Take a Step Back

Look past a fairly boring candidate. Look past his poorly and ineffectively run campaign (esp. compared to his opponant). Take away the temptation to see a historical election (first "woman" Vice President).

Take away the hype. Take away the rush of great production tools and speeches. Take away the temptation to only see a historical election (first "black" President).

Sometimes I wonder, are we giving away an Oscar next Tuesday or selecting a leader for the next 4-8 years?

When all is said and done what issues really matter to you? When we take all the rhetoric away take a good look at what their actual positions are (based upon their past) on the issues. And don't let a wish to be a part of something great get in the way of the, sometimes ugly, facts.

Only then will you have a truly honest idea of what their vision will bring to our country.

PLEASE CLICK HERE.

WARNING: Here Ends the Apathy of Ignorance

I am not a "single issue" voter. However, I must admit that I do believe there is a "single issue" that shows the heart and character of a candidate. An issue that shows what kind of foundation (their character and value system) the rest of their positions and decisions will inevitably be based upon. This is not partisan. This transcends party lines.

I would never vote FOR a candidate due to a "single issue." However, PLEASE READ THIS ARTICLE because it will really help explain why I feel we should vote AGAINST someone due to this one particular "single issue."

Whether you read the article or not I implore you to take a moment and watch this. I'm not often for using graphic images to make a point (because it usually won't help). However, if you are truly pro-choice then this shouldn't bother you.

There comes a time when I do feel it is important to show the reality of the rhetoric we hear. There comes a time when we need to say...

Here ends the apathy of ignorance. Here begins the responsibility of knowledge.




UPDATE:

One-Issue Politics, One-Issue Marriage, and the Humane Society
By John Piper

Investigating dog life in Minnesota has solidified my decision to vote against those who endorse the right to abortion. So then what is my response to the charge of being a one-issue voter?

No endorsement of any single issue qualifies a person to hold public office. Being pro-life does not make a person a good governor, mayor, or president. But there are numerous single issues that disqualify a person from public office. For example, any candidate who endorsed bribery as a form of government efficiency would be disqualified, no matter what his party or platform was. Or a person who endorsed corporate fraud (say under $50 million) would be disqualified no matter what else he endorsed. Or a person who said that no black people could hold office—on that single issue alone he would be unfit for office. Or a person who said that rape is only a misdemeanor—that single issue would end his political career. These examples could go on and on. Everybody knows a single issue that for them would disqualify a candidate for office.

It's the same with marriage. No one quality makes a good wife or husband, but some qualities would make a person unacceptable. For example, back when I was thinking about getting married, not liking cats would not have disqualified a woman as my wife, but not liking people would. Drinking coffee would not, but drinking whiskey would. Kissing dogs wouldn't, but kissing the mailman would. And so on. Being a single-issue fiance does not mean that only one issue matters. It means that some issues may matter enough to break off the relationship.

So it is with politics. You have to decide what those issues are for you. What do you think disqualifies a person from holding public office? I believe that the endorsement of the right to kill unborn children disqualifies a person from any position of public office. It's simply the same as saying that the endorsement of racism, fraud, or bribery would disqualify him—except that child-killing is more serious than those.

When we bought our dog at the Humane Society, I picked up a brochure on the laws of Minnesota concerning animals. Statute 343.2, subdivision 1 says, "No person shall...unjustifiably injure, maim, mutilate or kill any animal." Subdivision 7 says, "No person shall willfully instigate or in any way further any act of cruelty to any animal." The penalty: "A person who fails to comply with any provision of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor."

Now this set me to pondering the rights of the unborn. An eight-week-old human fetus has a beating heart, an EKG, brain waves, thumb-sucking, pain sensitivity, finger-grasping, and genetic humanity, but under our present laws is not a human person with rights under the 14th Amendment, which says that "no state shall deprive any person of life...without due process of law." Well, I wondered, if the unborn do not qualify as persons, it seems that they could at least qualify as animals, say a dog, or at least a cat. Could we not at least charge abortion clinics with cruelty to animals under Statute 343.2, subdivision 7? Why is it legal to "maim, mutilate and kill" a pain-sensitive unborn human being but not an animal?

These reflections have confirmed my conviction never to vote for a person who endorses such an evil—even if he could balance the budget tomorrow and end all taxation.

Excerpted from A Godward Life, Book I: Savoring the Supremacy of God in All of Life by John Piper (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Publishers, 1997, pp. 279-280). Used with Permission.

Don't miss my last post but this is important too.

In case you didn't hear...

Secret Service: No One Shouted 'Kill Him' About Obama

Now to the point of this post.

The rage that’s not on your front page

by Michelle Malkin

When a few unruly McCain-Palin supporters show their anger at campaign rallies, it’s national news. It’s an epidemic of “Weimar-like rage” and “violent escalation of rhetoric,” according to New York Times columnist Frank Rich. It’s the “reemergence of the far right as a power in American politics,” according to Washington Post columnist E.J. Dionne. It’s a mass movement of GOP crowds “gripped by insane rage,” according to newly-minted Nobel Prize Winner Paul Krugman.

Too bad they don’t give out global awards for the Blindest Eyes in Punditocracy. We’ve just hit a trifecta.

Are a few activists on the Right getting out of hand? Probably. Between massive ACORN voter fraud, Bill Ayers’ and Jeremiah Wright’s unrepentant hatred of America, and John McCain’s inability to nail Barack Obama on his longtime alliances with all of the above, conservatives have plenty to shout about these days.

But a couple of random catcallers do not a “mob” make. And there’s an overflowing abundance of electoral rage on the Left that won’t make it onto your newspaper’s front page.

Last month on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, a small, brave contingent of McCain supporters marched through the streets with campaign signs. They were met by a menacing horde of New Yorkers who displayed their disapproval with a barrage of jeers and vulgar gestures. (“The number of middle fingers in the ‘progressive” crowd’is directly proportional to the number of PhD degrees in the ten-block radius,” one of the witnesses wryly observed.) A YouTube video of the confrontation now has nearly half a million views (link). But don’t expect to find it on the nightly news. It doesn’t fit the Angry Right narrative.

Neither does the near-riotous reaction of Barack Obama supporters to a McCain/Palin sign in Democrat-dominated Prince George’s County, Maryland. Buried in a back local section, the Washington Post reported this week that “pandemonium” broke loose when an unsuspecting businessman erected a “Country First. McCain/Palin” message on the marquee at his Colony South Hotel & Conference Center.
“Operators of neighborhood e-mail group lists cried foul to their memberships. The NAACP logged calls. Community leaders demanded boycotts of the hotel, a common venue for Democratic events,” the little-noticed article reported. A black professor called the sign “a stink bomb in the middle of the living room” of Obama land. The poor hotel manager, Alan Vahabzadeh, surrendered. “I didn’t even realize it was going to be like this.”

Can’t blame him for missing the fiery hint from Portland, Oregon – where two deranged vandals were arrested after throwing a Molotov cocktail at a McCain yard sign in the middle of the night. Nope, didn’t make it into the columns of Rich, Dionne, or Krugman. Doesn’t fit the Angry Right narrative.

Speaking of “violent escalation of rhetoric” you never hear about:

*Obama supporters in Philadelphia sported “Sarah Parah is a [disgusting vulgarism referring to female genitalia]” t-shirts and yelled “Let’s stone her, old school” over the weekend.

*An Internet artist has designated Palin an “M.I.L.P” – “Mother I’d Like to Punch” – and published a drawing of a man’s fist knocking a tooth out of the Alaska governor’s mouth and the glasses off her face.

*“ABORT Palin” grafitti has sprouted on the sidewalks of Seattle and “Abort Sarah Palin” bumper stickers are spreading on Web stores.

*Sarah Palin-bashing Madonna performs before an audience of thousands, screeching and threatening to “kick her a**.”

*Getty Images publishes a photo of a man pointing a fake gun at the head of a cardboard cutout of Palin on display at the Brooklyn Waterfront Artists Coalition building.

And no one blinks. Not a peep from the Obamedia.

But when Sarah Palin simply spotlights Obama’s longtime relationship with Weather Underground bombing terrorist Bill “We Didn’t Do Enough” Ayers?

“Inciting violence,” frets NBC reporter Ron Allen. “Concerned…for Senator Obama’s safety,” agonizes ABC reporter Terry Moran. “Beyond the pale,” cries Obama campaign manager David Plouffe. As if the no-holds-barred Obama campaign has ever had a rhetorical pale to stake.

All the world’s a Kabuki stage for the selectively outraged over rage.

Creators Syndicate
Copyright 2008

Sen. Obama's $250,000 figure is just plain disingenuous.

Full disclosure: I'm no expert. However, I owned a "small business." I created jobs. I paid taxes. I followed all the rules all the laws and do you know what happened? Let me tell you as briefly and simply as I can.

Did you notice the tense of the word I used earlier? I "owned" a small construction business. The defining reasons we didn't make it is because we refused to hire illegal aliens (trust me I had the chance to and could have paid LESS than min wage as so many businesses do) so our payroll was high. This is why I also have such strong opinions about why illegal aliens lower our wages and ability to grow businesses and jobs. But I will spare you from that discussion. I also had to pay unbelievably high state and federal taxes.

You see, I had a sub-chapter S corp. This meant that my company's income was reported on my personal taxes. Most "small businesses" are like this.

So the $250,000 figure that Sen. Obama and Sen. Biden refer to is just plain disingenuous.

My company, in our first year, made in the six figures. Yep, that's right. That income was reported on my personal taxes. Meaning if my company had made $250,000 or more I would be getting Sen. Obama's tax increase and apparently would have had nothing to worry about because I "could afford it." Frankly that's laughable when you look at the facts.

Now, we can go round and round about this but I hope you can all see that $250,000 doesn't mean your rich and it absolutely DOES include MOST small businesses (especially since most are sub chapter S corp). But that means you have to be upfront and honest about these facts and they have not been. They are even distorting this issue in regards to "Joe the plumber" and his question that lead to Sen. Obama being perhaps a little do candid about his "spread the weath around" philosophy.

Did I personally make six figures....absolutely not. In fact we had to lay off jobs and eventually close our business because we simply could not afford to stay in business if we were going to be honest and follow the laws (i.e. illegal aliens) and then get taxed to death each quarter/year.

So forgive me if I find Sen. Obama's figures not only misleading but a flat out lie meant to distort the facts and play class warfare. There are a lot of people who don't realize what I have shared because they haven't owned a small business. Those of us who have know that Sen. Obama's tax plan will not create jobs, it absolutely will destroy them.

What is going on?!

Barack Obama said that his economic philosophy is to "spread the wealth around."

Ok seriously, I can't even go into why this philosophy is dangerous and against everything we were founded on.

I just don't have it in me tonight. But I will add this:

"Your new tax plan is going to tax me more, isn't it?" the plumber asked, complaining that he was being taxed "more and more for fulfilling the American dream."

"It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too," Obama responded. "My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody ... I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody." CLICK HERE FOR FULL ARTICLE

When are we going to wake up and see what is happening to our country!? Frankly we can thank Pres. Bush and Congress for helping get us used to this before we actually jump head first into a Socialist society and hand all our freedom over to the government.

Obama says, "It's not that I want to punish your success. I just want to make sure that everybody who is behind you, that they've got a chance for success too." That's great but not at my expense without my permission - that's robbery!!

Pursuit of happiness. Sound familiar?! PURSUIT not GUARANTEE!!! Are we losing our minds!