Obama the Chocolate Bunny

When I was a kid I would look forward to Easter Sunday. I would wake up and race to the living room to see what the Easter Bunny left me. Usually it was a large, colorfully wrapped colorful basket full of all sorts of sugary goodness. Sometimes there was a big boxed chocolate bunny next to the basket. I’d open the box, bite into the rabbit and BAM…

It was hollow.

As a younger child I didn’t care. Chocolate was chocolate. But as I got older I learned about solid chocolate bunnies. You bite into an ear and it takes some serious jaw pressure to take a chunk out of it. Solid chocolate bunnies are substantive. They last a long time. Hollow rabbits may be sufficient for superficial chocolate fans, but as a grownup they leave me empty, wanting for more.

Barack Obama is a hollow chocolate bunny. He looks great on the outside. He says great things. But when you try to sink your teeth into him (metaphorically speaking of course) you find a hollow core. His voting record is even hollow. He has failed to vote on legislation a staggering amount of times. Obama is calling for ‘change’ and talks about ‘hope’ to throngs of political lemmings. Yet his record has no substance. It’s hollow.

America needs a leader of substance. Someone that stands for legitimate values, not vaporware intangible concepts that cannot be legislated. Barack Obama certainly has the best of intentions, but he (and his wife) are not fit to lead America at this time.

Sammenhold

Sammenhold = Danish word for solidarity

Inspired by Michelle Malkin this is a show of solidarity in support of free speech and the Danish cartoonists who unknowingly put their lives in jeopardy with their pens. Today heavily-armed Danish police arrested five men alleged to have been planning to murder one of the cartoonists behind the controversial images of the Prophet Mohammed that caused an uproar in the world ofIslam. The Religion of Peace apparently suffers some self-esteem issues.

Therefore I proudly offer to you this gallery of images as an exercise of free speech.

Some other ideas:

And in case anyone happens to forget what the Religion of Peace can do when properly motivated, here’s one more image.

Presidents Obama and Romney

Unless we learn that Barack Obama is funding terrorists or that he’s got a secret lover somewhere, I think we will see him as the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile John McCain is the mathematical Republican nominee at this point. So, in a race between these two men I see Barack winning in a landslide. Political records aside, the two candidates are very, very different. Given that elections in America allow all adults to vote regardless of their intelligence or understanding of the issues, I think we (conservatives) are doomed. Given the size of our voting population and the things that make people pull the lever, all I can say is this: Beware the power of stupid people in large groups.

Age: People said that Reagan was old when he took office at the age of 70. McCain turns 72 this summer; Barack Obama is 46. Why does this matter? Because at some point during the campaign someone will bring up the fact that the presidency ages a person, and the effect is compounded when that person is already aged. Barack is a vibrant, relatively young and very energetic person.

Charisma: Obama has it. McCain doesn’t. Obama leads a crowd like a preacher, while McCain relies on often failing humor and the constant reminder that he was once a prisoner of war.

Hollywood: Obama has Oprah and most of Hollywood behind him. View any news site and you will see the pages littered with stories about Britney, Paris, Nicole or the train wreck tart of the week. View the list of most viewed stories at any news site and the topics are sex, murder, death and the bizarre. Most people just don’t care about the issues we face today. They vote based on pictures, sound bites and endorsements from people they are familiar with. McCain has the love of the Beltway boys and even many liberal institutions, but he lacks any sort of popular support from people that the mindless masses will recognize.

Ambiguity: McCain has been fairly specific in what he will do if elected. And, for better or worse, he has a lengthy legislative record. Obama hasn’t been in Congress long enough to accomplish much of anything, but he makes up for that by using words like “hope” and “change” to make his point. People love emotional speeches… who cares if they lack substance? C’mon… vote for Barack! He’s a great orator!

So, the bell curve distribution of intelligence will prevail and Obama will be elected despite having absolutely no subtance whatsoever other than being the most liberal senator in Congress. What can we expect under an Obama presidency?

• Rapid withdrawl from Iraq followed by increased civil unrest and death in the region.
• Hard left legislation including entitlements for illegal immigrants, increased AIDs funding and restrictions on America’s ability to drill for oil
• Increased entitlement programs that you and I pay for (Medicare, Medicade, etc.).
• A weaker border.
• A foreign policy focused on making other countries like us better instead of respecting us for the leader we are.
• Continued increases governmental spending for pork barrel projects, special interest groups, et al.
• Overall: More government in our lives, not less.

In other words, if you are not a benefit receiving governmentally dependent low-income worker, you are screwed. But there is hope. The suffering will only last four years because Mitt Romney will be the Republican presidential nominee in 2011. Seeing McCain lose again will be enough to keep him out of office, nevermind the fact that he will be 76 by then. Unless a new conservative star is discovered I fully expect that Romney will enjoy vast conservative support after several years of priming the Republican pump. America will overcome. I have “hope” that we will experience “change” in the next few years. The pendulum that is currently swinging to the left will swing back hard to the right and in doing so will lop off the head of out of touch liberal mouthpieces like Pelosi and Reid.

Obama will serve a single term. I just hope that the damage and unrest he causes are reversable.

My Take on McCain’s CPAC speech

He’s going to be the Republican nominee. Let’s get right to his speech (transcript here):

“Many of you have disagreed strongly with some positions I have taken in recent years. I understand that. I might not agree with it, but I respect it for the principled position it is. And it is my sincere hope that even if you believe I have occasionally erred in my reasoning as a fellow conservative, you will still allow that I have, in many ways important to all of us, maintained the record of a conservative. Further, I hope you will grant that I have defended many positions we share just as ardently as I have made my case for positions that have provoked your opposition.”

In other words

1. I disagree with your opposition to McCain-Kennedy and McCain-Feingold.
2. I don’t think I’m mistaken. I think you are mistaken.
3. I’m passionately stubborn and will continue to demand my way or the highway.

Next:

“…the rule of law in our country is not to aggregate power to the state but to protect the liberty and property of its citizens.”

Is that so? What about the property of border towns? What about the liberty of the 60 or so Americans kidnapped from Laredo this year? What about the laws already on the books that make it illegal to enter our country by simply walking across the desert?

Next:

“I believe today, as I believed twenty-five years ago, in small government; fiscal discipline; low taxes; a strong defense, judges who enforce, and not make, our laws; the social values that are the true source of our strength; and, generally, the steadfast defense of our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness…”

Starts off good, this is what Conservatives want. We just don’t these rights extended to illegal aliens. Now more on immigration:

“I respect your opposition for I know that the vast majority of critics to the bill based their opposition in a principled defense of the rule of law. And while I and other Republican supporters of the bill were genuine in our intention to restore control of our borders, we failed, for various and understandable reasons, to convince Americans that we were. I accept that, and have pledged that it would be among my highest priorities to secure our borders first, and only after we achieved widespread consensus that our borders are secure, would we address other aspects of the problem in a way that defends the rule of law and does not encourage another wave of illegal immigration.”

This is good, but is it true? The past voting record is to the contrary. Do Conservatives have enough trust left in the bank to hope that this actually happens? Or, is this just pandering to silence critics until we are distracted by something else.

• “Senator Clinton and Senator Obama want to increase the size of the federal government. I intend to reduce it.”
• “Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will raise your taxes. I intend to cut them.”
• “Senator Clinton and Senator Obama will withdraw our forces from Iraq based on an arbitrary timetable designed for the sake of political expediency, and which recklessly ignores the profound human calamity and dire threats to our security that would ensue.”

Amen Senator. On these items we agree.

“If I am convinced my judgment is in error, I will correct it. And if I stand by my position, even after benefit of your counsel, I hope you will not lose sight of the far more numerous occasions when we are in complete accord.”

To paraphrase the red text above, “I may push forward with legislation that Conservatives may hate, but that’s ok because there have been times in the past that we happened to agree.” Personally, I’d like to hear a single example of a time when the Senator has changed his position based on erroneous judgment. Just one.

“I am pro-life and an advocate for the Rights of Man everywhere in the world because of them, because I know that to be denied liberty is an offense to nature and nature’s Creator. I will never waver in that conviction, I promise you.”

In other words torture is bad, I will not condone it, nor will I condone prisons like Guantanamo.

Summary: I am of mixed emotions over this speech. How much is sincere? How much is pandering? I didn’t witness it so I’m forced to interpret from text alone. I pray that the Senator has truly heard our voices and will work as hard with Conservatives as he does across the aisle.

Attention McCain Supporters!

It takes more than an honorable military record to lead a country. Yes, McCain is strong on the war on terror… but that’s all he’s got if you are a conservative. He is weak on the border (no matter what he is saying these days). He admits that he is weak on the economy and taxes. He has legislated against freedom of speech. The man considered switching to the Democratic party and was a serious VP candidate for John Kerry.

“But he has all of these endorsements…” you say. That’s because the media is pushing the most liberal “Republican” out there. If they push McCain they in effect get a Democratic nominee with an “R” next to his name. The New York Times slammed General Petraeus yet endorses John McCain. Figure it out.

Mitt Romney is a better choice if you are conservative. He understands finance and economics.  He has been a leader in both the political arena and the real world. McCain has not. And what happens if McCain wins the nomination and then the election? What happens after he takes care of the war in Iraq? Does he have us invade Iran? What does he do for us here in the states? We have the economy to deal with, border security, tax reform, health care, etc. He is not the right man to handle our complex domestic issues.

Think seriously about why you support McCain, and/or why you won’t vote for Romney. Ask yourself if you are voting for legitimate reasons, or if you are making a superficial choice that may actually hurt our country.

Please vote for Mitt Romney.