This was written in response to a blog from a friend who voted for Obama and is now calling for America to not be a nation of blue or red states, but a nation of purple states.  I have added some extra thoughts at the end of it as well.

I agree that it is just a fact that we have a new president and need to deal with it. It just is easier said than done. I’ve spent most of the day thinking this over, and yes, I do respect the office of President, so yes, I will, to the best of my ability, try to respect the man who holds the office. He is, after all, my president now. He deserves my support (particularly when our country is dealing with any enemies that might want to bring us harm) and my prayers, and this is what he will receive.

But when I disagree with the man, which is sure to be often, I will be loud, and I will be vocal. There is nothing fair about people receiving aid from forced taxation on a particular segment of the population, regardless of how much money they make. In this country, we are promised life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The “pursuit” of happiness. Not guaranteed happiness. We are free to pursue, to chase after, success and well-being and financial peace, but none of that is promised to us. Maybe many people believe it should be, and that is why we are seeing a trend towards socialism and Marxism, but I still believe in a free, capitalistic, democratic republic. That is how our country was founded, and that, I believe, is how our country should remain. Karl Marx said, “Democracy is the road to socialism,” and it makes perfect sense to me that it will go that way, but I will disagree with it until the day I die. And I hope that people will continue to fight against it. Obama’s tax cuts may benefit me and others like me, but I am not poor, and I certainly do not deserve any money from others just because they make more than I do. You don’t either, and neither does anyone else who will be on the receiving end of the redistribution of wealth that is sure to come. I am never going to feel differently about this.

I also will never feel differently about the fact that abortion is murder and that by passing the Freedom of Choice Act (if Obama keeps his promise to Planned Parenthood), Obama will undo one of the very best things President Bush did during his time in office (with the partial-birth abortion ban). It saddens me beyond belief to think that we are just one or two Supreme Court justices away from being able to do something about Roe v. Wade and will maybe have that chance taken away if any conservative justices die or retire during Obama’s term, but it saddens me to a much greater extent to know that we live in a country that will not, as a whole, come together to protect the most helpless and most vulnerable beings among us. Maybe that is because many (or most?) people do not view the unborn as living human beings, but as it is my belief that life begins at conception, I hope you can understand my point of view on this. Each year, many more Americans are killed through abortion than through starvation due to not being able to afford food. People may be in hard times, and I do believe we should help them (Jesus commanded this), but I believe preserving life, as that was one of the things promised to us in the beginning of this country (as it is a gift from our Creator), should take precedence over any other issue or effort.

I hope, to some extent we can again become purple states. I really do. But it is a little hard to hear that right now from someone who wanted Obama to win so badly … particularly since pretty much everyone who wanted Obama to win so badly could not bring themselves to help us be purple states prior to this. The “come together” message, if meant, should have been something people were urging because they feel it is the right thing to do, regardless of who is in office … not because their party has finally taken control of the country.

If unity is to occur, I think, at this point, the initiative is going to have to come from the conservatives of this country. Any calls for unity from those who have done nothing but deride and lambaste our President for the last eight years is going to sound like nails on a chalkboard to conservatives for now. I have not always agreed with the man, and he has not been nearly as conservative as I would have liked him to be (regarding size of government and government staying out of our affairs), but Bush was OUR President too, whether we always agreed with him or not. And, regardless of what the majority believes, he has done a lot of good things for our nation as well.  Please understand that unity may not come quickly or as fully as you would like, but that I, for one, will try to do this. We are all Americans … just like we were all Americans right after September 11th. I wish we could have stayed that way then, but maybe, somehow, we can find that kind of unity again (though that’s not to say we will necessarily ever be accepting of ideas with which we don’t agree). In addition to praying for President-Elect Obama, this is also something for which I will be praying.

And I will also be praying for our nation to turn to God again.  Unity at the expense of righteousness will never succeed.  And please understand that I do not mean that our country has instantly turned away from God BECAUSE we elected Obama.  But I do believe that for many years now—decades, even—our country has been turning further and further from God, even as more and more people claim to be Christians.  And I think, as a nation, we’ve been collectively seeing the effect of God withdrawing His hand from us.  This is the pattern seen all throughtout the Bible.  As the nation of Israel turned away from God, He withdrew His blessings from them and even let them suffer.  When they turned to God, His blessings returned.  That is not to say we can manipulate God’s blessings, but it is to say that He blesses those whom He chooses to bless, and the Bible makes it pretty clear that, in most cases, He blesses those who seek Him and follow His ways.  This is all kind of an aside note because I do not believe God supports Republicans or Democrats or Libertarians or any other party, but I do believe that God cares about our direction as a nation, particularly since we still flippantly refer to ourselves as a “nation under God.”  Under God’s omniscient eye, yes.  But under God’s blessing for our nation, as a whole?  I don’t think we’ve completely lost it, but I think we’re headed that way.

Before I begin, I want to be up front about the fact that I did not come up with this comparison on my own, but I want to try to share it with you in my own words.

First, a few questions:

  1. Do you believe that slavery is OK?
  2. Would you ever consider voting for a candidate who did believe that slavery was OK, whether or not he or she could actually bring it back as a source of labor in this country, if that candidate also proposed and could provide  an amazing healthcare plan, an amazing tax plan, or an abundance of new jobs?  Why or why not?
  3. Would you be willing to have a better health plan, pay lower taxes, or have a better job if it meant that certain other people would have to become slaves?
  4. Do you believe that life begins at conception?
  5. Do you believe that abortion is OK?
  6. Would you ever consider voting for a candidate who did believe that abortion was OK, knowing that he or she could definitely eliminate all restrictions on abortions, if that candidate also proposed and could provide an amazing healthcare plan, an amazing tax plan, or an abundance of new jobs?  Why or why not?
  7. Would you be willing to have a better health plan, pay lower taxes, or have a better job if it meant that even more babies were going to be exposed to abortion procedures, including now-forbidden partial birth abortions?

Now, I don’t know for sure how you answered these questions, but my guess is that MOST people would absolutely be appalled at the idea of any candidate who approves of slavery and would want to bring it back.  Well, there are plenty of people out there (and you might be one of them) who believe that abortion is wrong but are willing to vote for a candidate proposing to overturn all restrictions on abortion because they have decided they will not be one-issue voters.  They generally approve of his stance on the other issues and are willing to overlook the abortion issue.

If you believe that life begins at conception, there can be no greater issue for you.  We are talking about human life here … more specifically, the termination of human life on a grand scale.  Murder, to put it more bluntly.  At least that’s what it is if you really believe life begins at conception.

I used to be one of those voters who decided that if the abortion issue was the only problem I had with a candidate, maybe I wasn’t being fair by not considering all of the other issues at hand in the election.

I can’t view it like that any longer.  I could never approve of slavery, and I, most certainly, could never approve of abortion.  And Barack Obama has said that the very first thing he’ll do upon taking office is to pass the Freedom of Choice Act.  This would effectively remove all restrictions on abortions … even the graphically violent partial-birth abortions.

Now, I’m not going to pretend that I think Obama’s ideas on the rest of the issues are correct.  I don’t think they are, and I think he is wrong on just about everything.  But I know many of you do believe he is right on many things.  That is fair.  But I REALLY want you to consider this ONE issue—the issue of life—and I want you to consider whether you can vote for a person whose moral conscience does not tell him that abortion is wrong … that the taking of a human life is wrong.

Please.  Consider it.

Barbara West, of one of my hometown local TV stations (WFTV) in Central Florida, asks Biden the questions that he and Obama SHOULD be getting asked!  This is what the rest of the mainstream media is willfully ignoring!  I think I have a new hero.  Check it out:

I just want to share an excerpt from Neal Boortz’s treatise, To the Undecided Voter:

There’s a quote that’s been floating around since I began my talk radio career. This quote is most often attributed to someone named Alexander Tyler writing in 1787 about the fall of the Athenian Republic. Others have said the guy’s name was Tytler. Let’s not argue spelling right now … let’s just get to the quote, because the quote goes to the heart of this presidential election:

“A democracy is always temporary in nature; it simply cannot exist as a permanent form of government. A democracy will continue to exist up until the time that voters discover that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates who promise the most benefits from the public treasury, with the result that every democracy will finally collapse due to loose fiscal policy, which is always followed by a dictatorship.”

Think about this, my friends. Isn’t this exactly what we’re seeing right now? In fact, hasn’t this pretty much been the theme of Democrat Party election politics for nearly as long as you can remember? Here we have Barack Obama promising that he’s only going to raise taxes on the evil rich who make over $250,000 a year while 95% of Americans will get tax cuts. Think of this in terms of votes; higher taxes for 5% of the voters, lower taxes for the other 95%. It really doesn’t take all that much brainpower to figure out how this is going to work at in an election does it? You take money away from the people whose votes you don’t need, and give it to the people whose votes you do need. So very simple. The result is that people have, in fact, discovered that they can vote themselves generous gifts from the public treasury. Who is promising those wonderful goodies? That would be Barack Obama. Just what percentage of voters out there do you think are going to vote for Obama simply because he is promising them someone else’s money? My guess is that the number would be high enough to constitute the margin of victory for The Great Redistributionist.

Somehow I had this idea when I was growing up that if you wanted something bad enough, you would work hard until you got it. That was then. This is now. Now you vote for it. That’s change you can believe in.

Can’t you see that the end is in sight and that there is no light at the end of this tunnel? A vote for Barack Obama is a vote to end the democratic republic as we’ve always known it and, perhaps, to end it completely.

To begin their article titled Powell endorses Obama on Politico.com, Mike Allen and Jonathan Martin write, “Retired Gen. Colin L. Powell, one of the country’s most respected Republicans, stunned both parties Sunday by strongly endorsing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) for president on NBC’s ‘Meet the Press’ and laying out a blistering, detailed critique of the modern GOP.”

I’m not sure why they think so many people were stunned by this endorsement.  He has been praising Obama since at least early summer, so this, to me, just seemed like the voicing of the inevitable.  I think most people who pay attention to political news saw this coming from a mile away.  I could be wrong, but I’m not exaggerating when I say I haven’t heard anybody besides the writers of this article talk about this as if it was a big surprise.

What surprised me a little bit was his reasoning for endorsing Obama.  I have always respected Powell and thought that he was really a stand-up guy who really believed in conservatism and the ideals of the Republican Party (not to be confused with where the Republican Party is today), so I was shocked when I saw that the reasons he gave for endorsing Obama contained almost no substance whatsoever.  According to the article, he said the election of Obama would “electrify the world” and that Obama “is a transformational figure” and “a new generation coming … onto the world stage and on the American stage.”  He then said that this is why he was endorsing Obama.  He also said:

And I come to the conclusion that because of his ability to inspire, because of the inclusive nature of his campaign, because he is reaching out all across America, because of who he is and his rhetorical abilities — and you have to take that into account — as well as his substance — he has both style and substance, he has met the standard of being a successful president, being an exceptional president.

I’m not sure what substance he is talking about, but Obama definitely has rhetorical abilities.  He can talk and talk and talk.  Unfortunately, he doesn’t ever seem to tell us how he’s going to accomplish anything.  That Powell was drawn in by this rhetoric really disappoints me.

He also said that he thinks John McCain made the wrong decision in picking Sarah Palin as his running mate and that he doesn’t feel she is ready to become the president.  He doesn’t feel she is experienced enough; yet, he is fine with Obama being president.  Something is just not right with that picture.  Powell has said that his endorsement has nothing to do with race, but I think Rush Limbaugh might have been on to something when he said:

Secretary Powell says his endorsement is not about race.  OK, fine. I am now researching his past endorsements to see if I can find all the inexperienced, very liberal, white candidates he has endorsed. I’ll let you know what I come up with.

The fact of the matter is that Obama, in many ways, has even less experience than Palin.  He does not know what it is like to be the Commander-In-Chief of anything; she, on the other hand, has been the governor of a state, which is an executive branch position.  Each of them has different types of experience, but to discredit Palin while endorsing Obama reeks of hypocrisy.  I seriously doubt anybody who becomes a president for the first time is fully prepared for the job upon assuming the office.  If the issue is Palin’s lack of foreign policy experience, then I guess we should have dismissed Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton, as well.

Finally, in what is perhaps the most disappointing statement made by Powell on Meet the Press, he said, “I would have difficulty with two more conservative appointments to the Supreme Court, but that’s what we’d be looking at in a McCain administration.”  Seriously?  Was he ever a conservative?  I really wonder why he wanted to be a member of the Republican Party in the first place.  I’ve heard some people say that his endorsement of Obama is a way for him to protect his legacy after the association he had with the Bush administration.  Powell was the one who delivered, in detail, the information on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  He made the case for why we needed to go in there, and now he feels like he was used as scapegoat to get us into the war, since we did not end up finding the weapons that he said were there.  I think he feels betrayed by the Bush administration, and he feels like his reputation was greatly harmed in the process.  So by endorsing Obama, who is largely believed to be unstoppable in his quest to make history as the nation’s first black president, I believe Powell sees an opportunity for a kind of redemption.  If Obama wins, he will forever be associated with his endorsement for Obama, and a large number of people will once again look upon him favorably.  But the fact that he has so abandoned the Republican Party, to the point of not wanting more Republicans on the Supreme Court (which is something that pretty much EVERY Republican wants), is really a shame.  I just don’t know what has happened to him.

Maybe I was duped.  I’ve heard people say he wasn’t ever very conservative, and if that is the case, I was, in fact, mistaken about him all along.  I, along with many other people, really wanted him to run for president in 2000, but he claimed he wasn’t interested.  All things considered, if he really isn’t conservative, I guess that was for the best after all.

So now he can put on his blue coat and ride in upon the donkey as his decision to endorse Obama is celebrated by Democrats far and  wide.  If Obama wins, I think he probably will be looked upon favorably by a large number of people in this country, so, to that end, maybe he will be happy.  But when our country turns to socialism, the economy starts to falter, and our Constitution is largely ignored or interpreted as a “living document,” I hope he at least takes the time to reflect upon what this movement he has now joined is really all about.

Ohio secretary of state must verify registrations

Thank goodness SOMEBODY finally did the right thing in Ohio.  Terry Kinney of the Associated Press writes:

“Plaintiffs assert, and the court agrees, that it is hard to imagine a public interest more compelling than safeguarding the legitimacy of the election of the president of the United States,” [U.S. District Judge George C.] Smith wrote in his ruling.

Brunner also was ordered to establish a process by which Ohio’s 88 county election boards can access information generated by the checks.

Residents registering to vote must provide their name, address, date of birth and either their driver’s license number or the last four digits of their Social Security number.

But Ohio’s Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner is still trying to weasel around this:

Brunner has said the state matches registration information against data in the Bureau of Motor Vehicles system and the Social Security database. But she also has said federal law doesn’t say what should be done if a mismatch is discovered, and it is up to counties to check the system for flagged registrations and investigate if warranted.

So there will be no state-enforced investigations into mismatches.  By saying that the federal government doesn’t indicate what to do in cases of mismatches, it sounds to me as if she is saying she found a loophole that will allow her to still do whatever she wants in the cases of actual voter fraud.  It should be common sense that if a mismatch occurs, that means something is wrong.  Brunner seems to be playing coy, and it seems like she is willing to play dumb if confronted about not dealing with the situation (e.g. “Oh, was that supposed to matter?  I didn’t realize anything was wrong, and I was never instructed to do anything in the case of a mismatch.”)

Hopefully, state Republicans will continue to pursue this matter and will not allow this to happen.  If it is up to the individual counties to decide what to do with mismatches, then I hope Republicans get out there and make sure they are working at the polling centers and paying attention to what is going on.

Ohio is an important state, a swing state.  If it legitimately goes to Obama, that’s fine.  But those who would use underhanded methods to help secure his victory must not be allowed to succeed.

Tuesday night, I went and stood outside of the Curb Event Center at Belmont University to see if I could catch a glimpse of John McCain, Barack Obama, or anyone else with some degree of fame who might be attending the debate.  Upon my arrival on the scene, I was dismayed by the overwhelming number of Obama supporters marching around with their T-shirts, signs, stickers,  and baked goods (being sold with profits going toward Obama’s campaign).  There were also at least three different booths set up in very close proximity to one another, and while I expected at least one of them to be selling McCain T-shirts and other paraphernalia, that wasn’t the case.  They were all for Obama as well.  And that’s OK, albeit a bit disappointing.  I mean, the enthusiasm for Obama seemed a little maniacal at times (it kind of reminded me of the scene from the movie Independence Day where all of the new age zealots gather in the desert to await the arrival of the aliens like it is some kind of second coming—Obamessiah, anyone?), but I guess some of that is to be expected at times.  For the most part, though excited and sometimes boisterous, the people were respectful and did not do anything that might mar Obama’s image.

Excepting myself and my significant other, I saw maybe about ten to twelve people who seemed to be for McCain.  The McCain supporters were rather subdued and probably just felt a little overwhelmed in that sea of Obama supporters.

Then came those in favor of third parties the crazies.  Now don’t get me wrong.  I’m in favor of people considering third parties.  I, myself, am very interested in the campaign for Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party (though I still haven’t made up my mind how I will vote on November 4th), but being for a third party candidate does not mean you have to act like a lunatic.  Now, it is anyone’s right to act like a lunatic and say whatever he / she wants to say, but I just don’t think doing so accomplishes very much in the way of winning people to a certain cause.  If anything, I think it turns people off.

The Green Party people came along dressed in green hardhats and various other kinds of green attire.  Many wore green T-shirts, but at least one or two guys were shirtless and with only a green cape flowing behind them.  They also had various accessories with them, such as pots and pans, but I do not really know the purpose for these items as I didn’t really see them getting used very much.  The greenies marched around back and forth behind us, chanting and yelling out various slogans, sometimes all of them in unison in a militant kind of way.  Looked a little crazy, but they were relatively tame.  Still, appearing crazy usually isn’t a great way to win people to one’s cause.

A little while after the Green Party entered the scene, a group, seemingly formed in support of all third-party candidates, came marching onto the scene.  They weren’t wearing any kind of a uniform like the Green Party people, but they were much louder, more rambunctious, and on the scene in much larger numbers.  The ringleader pulled out a megaphone and for the next hour and a half or so, he proceeded to very loudly denounce the two-party system and to rail against both of the candidates involved in it.  In a different setting, with people willing to listen to his points, such a thing might not be so bad as there is no harm in trying to change people’s minds.  But the sheer mania and obnoxious tone behind his ranting could not have been anything but a major annoyance to everyone who could hear him.  I am in favor of considering third-party candidates, but I could not not help but wish that the police (who were on the scene en masse at times) would either come and haul him off or at least shoot a little tear gas into the crowd (yes, I would have been hit too, but for the sake of shutting that loudmouth on the megaphone down, I think I would have been willing to take one for the team).

To make matters worse, this group wasn’t just promoting third-party candidates.  In addition to ineffectively promoting the third-party candidates and denouncing the two-party system, a number of the people in this group were also yelling about how our government was directly responsible for causing the 9/11 attacks.  It was at this point that I lost any respect I may have had left for what these people were trying to accomplish.  People are free to believe what they want to believe, but conspiracy theorism usually just makes them look crazy to the general public.  I’ve seen the videos telling about how 9/11 was an inside job, and while they are put together to weave a convincing tale that would make Michael Moore proud, I just don’t buy it.  I don’t believe most Americans buy it.  The people that do believe this almost always are the one who think President Bush is an imbecile, and yet they also believe that he was the mastermind behind the worst attack on the U.S. mainland in our nation’s history.  And of all of the many people who would have to be involved in such a conspiracy, I don’t believe it could be kept a secret for very long.

Then, from this same group, there were the chants of, “ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR—WE DON’T NEED YOUR F%#%ING WAR!”  It continued on to a “FIVE, SIX, SEVEN, EIGHT” section, but I can’t remember how that one went.  They repeated it over and over again, and when a couple of people asked them to tone it down because they had their kids with them, the group just decided to yell even louder—to the point that you could hear the rasping strain in some of their voices as they were actually yelling as loudly as they could.

Maybe this approach actually works on some people, but I really do not believe it works on the vast majority of people.  At this particular gathering, it really just seemed like virtually all of the people in the crowd to whom they were preaching were completely annoyed by them.  One young Obama supporter couldn’t help but yell back at them about the greatness of Obama every time they would make some kind of a claim about how the two-party system is running our country into the ground, but for the most part the group was not directly confronted.

The third-party movement is a good thing, but radicalism is not the way to move it forward.  While he was still contending for the Republican nomination during the primary process, Ron Paul pleaded with his supporters to be respectful and not do anything that would make him or the cause which he represents to look bad.  Unfortunately, I’m guessing the same people that disregarded his call for respectful representation of the Ron Paul Revolution are the ones now drawing attention to their radical displays of anger toward and rebellion against the two-party system.

It is OK to be angry.  It is OK to stand up against the establishment.  But acting out in a radical fashion in the middle of a public gathering likely isn’t going to do anything but get a crowd riled up, unless those in that crowd are of the same belief as you.  And even then, the radicalism itself could be a turn off (as it was for me).

As Susan Powter used to always say, “STOP THE INSANITY!”

Talk to people.  Don’t yell at them and act crazy.

All in all, as ridiculous and nettlesome as all of it was at times, it was definitely an experience, and one in which I’m glad I was able to participate.  It’s not every day that a presidential debate takes place in one’s city of residence (well, at least, not in mine), so to witness much of what goes along with such an event was definitely interesting.

Oh, and I never did see McCain or Obama.  They must have gone in another entrance (can’t imagine why, what with the crowd’s behavior—I’m still surprised we didn’t get teargassed).  We did catch a glimpse of Nashville’s mayor Karl Dean, Tim McGraw, and Faith Hill rolling up for the event, however.

  • RSS Bible Gateway Verse of the Day

    • 2 Corinthians 10:17-18
      “But, “Let the one who boasts boast in the Lord.” For it is not the one who commends himself who is approved, but the one whom the Lord commends.”
  • August 2017
    S M T W T F S
    « Nov    
     12345
    6789101112
    13141516171819
    20212223242526
    2728293031  
  • Archives

  • Categories

  • $700 billion 2008 election abortion antwaan randle el back pain bailout barack obama belmont belmont university bengals biden bush christian cincinnati congress conservative conservatives constitution party debate democrat democratic party Democrats election election '08 fantasy football football funny george bush homeless house jennifer brunner jesus joe biden john mccain karl marx liberal liberalism liberals marx mccain murder nashville neck pain news obama ohio pain palin paul politics president president bush radical republican republicans ron paul sarah palin second presidential debate secretary of state senate senators shoulder pain socialism socialist socialists spread the wealth state fair steve slaton stock market subprime mortgages supreme court tennessee third party candidates titans voter fraud
  • Recent Comments

    Levitigus on Do you approve of slavery? Wou…
    vino blanco on Biden’s Bloopers and Pra…
    Maura on Biden’s Bloopers and Pra…
    Tim on My thoughts after election…
    meggo on My thoughts after election…
  • Blog Stats

    • 8,168 hits
  • Meta