It's a great time for Christians to express their faith through conservative financial values.
As worldviews continue to collide in America, it is so apparent that the liberally minded media types are determined to make America look destined for destruction unless a Democrat is elected, and a major government bail out is approved. Wow, what a surprise.
A famous sermon preached over a century ago titled "pay day someday" shook the church world with direct hitting remarks towards personal responsibility. Theological discussions aside, the famous sermon made it's point, and it needs to be made again today in relation to Americans and their wallets.
What these two statement have in common is this.....America is due for a real financial whipping. Far too many spoiled baby boomers have been spending and charging and living on the financial edge for decades, and finally, after all those years of unchecked avarice, they are finally losing homes, going bankrupt, and seeing a few major banks go under.
The media is reporting upon all this corrective activity as a dooms day event, where "victims" are "suffering" under hard economic times, no doubt the result of the evil empire of George W. OK, so the liberal media is really showing themselves for what they are these days, which is the understatement of the century. Liberalism has never been so viciously touted and defended as it has been in 2008. This is far more than a war for the white house -- it is a war for the future of the general direction of this nation. But back to finances...
Christians are by and large far more conservative in all arenas of life, and when we are in a time when free spending Americans are having a harder time making ends meet, it is a great time to share our faith in Christ through finances. Maybe in no other day has this been so true. Certainly, this is an unconventional method for sharing Christ with others, but it can be so effective, provided the Christian is truly in a state of financial security.
Let's say that a Christian and his co-worker are having a discussion about today's economy, and the unbeliever is struggling financially. In this author's humble opinion, the Christian should boldly say that due to conservative biblical financial principals lived out in their lives, they are not missing payments, overdrawn on accounts, or struggling with higher gas prices. If this is actually true (and there is no reason why it shouldn't be) it can lead to a great discussion about God's principals of self control and financial stability.
So many Americans are having a difficult time financially because they want it all, want to pay for it later, and want to suffer no consequences. 3 strikes and they are out. We have become a nation of spoiled ego-centric spenders who have never really had to pay for their poor decisions and selfish ambition. With this talk of a government bail out, liberals once again want to create victims of everyone, promise to make it all better (since when did a government run bureaucracy ever solve anything?) and assure everyone that no one will suffer. Sounds like Stalin and Lenin circa 1930's. Make no mistake America -- the Democrats do want to establish socialist principals in our nations government so badly, they can taste it. And make no mistake about this.....a people who do not want to suffer, never pay for their misdeeds, and demand a "safety net" under all of their lives....are prime choice for a socialist government. This CAN happen right before our eyes.
I pray that the bail out fails on all counts, and the banks who ran stupid loans and all the people who spent without a thought for the future all get their financial bottoms spanked good. Let them suffer. Let them lose. Let them be embarassed. Let them have to build back, learning a powerful lesson of doing without and being responsible enough to admit their mistakes and correct them. Let Democrats who demanded low income, high risk loans for people who would never attempt to be faithful to those loans be castigated for ever making such a irresponsible move.
There will be a pay day someday. America had better wake up, quit coddling the irresponsible idiots, and take a good whipping when it is needed. And it is so needed!
Monday, September 29, 2008
Friday, September 26, 2008
The Problem With Debates
Who won?
It's the predictable first question. Ironically, the liberal press will rush to say that Barry O won, but that's a given. The conservative news outlets are more likely to give each a fair shake, but in the end, asking 'who won' is like asking any other question that is hopelessly subjective. So, those who ask such stupid questions are morons who can't delve into more substantive issues. Yeah, I'm talking about you, George Stepahanaoapholispououss. But great hair, fella. Too bad you're 5'1".
The first presidential debate of 2008 is over, and both candidates presented themselves rather well, in terms of demeanor, clarity of voice, and time discipline. But what do such debates prove? Very little, if history is any teacher.
JFK did well in the first televised debates. JFK was a womanizing, inexperienced joke of a leader who nearly got the U.S. into WWIII by being asleep at the wheel in the infamous Bay of Pigs debacle. He looked better on TV than the flu-riddled Nixon, but that didn't win him the election, and it certainly didn't make him a good president. The most famous thing JFK ever did was get shot. Had he served out his term, he would have gone down as the most over-blown do nothing the libs have ever tried to immortalize.
Debates are window dressing. They relate to the adage that the 'clothes make the man.' They really don't prove anything other than to help establish some proficiency for public speaking. The debates are nothing more than carefully choreographed, pre-conditioned stump speeches that rarely enter the actual arena of a debate. It is comparable to two boxers making rules before a fight, which include the usual no rabbit punches, low blows, etc., but adding - no hitting around the face, no sweating, no dancing around, no left hooks, no right crosses, no upper cuts..... you get the point. That is analogous to presidential debates. By the time they are cooked down by the two camps, they are so emasculated and diluted, they are hardly worth watching. Maybe that's why the press punks start in on, 'so...who looked the best?' Reference their pathetic morning shows entrenched with fashion shows and smart dressers and you know how they think.
We as Americans deserve more than this luke warm tripe, but sadly, few citizens really want to know the issues that should be debated. Americans like their politics watered down, and their beer tarted up. They would rather be emotional than informed. Americans who routinely squander what should be a good income will vote in ignorance for the candidate who 'seems' more concerned about their "plight." (their plight is that they burn money like wood and use credit like water)
As a quick aside, a good constitutional amendment would be to place the following as preconditions necessary to be allowed to vote:
1. Be a college graduate (2 or 4 year)
2. No felony record of any kind
3. No bankruptcy history
4. Registered for selective service
5. Proficiency with English language
6. No government assistance (currently)
7. Absolutely mandatory..... no illegal aliens, and if your citizenship is dependant upon being born in the U.S., you cannot vote until your parents are nationalized
8. Your IRS standing is totally clear
9. You have to name the past 6 presidents, in order, and determine their party affiliation, years served, and one major event in their presidency.
10. You have to say the pledge to the U.S. flag
OK, so it sounds more like a citizenship test, but by golly, there is a reason why our founding fathers set up the electoral college. We have some of the worlds best and brightest minds, but likely 2/3rds of our population don't even know the true job description of a president, let alone the divisions of government. Just watch that liberal idiot Jay Leno interview people on the streets in Burbank, and cry yourself to sleep. At least he points out the average intelligence quotient of people in lala land.
Televised debates, such as they are, are something we do to assure ourselves that we're staying informed and making rational decisions. Being able to speak reasonably well in such a antiseptic vacuum hardly proves anything about a persons ability to lead.
It is high time that Americans lose their fascination for public speaking (especially with teleprompters) and look further than a nice suit and a tan. In the bible, Israel cried out for a king, even though God didn't want them to have one. God wanted His people to look to Him as their king, but the rebellious and indifferent Israelites were unrelenting. So God told one of His prophets, Samuel, to pick Saul, who was a tall, good looking man with supposed military prowess. In fact, his height and his moderate military experience wowed the crowd, and they thought they had just discovered sliced bread. Problem was.....Saul's height and experience did not come close to making up for his ill temper, bad judgment, disrespect for God, and love of himself. He was a very POOR leader, who eventually turned into a raging maniac and idolater, bent upon murder. The people chose him based upon foolish criteria, and we as Americans today still do the same thing.
Presidents in America actually have less to do with policies and direction than does the congress and House. But their position is very important, and so during this election cycle, it would be wise for our citizens to look a little further into their candidate than their speaking style or appearance.
After all, ol Abe was an ugly fellow, and arguably, one of our finest presidents ever.
It's the predictable first question. Ironically, the liberal press will rush to say that Barry O won, but that's a given. The conservative news outlets are more likely to give each a fair shake, but in the end, asking 'who won' is like asking any other question that is hopelessly subjective. So, those who ask such stupid questions are morons who can't delve into more substantive issues. Yeah, I'm talking about you, George Stepahanaoapholispououss. But great hair, fella. Too bad you're 5'1".
The first presidential debate of 2008 is over, and both candidates presented themselves rather well, in terms of demeanor, clarity of voice, and time discipline. But what do such debates prove? Very little, if history is any teacher.
JFK did well in the first televised debates. JFK was a womanizing, inexperienced joke of a leader who nearly got the U.S. into WWIII by being asleep at the wheel in the infamous Bay of Pigs debacle. He looked better on TV than the flu-riddled Nixon, but that didn't win him the election, and it certainly didn't make him a good president. The most famous thing JFK ever did was get shot. Had he served out his term, he would have gone down as the most over-blown do nothing the libs have ever tried to immortalize.
Debates are window dressing. They relate to the adage that the 'clothes make the man.' They really don't prove anything other than to help establish some proficiency for public speaking. The debates are nothing more than carefully choreographed, pre-conditioned stump speeches that rarely enter the actual arena of a debate. It is comparable to two boxers making rules before a fight, which include the usual no rabbit punches, low blows, etc., but adding - no hitting around the face, no sweating, no dancing around, no left hooks, no right crosses, no upper cuts..... you get the point. That is analogous to presidential debates. By the time they are cooked down by the two camps, they are so emasculated and diluted, they are hardly worth watching. Maybe that's why the press punks start in on, 'so...who looked the best?' Reference their pathetic morning shows entrenched with fashion shows and smart dressers and you know how they think.
We as Americans deserve more than this luke warm tripe, but sadly, few citizens really want to know the issues that should be debated. Americans like their politics watered down, and their beer tarted up. They would rather be emotional than informed. Americans who routinely squander what should be a good income will vote in ignorance for the candidate who 'seems' more concerned about their "plight." (their plight is that they burn money like wood and use credit like water)
As a quick aside, a good constitutional amendment would be to place the following as preconditions necessary to be allowed to vote:
1. Be a college graduate (2 or 4 year)
2. No felony record of any kind
3. No bankruptcy history
4. Registered for selective service
5. Proficiency with English language
6. No government assistance (currently)
7. Absolutely mandatory..... no illegal aliens, and if your citizenship is dependant upon being born in the U.S., you cannot vote until your parents are nationalized
8. Your IRS standing is totally clear
9. You have to name the past 6 presidents, in order, and determine their party affiliation, years served, and one major event in their presidency.
10. You have to say the pledge to the U.S. flag
OK, so it sounds more like a citizenship test, but by golly, there is a reason why our founding fathers set up the electoral college. We have some of the worlds best and brightest minds, but likely 2/3rds of our population don't even know the true job description of a president, let alone the divisions of government. Just watch that liberal idiot Jay Leno interview people on the streets in Burbank, and cry yourself to sleep. At least he points out the average intelligence quotient of people in lala land.
Televised debates, such as they are, are something we do to assure ourselves that we're staying informed and making rational decisions. Being able to speak reasonably well in such a antiseptic vacuum hardly proves anything about a persons ability to lead.
It is high time that Americans lose their fascination for public speaking (especially with teleprompters) and look further than a nice suit and a tan. In the bible, Israel cried out for a king, even though God didn't want them to have one. God wanted His people to look to Him as their king, but the rebellious and indifferent Israelites were unrelenting. So God told one of His prophets, Samuel, to pick Saul, who was a tall, good looking man with supposed military prowess. In fact, his height and his moderate military experience wowed the crowd, and they thought they had just discovered sliced bread. Problem was.....Saul's height and experience did not come close to making up for his ill temper, bad judgment, disrespect for God, and love of himself. He was a very POOR leader, who eventually turned into a raging maniac and idolater, bent upon murder. The people chose him based upon foolish criteria, and we as Americans today still do the same thing.
Presidents in America actually have less to do with policies and direction than does the congress and House. But their position is very important, and so during this election cycle, it would be wise for our citizens to look a little further into their candidate than their speaking style or appearance.
After all, ol Abe was an ugly fellow, and arguably, one of our finest presidents ever.
Debate Advice
Just for fun...
Presidential candidates are prepped for debates like airplanes are for flight, as in, thoroughly - top to bottom. So for a few laughs, here is a top ten for Barry Obama's prep for the first debate.
Top Ten Comments Made to Barry Minutes Before His Debate With McCain:
10. "Yo dog, be fierce!"
9. "Remember, for the next 90 minutes, you are not a left wing extremist -- you are a 'fair and balanced moderate.' So be sure to look both directions when talking."
8. "Point with your thumb with conviction, like Slick Willy did."
7. "Shank dat fool if'n he gets up in yo grill!"
6. "Try your best to look older and more experienced than you are. You can pull that off."
5. "When in doubt, always fall back to, 'George Bush is EVIL!' "
4. "Remember...it's not a lie, if you really believe it."
3. "Remember, it's not a lie unless it's proven otherwise in a court with a really conservative judge presiding."
2. "If you get stuck, just ask yourself, 'what would Oprah do?' "
1. "Be sure not to refer to Iran as a 'little bitty country.' We don't need that again!"
Presidential candidates are prepped for debates like airplanes are for flight, as in, thoroughly - top to bottom. So for a few laughs, here is a top ten for Barry Obama's prep for the first debate.
Top Ten Comments Made to Barry Minutes Before His Debate With McCain:
10. "Yo dog, be fierce!"
9. "Remember, for the next 90 minutes, you are not a left wing extremist -- you are a 'fair and balanced moderate.' So be sure to look both directions when talking."
8. "Point with your thumb with conviction, like Slick Willy did."
7. "Shank dat fool if'n he gets up in yo grill!"
6. "Try your best to look older and more experienced than you are. You can pull that off."
5. "When in doubt, always fall back to, 'George Bush is EVIL!' "
4. "Remember...it's not a lie, if you really believe it."
3. "Remember, it's not a lie unless it's proven otherwise in a court with a really conservative judge presiding."
2. "If you get stuck, just ask yourself, 'what would Oprah do?' "
1. "Be sure not to refer to Iran as a 'little bitty country.' We don't need that again!"
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Worldview Questions
What is a "worldview?"
Today, more than ever, the definition and recognition of one's worldview is critical to communication and understanding. During this particular presidential election cycle, differing worldviews are colliding like bumper cars, replete with sparks flying, yelling, and hap-hazard unfocused encounters that seem out of focus.
It is so important for a person to understand their own worldview (like noses, everyone has one) before they begin to try to understand someone elses. So, to be very brief, if one would like to begin this journey of discovery for their own worldview, the following questions (no matter how disjointed they may seem) will help you get started and begin to focus.
1. Who is in charge?
2. How did we get here?
3. What is the problem with the world?
4. How is morality defined?
5. Who is to blame?
6. What is responsibility?
7. What is truth?
8. When did things go wrong?
9. What is the solution to human suffering?
10. What is fairness?
11. Is there an afterlife?
12. What is success?
13. What defines a "bad" person?
14. What is the purpose of life?
15. What is really important?
16. How do you define justice?
17. Where did we come from?
18. When does life begin?
19. Who is God?
20. How do we find peace?
Very general, broad, and yet -- very defining in scope and practicality -- these questions and more help us find out where we are in our worldviews, and how we got there.
As one takes that journey, it helps to know some of the factors that helped define our worldview, including....
Today, more than ever, the definition and recognition of one's worldview is critical to communication and understanding. During this particular presidential election cycle, differing worldviews are colliding like bumper cars, replete with sparks flying, yelling, and hap-hazard unfocused encounters that seem out of focus.
It is so important for a person to understand their own worldview (like noses, everyone has one) before they begin to try to understand someone elses. So, to be very brief, if one would like to begin this journey of discovery for their own worldview, the following questions (no matter how disjointed they may seem) will help you get started and begin to focus.
1. Who is in charge?
2. How did we get here?
3. What is the problem with the world?
4. How is morality defined?
5. Who is to blame?
6. What is responsibility?
7. What is truth?
8. When did things go wrong?
9. What is the solution to human suffering?
10. What is fairness?
11. Is there an afterlife?
12. What is success?
13. What defines a "bad" person?
14. What is the purpose of life?
15. What is really important?
16. How do you define justice?
17. Where did we come from?
18. When does life begin?
19. Who is God?
20. How do we find peace?
Very general, broad, and yet -- very defining in scope and practicality -- these questions and more help us find out where we are in our worldviews, and how we got there.
As one takes that journey, it helps to know some of the factors that helped define our worldview, including....
- Our family structure
- Any religious influences
- Early feelings of belonging, or isolation
- Performance in school
- Close friends
- Personal predispositions (inherently ill tempered, or settled, or a loner, etc.)
- Impactful situations (a personal tragedy, a personal victory, etc.)
- Things that gave you a feeling of belonging and security
- Things that gave you a feeling of being threatened or alarmed
- Interaction, or lack thereof, with other cultures
- Travel
- Media influences
And many more. A worldview is not developed entirely in our younger years, but like ourselves, it is organic and growing. However, most of the core of one's worldview is usually established by the early years of adulthood.
A particular worldview comes out when we speak about core beliefs, core convictions, and core standards for ourselves, and others.
We all have a worldview. We all need to be very familiar with what ours is, and for Christians, this process carries extra weight, as it can reveal much about our walk with Christ, and where we are in being conformed to His image. And that will be the topic of another entry.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Political Top Ten
Top Ten Reasons Democrats Are Upset with Sarah Palin
10. She killed an Elk. With a gun. They don't even know how to hold a gun.
9. She put an executive plane up for sale, and didn't even trash the interior beforehand. Hillary is really baffled by this.
8. She never tried to organize her community. She only ran for mayor.
7. Her unwed daughter is not signing up for food stamps and government assistance, and/or going for an abortion. Who does she think she is?
6. She has never asked a guy in a wheel chair to stand up.
5. She has the audacity to be attractive. The chicks the Dem's last ran would point if you threw a bird in the room with them.
4. She grew up in a small town, and lives in Alaska. Alaska people! Come on! Is that even a state?!
3. She has never run off a bridge, stone drunk, and drowned a cheap date. Everyone knows you haven't lived until you've run off a bridge stone drunk before. Some experience.
2. The American public is comparing her experience to Barry Obama's, which is in clear violation of the bass-ackwards Democratic smear techniques approved by the Geneva convention.
1. Barbara Streisand, Katie Couric, Whoopie Goldberg, and a bunch of other skanky sluts hate her, and she doesn't even seem to care. The audacity!
10. She killed an Elk. With a gun. They don't even know how to hold a gun.
9. She put an executive plane up for sale, and didn't even trash the interior beforehand. Hillary is really baffled by this.
8. She never tried to organize her community. She only ran for mayor.
7. Her unwed daughter is not signing up for food stamps and government assistance, and/or going for an abortion. Who does she think she is?
6. She has never asked a guy in a wheel chair to stand up.
5. She has the audacity to be attractive. The chicks the Dem's last ran would point if you threw a bird in the room with them.
4. She grew up in a small town, and lives in Alaska. Alaska people! Come on! Is that even a state?!
3. She has never run off a bridge, stone drunk, and drowned a cheap date. Everyone knows you haven't lived until you've run off a bridge stone drunk before. Some experience.
2. The American public is comparing her experience to Barry Obama's, which is in clear violation of the bass-ackwards Democratic smear techniques approved by the Geneva convention.
1. Barbara Streisand, Katie Couric, Whoopie Goldberg, and a bunch of other skanky sluts hate her, and she doesn't even seem to care. The audacity!
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
The Pain with Palin
Why has Sarah Palin gotten such a huge response?
The answer to that question depends upon many defining factors, such as, who is asking, and what "huge" means, and who is responding, and how.
Sarah Palin, the last team member to enter into the official presidential race, is a reasonably conservative, reasonably young, reasonably intelligent woman from a fairly small town in Alaska. She has a reasonably average family, with 5 kids and a working husband. She has gotten involved in politics - first on the local level - and then quickly rising to the state level as Alaska's Governor. Her life seems to indicate a smart woman who has taken some risks and has enjoyed some successes in her personal and public life.
That's the stuff basically everyone in America knows. So what about this flurry of interest?
From the conservative, Republican view, Sarah Palin is a genuine surprise, especially for John McCain to select. Just when conservative loyalists were sweating a possible "maverick" selection of a left wing VP, McCain blows everyone out of the water with the Palin pick. Suddenly, within 24 hours, the conservative base that was reluctant to even pull for McCain is now jumping for joy and energized for this ticket.
Why?
Conservatives have never had a strong image woman to vote for in their history. Palin is also a tough nut who has actually lived some of the promises conservatives always make. She exemplifies a "can do" attitude towards life and by all appearances is well spoken, intelligent, up-beat and practical. Conservative men like her for those reasons, and for being attractive. Conservative women like her for those reasons, and for being an attractive, ambitious, yet motherly woman. It's really a no lose situation for conservatives, who were looking for a way to get behind McCain. If Joe Liberman had been running for the democratic party, and if McCain had picked a left wing woman as his VP, Liberman likely would have received 50% of conservative votes. Thanks goodness that didn't happen.
But what about the left?
Well, here is where the WAR is breaking out.
To speak about the response of the left, those liberal wingers who are becoming ever more militant in promoting their worldview, one must also include the mainstream media, as they walk hand in hand together, and have done so for many decades now. So let's speak to them as one in this short discussion.
The Sarah Palin selection (announcement) blind-sided the left like nothing in recent history. The timing and the choice were both used so well, that history books should refer to this situation as the "sack of the century," if put into football terms. NO ONE on the left saw it coming. In fact, the "drive-by media" (thanks Rush) was so taken off guard, they didn't begin to whine about it for at least two days, and then, it happened on a weekend, when most of the liberal media is out in the Hampton's drinking like a Kennedy and eating lobster like Hanks.
"How dare McCain pick someone like Palin, and not let us know?!" Apparently, the left thought that McCain would surely not make such a conservative, smart move, given his penchant for snoodling the media in the past. They thought they had him in their pocket, and they thought surely with a moderate or liberal pick for VP, McCain would lose with dignity, but lose. But oh boy, along comes a conservative woman from Alaska? One can imagine hearing all those martini glasses hitting the expensive tile floors simultaneously.
If this were a courtroom drama, it would be the defendant pulling out a lone eye witness from the weeds with an air-tight alibi. Cries of "foul! foul!" notwithstanding, it was a brilliant move that has a second wave effect that must also have been brilliantly conceived...... the left, politicians and media alike, are having to scramble so quickly to destroy Palin, that they are running amok, conflicting one another, postulating impossibly deceitful lies, and throwing smear so haphazardly, that they are exposing themselves for the conflicted, moral-less imps that they are. It's a beautiful thing to witness.
One caveat though -- the right wing radio media need to back up a bit and take a breath. They are being so defensive, and getting so easily drawn into the immature tactics and attacks of the left, that they are in danger of losing their focus. Rather than try to answer every stupid attack thrown by the left, they need to push Palin's accomplishments, admit to her relative weaknesses, and just celebrate the fact that her amazing acceptance is based upon her lifestyle and conservative worldview. Period.
Christians are wise to recognize that people who are not Christians will not act like Christians. The point? Why should Christians be surprised when non-Christians have and live out a world view that is decidedly non-Christian? The same is true for conservative and liberal camps -- a person in one will not act like the other, or at least, they will not think alike.
The difference is their world view. Conservatives typically have a worldview that places a big emphasis upon faith, personal responsibility, family, life, and high moral standards. Liberals typically have a world view that emphasizes personal choice, moral relativism, secular leanings, and anti-rules attitudes. So much more could be written to distinguish the differences, but for anyone on the left to think that someone on the right will think like them, is impossibly naive.
Today, liberals in politics and in the media are beside themselves, worrying about the positive impact Palin has had on the right, and yet, they seem incredulous that the right will not accept their basis for their arguments against her. In fact, the left media is making a big deal of their worldview that anyone who is to get anywhere in politics, must pass through their "gates" first. The arrogance in that truth alone is staggering. The media in this country (which is almost completely gangly liberal) is due for a huge awakening, and belittling.
Conservatives are so happy with Palin, that they are in danger of defending their views with fluff rather than stuff. Liberals are so threatened by Palin (and disgusted with McCain for making such a right winged swing) that they are in danger of exposing exactly what they are -- and that is a group of people who have no moral center, no respect for God, and no love for the founding principals upon which this country was founded.
Never before in history have these two world views (which have been around for centuries) been so clearly defined, and so far away from each other in Americana. The idea that most Americans fall somewhere in the middle in terms of politics has always been a pile of dung. America was founded upon conservative principals, and today, American is largely conservative in most arenas of life, regardless of what Katie Couric thinks (she recently recited numerous times that in her opinion, most Americans are Democrats). Maybe Couric needs to travel a little further away from NYC and visit some homes and farms in middle America, where most of our population actually lives.
Anywho, the two sides are moving apart, and that is probably a good thing. Life cannot exist in some mythical happy middle. People are naturally inclined to choose, not compromise, and yet another time of choice is upon us.
Barry Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim-loving nobody from the Chicago underworld, or John McCain, a proven war hero who is a typical hard headed, independent American. Will the VP's make the difference? Will the liberal, godless media prevail in swaying public opinion? Will Barry O. ever figure out how to speak without stuttering without a teleprompter? Will Palin hop on a snowmobile with a shotgun and ride into Washington, and begin cleaning house? Will O'Biden ever get his teeth white enough to glow in the dark?
Tune in this November 4th to find out!
The answer to that question depends upon many defining factors, such as, who is asking, and what "huge" means, and who is responding, and how.
Sarah Palin, the last team member to enter into the official presidential race, is a reasonably conservative, reasonably young, reasonably intelligent woman from a fairly small town in Alaska. She has a reasonably average family, with 5 kids and a working husband. She has gotten involved in politics - first on the local level - and then quickly rising to the state level as Alaska's Governor. Her life seems to indicate a smart woman who has taken some risks and has enjoyed some successes in her personal and public life.
That's the stuff basically everyone in America knows. So what about this flurry of interest?
From the conservative, Republican view, Sarah Palin is a genuine surprise, especially for John McCain to select. Just when conservative loyalists were sweating a possible "maverick" selection of a left wing VP, McCain blows everyone out of the water with the Palin pick. Suddenly, within 24 hours, the conservative base that was reluctant to even pull for McCain is now jumping for joy and energized for this ticket.
Why?
Conservatives have never had a strong image woman to vote for in their history. Palin is also a tough nut who has actually lived some of the promises conservatives always make. She exemplifies a "can do" attitude towards life and by all appearances is well spoken, intelligent, up-beat and practical. Conservative men like her for those reasons, and for being attractive. Conservative women like her for those reasons, and for being an attractive, ambitious, yet motherly woman. It's really a no lose situation for conservatives, who were looking for a way to get behind McCain. If Joe Liberman had been running for the democratic party, and if McCain had picked a left wing woman as his VP, Liberman likely would have received 50% of conservative votes. Thanks goodness that didn't happen.
But what about the left?
Well, here is where the WAR is breaking out.
To speak about the response of the left, those liberal wingers who are becoming ever more militant in promoting their worldview, one must also include the mainstream media, as they walk hand in hand together, and have done so for many decades now. So let's speak to them as one in this short discussion.
The Sarah Palin selection (announcement) blind-sided the left like nothing in recent history. The timing and the choice were both used so well, that history books should refer to this situation as the "sack of the century," if put into football terms. NO ONE on the left saw it coming. In fact, the "drive-by media" (thanks Rush) was so taken off guard, they didn't begin to whine about it for at least two days, and then, it happened on a weekend, when most of the liberal media is out in the Hampton's drinking like a Kennedy and eating lobster like Hanks.
"How dare McCain pick someone like Palin, and not let us know?!" Apparently, the left thought that McCain would surely not make such a conservative, smart move, given his penchant for snoodling the media in the past. They thought they had him in their pocket, and they thought surely with a moderate or liberal pick for VP, McCain would lose with dignity, but lose. But oh boy, along comes a conservative woman from Alaska? One can imagine hearing all those martini glasses hitting the expensive tile floors simultaneously.
If this were a courtroom drama, it would be the defendant pulling out a lone eye witness from the weeds with an air-tight alibi. Cries of "foul! foul!" notwithstanding, it was a brilliant move that has a second wave effect that must also have been brilliantly conceived...... the left, politicians and media alike, are having to scramble so quickly to destroy Palin, that they are running amok, conflicting one another, postulating impossibly deceitful lies, and throwing smear so haphazardly, that they are exposing themselves for the conflicted, moral-less imps that they are. It's a beautiful thing to witness.
One caveat though -- the right wing radio media need to back up a bit and take a breath. They are being so defensive, and getting so easily drawn into the immature tactics and attacks of the left, that they are in danger of losing their focus. Rather than try to answer every stupid attack thrown by the left, they need to push Palin's accomplishments, admit to her relative weaknesses, and just celebrate the fact that her amazing acceptance is based upon her lifestyle and conservative worldview. Period.
Christians are wise to recognize that people who are not Christians will not act like Christians. The point? Why should Christians be surprised when non-Christians have and live out a world view that is decidedly non-Christian? The same is true for conservative and liberal camps -- a person in one will not act like the other, or at least, they will not think alike.
The difference is their world view. Conservatives typically have a worldview that places a big emphasis upon faith, personal responsibility, family, life, and high moral standards. Liberals typically have a world view that emphasizes personal choice, moral relativism, secular leanings, and anti-rules attitudes. So much more could be written to distinguish the differences, but for anyone on the left to think that someone on the right will think like them, is impossibly naive.
Today, liberals in politics and in the media are beside themselves, worrying about the positive impact Palin has had on the right, and yet, they seem incredulous that the right will not accept their basis for their arguments against her. In fact, the left media is making a big deal of their worldview that anyone who is to get anywhere in politics, must pass through their "gates" first. The arrogance in that truth alone is staggering. The media in this country (which is almost completely gangly liberal) is due for a huge awakening, and belittling.
Conservatives are so happy with Palin, that they are in danger of defending their views with fluff rather than stuff. Liberals are so threatened by Palin (and disgusted with McCain for making such a right winged swing) that they are in danger of exposing exactly what they are -- and that is a group of people who have no moral center, no respect for God, and no love for the founding principals upon which this country was founded.
Never before in history have these two world views (which have been around for centuries) been so clearly defined, and so far away from each other in Americana. The idea that most Americans fall somewhere in the middle in terms of politics has always been a pile of dung. America was founded upon conservative principals, and today, American is largely conservative in most arenas of life, regardless of what Katie Couric thinks (she recently recited numerous times that in her opinion, most Americans are Democrats). Maybe Couric needs to travel a little further away from NYC and visit some homes and farms in middle America, where most of our population actually lives.
Anywho, the two sides are moving apart, and that is probably a good thing. Life cannot exist in some mythical happy middle. People are naturally inclined to choose, not compromise, and yet another time of choice is upon us.
Barry Barack Hussein Obama, a Muslim-loving nobody from the Chicago underworld, or John McCain, a proven war hero who is a typical hard headed, independent American. Will the VP's make the difference? Will the liberal, godless media prevail in swaying public opinion? Will Barry O. ever figure out how to speak without stuttering without a teleprompter? Will Palin hop on a snowmobile with a shotgun and ride into Washington, and begin cleaning house? Will O'Biden ever get his teeth white enough to glow in the dark?
Tune in this November 4th to find out!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)