good policy," he wrote. "It's also good politics." [...] (source)

Be sure to read the entire article. It seems Obama has not left behind the racial divide, grievance blinders of his former church and pastor of twenty years. Notice also the use of words to try and propose at the very least, a stepping stone to reparations. Constantly talking of what is still owed and that deeds need to be offered up, certainly establishes foundational principles that would encourage pushing for actual reparations in the future. After all, throwing money at poverty and education hasn't solved problems there. Doing more of the same, and getting similar results, or the results never being good enough, will easily lead to more pressure for payments or so much government handout as to be reparations in fact, despite the deceptive words that will be used.

Obama's tendency to use language to evade and deflect is covered by the American Thinker, with reparations being one of the issues examined:

So, when asked by Anderson Cooper for his position on reparations, Obama's answer may have evaded a candid response such as:  "Yes, I believe in a form of reparations designed to repair public education, particularly where it has historically failed many black children."

If nominated, and certainly if elected, Obama will want to offer a persuasive case to the American people for wide-spread educational reparations.  For now, though, he seems to be playing language games with us. (source)

So, what guarantee is there that Obama's supposed stance against cash payment reparations would remain, once he didn't have to appeal to the general population and had a Democrat controlled Congress? It's not like Barack Obama has shown much courage in maintaining other positions when he's faced criticism. For now, it frustrates his left leaning supporters. How long will he continue to only irritate them?

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions

Friday, August 08, 2008

Resume enhancements and energy policy


There's been talk here and there about Paris Hilton's "campaign ad" in response to the ad critical of Barack Obama that John McCain had aired, which included Paris Hilton. I think one can admire the sense of humor this "celebrity" and former heiress displayed with her video reply. Unfortunately, many people have missed an error on her part, and continued on with their own errors.

In her ad Paris characterized Barack Obama's energy plan as being about new technologies and McCain's plan was only offshore drilling. She then offered a compromise wherein we do both. This would be her error.

In fact, McCain's policy is not just about offshore drilling, but to also expand nuclear energy, create incentives for alternative energy vehicles and tax incentives for the consumer purchases of zero carbon emission vehicles. This plan has been called the Lexington Project and is far more than just drill more, despite an overexposed "celebrity" saying otherwise.

A point noted by the McCain campaign in a sharp reply to Hilton's video.

"Sounds like Paris is taking the 'All of the Above' energy approach that John McCain has advocated -- both alternatives and drilling. Perhaps the reality is that Paris has a more substantive energy plan than Barack Obama." (source)

That many are making the same error, as seen in comments on various blogs, is probably helped by the Drudge Report headlining the video as Hilton dissing McCain. Sure, she called him that "wrinkly, white haired guy", but she also referred to Barack as merely "that other guy". Still, that's no excuse for limiting ones sources of information to what Paris Hilton says or doesn't say.

Unfortunately, in other discussions online, this compromise position had been previously ridiculed by some, only to then be accepted as common sense when Paris offered it up, while she at the same time mischaracterized McCain's position.

It seems that part of the reason may be that John McCain hasn't cheated on his current wife Cindy and though his first divorce was due to that, it ended with this former wife still caring for him and supporting him in all his campaigns since then. Paris Hilton may not be married, but she obviously has a rather different  lifestyle including less than classy exposure of her body by way of various media. For some, that type of life is a resume enhancement, as Rush Limbaugh likes to say.

Another factor is the sheer bigotry against anything proposed by a conservative, and even worse, one that is a Christian and horror of horrors, is also from the South. It certainly is not rational thinking that has such people previously reject the same position they now applaud.

Perhaps such people will be too busy trying to emulate the cruder aspects of Paris Hilton's lifestyle, though in much lower income brackets, to remember that little civic responsibility called voting.

But just in case, maybe John McCain should offer the VP slot to John Edwards. He now has the necessary resume enhancement that would no doubt cause such people to accept what they rejected when proposed by others.

---

Trackback URI                             Submit this post on Digg.com! width=                     View blog reactions










Creative Commons License


As defined and limited by the license, any use of work from this blog, must be attributed to Mark K. Sprengel and include a link back to this blog.




Get updates by e-mail:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Widgetize! Subscribe Social Bookmark Blogs that link here
My Technorati profile


Also, follow me on Twitter

Search this blog:

powered by Aditya


Recent Comments: