...BHO is criticized for advertising his rally in Berlin (right, the one in Germany) with flyers in German. And this is a chink in BHO's campaign armour how? Folks are really reaching now, and it is comical to watch (hat tip to the Daily Dish for this one).
Wednesday, July 23, 2008
Monday, July 14, 2008
"Oh No He Di'in't"
Jesse? Really? I mean, tell us how you really feel. And watch e'erybody else weigh in. BHO is killing the old guard black political elite; they do not know how to handle the man. They want to put him in check, but it won't work. They think they have to be catered to, and they realize BHO ain't about that either. Remember this post? It still applies.
Once again, to the Civil Rights generation that kept their collective "eyes on the prize," thank you for the sacrifices you made to make this nation a better place. Now how about you check out some of the lovely retirement communities around the nation and rest on a laurel or two. If we need anything, we will certainly be sure to let you know. However, the page has turned, the channel changed, and the phone has a new ringtone. Let the next generation do its part. Trust us, because we got this.
Once again, to the Civil Rights generation that kept their collective "eyes on the prize," thank you for the sacrifices you made to make this nation a better place. Now how about you check out some of the lovely retirement communities around the nation and rest on a laurel or two. If we need anything, we will certainly be sure to let you know. However, the page has turned, the channel changed, and the phone has a new ringtone. Let the next generation do its part. Trust us, because we got this.
Afro & Circumstance
Now people may misjudge me for saying it, but there is a concentrated portion of the American populace that is simply not smart. Nuance makes no sense. There is no such thing as gray, only black and white, good and evil. And when it comes to the Obamas, that concentrated number seems to expand. Now here comes The New Yorker with its July 21, 2008 cover (check it out).
The moment I saw it, I understood the cover to be a satirical open handed slap in the face to that aforementioned concentrated portion of the American populace. But it is that same group of folks who will now feel as though they have confirmation for their worst fears about the Obamas: BHO is secretly a terrorist, and Michelle is a holdout of the Black Panther Party (afro included), set to force the Nation of Islam's agenda on the United States. Do we really need to add fuel to the ignorant fire that exists in our country?
Though I think the cover is funny (funny as all get out), too many are simply too touched in the head to get it, find it funny and move on. Lord Jesus, help us.
The moment I saw it, I understood the cover to be a satirical open handed slap in the face to that aforementioned concentrated portion of the American populace. But it is that same group of folks who will now feel as though they have confirmation for their worst fears about the Obamas: BHO is secretly a terrorist, and Michelle is a holdout of the Black Panther Party (afro included), set to force the Nation of Islam's agenda on the United States. Do we really need to add fuel to the ignorant fire that exists in our country?
Though I think the cover is funny (funny as all get out), too many are simply too touched in the head to get it, find it funny and move on. Lord Jesus, help us.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
"Mawidge"
So I was watching "The Princess Bride" the other day, and I cannot help but laugh at the scene when "Prince Humperdink" and "Princess Buttercup" get "married." The bishop in the scene has one of the worst speech impediments imaginable; it is just so wrong.
As I was watching, I thought about the recent events in California. I now have two states in the Union where I can get married legally (to someone I would want to marry; that's for the smart asses who would argue that I can marry any woman legally across the land). Once again, "I was really proud of my country for the first time in my adult lifetime" (hat tip to Michelle Obama).
I know that gay marriage remains a thorny issue for many, but it is becoming passe for so many more. I know that it is simplistic to think it, but I really think that we need to see all marriages as civil marriages. I think that that is the crux of this issue: religious marriages versus civil marriages. Any marriage sactioned by the state is a civil marriage, and thus marriage in that regard should be subject to the laws of the land, including the U.S. Constitution. There is no modification of the law to include more than a party of two, or people who are underaged, or animals, as the slippery slopers would have you think.
If one wants a religious marriage, then take that up with one's church. That has nothing to do with the state, nor should it. No one can force a priest or a pastor to perform a marriage between two members of the same sex, and I would be against any law that said as much. But, the city hall has no legs in this case, and it should not be in a position to discriminate.
Unless there is a sweeping opinion from the SCOTUS, I imagine that we will watch as more states move to adopting gay marriage. Personally, I will be happy to know that I can enjoy marital bliss in more places across my country. And, I look forward to the day, when it is not an issue at all.
As I was watching, I thought about the recent events in California. I now have two states in the Union where I can get married legally (to someone I would want to marry; that's for the smart asses who would argue that I can marry any woman legally across the land). Once again, "I was really proud of my country for the first time in my adult lifetime" (hat tip to Michelle Obama).
I know that gay marriage remains a thorny issue for many, but it is becoming passe for so many more. I know that it is simplistic to think it, but I really think that we need to see all marriages as civil marriages. I think that that is the crux of this issue: religious marriages versus civil marriages. Any marriage sactioned by the state is a civil marriage, and thus marriage in that regard should be subject to the laws of the land, including the U.S. Constitution. There is no modification of the law to include more than a party of two, or people who are underaged, or animals, as the slippery slopers would have you think.
If one wants a religious marriage, then take that up with one's church. That has nothing to do with the state, nor should it. No one can force a priest or a pastor to perform a marriage between two members of the same sex, and I would be against any law that said as much. But, the city hall has no legs in this case, and it should not be in a position to discriminate.
Unless there is a sweeping opinion from the SCOTUS, I imagine that we will watch as more states move to adopting gay marriage. Personally, I will be happy to know that I can enjoy marital bliss in more places across my country. And, I look forward to the day, when it is not an issue at all.
A General's Perspective
First and foremost, I think that Gen. Wesley Clark hit the nail on the head with his comments concerning John McCain's preparedness to be "Commander in Chief." And Clark acknowledged, in his interview with Bob Schieffer of "Face the Nation," that BHO was not prepared either, from a military perspective to be "Commander in Chief" (obviously, because BHO had not served in the military). I think that Clark's comments were in fact reasonable, and supported by the facts. Interestingly, Clark has been gaining support for his position (here, and here).
I think that it is interesting (though not surprising) that this issue of military service is coming into play once again. I certainly respect the notion that military service obviously can be helpful when it comes to determining whether or not military action is necessary to take in certain situations. I think we learned that lesson the hard way with our current "Commander in Chief," and his deferment(s) hogging VPOTUS. However, there are those within the military who itch for the good fight, and that cannot be dismissed. We do not need that right now. The military needs to be repaired and strengthened, and those fighting deserve respites from what they have done for our country.
Personally, I am tired of this notion that military service in and of itself is not is a requirement for serving as POTUS. I don't want to see a new litmus test come in the form of service in the Gulf War, Iraq War or the War on Terror; unfortunately, I think that we might be doomed to make the same mistake that the generations before us made, in that regard.
I think that it is interesting (though not surprising) that this issue of military service is coming into play once again. I certainly respect the notion that military service obviously can be helpful when it comes to determining whether or not military action is necessary to take in certain situations. I think we learned that lesson the hard way with our current "Commander in Chief," and his deferment(s) hogging VPOTUS. However, there are those within the military who itch for the good fight, and that cannot be dismissed. We do not need that right now. The military needs to be repaired and strengthened, and those fighting deserve respites from what they have done for our country.
Personally, I am tired of this notion that military service in and of itself is not is a requirement for serving as POTUS. I don't want to see a new litmus test come in the form of service in the Gulf War, Iraq War or the War on Terror; unfortunately, I think that we might be doomed to make the same mistake that the generations before us made, in that regard.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)