It’s Not Just An Evangelical Thing

8 01 2009

A Rasmussen poll conducted in the last week of 2008 found that while 62 percent of Republicans backed Israel’s action in Gaza, only 31 percent of Democrats did. Almost three-quarters of Republicans blamed Hamas for starting this war; only a minority of Democrats agreed. Republicans are 20 points more friendly toward Israel than Democrats. And while extreme hostility to Israel does not exist among Republicans, almost one in 10 Democrats describes Israel as an “enemy of the United States.”

Liberal Jews (about 85% of them) love to say that the only reason Republicans support Israel is to expedite biblical prophecy of the end times.  However, 62% of Republicans are not Evangelical Christians.  The reason Republicans overwhelmingly support Israel in these battles is because it is a moral choice.

But who’s morality are we using?

We know liberals are deluged in moral equivalence to the point of obsession.  They enjoy living in a sophomoric land where one man’s “wrong,” can be another man’s “right.”  For then all behaviors are acceptable, and all injustices can be explained, usually by victimhood.

You see, then it’s all about understanding and tolerating different perspectives of the truth.  A truth, that is not universal because that would be unfair to people in circumstances we don’t understand. But rather a truth that is completely localized by someone who is sure to be called a victim.  A victim because they cannot be held to the same standard of truth for a reason that we all must be more tolerant of.  ie. The Jooooos gave Palestinians top-of-the-line greenhouses when they left Gaza, but their dirty Jooooo hands touched it and so they (greenhouses and Jews) must be destroyed. Or, Gaza is so confined that Hamas naturally conducts high level meetings and launches rockets from cramped hospitals and elementary school playgrounds.

See how you do it?

OutOfTheBlu contends this affront to the existence of universal moral truths, is really a beef with G-d and religion.  Belief in a higher power renders the liberal mind incapable of remapping a rigid moral code into the false moral systems that are more concerned with fairness and tolerance than obvious, “right and wrong.”

The Muslims routinely admit the Jews’ biggest weakness is their “love of life.”  Similarly, Israelis contend that the battle will not stop until, “Muslims love their children more than they hate Jews.”

Here’s a little thought experiment.

Who benefits when:

Israelis die?

Palestinians die?

If you answered Palestinian Muslims for both, you win.  Unfortunately, your gift prize is what Palestinians have given to the world.

Nothing.

Whatever. Go on Jews. Keep the unwavering support for a party that hates you.

Advertisements




Blacks Gain The Presidency, Lose A Senate Seat?

16 12 2008

“Bye bye, black Senate seat! The political blackbirds are singing a swan song for the hopes of keeping a U.S. Senate seat in African-American hands. White voters don’t and won’t accept the idea that America and Illinois need — and deserve — a black senator. (When the Senate was all white, they never complained). Black folks need The Big O to endorse the concept of keeping the seat. That’s not going to happen.”

Thank you liberalism for this grotesque display of identity politics and proving November 4th was an affirmative action election.

Aren’t liberals the ones who constantly decry the “wedge politics” of Karl Rove and Repubs?  Didn’t they loathe the idea of inciting voters to go to the polls by emphasizing our differences and playing games with demographics?  Then again, the article in the Sun-Times really doesn’t want voters involved with this one, they want the seat appointed.

Typical.

We’re considering starting a list of minorities with grievances who “deserve” to be President, “if this country is ready.

On our preliminary run, we rated the need for a “little person” or, midget, neck and neck (so to speak) with an Italian and an Eskimo.  Jews, Indians, and bisexual female readers are encouraged to submit ideas.

If all goes well, we can allocate the occupant of Oval Office until 2040.

MLK Jr. is rolling in his grave where “content of character” has been laid to rest near his family plot.





Illinois Governor Arrested. Calls Obama “MFer.”

9 12 2008

In yet another example of inherent government corruption and liberal media bias, Rod Blagojevich has been arrested for rank cronyism as he attempted to defile the democratic process and get compensated for filling Obama’s vacant Senate seat. The FBI caught him saying a senate seat, “is a f^%$#*g valuable thing, you just don’t give it away for nothing.”

Goes to show you the political environment Obama mastered.

Big media naturally avoided his Democrat party label, as they almost always do, in their ongoing pursuit to brainwash the masses that, only the Repubs are the “party of corruption.”

Also missing from any “reporter’s” work?

Any mention of Barack Obama’s implied bribes to Blago, which sent the Governor into a profanity-laced tirade that was captured on FBI wiretaps.  They also neglected to mention the triumverate’s previously unearthed ties of Blago, Obama, and his ally; infamous scumbag slumlord, Tony Rezko.

From Newsbusters.org

Post facto thought: doesn’t Ross’s piece indicate that Obama was actually involved in this pay for play? Read this section again (emphasis added):

The FBI affidavit said Blagojevich had been told by an adviser “the President-elect can get ROD BLAGOJEVICH’s wife on paid corporate boards in exchange for naming the President-elect’s pick to the Senate.”

Doesn’t that suggest Blago, or someone in his office, was told by someone affiliated with Obama that if he appoints Obama’s pick, his wife will be placed on paid corporate boards?

Doesn’t that mean the president-elect offered a sitting governor a de facto bribe to appoint the Senator he supports?

Think this will get a lot of media attention and scrutiny?

Hell to the no.





Will Obama’s Ego Make Him Use Military Force?

19 11 2008

So Al-Zawahri calls Obama a “house negro.”

I’m pretty convinced that the islamo-barbarians will lay off the USA to see if Obama is the capitulator everyone hopes he is.  I view Olympic Games’ security in a similar way.  An attack during the games against anyone other than America and Israel, would surely unite all the world against the perps.  This isn’t part of their design.  Instead, they’ve been picking off our allies “for supporting us” one by one, for years, but they certainly know when to strike and when not to.  For this reason, I think they’ll give Obama a chance; and reward us with the illusion of peace and reinforce that Bush and the Republicans (and the Jooooos) caused the tension and wars.  Then again, if he fights terror aggressively, especially if he’s bold enough to go into Pakistan like he suggested, they’ll treat him like Bush.  But, I truly believe they’ll give him ample chance to blame ourselves, and acquiesce to many of their desires without so much as a bullet fired.

Therefore, I take a lot of pleasure in the fact that Al Zawahri called him a bad name.  Now, he might be daring Obama to disprove him to not act like a “house negro,” (whatever that means to an islamic supremecist) but either way, I really hope this get’s under Obama’s handsome skin and he fulfills all of my neocon, warmongering desires.

I’ve taken some solace in the notion that Obama will receive the same daily security briefs that Bush has been looking at, and that out of pure self preservation and ego, he’ll respond like a normal America-loving Executive and kill them whenever he finds them.  He is perhaps more cognizant of his legacy, at this stage of his term, than any other president, and he surely doesn’t want to be remembered as the man who got us hurt.  Hopefully now, it is even more obvious to Obama and his supporters that radical Islam doesn’t care if a Republican or a Democrat occupies the White House and that these throwback savages from the 7th century deserve to be slaughtered immediately…there rather than here.

UPDATE: Powerline notes that while Democrats and Al-Qaeda often have the same talking points, it’s a bit odd that they chose to call Obama a name liberals usually save for black conservatives, until they come out for Obama on Meet the Press.





Did Whitey Get Overrun or Was Whitey Colorblind?

12 11 2008

Sometime last spring I started to come to grips with the looming Obama victory.  I knew we lived in a world indoctrinated by taking note of what divides us, and that the troll under the bridge had to be paid, in order to pass over.  I rationalized that an Obama victory could really unite us even if some of my ideological preferences were exiled.  Moreover, I hoped that it could repair the way blacks viewed whites, and force remaining whites to finally wake up.  A supercharged version (despite it’s violation of “judging by skin color”) of when MLK Jr said, the result of black political participation is a “society that can live with its conscience.” In turn, I prayed that his historic win wouldn’t be viewed by young minorities as a demographic victory.  Today Christopher Hitchens summed up what conservatives have been saying as liberals ranted nonstop about a racist America.  That, “the election of Obama is the effect not the cause of the changes.”

For months, my Obamanian friends tried to “reverso jinx” the obvious Democratic year by pretending to be worried that America wasn’t ready for a president with a vowel that ended his last name.  They knew the Republicans would incite entire tri-state areas of mouth-breathing segregationists with an October surprise like we’ve never seen. Something bigthey’d stoke the racial flames with stories like, how Obama is black, and he is going to replace the White House Bowling Alley with a basketball court.  Or how he’d put rims on Air Force One.  Anything to get the idiots that elected Bush to bring their aunt-sisters and uncle-brothers (common in rural areas) to the voting polls to defeat him!  And for sure, they’d get real outlandish and real nasty and invoke the 1960s by saying he was more like Malcolm than Martin.

Wow.  How convenient!  A chance for liberals to berate America with non sequiturs about its makeup while distinguishing themselves from what the world’s left hates?!  Meanwhile, positioning themselves for maximum lovability and forgiveness by all the world and especially her minorities?!  And they get to prove they’re not racists?!

So, even if this author who predicted Republican race baiting, thinks the whites who voted for “okey-dokey” Mccain/Palin are prejudiced, it’s important to get the word out.  “Obama racked up 43 percent of the white vote, equaling Bill Clinton’s performance and easily surpassing Al Gore and John Kerry.”

Now if we could ever figure out who was more inclined to vote because of race?  Of course not blacks, but whites who voted against Obama or whites who voted for him?