Tuesday, December 30, 2008

Looks Like Franken is Almost Secure

But Funny Business Abounds

Back in November, I posted about the close recount in MN between Al Franken and Norm Coleman. At the moment, Franken has taken the lead by 47 votes with over 2,000 unopened absentee ballots hanging in the balance. We won't know until next year, but my guess is he will win and we will have one more foul-mouthed, anger-driven, liberal Democrat in Washington. "I'm good enough. I'm smart enough. And dog-gone-it, 50% of the people like me."

1-5-09 Funny business update.

2-4-09 Update: I'm not saying there's a fat lady in Minnesota--I'm just saying she ain't singin' yet!

Sunday, December 28, 2008


The previous post ended with some updates about the "heat" that President-elect Obama has been taking for two weeks since his announcement that Dr. Rick Warren will be praying at his inauguration. This is a ceremonial honor performed most often by Billy Graham in his day (who prayed at eight such events).

But this op-ed piece by Frank Rich accused both Warren and President Bush of promoting homophobia, which if taken literally, means a fear of homosexuals. Why is it that those who believe homosexuality is wrong are said to have a "phobia" about it?

I think cutting in line is wrong, but I don't have "cut-in-line-ophobia." I just think it's wrong. Cutting in lines either reflects or leads to a break-down in the way things work best (the ideal). Likewise, I am not a homophobic just because I think homosexuality is wrong, not ideal, to be avoided. It both reflects and leads to a break down in the way things work best.

I think it is more accurate to say that the homosexual activists (those forcing their private lives into the public arena) are "wrong-ophobes."

They are afraid to think that they share the planet with people who still believe some things are wrong, that they should not be done, that if the desire to do them meets opportunity... it's wise to flee from the temptation. They find in unsettling that a majority of Christians believe that God created us to be shaped by intimacy and pleasure. He intended the most intimate, most pleasurable act to create a bond, "one flesh" He called it. There are many deviations from this design. They fall short. They are not the ideal. When we deliberately deviate from God's ideal... it's wrong. People who bristle at the thought that something they've chosen to do will be called "wrong" by some are wrong-ophobes.

"But you have to respect my opinion," they say.

No, I don't have to respect your opinion. I can respect your right to hold an opinion while considering the opinion totally wrong.

"But you have to respect my lifestyle," they say.

No, I don't have to respect it. I can respect your right to choose a lifestyle while considering it a very bad choice--bad for you; bad for society.

When everyone does "that which is right in his own eyes" those who choose to do or "be" something that has been considered wrong through Judeo-Christian history become "wrong-ophobes" in that they are afraid to learn that the majority of society considers what they are doing to be wrong. They then make it their goal to shift the burden of proof...

"Who are you to say it's wrong for me to do this with the same gender? Who are you to say this confuses social norms? Who are you to say what a 'norm' is? Who are you to say that allowing two men (or women) to marry is not a good idea? Or that allowing them to adopt a baby would deprive that baby's natural need for both a mother and a father? Who are you to say that is a natural need? I'm turning the table on you. I think you are wrong for saying I am wrong. You are intolerant. I tolerate nearly everything. I say nothing is wrong between consenting adults. If it feels good do it. You must tolerate me, but I refuse to tolerate you because of your intolerance. I do not wish to share the planet with you or anyone whose "moral code" says my lifestyle is not what God had in mind when he created man and woman. I will dismiss your moral compass as a relic of a past. I will scorn the exclusivity of "one man one woman" (though it is that union that brought me into this world). I denounce the time-honored definition of marriage and those who wish to preserve it. I will denounce their 'norms.' I will boycott their businesses. I will extend my political energies to also promote tolerance of men who like to dress up as ladies and use public ladies rooms. I will fight for the right to cross-dress. I'll fight for the right of Ms. Smith, a second-grade teacher to return after Christmas Break as Mr. Smith. It will help teach tolerance to those second-graders. And when deep inside, I fear you may be right, when I look around at the pathetic, sad-and-searching lives most homosexuals lead, when that awful feeling of "wrong" puts a knot in my stomach, I will remind myself that it's all their fault for saying this is wrong, and I'll reject the intolerance of the homophobes. And then I'll feel good again."

To which I say, "It's your life but it's God's world. I do not fear you. I do not hate you... "neither do I condemn you," as Christ said in John 8:11, but let's not forget he added "go, and sin no more." He was speaking to an adulterous woman. Was Jesus an "adultery-ophobe"? No. But He knew adultery is a deviation from God's ideal, a violation of God's law, and He called it wrong. He called it sin. Consenting adults has nothing to do with it. We do not know whether the woman accepted his counsel, but we do know she did not rally all the other adulterers to begin a march insisting that their behavior be considered "un-wrong" and good for society. Since Christ showed "tolerance" by saying "neither do I condemn you," I can do that, too, but that exchange also confirms that we need not call wrong right... even if it upsets the wrong-ophobes.

Never has wrong-ophobia been more openly displayed by one subculture in society than what we are seeing today in the tantrums of the homosexual activists frustrated in a world that, when stripped of political correctness, is repulsed at the thought of their wooing. That is not a phobia; it is a visceral rejection of a deviation from God's ideal: "male and female created He them...and "they shall be one flesh."

Update: January 8, 2009: Here is an interesting debate on Obama's choice between to homosexuals. The one in favor of including Rick Warren had this to say:

“Even if you suspect the whole "unity" thing is really just about politics, the selection of Warren still makes good sense, including for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) Americans. It is a stroke of political brilliance to recruit a conservative megapastor in support of a president-elect who is arguably the most pro-gay, pro-choice and progressive in our history….” [emphasis added]

Notice his use of the letters LGBT. The "T" was added just a couple years ago. If you have any question about the direction and legal implications of these issues google two words , "transgender agenda," and you'll see the kind of politics and cultural change the homosexuals want. What other letters will need to be added to those four in the future?

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

How President Obama Will Treat Reporters
Who Ask Legitimate But Inconvenient Questions

As mentioned two posts below, this Illinois Governor will be a challenge for Obama to scrape from his shoe, but some question the reason he states for not wanting to talk about it at his press conference today.

Evidently the U.S. Attorneys’ Office does not have the power to "silence" him. He is not talking, I suspect, because the less he says the better between now and when he finds out how many shoes are going to drop (and whether or not any of them are his size). That's smart if he can get away with it, but in the clip above, he seems to be showing a condescending attitude toward the hometown paper he dislikes. Another Chicago paper had this to say a couple days later.

So much for "openness" he promised. Since his teen years, he's had a lot of practice at being "Joe Cool"--and I think he's going to need it.

Update: Wednesday 12-17-08
In a gesture of goodwill toward the McCain/Palin vote, Obama has invited Rick Warren to pray at his inauguration exercises. It was at Warren's Saddleback Church that Obama made his regretted "above my paygrade" remark regarding the brilliant "when do human rights for the unborn begin" question [a brilliant spin on the expected "when does life begin" question which Warren didn't ask]. Many in the Obama camp later wished he had declined to show at the evangelical forum, so this honor being given to Rick Warren is classic Obama reaching across the aisle to disarm "foes," In so doing he has offended the homosexual community, which also took some courage. Its a winsome move that will win some--as long as he doesn't wear a Panama hat and light up on January 20.

December 21 Update: Barney Frank says Obama made big mistake in picking Warren. More and more I like this choice.

December 23 Update: Here is a perfect explanation of why I love it when the Gay-Lesbian-Transgender mob shows their intollerance while demanding acceptance by the 99% of America who, among other things, expect males not to use the "Ladies Room" in the name of freedom. Keep griping, GLTs, it makes you look foolishly self-focused and unreasonable.

Sunday, December 14, 2008

I Don't Care What They Say... I Like This Man.

President Bush... I like the sound of that and I'm going to say it again...PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH... was conducting a press conference in Bagdad when a young journalist took off his shoes and threw them at our President. He threw them fast and hard at close range, but the agile 62-year-old calmly ducked both near misses, and went on as if nothing happened. Now that's being calm under fire.

The level of disrespect that has been paid to our President in the past couple years here at home has led to brazen behaviour abroad. But here's the ironic thing. This barefoot jerk owes his freedom to throw shoes at a press conference (and live to tell about it) to the very man he threw his shoes at. Had he done that six years ago in Saddam Hussein's Bagdad he'd be taken outside and shot. I wonder when that will occur to him.

I've said it before: I believe history will remember this President far more kindly than his current detractors can imagine. I plan to write an open "Thank You" letter to him here before January 20th.

Here's President Bush (43) speaking at Texas A & M Part One; Part Two; Part Three is especialy good after minute five (seen below).

Those little shrugs at the end with that smile (some call a smirk) is trademark "W" and perhaps the most misunderstood body language of our President. Having had the experience of trying to get through a very emotional public statement without crying, I can relate to that moment. The subtle body language is not cocky at all. He's merely saying, "I made it. The President of the United States just about started crying--I mean really sobbing--but I made it. Nothing gets me choked up more than talking about the father I love who's now in his eighties, but I made it. Whew! That was a close one."

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

It Would Be Foolish: Part Two

I really didn't plan to have a part two to my last post, but then I read this article by one of the few liberals whose editorials draw me in. The whole article is an interesting read. Page 2 supports my post about Sarah Palin, and page 3 echoes my thoughts about Prop 8 sand "Dents in the Carpet" from last month, but it was the title "What do the Clintons have on Obama?"and page 1 that tied in to the previous post.

"As an Obama supporter and contributor, I've been very gratified by his dignified deportment and steadiness at the helm to date. But I must admit to puzzled disappointment with his recycling of Clinton era veterans, who reek of déjà vu. Surely we might have expected a better mix of fresh faces and progressive voices? Obama's team may have underestimated the labyrinthine personal interconnections and habit-worn loyalties of that cliquish crew.

"As for Obama's appointment of Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, what sense does that make except within parochial Democratic politics? Awarding such a prize plum to Hillary may be a sop to her aggrieved fan base, but what exactly are her credentials for that position? Aside from being a mediocre senator (who, contrary to press reports, did very little for upstate New York), Hillary has a poor track record as both a negotiator and a manager. And of course both Clintons constantly view the world through the milky lens of their own self-interest. Well, it's time for Hillary to put up or shut up. If she gets as little traction in world affairs as Condoleezza Rice has, Hillary will be flushed down the rabbit hole with her feckless husband and effectively neutralized as a future presidential contender. If that's Obama's clever plan, is it worth the gamble? The secretary of state should be a more reserved, unflappable character -- not a drama queen who, even in her acceptance speech, morphed into three different personalities in the space of five minutes.

"Given Obama's elaborate deference to the Clintons, beginning with his over-accommodation of them at the Democratic convention in August, a nagging question has floated around the Web: What do the Clintons have on him? No one doubts that the Clinton opposition research team was turning over every rock in its mission to propel Hillary into the White House. There's an information vacuum here that conspiracy theorists have been rushing to fill."

That was Camille Paglia. She's even harder on the Clintons than I have been lately. But speaking of the Clintons. Here are some updates on the Clintonesque mess in Chicago. Just when President-elect Obama was hoping to leave the nagging questions of his Windy City connections behind, along comes another Chicago scandal to scrape from his shoe. So far, he's managed to distanced himself from this Crook County operator, the governor himself who was arrested for trying to sell Obama's senate seat to the highest bidder. This is truly unbelievable! And what a foul-mouth as he cusses out those who won't pay to play.

Speaking of swearing, here's a sidenote as inauguration day approaches: Obama has to decide how to be sworn in. Should he use his middle name in his oath or to do what Ronald Reagan did and leave out "Wilson"? Apparently he has chosen to use his middle name when he takes the oath: Barack Hussein Obama. It was a no-win choice either way, but personally I wish he had followed Reagan's lead.

Chicago Update. Friday, December 12: This is going to get ugly. It's becoming vast--it may include conspiriacy, but it can't be blamed on the "Right Wing." And Rahm Emmanuel is right in the middle of it. Why? (A) He is part of the Chicago machine, and currently holds the same 5th District congressional seat that Blagojevich vacated to become governor and (B) Contrary to Obama's first report, Emmanuel is the high-ranking transition team member who has indeed been in multiple conversations with "Blogo" about Obama's senate seat. True, he did not agree to "pay to play" to get their first choice appointed, but neither did he blow the whistle on what FBI tapes may reveal he knew was going on. Not a good start for the newly named Chief of White House staff (if he retains that appointment).
Update: December 16 "Obama's lips are needlessly sealed," and my take on Emmanuel's silence is confirmed.


website tracking statistics
Flat-Panel Television