Obama, the Messiah

I know Obama is a racist, a liar, a bigot, a crook and a socialist. Nothing new there. (Proof: racist - multiple insulting stereotyping comments in his books, liar - any one of a number of lies such as his promise to use public funds for his campaign, bigot - his clinging to guns and bibles comments, crook - number 2 recipient of fannie mae money etc. , socialist - his spread someone else's wealth comments) But so is McCain, and most other politicians. But I have never seen a candidate built up as a Messiah before. I had heard this on some talk shows etc. but it wasn't until I actually looked at the Obama website that I fully realized it.

I read about Obama's tax plans since I make more than the ever-shrinking amount above which I will be allowed to share my wealth with the rest of you scum. Over and over, the website says "Obama will" do such-and-such. Typically, there is a modicum of modesty in these kinds of things. Something like 'Senator Obama will work with Congress to change your taxes'. That kind of thing, noting that there are other people in government besides Obama. But not on Obama's site. "Obama will ask the wealthiest 2% of families to give back a portion of the taxes they have received over the past eight years to ensure we are restoring fairness and returning to fiscal responsibility." Never mind that this is obfuscation of the highest order and an incredibly insulting and twisted way of making it look like raising my taxes (but not yours) is fair. Never mind that the money is mine - not the government's - and that lower tax rates are not the government giving me money (unlike the majority of you bums reading this who are on the dole via bogus disability, medicaid, food stamps, medicare, social security, welfare, rent subsidies and the rest). Note the use of the words "Obama will". The liberal scum (nothing personal, but I have to use something descriptive to differentiate you from the rare democrat or liberal who isn't trying to steal from me) are trying to turn B. Hussein Obama into a one word title like "Sting" or "Oprah". And they are glorifying Obama. Try this quote, "Obama will pay for this tax relief ...". B. Hussein Obama will not pay for anything; neither will you. I will. Since I and others like me pay 90% of the taxes already.

Anyway, you can't help read the B. Hussein Obama website without coming away with chills of fear at the ego of this evil man and his deluded supporters.

And just for fun, a few predictions. B. Hussein Obama will (via a democratic congress)... 1) Raise taxes on just about everyone (except the 40% who already pay no tax) 2) He will raise capital gains (thus insuring that the recession stays longer) 3) He will void laws restricting abortion in any way 4) He will cancel religious tax deductions 5) He will restore the 'fairness doctrine' 6) He will take up where Clinton left off with sicking the IRS on anyone and any organization that opposes him 7) He will never allow access to his college records or birth records (which, according to credible allegations, will show him ineligible to be President since he is not a native-born American, but rather a Kenyan who was rushed to the US after his birth). 8) He will force churches and various non-liberal tax-exempt organizations to pay taxes 9) He will promote marriage based on nothing more than a shared perversion 10) He will appoint hundreds of judges quickly (since there is a large back-log of open positions kept that way by the democrats and the sell-out traitorous rat and his "gang" McCain) who will legislate from the bench so many environmental wacko rulings that mineral and oil exploration will essentially cease forever. 11) These judges will force the Boy Scouts to cease to exist in the form we know today. 12) Those who practice various perversions will be forced in all of the above organizations with the threat of government persecution 13) He will force the military to accept faggots or whatever other name is politically correct these days. 14)He will infringe and remove gun-rights 15) He will completely socialize medicine. (It's already mostly socialized) 16) He will fund college education for those he favors (undeserving scum of various types) at tax-payer expense. 17) Amnesty for 20-40 million criminal aliens and the arrival of an equal number of new immigrants which will turn Texas and several other states into blue states for the foreseeable future and never again let conservatives even come close to having a say in national politics. And I predict he will do even worse things that I'm not even able to imagine. We'll see during the next 8 years, won't we?

And another note, remember that last election not a single incumbent democrat lost a race for Congress - not one. And in case you think the Republicans will save us, McCain is responsible for the limitation of our freedom preventing free speech by taking out ads that mention candidates, responsible for the prevention of conservative judges being appointed and the party leaders selected him by keeping the nomination process controlled via the same early states who have open primaries and the like. Nothing has changed. If the republican party was serious and fair, they would let the largest red state, Texas, go first, or rotate the primaries so everyone would get a chance to go early. Not gonna happen.

And a last prediction - If God does have a covenant relationship with this country like the Pilgrims, Christians, Manifest Destiny believers of the 19th and 20th centuries and Mormons believe, then he's gonna wipe us out - for our and the world's sake - and it ain't gonna be pretty.

Moral Vacuum and Religious Leaders

Here's a quote from the head of a Protestant Church that is falling apart over attempts to shove homosexual behavior down the throats of members who believe the Bible and its condemnation of such behavior. It really doesn't matter who and exactly what church, because this is happening in many churches. This is her response to churches voting to leave the national organization. "God gives us a gift in the midst of that diversity, and we more fully know both truth and God's will for us when we are able to embrace that diversity" .

First of all, I'm not sure what that sentence even means. I'm not sure if the author of that statement knows what that means. I'll bet she couldn't come up with such a sentence twice. Now the politically correct are adept at using code words - words that carry a certain meaning that the rest of the world doesn't get. Like Pro-choice meaning that the result is a dead baby who never had any choice whatsoever. Any sane person would say the choice came in initiating the behavior that led to pregnancy, but that would be wrong. Avoiding immoral behavior is given other code words like "judgemental" and "intolerant".

So let's examine that inane quote that is a masterpiece of saying nothing. We'll start with the word "God". Surely, she can't be referring to the God of the Bible who not only condemns this immoral behavior, but feels so strongly about it that he wipes out 5 whole cities like San Francisco. (Sodom and Gomorrah and the "cities of the plain".) An apostle who spreads His message to the world, Paul, condemns it repeatedly and even uses it as a characteristic of the "last days", a time so wicked that the whole world will be destroyed. More and more "churches" delete out or ignore commandments and moral teachings. What is the point of following Christ if you ignore his teachings?

And what is the "gift" to which she refers? Deviant sexual behavior? Is she really suggesting that disgusting and vile acts like homosexual behaviors are a "gift" from God? A religious leader? Or is it the leaving of so many faithful members who want a little morality with their weekly dose of Religion? And what does "diversity" refer to? Diverse sins and perversions? Christ taught that we should be "one"; if not, we are not His. Sounds like the opposite of diversity to me. And I don't even want to speculate what "embrace that diversity" means when it comes to homosexual behavior. Such speculations would make me lose my lunch. And what is diversity? By itself, this term is meaningless. Saying 'Diversity is good' is like saying 'Frequency is good'. Frequent what? Frequent pain would be bad, wouldn't it?

You can say this perversion of a once vibrant Christian Church is the exception, but behavior like this cleric's is becoming commonplace everywhere. When was the last time you heard a Christian leader say, "Islam is a false religion because it does not accept Christ as the literal Son of God"? Any Christian leader. How exactly will our Muslim brothers and sisters be brought to the truth if they don't even know what it is? "For if the trumpet give an uncertain sound, who shall prepare himself for battle?", was how Paul put it. Oh, we get occasional squeaks from this and that leader, but where is the full sound of the trumpet? When was the last time any Christian leader said, "Homosexual behavior is evil"?

Now I understand that there are liberal Christian religions out there. But what are we to think when James Dobson, as conservative a Christian as they come, never once points out that homosexual behavior is evil, or that bringing a child into a homosexual union is evil when he is asked to comment on Mary Cheney having a baby that will be raised by her and her lesbian lover? This essay is in this week's commentary in Time magazine. (Could be Newsweek or US News, but it's one of those three) He basically says that he is asked to comment on this horrible occurrence but won't. He does point out that there are a lot of sociological studies showing that children do best with a father. But he never calls what she is doing wrong, even though Christ himself mentioned that those who hurt a child morally would be better off drowned. (And how can you not hurt a child morally in such a situation?) The head of a major Christian pro-family organization - Focus on the Family- will not condemn such behavior, choosing rather to hide behind sociology.

Even as I write this, realizing that it is the honest truth, my Political-correctness muscle winces with pain when I use the word "evil" instead of the milder "wrong" and when I write that Islam is a "false religion", without adding a disclaimer about Islam having many good things and some Muslims don't incinerate Christians when they dislike them. Such is the cultural evil that infests this world.

We have so bought into the current evil of this world, that we can't even say that homosexual behavior is evil and that bringing a child into such a situation is evil. Only a few short years ago, we would have heard ringing denunciations from across this once great nation. Now we hear only a few whimpers because we're scared that Satan won't like us. Only a few short years ago, the government would have actually stepped in and taken this child from such a household to protect it. Now that same government is being manipulated into condoning and recognizing such behavior.

And have you heard even one politician say that Mary Cheney is wrong? Even one? What kind of diversity is that? I don't expect much from the liberals, though I note that Mormon's like Majority leader Harry Reid, certainly know better, and on Sunday pretend to oppose such behavior. But it is the Republicans' behavior that amazes me. Where is the outrage from Christian President GW Bush? Or Mormon Karl Rove? Or any other of the Republican leaders? Can you find even one? Talk about fear being in the air. Just think. Not even one politician can find the moral backbone to state that Mary Cheney's actions are reprehensible. Not one. Obviously there are at least a few that know and think differently. But they are so afraid of the current cultural environment, or being ridiculed, or losing power and influence, that they will not speak out.

And in such a world, how long will it be until we not only won't speak out, but we can't speak out because it will be illegal? Like in Canada right now.

Think about the level of moral cowardice displayed over the Cheney event. Not one religious leader. Not one politician. Not one author, actor, musician, professor. Not one. Not even one. Then turn to Genesis 18.

Abraham entertains Angels from God. They are on a mission. This mission involves Sodom and Gomorrah. Verse 16. "And the men rose up and looked toward Sodom: And Abraham went with them." Abraham doesn't yet know why. The Lord appears and explains to Abraham what He will do and why. Verse 20. "And the Lord said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it." That is, the Lord will examine to see if the whole cities are perverted and need to be wiped out. The Hebrew word for altogether is "kala". There are 2 closely related words that differ only in diacritic marks. They mean all or complete, or total destruction. This is an ominous word. "And the men turned their faces and went toward Sodom." "But Abraham stood yet before the Lord." In one of the most heart-rending scenes in the Bible, Abraham pleads for these cities and their inhabitants. Verse 23. "Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked?" Maybe there is a way out - a way to save these cities. "Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city; wilt thou also destroy the place for fifty righteous?" "And the Lord said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous then I will spare all the place for their sakes."

It becomes clear why the Lord is putting up with Abraham. The Lord is teaching Abraham that He is just. There are no righteous in the city. Abraham, knowing Sodom, then realizes that 50 righteous is a stretch for Sodom (or D.C., New York, or Frisco?). Verse 28. "Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty: wilt though destroy all the city for lack of five?" "If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it." Well, it is Sodom after all, so Abraham then says, "Peradventure there shall be forty found there." Then, "Peradventure there shall thirty be found there." "I shall not do it, if I find thirty there." But it's Sodom we're talking about here. "Peradventure, there shall be twenty" or "ten". "I will not destroy it for ten's sake."

Now we all know how the story ends. Lot is sent packing and then there is not even one righteous person left. Not one. Not even one. Just like the number of our leaders condemning homosexual behavior and bringing a child into such an environment. Not one. Not even one.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Senator Specter Just Doesn't Get It

Senator Specter from Pennsylvania added his two cents worth to the post-election hand-wringing. He blamed the Republican fiasco on not being liberal enough.

Could this be true? First of all, exit polls show that a core Republican group only supported Republicans at a 70% level - down from their up to 85% support of the last election. What group? Christian conservatives. They are recognizing that the Republican leadership has been, is now, and will continue to lie to them. So why support them? (I have no response to that question other than the weak "lesser of two evils" wimp-out) So right off the top, 10% of the christian conservatives in Virginia and Missouri would have kept the Senate Republican. So Specter is wrong right off the top (as usual).

But there really seems to be a liberal shift in America. Look at the support numbers for Democrats vs. Republicans. There has been a big shift in these numbers which have been pretty equal for the last 10 years. Bush and the neo-cons have managed to undo a half-century of gains in one fell swoop. But did America really become liberal in just the last few months? Nonsense.

But a large number of voters became non-Republicans - and the Republicans have no one to blame but themselves. First of all, conservatives are becoming less and less welcome in the Republican party - and the conservatives are recognizing it. The Republicans have taken a more liberal position than the Democrats in several areas - illegal immigration, spending, education, jobs, loss of sovereignty, and health care. In addition, war in Iraq was never a conservative position. All the conservatives I knew opposed the war in Iraq and were against nation-building in Afghanistan. Yes, we were for wiping out the Taliban which supported Al queda, but that was it. Bush managed to put in power the very faction the Russians had tried to put in power in the 80's. As proof, the first thing the Afghani new president did was go to Russia and China. We should have blown up the Taliban and got out of there, leaving it to the Afghanis to fight (or not) amongst themselves. And that war looks more and more like Vietnam all the time, now that Pakistan is providing a guerrilla sanctuary where we can't go right next to Afghanistan. (And yes we should get out of Iraq and Afghanistan now. We're not doing any good in either place. The dominant government in both places is evil. In Iraq, the government has even forced us to leave Sadr city - in essence leaving the terrorists alone and giving them a sanctuary - shades of North Vietnam. And while I sympathize with the view that we would be cutting and running, if we can't even keep the terrorists in Sadr City in control, then there's no reason to be there and may the Iraqi government die a quick and painful death. But in the Iraqi government defense, they've got to realize it's just a matter of time before we cut and run, so they'd better start pretending to be anti-American (a popular position in Iraq) and better start sucking up to powers like Sadr. I don't really blame them - I just realize that they are going to lose anyway unless they kill Sadr and a few thousand others before the Americans leave.)

So what does a voter do when confronted with these new Republican positions? He begins to think of himself as non-Republican. And then there were the never-ending scandals. Abramoff, Foley, Armey, Lott, Gingrich, etc. etc. Now I realize that these scandals also included Democrats. I also realize that none of these are as bad as Bill Clinton's raping women or Barney Frank's gay bordello. But the mainstream media is still king and they never let up on the Republican parts of these scandals. Look at the coverage numbers for the big 3 networks versus other stuff. Like it or not, there is still a liberal media bias and most voters still get their info from the big 3. That means that in this election the "throw the rascals out" sentiment was concentrated on the Republicans.

And whatever you may say about Democrats, they have really got the October Surprise stuff down with Foley and the outing of other Republicans. Wow are they good!

And then there is the fiscal conservative who is culturally liberal - and this group is really growing. The Republicans lost them completely. So Specter's "cure" for the Republicans would really just alienate the groups that the Republicans most need. Now, realize that Specter isn't that stupid. He doesn't care what happens to the Republican party. He's a liberal. But Specter is scared he'll lose like Santorum (and Santorum was a good conservative). Casey would have really whipped Specter's butt. So Specter is trying to go left and pick up liberal's support. Will it work? Not a chance. The liberals will still vote Democratic and liberal and all Specter will do is lose support of the groups I've already mentioned. But Specter has to try something and this is the best he could do. He's doomed. And good riddance. (Specter's only chance, in my opinion, would be if he could get a solid Green Party guy to run in Pennsylvania so that the more-liberal vote would be split. Who knows? Stranger things have happened.)

So, in short the liberal shift isn't as liberal as it seems. But there is a smaller shift in truly liberal support because the Republicans have, since GWB, stopped pushing conservative philosophy, leaving the liberals in control of the playing field. And if you repeat a lie often enough, without hearing a contrary view, eventually the lie will be accepted. Ask Goebbels and the gay lobby if you don't believe me.

In the end a fair number of voters (including myself) threw open their windows, yelled "I'm mad as hell and I'm not going to take it anymore!" (a reference to the old movie "Network", if you don't know or have forgotten), yawned and went back to sleep.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Former Representative Kolbe of Arizona representative of why Republicans lost

Here's a link to an article about Rep. Kolbe of Arizona in my local newspaper - http://activepaper.olivesoftware.com/daily/Skins/StandardEx/navigator.asp?skin=StandardEx&BP=OK
Go to page 11 for the article.

"In Arizona, retiring GOP Rep. Jim Kolbe said he hopes the Republican losses “cause a serious reexamination of our party’s roots and directions.” Kolbe, who has held his seat for 22 years, will be succeeded by Giffords. “If Republicans are to provide leadership for our country, we must get back to the fundamentals of our party — an emphasis on national security, fiscal discipline, reducing government’s role in our daily lives, embracing immigrants from other parts of the world, and a commitment to economic growth through lower taxes and increased trade,” he said."

Now Kolbe is a perfect example of why Republicans lost. He is a leader in a party of cultural conservatism that is pro-family. And yet he was practicing perversion (homosexual behavior) in the closet. And just as bad, he was corrupt (currently under investigation). No wonder the Republicans lost - they were (and are) a party of hypocrites. Kolbe has a lot of nerve making comments on what Republicans need to do. I have a suggestion for him and others like him - keep your pants on, stay away from boys, and don't be a crook. Now that's not too much to ask, is it?

And even worse, Kolbe is still stirring up trouble by trying to keep the Republicans doing all the things that lost them the election. Yes, "national security" is important. Maybe that's why we should have never gone in Iraq, which was not a threat to the US and the arabs could take care of themselves if Saddam tried invading Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or the Gulf States. And if they didn't resist, well that's too bad for them, but why should I send my son and my taxes over there if they won't even defend themselves? And from a cynical point of view, who cares which thug sells us oil? Saddam is a mass murderer, no doubt. And an evil man. But why should the US have to do something about it? And Hussein was a counter-balance to worse nut-cases in Iran. Yes, Rep. Kolbe, it is time to care about American Security - not world, not European, not Middle East - but American Security. And Kolbe still doesn't get it.

"Fiscal discipline" is also important. That's why the party that hugely expanded the welfare state through things like buying drugs for the senior crowd (the demographic group with the highest disposable income) paid for by borrowing and taxing young, working families who have the least disposable income deserved to lose. The Republicans actually managed to do worse than the Communists - they didn't take from the haves to give to the have-nots - they took from the have-nots and gave to the rich.

"Reducing government's role" is also a worthy goal. Too bad, Rep. Kolbe didn't practice what he's preaching. He and others like him including GWB have vastly increased government's power. Just look at how much of recent job growth is due to increase in size of government. And all this "growth" is actually a net loss to the economy because government workers produce nothing useful. They only produce paperwork and restrictions on the rest of us.

"Embracing immigrants" is exactly what lost Kolbe's successor the primary election. Is Kolbe mentally deficient? Never mind that the demographics of the criminal aliens are 85% liberal. Kolbe must think Republicans are idiots. (Well, actually he's right, because they kept electing him for 22 years) Americans oppose immigration 2 to 1 right now. How would adopting a position contrary to the wishes of Americans help the Republican party? (And remember this guy was a Republican leader - no wonder they lost)

"Lower taxes" are also a great idea but how about lower spending? Again, Kolbe demonstrates that the Republican leadership just doesn't get it.

And last "increased trade". Kolbe is off base on this one also. What he really means is importing more foreign-made goods and exporting American manufacturing and jobs. And the Republicans should be against this - not for it. If there is any hope for Republicans (and I don't think there is or they would be saying different things) this issue alone may hold promise of wresting control back from the Democrats. If the Republicans would equalize the playing field by imposing hefty tariffs and limiting our balance of trade, they could appeal to the blue-collar Democratic middle class that voted so heavily Democratic. But as long as GWB is President, this won't happen, so I expect a worse loss of Republicans in the house in the next election. Yes, you heard it first from me - I predict the Democratic margin in the House will go up - not down - in the next election because there is no sign that the Republican leadership has learned anything.

Vincet Veritas, MEB

Conservative Loser, and proud of it.

The Democrats have kicked Republican butt. No doubt about it. They've taken the House back by pretty much the same margin that the Republicans previously held. It appears that they've taken the Senate or at least tied. That makes GWB a lame duck for the next two years. I don't see any other way to spin it. What does that mean to a conservative?

First of all, conservatism is not the same as republicanism. These two have diverged more widely with each passing year, especially since GWB was elected. Conservatism is for smaller government. Republicanism is not.

How can I say that? Well, actually it's pretty easy to show. Look at the budget for one. It is ballooning worse under Bush than Clinton - even if you subtract out war expenses. Bush removed the conservative plank from the Republican platform about removing the Department of Education first thing. The conservative position on that department, part of the platform since Reagan, was that this kind of fuzzy socialism was wrong, was wasteful, and was not authorized by the Constitution and therefore was un-constitutional

That one action of Bush, accepted by the Republican party hacks, should have forced every conservative to head for the lifeboats and abandon ship (or the Republican party). Because this was a major shift in philosophy. Bush led the Republicans to abandon their strict constitutional constructionism for the vague liberal idea usually described by the politically correct term "living constitution". Living meaning that anyone could interpret the Constitution any way they wanted - basically a moral relativism idea. And once you accept that idea, the floodgates of relativism are opened, the argument of limited government is lost, and the only thing to be settled is how quickly to allow the government to become completely socialized. (Kind of like the old conversation attributed to Churchill or Shaw or others. Churchill asks socialite, "Would you sleep with me for a million dollars" Socialite: "I rather think I would" Churchill "Well here's 10 dollars then" Socialite: What kind of woman do you think I am. Churchill: "We've already established that - now, we're just haggling over price.")

And so, as a conservative, I view the loss of the Republicans with mixed emotions. They haven't really represented me for years. But where else does a conservative go?

Well, I threw my vote away this election on the Constitutional Party. Not that it makes a difference in Republican haven Utah. But at least I voted for candidates whose ideas are conservative. I also enjoyed voting no for the retention of every judge - especially the judge caught on a rant against deer hunters here in Utah. (She actually was turned out of office. You can find a video of her on Youtube.) But third parties stand the proverbial snowball-in-hell chance of winning at present.

The only other thing of interest in the election was a state school board race between a give-more-money-to-the-same-people-who-screwed-up-education candidate, and a candidate who at least gave lip service to "new ideas" - which I assume is code for tuition vouchers. He lost.

But, even though I can't bring myself to shed many tears about Republicans losing, the only argument I could see to voting Republican in a race that mattered was the leadership of the Democratic party that would now be in charge of the House as a whole, and the committees. Intelligence will be headed by Alcee Hastings - yes that Alcee Hastings. The impeached former judge who took bribes. Woo hoo! That-a-way Americans who voted Democratic! I have no words to express my disgust for this guy, and worse for the Americans who put him in this position. I can only comment that anything that happens is exactly what we deserve.

And isn't it fascinating that one of the Democrat election tactics was to point out corruption of Republicans? And then you put a convicted criminal in charge of Intelligence. There are two lessons here. 1. Americans are really, really, really stupid. 2. The Republicans hardly uttered a peep against corruption in the Democrats showing that they were morally bankrupt and worn out.

And then there is John Conyers of Michigan. Read some of his trash. If this is a guy that most Americans want in charge then we deserve the coming disasters.

Henry Waxman of California is another Marxist in liberal clothing.

Ditto Charles Rangel of New York. These guys who will head important committees are so ultra-liberal that even if I'm not heartbroken over the loss of the Republicans, I have this sinking pit in my stomach regarding America and its future.

The list goes on and on. And then there is new speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi - uber-liberal and head of the socialists in the Congress. She doesn't even hide her socialism as she is head of one of the socialist caucus groups. Who would have thought that a socialist would be third in line for the Presidency of the USA? (Of course, VP Henry Wallace was a socialist under Roosevelt, but that is out of the memory of most Americans.)

And so, just as the Republicans aren't conservatives, the Democrats really aren't Democrats - they're socialists. And for that reason, I have chosen the title "Conservative Loser" because conservatives have lost in such a way that I doubt they will ever, in my lifetime, control all the branches of government (if they ever did in a party with Jeffords, Snow, Collins, and Chafee).

Vincet Veritas (Truth will conquer) MEB