Vile Hatred

So, I've been taking my time in thinking about the words that were said by Barack Obama's pastor, and about Obama's response to the whole thing, and I have a few things to say.

First of all, if you haven't seen any of the clips from this mans "Sermons" I suggest you do so, so that you can see what exactly I'm talking about. You can find them at a plethora of web sites; www.foxnews.com www.hotair.com or, look them up yourself at www.youtube.com where you see them doesn't much matter, that you see them matters a great deal.

Much of what this man says is flat out untrue. Now, if he were just disagreeing about certain points, I might give him a pass, for instance, when he talks about how wrong America was to drop the two atomic bombs in WWII, he is free to have that opinion, I don't agree with it, but I don't begrudge him the right to have it. To explain myself a little bit here, I'm not saying that I don't think that it was a horrible thing that was done, just that lives, of both civilian and military personnel, would have been lost in far greater numbers had those bombs not ended the war, so, as horrific as they might have been, and indeed were, not dropping them would have constituted the greater evil. Again, I don't think that he has to agree with my view on this, but to turn it around and claim that, because we did that, that we deserved to be hit, as we were, on September 11th 2001, is not only offensive to any clear thinking, rational American, but in my view, is a morally reprehensible statement to make.

Some of the other stuff though, that the US Government (or possibly anybody who is white) started the AIDS virus as a means of killing black people, is simply one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. Of course, right up there with it was his assertion that the Government gives drugs to black people, just so it can put them in prison. Of course, he never defends these positions, likely because they are indefensible. It's almost as crazy though as saying that Obama would be a better President than Clinton (don't get me wrong here, I think either one would be terrible) just because she doesn't know what it's like to be an oppressed black person. Well, I'd like to point out here, neither does he really. Might he have suffered some from racism throughout his life? Sure it's possible, but not like this guy is trying to get us to believe. Obama wasn't around for the Civil Rights era any more than I was. And let's be honest, whatever else the Clintons might be (and a lot of things could be said here) one thing that is for sure, is that they are not racist, nor are they trying to oppress black people.

And what's this nonsense about Jesus being a black man? Jesus was a Jew (Oh yeah, make sure you don't miss the comments that demonstrate how much this man hates Jews!). While it is true that many of the paintings that have been done of him (all of them artist impressions because, as we know, none of them actually know what Jesus actually looked like from a human standpoint) tend to show him as a European White man, which is also not true, but let's not get carried away and declare him to be black, just because it fits what someone wants to believe.

And one question I would like to ask Mr. Wright is how it is that, given his own admission that he is all about doing what is best for black people, that he can support anyone who supports Abortion, as Obama vehemently does? After all, it has been proven that the Abortion movement, right from the very beginning, was geared toward killing black children. Granted, many whites kill there babies in this way, but a disproportionate number of blacks are murdered in this way, and nobody seems to care. In fact, it was recently revealed by an undercover investigation that Planned Parenthood is perfectly willing to accept donations earmarked for an abortion by a black woman. Of course, most media outlets didn't utter a peep about this, but you can find it with a little digging (www.worldnetdaily.com).

Now, on to the question of whether or not Obama should be held to account for any of this, and, given the circumstances, the answer is yes.

I'm not suggesting that Obama could have stopped the man from saying these things, or that he put him up to it, or in some way controls what Wright says. It's not about that at all. What I am saying is that Obama is responsible for associating himself with this man and his radical views. Obama attended this man's "Church" for over 20 years, the Obama's were married by this man, and his children were baptised by this man, and he calls him his Spiritual advisor, and a close friend. At the very least this calls his judgement into question, but personally, I think it goes deeper than that.

How could someone stay in a Church where this kind of vile hate spewed repeatedly from the pulpit? I couldn't, and I don't think most people could... unless they agreed with it!! And that's what it comes down to, does Obama agree with this racist drivel, and hate filled vitriol? And if he doesn't, how does he justify staying in this Church? And he must. There is no problem with a black person being President, but there is a serious problem with a racist, of any color, being President. In example, look at Woodrow Wilson, a hero to some on the left, and yet, without question, one of, if not the, most flat out racist men to ever occupy the office of the President. A hard look at this man will show that he did far more to damage race relations in the country than many of the more well known villains, and we can't afford to go back there again.

Now, about Obama's "great" speech. I fail to understand how it is that anyone, except for the most dense, can think that Obama did himself any good at all with this speech. He basically came out, and flat out admitted that he knew about the stances and statements of this man, but could not disavow him. So, for all those idiots who have been saying that people like me were blasting Obama through guilt by association, how is it exactly that an admission of guilt is better than that? It seems crazy to me that people aren't pointing that out. To me, I think his speech made it worse, but that is mitigated by people in the media trying to spin it to his favor. Even Bill O'Reilly said that Obama had "stopped the bleeding" with this speech, which made me say, "huh?"

You also hear people talk about how great a job Obama has done at keeping race out of this election. I assert though that he has done a good job of pretending to keep race out of things. To see this, you don't have to look back that far, you only need to look at what happened recently with comments made by Geraldine Ferraro, (and whatever you may think of her, she is no racist) basically saying that Obama has done as well as he has in this election because he is a black man, and the Obama campaign, and even Obama himself, couldn't call her a racist, or at least accuse her of racist comments, fast enough. The fact of the matter is that she was right. Let me explain that now. If the entire field were white men, including Obama, then he would have had a very good chance to be doing as well as he is doing now, with his inane message of hoping for nothing, and just making people feel good about being too ignorant to see what he actually wants to do to our nation, however, if he were a white man, all other things being equal, running against Hillary, she would have crushed him, therefore, it is factual, and not racist to say that his race has served him well in this campaign.

In short, either Obama agrees with Wright, and is also a racist, or he his far too cowardly to stand up and confront him, or to even just walk out, either way, he is not President material.

Oh yes, and as to his assertion that we all have heard our Pastors say things that we disagree with, let me just say, some minor thing that I might have disagreed with, or been unsure of, is not even remotely the same thing. He claimed that people have been cherry picking what his Pastor says, but to that I say, you can Cherry Pick my Pastors Sermons all day long, and you aren't going to find this vile garbage anywhere, and honestly, if you did, I wouldn't stay in the Church... and I have no plans to run for President.

Eliot Spitzer

I'm doing something for the very first time today, I'm using a guest blogger. Since the subject of this post is the (soon to be former) Governor of New York, Eliot Spitzer, I've asked my Mom, as a resident of the (once upon a time) great State of New York, to share some thoughts in this regard.

**************

Just some thoughts with regard to the political situation regarding Eliot Spitzer, Governor (soon to be ex-Governor) of New York State. Mr. Spitzer held the job of Attorney General before becoming Governor and in that position, he cracked down on crime in NY State, including prostitution rings. It is ironic that now he is embroiled in a scandal himself by using a call-girl service. With the amount of money involved, over $80,000, it seems that this has been an ongoing process. Such actions have far reaching effects including his political career and, sadly, his family.

Personally, I have not voted for Mr. Spitzer, as Attorney General or Governor. He has been Governor for just over a year and his ratings are very low, even among the Democrats. Legislators in Albany, especially Republicans, found it difficult to work with him. One agenda he tried pushing, very hard, was that illegal immigrants be allowed drivers’ licenses! There was much opposition and he had to put the idea aside but had planned on bringing it up again, and again.

In my opinion, I think he should resign as Governor (which will be effective on Monday, March 17th). I also think that if there are legal ramifications, he should be prosecuted; no deals because of his money and name. As an elected official, he should not be allowed to get away with a slap on the wrist or anything less.

The Press & Sun-Bulletin (our local newspaper) is reporting that Mr. Spitzer is worth millions because of his father’s real estate business. It is also mentioned that his wife may now divorce him. (That, of course, is always speculation in the media.) She gave up a lucrative career when he entered politics and he may have to pay dearly for the stupid mistakes he made. When he was Attorney General, no one else was above the law so he should not be either.

Lt. Gov. David Paterson, who will become Governor on Monday, is well liked on both sides of the aisle in Albany and Legislators feel there will be a good working relationship. That is a positive aspect that New Yorkers need right now. There are a lot of wrongdoings going on with politicians and they should all be held accountable for their actions. As a matter of fact, we will all be held accountable before God.

**************

Hebrews 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Romans 5:12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

**************

I was going to put in my e-mail yesterday, but forgot (imagine that!) - I was in the break room yesterday reading the paper (the comic section at that time) and one of our attorneys came in. He said, "Are you reading the comics or about Spitzer? It's almost the same thing." He is a Republican and this is just a little taste of how people are looking at the situation.

I noticed in yesterday's paper that Paterson is pro-abortion and for same-sex marriage. Hopefully, the Legislature will keep him in check. You have probably heard from the news that Paterson is black and legally blind. He has been in politics for many years, so he should be knowledgeable about how the office should be run. Our budget is due April 1st and I have heard comments that it will be easier to work with Paterson than it was with Spitzer. We'll see.

Love, Mom

*************

I want first of all to say thanks to Mom for sharing that. It answers a few questions for me. It appears that most New Yorkers don't feel betrayed, simply because they didn't really like, or trust, the guy to begin with.

Hopefully this will ultimately be a good thing for the people of New York. I mean, we don't know, but we do know that Spitzer was not a good thing for New York. Having grown up there myself, I can tell you that the State has been poorly managed for many years, doing virtually everything wrong, over-taxing the working people (and by that I certainly don't mean the rich, just regular working class folks who are living paycheck to paycheck) while creating a massive welfare system, and at the same time virtually chasing businesses out of the State through outrageous taxation and fees. Certainly the State Government could use a shake-up, so hopefully this shake-up will finally turn things around in the state... but being that Paterson is still a hard core Democrat, that may be overly optimistic.

On a side note, I see that Dr. Laura has made a rather silly statement about the situation, and I have been thinking about it quite a bit. If I have time in the next few days, I may take some time an analyze that.

Again, thanks for the contribution Mom!

Not So Shocking

I'm sure that pretty much everyone has heard the much hyped story in the press about drugs being found in drinking water. Please note that I didn't say that it was over-hyped. Truly, I don't think that you could take this revelation too seriously. A lot of people are asking a lot of very good questions that I think that we all need answers to. First of all, I don't think that we should take it at face value when people tell us that there is no harm in this, because these drugs are all well below medical doses. On that point I say, so what? What do I care if it's not a medical dose, if I don't need any of this medication, then even the smallest amount is too much. Beside which, even though we are talking about minuscule doses, who is to say that there couldn't be some sort of reaction, even from trace amounts, of multiple various drugs. And, even if this had no affect on full grown healthy adults like myself, what about kids? What about people who are sick already? What about people who are taking medication of some kind that this stuff might interact with? Personally, I think that these are all critical questions that we need to hear answers to.

However, I want to ask this, why are we so surprised? We live in a culture where people suck down medications like candy. All kinds of medicines, Prescription and non-Prescription, needed and un-needed, good and bad. We live in a culture where drugs are advertised on TV and radio, and in newspapers and magazines, where people see these ads and go to their Dr and demand that they be given this drug, and Dr's either don't care, or fear being taken to court, and so they go ahead and give in. We live in a culture where Pharmaceutical companies give money to Dr's for Prescribing their drugs, and so drugs are given to people who don't really need them.

What did we think was happening to all of these (in some cases very powerful) drugs? Are they all being taken? Obviously not. Did we think that when someone takes these medicines, even appropriately, that that is the end of them? Certainly it is not. Some of these drugs may be fully absorbed by the body, some only partially. Any unabsorbed portion is simply passed out of the body, but even the absorbed part eventually passes through, even if in a somewhat altered state. And some people flush some of their pills and such down the toilet whole. Where did we think that all of that stuff went to? I tell you, the toilet isn't a portal that sends this stuff into the nether regions.

I have seen some explanations that sewage is treated before being returned to the environment at large, which is true, but that the treatment doesn't remove all of these drugs from the water. Again, the water is also treated, and filtered and such, before it gets used for drinking water again, but that doesn't remove all of those drugs either. Again, I can't say that I'm surprised, I imagine that these substances are difficult to remove from the water. I don't know exactly what can be done about this, but obviously something needs to be done, and obviously, there are a lot of questions that need to be answered.

I guess all I'm waiting for now is to see who they are going try to pin blame on, because you can be sure, it won't end up where it belongs.

Some Random Thoughts

OK, being that tonight is the night that we flop our clocks forward by an hour again, I think that I have to open up today by saying once again just how much I can't stand this entire concept of time change. I still think that it's utterly ridiculous, it's just outrageously annoying. I'm not complaining that I have an hour shorter shift at work, but it does mean that I have to use an hour of vacation time if I want to keep my normal paycheck. I guess though, that I should consider myself one of the least affected people by it at this point, since most everyone else will be losing an hour of sleep, and I'll be shortening my work day, so maybe I shouldn't complain too much.

My wife took our daughter to a "Kids in the Kitchen" class this morning, where the kids got to learn something about nutrition and cooking and such, and she had a really great time.

At the same time, my Father-in-law took my son fishing for the first time ever, and he had a blast too. I got up this afternoon and stumbled to the bathroom, and he couldn't wait for me to finish, he came bursting in and said, "Daddy, Daddy, I caught TWO Fish!!" As someone who had never gone fishing, I can't say that I know anything about it, but I'm glad that he enjoyed it and had a great time. I'm glad that he enjoys outdoor stuff, and I need to get myself to doing more outdoor stuff with him, because I'm not much of an outdoor type person, but I do think that it is a more healthy way to be.

Just to share, I have always liked http://www.blueletterbible.org/ which I still do, it is a great web site for looking up Bible verses an such, but if you would like something different, I have also discovered (much like Columbus discovered America even though there were already people living here, and other explorers got here first) another great site, http://www.biblegateway.com/ which has a few versions that Blue Letter Bible doesn't, and it's easier to copy and paste from than BLB is. Don't get me wrong, I still like Blue Letter Bible, but I'm happy for the new resource as well, and plan to go on using both of them in the future.

I still find myself amused by all the people who are supposed to be experts who are telling us that either Hillary made a huge comeback and will get the nomination, or she is still done and out of it, and didn't win Texas and Ohio by enough, and Obama now has it in the bag. The fact of the matter is that they just don't know. I don't know what's going to happen, and neither does anyone else. Of course, they keep spouting off enough possibilities, and no matter what happens they will be able to say that they said that this could happen. Of course they did, because they basically, at one time or another, put forth nearly every conceivable outcome. The truth is that they don't actually know what is going to happen any more than you or I do.

On the subject of elections, there is still a great deal of debate over the DNC's decision to exclude Florida and Michigan from their Convention because the State Governments violated Party rules by having their primary contests too early. If you've read here in the past, you will know that I feel that this is an outrageous thing for them to do. For one, I don't like the way the entire Presidential Primary system is set up to begin with, but that's a discussion for another day, but beyond that, the decision to move up the Primary was made by the State Governments, not the voters. The voters had no choice but to go to the polls on the day that we were told that they were open to us, or skip voting entirely. As for the Democrats in Florida, they had record turnout, so those results should stand, and the delegates should be seated, based on the January 29th Primary. To take a second vote would be to try to rig the election in Obama's favor, and is a monumentally stupid idea. As for Michigan, Obama made the decision to remove himself from the ballot, and therefore should have to suffer the consequences, and those delegates should be seated as well. The people showed up when they were supposed to, and did what they were supposed to do, and should not be punished for it, and certainly should not be ignored. The Dems always make such a big deal out of "every vote must count" and then they want to completely ignore two entire states because their little feelings got hurt. On the GOP side, it's pretty much a moot point, however, the entire Florida and Michigan delegations should be seated at our convention as well.

I guess that's all the random thoughts for today. Have a good one.

Parking Humor

I went to the Gym this morning, and it was crazy busy there. I guess I should pick a better time of day next time. Anyway, I just parked a couple of rows out and way down on the end, and got out of the car to walk to the Gym. It struck me as pretty funny, as I was walking across the Parking lot, how many people were competing for the few spots that were opening up closer to the building. At first I thought that maybe they were going to a different place than they gym. After all, there is a physical therapy place right next door in the plaza, and I could understand why people going there might need a close parking spot, but as I watched, no, they went to the gym.

I couldn't help but find it funny that these same people who are inside going at their workouts just as fast and furious as can be, would virtually kill for a spot five feet closer to the building.

To be fair, and a bit more serious, this probably has more to do with our culture than it does with not being willing to walk. We have a very "me" centered, very fast paced culture. First of all, we are conditioned from the time we are very young to think that closer parking spots are better parking spots, and after all, don't "I" deserve the best? Don't I have the "right" to have the "best" available parking spot all for myself?

And as to the second part, I'm sure most people view going to the gym they same way that they view most everything else in life, which is with regard to how it will fit into their schedules. So often we have so much to do (other people usually more so than me) that we have to try to squeeze things in where ever we can. So that little extra walk across the parking lot could be the difference between getting to their next appointment, or whatever, on time or a few minutes late. And don't we all have the right to get the parking place that keeps us on schedule?

For the most part we are all so accustomed to this type of behavior that we consider it to be human nature, rather than a cultural abnormality. Of course, if you look at most of the rest of the world, you would find that there are very few cultures like ours. I'm not suggesting that they are doing everything right, while we are doing it all wrong, but maybe there is something to be learned from the idea of slowing down and enjoying life a little more rather than the full tilt, dead run, go, go, go!!! culture that we currently find ourselves in.

The whole thing is a little funny, but at the same time, maybe it bears some thinking about.

Trying to Lose?

Given John McCains private war against the Republican Party, I think we need to ask ourselves some questions. In a recent post, which I titled "Story Of Betrayal" which can be accessed from the list on the left side of the screen, I talked about how McCain was so angry with the GOP that he has betrayed the party, and done everything in his power to harm the GOP, even at the expense of the American People.

So, the question is, does he see his Presidential campaign as a serious return to Grace, or is it the final act in his war to damage Republicans?

Think about it. If he is looking to win, why is he running such a sloppy campaign? Why is he trying to alienate the base of the party, without whom he absolutely cannot win, unless he has no intention of winning? Could it be that he no longer actually wants to be President? Is he a spoiler? In the race now for the simple reason of making sure that a Democrat takes the White House? Maybe that's not what's going on, but don't you think it's worth thinking about?

I'm still making the case for working toward the election of a real Conservative on a Third Party ticket. I don't think that we can afford to stay with the two main parties anymore. The fact of the matter is that both the Dems and the GOP have moved significantly to the left, and either of them now stand for big Government, higher taxes, and decreased liberties.

The thing to remember is that we haven't lost our liberties yet. We will if we don't take some action, but that action is easily open to us through the voting box. That is the genius of our political system. We have the right to vote for good people. We don't need to be swayed by the ones with the money, unfortunately, most people are.

What we really need is for people to wake up. People have become so complacent because they don't think that their liberties can be removed from them, after all, they are protected by the Constitution, so why worry about it? Well, we have to worry about it because the overwhelming apathy in this nation has led us to the point where most people don't have a clue what the Constitution actually says, and if you don't know what the rules are, why would you expect people to follow them? We all know, and you hear it from a lot of people, that we can't trust the politicians for much of anything, so why do you trust them to uphold the Constitution if we don't hold them to it? Yes there are watchdog groups, and some very good ones, but if they don't have the backing, or even the attention, of the American people, they are basically toothless.

I guess the big question is, does McCain do more damage to us if he wins the Presidency, or by assuring it to the Democrats? It's a tough call. Either way, about the only thing that can mess up McCains plans from within the Republican party at this point would be a huge, not to mention unexpected, surge from Mike Huckabee. If you've read here much you know that I'm not Huckabee fan, but I can say, at least he would fight for the Fair Tax, and I've come to believe that that would be a good thing. I understand that Huckabee has nearly no chance of winning the nomination, but nearly no chance is not the same thing as no chance at all.

If Huckabee does end up pulling off the long shot and winning the nomination, I would give some consideration to throwing my support behind him, but I don't really expect this to happen. Unfortunately, I suspect that McCain will get the GOP nod, and that is not a good thing at all. If that happens, I don't see that we have any choice but to find a third party alternative. As I can not, in good conscience, even entertain the notion of voting for McCain, I will not back off of the Third Party idea if he does get the nomination. And no, I won't vote for Ralph Nader either.

Voting for the lesser of two evils has gotten us in quite a mess in this nation, and continuing to do so will do no good for anyone. We must choose a good person and get behind them, even if by doing so we run the risk of having the greater evil ultimately elected. Without taking some risk, there is no possibility of reward. Electing liberals under the guise of calling themselves Republicans has only served to keep us moving in that same old liberal direction that we are so against, and by continuing to do so because we have too much fear to take the kinds of risk that we need to take in order to turn things around.

One other thing that we need to do is to start ignoring the polls, and not let them make up our minds. Polls give the media too much power over the choices that people make, by deciding how they will tilt and report the polls, they make people think that opposition to what they report to be the mainstream point of view, would be pointless. A case in point are reports that Florida Governor Charlie Crist has a 71% approval rating. I still don't know anyone who likes the guy, and you would think that if he had that high of an approval rating, wouldn't it seem likely that I would know at least one person who likes him? And yet I don't. Makes you wonder if they just polled the newsroom. The problem is that this kind of poll report makes people think that there would be no reason for anyone to run against Crist in the next Republican Primary for Governor. We must think for ourselves.

What's in a name?

Ok, I'm sure you've all heard by now about the big flap that took place in the past week or so regarding Barack Obama's middle name, Hussein.

Virtually everyone has had something to say about this. After talk radio host Bill Cunningham used Obama's middle name during an introduction for John McCain, the Senator came out and condemned Cunningham, apologized to Obama, and stated that he would not engage in this kind politics, and accused Cunningham of "disparaging remarks."

McCain and a lot of other people seem to feel that saying, "Barack Hussein Obama," amounts to disparaging remarks. I have heard people say that this is the politics of fear, that it is trying to take the focus off of the issues, and that it was a dirty trick or political cheep shot. On the other side, I hear people saying that there is nothing wrong with it, and that Cunningham said nothing wrong at all, which, of course, he didn't.

At the heart of all of this of course, people seem to be missing the point. Don't get me wrong, I think that a lot of Conservatives get this, but so far, I haven't really heard anyone state it clearly, though I'm sure some have and I've just missed it. The most basic fact of the whole thing is this, Hussein is in fact his middle name. It is no kind of insult to refer to someone by their entire name. If his middle name were Henry or something like that, and people were inserting Hussein instead, then I could see where that would be problematic, however, saying his actual middle name, should in no way be offensive to anyone. In fact, I should think that Obama should be offended by those who are saying that it is inappropriate for people to use his middle name. In effect, those who are having such an adverse reaction to the mention of his middle name are saying that the implication that they are accusing middle name users of making are valid! If they weren't afraid that these alleged implications were valid, why would they give it any thought at all?

The fact is that there is nothing at all new about people calling political figures, especially at this level, by their entire name. For example, Ronald Wilson Reagan, William Jefferson Clinton, Richard Milhouse Nixon, John Quincy Adams, William Howard Taft, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, and Franklin Delano Roosevelt, just to name a few. Sometimes we just see initials, such as George W. Bush, or George H.W. Bush, or Warren G. Harding. A lot of it depends on how well each option rolls off the tongue, and face it Barack H. Obama hardly has a ring to it.

Now, all that being said, there are a couple more things I want to address. First, I do think that Conservatives should avoid over use of Obama's middle name, not because there is anything wrong with using it, but simply because the other side uses such things as a smoke screen to stop people from getting a clear image of what it is Obama has in store for the Country, should he be elected. I don't think that we should provide cover for him. The fact is that the name alone is meaningless so far as politics go. It is his name, and so, shouldn't matter, but since his specialty is ducking any meaningful talk about anything, why should we give just one more avenue for his people to take in avoidance of the issues?

And as for John McCain not engaging in that kind of politics, what a crock! When he was in the midst of a hard battle in a crowded Republican Field, well, he couldn't get dirty enough. Name calling, tossing around innuendo, or telling flat out lies about his opponents was considered fair game. However, now that his the likely nominee for the GOP, and is looking at being pitted against a Communist, he's turned into Mr. Nice Guy. This is nothing new for John McCain, you can look at some of my older posts, as well as a goodly number of other sources to see just how badly John McCain has treated other Republicans, while always ready to reach across the isle to give the Democrats (who, in the name of honesty and fairness should really call themselves the "New Communists" or some such thing as that) anything and everything they could possibly want. And don't let his "83% Lifetime Rating" from the American Conservative Union fool you, looking at his record since 2000 his rating drops like a rock to an abismal 65%.

Having taken a hard look at Barack (to Hussein or not to Hussein, that is the question) Obama, and seeing his extreme Communist stances [and I'm not trying to be funny, if you don't believe me, look up the Communist Manifesto online and give it a read, then, if you can actually find it, look up where Obama stands, and you will see a shocking parallel] I readily admit that his being elected President would be a worst case scenario for the USA, even marginally worse than Hillary Clinton, who is marginally less Communist than Obama, and, as I've stated before, would want to keep some strength in the USA so that she could have her own personal power to play with, I'm still not so sure that Obama is that savvy. So, I fear, in fact I am already seeing it happen, that those who understood only too well who John McCain is, and what he really stands for, are starting to come out in support of him. I have held back and remained silent, just to see how far this would progress. Frankly, I'm disturbed that any Conservative Republican would so much as consider voting for this man for President. Don't people get it? The lesser of two evils (in this case a very minor difference at best) is still evil. The fact that McCain is considered an alternative to a Democrat is stunning proof of just how radically all segments of American Politics have shifted to the left.

The fact is that the plans that would be, at least attempted to be, put in place by McCain would ultimately lead us down the same path as the more radical plans proposed by Clinton or Obama. Regardless of whether you are hurtling toward the edge of an abyss in a bullet train, or a freight train, the simple fact of the matter is that you will fall off the edge of the abyss. The big difference though is that the bullet train may be somewhat less dangerous in the long run, for the simple fact that the danger is more obvious, and so action is much more likely to be taken while the train (in this case, the Country) can still be saved. It's like the old analogy of the frog, if you put him right into hot water he'll jump right out, but if you put him in tepid water and slowly bring it to a boil, he'll sit right there and die. If Obama (or Clinton for that matter) is elected, we are in the already boiling water, and maybe we'll see our way clear to jump out, but if McCain is elected, we are in the tepid, but slowly heating water, and may well be doomed.

Also, I'm pretty sick of hearing about how McCain is still relatively Conservative, compared to the democrats. Well, for that matter, Hitler killed very few people, relative to Josef Stalin or Chairman Mao, but he still killed millions. By the same token, McCain is still a Liberal.

To get a picture of just how far left these people are, think about Bill Clinton running for President in the 1990's. Now, think of John McCain as Bill Clinton, because McCain today is strikingly similar to William Jefferson Clinton of that era. Now, think of McCain/Clinton running against Karl Marx for President, because that is where Obama is ideologically. All of these are considerably left of center persons. None of these people can be considered options by Conservatives today.

Now, I know that I'm going to be told that this isn't even worth saying, but bear with me. It is my opinion that we need to find a Conservative to run on a third party. Personally I'm interested to see who the Constitution Party candidate is. Now, think about how low voter turnout in the US normally is. Then, think about all the Conservatives who do vote faithfully, year after year, if each of those got behind a good Conservative third party candidate, and could convince even just two other people, who normally wouldn't vote, to get out and vote for that person, we could have an easy majority, especially when you consider that McCain and the Democrat would be splitting the Liberal vote, as both are Liberals. I understand that it's a very long shot, and would take a lot of work, but isn't maintaining our liberties worth it?