iPandora

So,I assume the majority of the readers of this blogs are already familiar with the media’s misrepresentation of the truth about the candidates. However, just in case you need more evidence, here is a stunning survey that tells what really happened this election. This video tells some more.

And a quick quote to wet your interest . . .

“After I interviewed Obama voters on Election Day for my documentary, I had a pretty low opinion of what most of them had picked up from the media coverage of the campaign, but this poll really proves beyond any doubt the stunning level of malpractice on the part of the media in not educating the Obama portion of the voting populace,” said Ziegler.

Ninety-four percent of Obama voters correctly identified Palin as the candidate with a pregnant teenage daughter, 86% correctly identified Palin as the candidate associated with a $150,000 wardrobe purchased by her political party, and 81% chose McCain as the candidate who was unable to identify the number of houses he owned.

83% failed to correctly answer that Obama had won his first election by getting all of his opponents removed from the ballot, and 88% did not correctly associate Obama with his statement that his energy policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry.

Is it just me, or are people really not listening to our political candidates. I can understand people not listening to John McCain. He has nothing to say and has been using the same lame attacks for about three weeks now. However, why aren’t people listening to Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden. They have a ton to say. In fact, the more they talk, the more they reveal themselves. Here is one example and here is another example.

Some general talking points from these audio clips include:

• The Constitution doesn’t say what the federal government must do on my behalf. (Actually it does. It says that the federal government is to protect me and create an environment for me to prosper in. However, it condones little else.)
• The Supreme Court is wrong for not addressing the redistribution of wealth or the economic injustice in this society (My goodness, keep the courts out of this. If they courts [especially the Supreme Court] are supposed to interpret the Constitution, why would they even touch this issue seeing as it is not addressed in the Constitution.)
• Civil Rights movements didn’t break free from the constraints of the Constitution. (No, it redefined the Constitution to protect all citizens of the United States. It was not supposed to give give people the liberty to steal the money of hard working Americans.)
• The Constitution is actually a list of negative liberties. (Darn right it is. The Constitution was supposed to be a restraint on Government and all its dealings, not on the citizens. Remember where the founding fathers came from? Yah, they didn’t want an oppressive government.)
• The civil Rights movement didn’t do enough to bring about a “redistribution of uh, um, uh change” (you wanted to say wealth, right?)
• Redistribution of wealth is an administrative responsibility. ( Keep your butter finger government hands out of my pocket. You are supposed to do a good enough job for us to want to give you money, or at least not mind paying our taxes. That is the administrative role. Do a good job, earn our respect. Earn our dollar. Then manage the money to OUR advantage. But, since you can’t properly manage the redistribute halfway legitimate taxes [anyone remember Social Security], why would I want to trust you with the stealing and redistribution of my money.)
• The Constitution reflects “The” fundamental flaw that continues to this day. (What, the lack of a redistribution of wealth to the lazy or the down right racism that is rampant in all parts of the United States? Guess what, I have news for you, the majority of the U. S. is color blind now. Take a trip to California. It is hard to find racism there, unless it is directed at Mexican-Americans [and the African-Americans are the primary proponents of that racism]. However, Mr. Obama, you will find racism if you look for it. I mean, just look at the fact that estimates say that 95% of African-Americans will be voting for you.)

And here are a couple gems from this article.

People had a way of hearing what they wanted in Mr. Obama’s words. Earlier, after a long, tortured discussion about whether it was better to be called “black” or “African-American,” . . . According to Mr. Ogletree, students on each side of the debate thought he was endorsing their side. “Everyone was nodding, Oh, he agrees with me,” he said.

[In a Robotic Tone] Yes Master . . . Lead on oh Great One . . . The world will bow before your superior rhetoric . . .

But mainly, Mr. Obama stayed away from the extremes of campus debate, often choosing safe topics for his speeches. At the black law students’ annual conference, he exhorted students to remember the obligations that came with their privileged education. His speeches, delivered in the oratorical manner of a Baptist minister, were more memorable for style than substance, Mr. Mack said. “It’s the inspiration of the speech rather than the specific content,” he said.

Yes Great One . . . another great showing . . . your superior speaking ability sent shivers down my spine . . .

a mouse infestation at the review office provoked a long exchange about rodent rights — as well as some uncertainty about what Mr. Obama himself thought about the issue at hand.

In dozens of interviews, his friends said they could not remember his specific views from that era, beyond a general emphasis on diversity and social and economic justice.

Yes master . . . you listen to my needs . . . you know who I am and what I want . . . you will give me my deepest desire . . . All will see you as our Savior from . . . um, uh, um  . . . What can you save us from, I didn’t hear that part?

In interviews, Mr. Obama was modest and careful. (In a rare slip, he told The Associated Press: “I’m not interested in the suburbs. The suburbs bore me.”)

I just met a real, live, Obama Republican.

The nurse sent by the life insurance agency was a tall, strong, friendly black man of African descent. He saw the piano in the apartment an immediately asked me to play something.

He proceeded through his sample collection and interview with my wife and part way through asked who I was voting for this election. I said “McCain and Palin”.

He then proceeded to, with great excitement, tell me all the failures of Bush, how inexperienced Palin was, how certain it is that she’ll be president at the imminent demise of McCain due to Melanoma. His only argument for Obama was that he found he responded better to changing circumstances.

He is socially and fiscally conservative, but he’d feel safer with Obama in charge.

I found it hard to believe that on ideology and observation, this good man found he could stomach Obama as a significantly preferential choice to McCain in most aspects of the American Presidency.

He was parroting the talking points I’ve only heard of as they are torn apart on talk radio and my good blog friends. I realized that he believed so strongly in the person of Obama that he’d swallowed his aversion to homosexual “marriage”, abortion, and financial liberty, to follow the train of the ‘messiah’ of our time.

Heh, I had to look up whether it was “vaccum” or “vacuum”… maybe it was “vaccuum”…

Driving home with my wife Wednesday evening, we were discussing political parties and issue importance. While both of us tend to side with the Republican party in our voting, we’ve both supported Democrat candidates at times when they were superior to the Republicans running. However, for me at least, those tended to be local candidates.

Given the current over-all state of American politics, the reason it will take a serious set of circumstances for me to vote for a Democrat, no matter how conservative, in a national election, is that the Democrat party as a whole, a generality, and a unit, supports immoral, unethical, and evil policies which figuratively and literally destroy individuals for the sake of a false ideal of innate human goodness and the hidden goal of concentrated totalitarian power.

While individually there are Democrats who espouse beliefs closer to mine (such as the so-called “Blue-Dog Democrats”) than those of some Republicans, the Democrat party requires loyalty of its members to a set of guidelines which include policies such as Abortion on demand, socialist welfare programs, income redistribution, to name a few.

Conversely, the Republican party platform has strong positions protecting the unborn and extending true human dignity in that way, minimizing socialist welfare programs, lowering taxes to allow me to choose how and where to spend my money.

Even if the individual person may be ideologically closer to my viewpoint than their opponent, the (D) following their name means they must follow at times their party calls. (Exception being Leiberman, the only man with cojones in his Party)

This is one more reason that in elections for national office, I do not foresee myself ever supporting a Democrat.

And if you’re sitting this one out: you’re wrong. With this election our choices are not obscure or difficult. There is the Socialist with the Liar at his side. And while McCain is no shining knight, he’s strong on foreign affairs, national security, and has been trumpeting for changes which would have averted this financial mess for years. And he showed he recognizes the validity of the Conservative position in his choice of Palin.

To sit out is to give up.

I don’t give up.

The second half is mostly fluff, meant to tickle ears.

But the first half is a major difference between him and his current rivals, Clinton and Obama.

McCain on foreign policy:

With McCain having actually won the nomination, free and clear, the real work begins. We must not only convince American conservatives that McCain is a workable choice that we should be willing to put effort into electing, we must also show Americans in general how McCain is so vastly superior a choice for effective and constitutional leadership of America.

To do this there ought to be a “dream team” of the former presidential contenders, working together, giving speeches, stumping for McCain.

I have often thought one of the biggest failures of conservatism is it’s inability to spread it message effectively.

Liberalism has the entire university and college and public school system. It has the media and the combined peer pressure of millions of sheeple living around us.

Conservatism exists because people in the real world, working hard and living on the fruits of their own labor, realize the purpose and power of personal property and the necessity of personal responsibility and moral self-governance.

We need to get this message out, showing incontrovertible proof of the superiority of conservative principles in all of life.

The way we do this without the ‘help’ the left gets for their ideas from bastions of culture, is to make it so accessible and frequent as to be unavoidable by the common masses and our intellectual enemies, those who need more convincing.

This is not politics, this is necessity.

McCain may not be with conservatives on many social issues, but he’s definitely with us on fiscal issues. He’ll at least work hard to keep America from going broke.

Three articles across the internet today highlight the heart of this issue: the willingness of the candidates to spend money which you’ve given them in self-serving pork projects.

Buying votes with your cash.

First, from the Washington Post: Candidates Earmarks Worth Millions:

Working with her New York colleagues in nearly every case, [Sen. Hillary] Clinton [(NY)] supported almost four times as much spending on earmarked projects as her rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.), whose $91 million total placed him in the bottom quarter of senators who seek earmarks, the study showed.

Sen. John McCain (Ariz.), the likely GOP presidential nominee, was one of five senators to reject earmarks entirely, part of his long-standing view that such measures prompt needless spending.

In the Boston Herald (winner of todays Most Absolutely Annoying And Alliterative Headline: Blustering Bubba Blasts Barak for Babbling Baloney) editorial, The Race For Earmarks, the editors note that Hillary sent $342 million to her own constituents, putting her in the top ten porkers. McCain, on the other hand, was against earmarks before that was even beginning to become popular.The porkers which inhabit Washington desire power. It is not altruism which drives them, but instead a compelling desire to get as many people subscribing to their ascendancy by giving them money.

But whose money do they use? Yours.

If it were their money there would not be an issue, except for the ethical implications of graft and cronyism and what they say of the character of the individual engaging in them.

Further insight into the candidates philosophies can be seen in who they get money for:

As a campaign issue, earmarks highlight significant differences in the spending philosophies of the top three candidates. Clinton has repeatedly supported earmarks as a way to bring home money for projects, while Obama adheres to a policy of using them only to support public entities.

McCain is using his blanket opposition to earmarked spending as a regular line of attack against Clinton, even running an Internet ad mocking her $1 million request for a museum devoted to the Woodstock music festival. Obama has been criticized for using a 2006 earmark to secure money for the University of Chicago hospital where his wife worked until last year.

McCain, for his seeming contempt for many social-conservative causes, respects the citizenry enough to protect their investment in government.

It reminds me of the story of Davy Crockett, who, when a disaster struck his home state while he was a member of Congress, and his constituents begged that he send federal money to help the stricken area, said that he would not.

He stated that money spent by the government can only be used in ways which benefit ALL citizens equally.

If only more in the current crop of public megalomaniacs servants would espouse this truism.

But the porkers currently running for the Democrat nomination do not.

The Scheming Communist Operative, Hillary, does what is best for her and only, ever, what is best for her. If this involves giving your money to someone she thinks can pave her way to power, that’s what she does.

The Idyllic Communist, Obama, only gives to “worthy causes”.

The problem is, people (you and I) are much more efficient and effective at getting money to worthy causes:

• We are better at choosing those causes which are actually worthy.
• We’re less likely to be duped in significant numbers and for substantial amounts of money than the government with its fat-handed largess.
• And it doesn’t cost as much for us to get our money to those causes which are worthy, so more money gets to them overall and less is wasted in the endless iterations of bureaucracy.

Hillary is a smart (not intelligent, just smart) and conniving operative with one goal, her own supremacy.

Obama is an intelligent and misguided idealist. He wants to solve all the world problems, but everything he claims for his plans have all been tried before, and failed. Over and over again.

The picture which comes to mind is that of Kranzy October, the Russian Revolution in “Red” October of 1917.

The idealists, mostly young Russians, many of the Jewish Russians seeking a Utopian society free of the perceived inequities of the Tzarist system followed headlong into the dismal black of Communist Russia. The smart ones saw chance of personal aggrandizement and turned coat. Spying on their idealist brethren and reporting false crimes until they were the only ones surviving. Lenin rose to power in this era not through altruism and idealism but through corruption and power-lust, scheming and buying his way to the top.

Hillary is a Lenin-type, while Obama is a type of the dead idealists.

Both are dead wrong in their goals, but each have their own reasons, methods, and paths to achieve the death of our Great Nation.

Obama is not naive, but he is not a leader.

Check his closet for skeletons.

Responding to the article “Huck-a-bust Not Just Romney’s Drumming“, Ryan Scott asks why not Huckabee:

I mean seriously who would want a christian, honest,genuine man to run this country wouldn’t we be a wreck? Plus you provide no proof, but general fallacies that don’t prove anything. I am a christian, and maybe you should rethink your christian stance!!!
May God speak to your heart.
Actual brother in christ,
Ryan Scott

A fair and entirely justified question.

Essentially, in light of the current political landscape: It was one thing, for me, to support Romney. Now, we’re faced with McCain or Huckabee. Given that significant change, why not support Huckabee now?

My response:

I would love an honest genuine Christian man to step up and run this country. That would be amazing.

“You shall know them by their fruits”

Huckabee has history. He’s been around as a public person for a long time. This is a good thing.

We know he is consistent and principled, that he’s been pretty much the same his entire political life.

The problem is, his philosophy of government is incorrect, both by God’s law and America’s Constitution.

God has clearly set up various spheres of responsibility and influence for his various authority structures: State, Church, Family, Individual, etc…

Huckabee does not understand this or has pragmatic reasons, in his own mind, to ignore them.

As such, a government under Huckabee would grow and take and spend more of yours and my money.

Government is rarely, if ever, the answer to societal ills. Government is unwieldy and prone to corruption and deception.

Unscrupulous people are drawn to government because of this.

Huckabee intends well, but his stated intention is wrong and the result will be even worse.

That’s why I do not support Huckabee for president.

McCain is exactly what a GOP that treats the natural moral law as negotiable deserves. The natural law is the philosophical core of conservatism. Any party that abandons or downplays it becomes just another species of liberalism. Most “conservative” positions today are little more than the liberal positions of yesteryear, from Bill Clinton’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy to No Child Left Behind — a PC conservatism that Mitt Romney and McCain perfectly embody.

The American Spectator

From Hugh Hewitt:

Because he is a very good man,  a great conservative and an extraordinary patriot he is standing aside to allow Senator McCain’s national campaign to commence.  There were excellent reasons for Romney to stay in the hunt, including the opportunity to score some impressive victories in places like Ohio, which might have served Romney well in any future campaign.

Romney’s decision to “stand aside,” and especially the reasons he gave just now in his CPAC speech underscore the qualities I found so compelling in him, and confirm for me my decision to support him made many months ago.   Had the conservative movement more quickly recognized these qualities, the coming together around Romney that has occurred in the last few weeks would have assured him the nomination and, I think, the White House.  But it didn’t, and now the task is to assure that Senator McCain succeeds President Bush for the very reasons Mitt Romney outlined today.

I’m sad to see him leave, but he has chosen the right thing.