Let's Be Honest Here!

With McCain's decidedly liberal positions on the pro-life issue and immigration, taxes and free speech, I think this little sketch is appropriate.




If McCain is the nominee, I'm facing the possibility that the Republican Party is leaving it's faithful. Grandpa John is like Dole - just more liberal, angrier, and more coarse and mean. Although an American hero based on his service in the past (like Kerry), he's certainly not the best candidate.

Rush Limbaugh is not News

Rush Limbaugh is not news. What is news is the loss of common sense and dignity in Congress.

Congress, the current Democratic Congress, has the lowest approval rating of any Congress in the history of the United States. They are rivaling the kind of demagoguery and outright partisanship for their own selfish ambitions that led to the Civil War. This Congress can be compared to the Pre-Civil War Congress where they were so morally weak and indecisive that they allowed the "Great Compromise" - that some states should be slave states and some should be free. I fear that we could be on the edge of another civil war with such incompetent and self serving leadership.

On both sides, we have clear and open evidence of pettiness, viciousness, corruption, bribery and sexual perversion. When the top leaders of our country act like animals, selfish children and whiny brats – attempting to screw strangers in public bathroom stalls, hiding money in freezers, using native Americans for their own corrupt political purposes, sleeping and drooling and ranting on public TV the American public knows its time for a change. (I’ll let you guess who they are. They are from both sides of the House and Senate and they have one thing in common – they love themselves and money more than they love the American they are hired to serve and defend.)

Most in Congress on both sides have an attitude of extreme treachery toward the very military THEY desperately need to keep their "candy asses" from being blown sky high on the way to work. The Carpetbagger from New York is using her senatorial office for no other reason than to run for president (and yes, she'll probably win - I believe the American people are overall just that stupid). Under this current Congress, which has put off any meaningful debate about illegal aliens and protection of our homeland, murderous illegal aliens can get more health and government benefits than a Hardworking US citizen who has paid their dues all their life, it is possible that freedom is not just being eroded, but is being destroyed.

In our country, we have laws - Don't murder. Don't steal. Don't lie.. The list goes on. But then we have our Congress and our political leaders decrying the "Two Americas", where, in reality, "if you are rich and famous you can break all the laws you want, maybe write a book, and get a ton of cash for it. But woe to you if you are a poor person of color! One false step and you are going down for 20 years because you felt sorry for yourself one day and just had to steal a bike.

According to God's Word, the true sign of the end times is that people would be evil, and this is how we would know what evil is - very simply: people would be lovers of themselves, and call what is evil good and what is good evil. I believe our Congress is in that camp and that they should all resign. Every last one of them. When people who represent our freedoms sacrifice them for their own power lust and personal ambition, are we really safe?

Another Massachusetts Moonbat

A very wise and well known religious figure told us "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks." I find this is a wonderful guide for judging our leaders.

Recently, one of our Congressmen put his brain on hold and spewed forth what was in his heart. John Olver D-Massachusetts described Republicans in this way - "They are nihilists. They are jihadists."

What inspired this vitriol? Here is part of the article from CQ.com:

This year’s appropriations tug-of-war between a new majority in Congress and a president of the opposing party does not appear to be headed for a government shutdown, but a rhetorical taboo was lifted when the word became part of the partisan message of the moment.

“The obvious plan of the Democrats is to not do appropriations bills but put everything together in a giant omnibus appropriations bill in a kind of legislative blackmail with all of the policy and increased spending, to in effect threaten the president to either sign the bill or be accused of shutting down the government,” Sen. Jon Kyl of Arizona, the chairman of the Republican Conference, said Wednesday.

President Bush has threatened to veto seven appropriations bills because together they would exceed his discretionary spending limit by more than $20 billion.

Congressional veterans are certain the two sides are headed for a whopper of a fight over a catchall, omnibus appropriations bill.

Democratic leaders insist, however, that they really want separate bills to pass and that they prefer to avoid an omnibus.

“That is not our intention at all,” said Senate Majority Whip Richard J. Durbin, D-Ill. “If they want to cooperate with us and bring the bills to the floor, we have six or seven bills that have cleared committee. We’re ready to move.”

So, because Republicans won't bend over and take the Democrat koolaid on spending, Olver thinks they are Jihadists? What an ignorant man. Here is his voting record as a Representative. Here's more on his voting record. He's also been a Representative since 1991 - that makes him a poster child for term limits, too!

Here is something else John Olver believes:

He is deeply concerned whether we will actually have an election in Nov. '08, as he believes this administration will likely strike Iran from the air, declare a national emergency, and cancel the '08 elections.

Moonbat, anyone??

Do you ever feel sorry for the citizens of Massachusetts? They have Kennedy, Kerry, ......and Olver!

Radiant

Careless???

Former President Jimmy Carter has recently described the Bush administration as "the worst in history" which lead to a White House response that Carter was becoming "increasingly irrelevant."

Now Carter claims his words were "perhaps careless or misinterpreted." Careless? Probably. Misinterpreted? I don't think so. Those who claim their words were "misinterpreted" when what they said was clear as day were surely "careless."

The problem with "careless" words is that usually come from the true heart of a person.

John Kerry's words were misinterpreted when he "botched" a joke. How many really believe it was a joke? Pat Robertson's words have been "misinterpreted"

Sheikh Taj al-Din al-Hilaly , the "Australian Mufti", claimed he was "misinterpreted" when he said women who do not cover themselves bring rape upon themselves and said they were "uncovered meat."

Jesus said "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" Luke 6:45 We can't help it. What comes out of our mouths is a true representation of what is in our hearts. When men and women are careless in their speech, they are speaking the most truth - sometimes to their chagrin.

Here's the MSNBC article about Carter's backtracking.

Democrats doing the flip flop again

On October 11, 2002, the Democrats voted to go to war with Iraq. They had been given all the intelligence information available. They knew of Saddam Hussein's continued defiance of the UN resolutions against him and his country. There was a list of 23 reasons to come into conflict with Iraq on the Iraq War Resolution. Nobody fooled them into this. Their words and reasons for choosing to do battle with Iraq are very well documented. Reid, Kerry, Clinton, Schumer, Biden and the rest of the Donkey Crew all were enthusiastic in their support for the war.

Now, leading Democrats are trying to say they did not mean to vote the way they did.

The enemy is still the same and just as fierce (yeah, yeah, Saddam is out of the way) The threat to our nation is still there, and these politicians think they can run away from a war they approved with a few little non binding resolutions, and the threat of pulling out all the purse strings.

What do the Democrats want? Would they be happy to see us lose? Haven't they the foresight to know that if we lose because of their spite for all things Republican, that they will lose even more? Do the Democrats know they might incite another, worse, conflict at their doorstep. The price for such a temporary victory would be people crying "peace, peace when there is no peace".

When Democrats run as Republicans and Republicans run as Democrats

What would really be political news?

Something most are trying to ignore. Democrats are running on Republican issues to gain votes, and Republicans are running on Democrat issues to gain votes. This causes fusion of the moderates of both political parties, and not a little confusion.

Take the election last November. The Democrats who were successful in taking Republican seats ran on predominately conservative issues - cut taxes, strong on defense, pro-business, and one or two were actually anti-abortion. While Republicans were running on conventional democratic issues - socialized medicine, pro-government entitlements, the raising of the minimum wage and anti-war positions.

Here are two articles from the midterm election season before the election that discuss this:

In Key House Races, Democrats Run to the Right

Republicans Running As Democrats

Who did this benefit? Well, the Democrats, for sure! And it says a lot about Americans in general. Average Americans are neither far right or far left in their political views. They usually vote for someone who is similar to them and who makes them feel safe. They want someone in elected office who is fair and reasonable and able to meet their personal needs.

Now, who in this presidential race is leaning in which direction? Let's look at the major contenders for the 2008 Presidential race:

On the Republican Side: John McCain, Mitt Romney, Rudy Guiliani

On the Democrat Side: Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, John Edwards, Bill Richardson

The rest, discounting the possibility of a dark horse candidate, are small potatoes and will probably be eliminated in the primaries - not because they are bad candidates, but simply because they don't have the money or the political organization behind them.

Let's examine the candidate list more closely based on prior political history.

John McCain, who tags himself as a conservative, is, in fact, politically a Democrat. So much so that John Kerry DID ask him to be his vice-presidential running mate during Kerry's failed bid for the presidency. The likely reason McCain turned Kerry down was not that he was not interested, but that he wanted to run for the presidency himself. His pro-tax and spend attitude, and deliberate votes against the Bush tax cuts (while flip-floppingly voting to extend them) speak for themselves.

Mitt Romney was pro-abortion before he was anti-abortion. What is more confusing is his stance for or against gay marriage. This has him at odds with conservative groups all across the country. How else would a Republican be elected as Governor of Massachusetts! Goodness!!!!
Note, the art of flip-flopping has been honed to perfection in that state!

Rudy Guiliani never saw a tax he didn't like, but we should forgive him since he is from New York and can't help it . He is openly pro-choice and very liberal. Despite his left leaning views, he will probably become the Republican nominee and will probably be elected because we like to choose a president to keep us safe, and Guilani has proven himself as a leader in post-9/11 New York. The man is gifted and articulate in speech craft and is a likable human being. (unlike a nameless former presidential candidate that had a "plan" but no answers!)

Now it's time to skewer the Democratic hopefuls.

Hillary Clinton leaned conservatively in several issues but recently has been leaning more to the left to appease the radical elements of her party. She carefully researched and voted for the Iraq war before she decided to change her mind to please the Cindy Sheehan branch of her party. In the early days of her Senate career, she voted very conservatively on immigration.
If she wants the conservative vote, she is going to have to become even more centrist. (Or start praying in a Baptist Church - no, she just has to be seen praying in a Baptist church.)


Barak Obama - Well, what's to say about him? He's good looking and well spoken. If you are a Democrat, you really should vote for this guy. Not only does he totally toe the social-democrat line, but if he gets in office he will change the United States into a leftist socialist utopia that Hugo Chavez would stand up and salute.

John Edwards is the pretty boy in the bunch. Nice teeth, too. Why is he even running? He could not even carry his own state (then again, neither could Gore). And his repetitive "Two Americas" stump campaign is true - His American ,which is super wealthy,......and the rest of us wage slaves. His only advantage is that he holds the keys of the "plan" of the nameless failed presidential candidate!

Then there's Bill Richardson. He is the only Democratic governor that actually cut taxes. He did this for the people of New Mexico before he decided to run for President because he knew it would be best for his state. He was right. Economically, New Mexico is a pro business and pro growth state, and jobs abound here. He's been pro education, the roads are superior, he has used justice and common sense in the Immigration situation, and would have been a tremendous asset if Bush had not been so stubborn concerning a reliable and compassionate guest worker program. Although he will allow abortion to continue as the established law of the land, there is an aggressive pro abstinence program in New Mexico, and funding so women who choose to keep their babies can have reasonable options.

Richardson is very eloquent, and I believe he would decimate Hillary Clinton in open debate based on his personal integrity, experience and character alone. He is the true moderate of all the candidates, and is more conservative than the top Republican contenders for the office of president. He only lacks the money and the political machinery to have a fair contest against Hilary Clinton. This is a David and Goliath story - the Clinton machine being the Goliath. Richardson can win if he can get his message out. Good thing he has name recognition. Many Christian Conservatives, given a choice between left leaning Republicans Guiliani or Romney vs. right leaning Democrat Richardson, would discover, with chagrin, themselves voting Democrat.

We look forward to the upcoming political contest. What we want is a good man or woman to be President, and the American people would like (not that we are going to get) someone that is honest and effective as a leader.


Here is a Blog that will tell you more about this man. Better than I can tell you, any day.

Americans for Richardson

People should take a careful look at Bill Richardson as the next President of the United States because he is the very best Democrat running as a stealth Republican that we have ever seen.