Where’s the anti-religious left at now?

January 31, 2008

Obama Calls Clinton Divisive Figure

Later Wednesday, Obama gave a 10-minute talk by live broadcast to a joint meeting in Atlanta of four historically black Baptist denominations, where Clinton was to appear in person later. These groups produced some of the most prominent civil rights leaders, including the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr.. whom Obama quoted.

“Pastors are pushing this movement forward,” Obama said of his campaign, “and I need each and every one of you in this fight.”

Funny how the anti-religious left likes to complain about conservatives reaching out to the religious and yet they say nothing about Obama doing it.

He asked the audience to imagine what it would mean for the country to see him with his hand on the Bible, taking the presidential oath of office.

“Our children will look at themselves differently and their possibilities differently. They’ll look at each other differently,” he said.

Really? Are you serious? HOW? You have to have a black president before you can see possibilities?

I recall all of my elementary teachers being female, until the sixth grade. Can I blame all of my poor performance on the fact that there weren’t any male teachers to give me hope? What a crock of bullshit! My favorite math teacher was black. Mr. Nelms. He’s the only teacher from elementary school that I can still name. He taught well, encouraged me and gave me hope. HOPE DOESN’T HAVE TO COME FROM SOMEONE OF THE SAME COLOR!!!!

What should we do now? Make sure each ethic group gets their ‘turn’ in so they can have ‘hope’ to? This is beyond ridiculous.

The best reason to vote for Hillary

January 28, 2008

Is right here.

Speaking of the dirtbag, the New York chapter of NOW says Kennedy has betrayed women by endorsing Obama.

Would the NAACP or the poverty pimps of Sharpton/Jackson ilk have said the same if he endorsed Hillary? I wish I had a dime for every time the race/sex card will be played in this election. And the amazing thing is how ugly it has been and it just between the Democrats! Those wingnuts must be enjoying the hell out of this. I say it only makes our country look bad when we bicker like this. And I’d like to point out that the stereotype of Republicans playing the race card ought to be buried. It’s politics. Everybody plays whatever card they can to win.

The losers are and have always been John & Jane Q. Public.

With the way the candidates have been acting, I’d say that the politicians aren’t really ready for a black/female President. And with the polling in South Carolina (see previous post) it doesn’t look like the country is either. I say that because it appears to me that too many people were polarized in saying that we are ready for the characteristics of the person they are voting for, but not for the other candidate. Most people should have said that they were ready for both choices, not just the one they liked.

Just a reminder- it’s not just the Republicans that are biased, most people/groups are.

Another good article

January 27, 2008

He Could Care Less About Obama’s Story

Every time I hear about how Sen. Barack Obama is going to “re-brand” America’s image in the Middle East, I can’t help but think about Jimmy Carter’s toast.

When the idealistic Democrat came to Iran in 1977 to ring in the new year with Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the country’s much-despised despot, throngs of young, hopeful Iranians lined the streets to welcome the new American president. After eight years of the Nixon and Ford administrations’ blind support for the shah’s brutal regime, Iranians thrilled to Carter’s promise to re-brand America’s image abroad by focusing on human rights. That call even let many moderate, middle-class Iranians dare to hope that they might ward off the popular revolution everyone knew was coming. But at that historic New Year’s dinner, Carter surprised everyone. In a shocking display of ignorance about the precarious political situation in Iran, he toasted the shah for transforming the country into “an island of stability in one of the more troubled areas of the world.” With those words, Carter unwittingly lit the match of revolution.

It’s just this sort of blunder — naive, well-meaning, amateurish, convinced that everyone understands the goodness of U.S. intentions — that worries me again these days. 

Join the club!

As someone who once was that young Muslim boy everyone seems to be imagining (albeit in Iran rather than Egypt), I’ll let you in on a secret: He could not care less who the president of the United States is. He is totally unconcerned with whatever barriers a black (or female, for that matter) president would be breaking. He couldn’t name three U.S. presidents if he tried. He cares only about one thing: what the United States will do.

That boy is angry at the United States not because its presidents have all been white. He is angry because of Washington’s unconditional support for Israel; because the United States has more than 150,000 troops in Iraq; because the United States gives the dictator of his country some $2 billion a year in aid, the vast majority of which goes toward supporting a police state. He is angry at the United States because he thinks it has hegemony over almost every aspect of his world.

Race/sex really doesn’t matter to those outside of this country. It’s all about what we will or won’t do. Just because you are a female, or a minority, it doesn’t mean you’ll do a better job. This world is filled with, or has had, people in these categories that have either done poorly or hurt their country.  Benizar Bhutto and Corazon Aquino have been widely accused of corruption. And don’t even get me started on the likes of Robert Mugabe!

To vote for someone based on sex/race is quite shallow. And voting for ‘change’ doesn’t mean voting for improvement. EVERYONE running for political office wants CHANGE! If not, then we’d just vote for whomever is already in office! And unfortunately, people wanting ‘change’ usually just change things to benefit themselves or their group while the rest of the country suffers.

Do yourself and your country a favor and vote for someone that has good moral values, courage and conviction, and someone that can make this country even better- for all.

North Korea

January 27, 2008

An interesting article from Paul Greenberg:

The candid Mr. Bolton had to go because he was entirely too candid. For example, he spoke frankly about the world’s most dangerous dictators, prominent among them North Korea’s thoroughly untrustworthy Kim Jong-Il.

Funny how people hate the truth and kill the messenger.

This one-man threat to the world’s nuclear peace has been regularly given One Last Chance to stop developing his nuclear weapons program since, oh, about 1993, and naturally he keeps right on developing them.

Is anybody really surprised?

North Korea’s petty but dangerous tyrant has gladly accepted all the aid he was promised in return for forgoing atomic weapons. But somehow he’s never gotten around to forgoing them. Just as John Bolton foresaw.

And by getting rid of Mr. Bolton, it helped how?

But why should Comrade Kim keep his promises? All those threats to cut off aid to Pyongyang have proved, time and again, to be largely meaningless.

Thanks Clinton, Bush…

Not long ago, when the State Department was making its accustomed excuses for Pyongyang, Mr. Bolton summed up the problem this accurate way:

“North Korea’s aggressive mendacity puts it near the top of the list, perhaps tied with Iran for the lead, of countries that need the most transparent, most intrusive, most pervasive verification systems. For America to agree to anything less would be to make our national security, and that of close friends and allies like Japan, dependent on North Korea’s word — never a safe bet. And yet, it is precisely this extensive verification system that the North cannot accept, because the transparency we must require would threaten the very rock of domestic oppression on which the North Korean regime rests. North Korea’s negotiators understand this contradiction. So do ours. The only way around this problem is to conclude it doesn’t exist, or is so minimal it can be ‘fixed’ in negotiations.”

Sure enough, American diplomats responded to this latest broken promise by saying negotiations to disable North Korea’s nuclear facilities were still on track. On track to where — a North Korean nuclear arsenal subsidized by American aid shipments? For the more North Korea changes, the more it stays the same, more’s the pity.

Only a John Bolton might be spoilsport enough to point out that we’re being suckered again. Meanwhile, the usual respectable sources — like NPR, the New York Times and the rest of the gulls in the media mainstream — will again proclaim Peace in Our Time.

Our wonderful MSM is on who’s side? At least Mr. Bolton was looking out for us.

Only later, as the danger ripens, or some small but vicious nuclear power loosens its Bomb on one of its neighbors, will we wish we’d listened. Until then, John Bolton, like any other prophet, will go without honor in his own country.

This is what happens when honest people get into politics.

Polling Results

January 27, 2008

I saw some polling data over at Sugar Land is Dreaming and had to make some comments.

Tas quoted his local rag and I found it to be interesting:

“The choice in this election is not about regions or religions or genders,” Obama said at a boisterous victory rally. “It’s not about rich versus poor, young versus old and it’s not about black versus white. It’s about the past versus the future.”

The audience chanted “Race doesn’t matter” as it awaited Obama to make his appearance after rolling up 55 percent of the vote in a three-way race.

Race doesn’t matter? Interesting. Let’s look at the data a bit.

South Carolina – Democrats


By this first pic, the White voters seem to choose the main three candidates fairly evenly, with Obama at the tail end. But the Black voters chose Obama by a wide margin. Seems split by race here. What I find really interesting is how blacks are labeled as poor or disadvantaged and Edwards is the one focusing the most at helping bridge the gap between rich & poor, yet he gets the fewest votes by them. The question is, can they see through his lies or does race count more?


Speaking of the poor, isn’t it funny how Edwards gets more votes as the household income increases? Is it because the rich are more willing to help the poor, or is Edwards lying?


It’s obvious that Obama is about change and Hillary is about experience, duh.

Ready Black

Hmm, Obama supporters think our country is ready… but not as much as the others.

Ready Woman

Interesting how the Obama supporters outnumber the Hillary supporters in this one.


No surprise here.

So, can we really take Obama seriously when he says this is not about race or gender? Only if you’re talking about how white voters are voting. The black voters seem to voting their race more than anything. I’m not sure if the whole Obama thingy is a Fairy Tale, but what he says seems like it. The thing is, does he really believe it, or does he just want you to believe it?

The Caring Left

January 27, 2008

Don’t treat the old and unhealthy, say doctors

Doctors are calling for NHS treatment to be withheld from patients who are too old or who lead unhealthy lives.

So much for the caring and compassionate left. Unless I’m mistaken, aren’t they the ones constantly complaining about government interfering with their lives? I guess as long as the government doesn’t listen to your phone conversations then they can do as they please.

Smokers, heavy drinkers, the obese and the elderly should be barred from receiving some operations, according to doctors, with most saying the health service cannot afford to provide free care to everyone.

What? Not enough money?  It won’t happen in this country, right?

Fertility treatment and “social” abortions are also on the list of procedures that many doctors say should not be funded by the state.

I can hear the left screaming now.  You cannot deny them the Holy Grail of medical procedures- Abortion.

About one in 10 hospitals already deny some surgery to obese patients and smokers, with restrictions most common in hospitals battling debt.

And with all the obese people in our country… what will happen to them? Is this how our government will save money? Promise free medical care then limit the snot out of it? You get what you vote for.

Among the survey of 870 family and hospital doctors, almost 60 per cent said the NHS could not provide full healthcare to everyone and that some individuals should pay for services.

But it’s our right to free health care!

Ninety-four per cent said that an alcoholic who refused to stop drinking should not be allowed a liver transplant, while one in five said taxpayers should not pay for “social abortions” and fertility treatment.

Sure, put the government in charge of your health and let them do polls and surveys to find out what they will/will not cover for you. Is this what you lefties really want?

Comments from/about the left

January 25, 2008

From the DailyKos:

As seen on DailyKos:

gjohnsit explains how Bush’s bailouts simply pass our financial crisis on to our children in We are all subprime now. (Patriot Daily)

Bush’s bailouts? Isn’t he working closely with Nancy Pelosi on this too? And she wanted to dole out more money than Bush too. That would mean if the bailouts are bad and Pelosi wanted more than what Bush wanted… then she is worse than Bush.

MontanaMaven wonders if electing the first African-American president would be the fulfillment of Dr. King’s dream, in There Is No Staples EASY Button for Economic Justice; Fighting the Man for the Mule. (srkp23)

You’ve gotta be kidding me! Being black and a leader does not make any dream from Dr. King come true. Just look at the dictators in Africa and tell me that all of them are good to their people. Look at Mugabe for instance. That president of Zimbabwe has driven that country into the ground. What’s the inflation there? Something like 5,000%? Yup, Dr. King would be proud!

I recall some loser on the right having their picture taken with Bush and people connected those dots and said since this loser (can’t recall the exact ‘crime’ and name and I’m too tired to search for the post) is pictured with Bush, then Bush is also involved with that persons criminal activities. Yes siree Bob, if you get your picture taken with anyone whom commits a crime, then you’re automatically guilty by association. Unless of course, you’re a Democrat like Hillary. Then all you have to do is deny it and nobody on the left questions it. She said- “I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I don’t know the man. I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door.”

But so has Bush, no? Ain’t it funny how the Democrats aren’t held to the same standards? It’s even funnier when you consider the left complains about how the right doesn’t have morals.