HERE'S YOUR SIGN:

The author of this blog does not present himself as an objective observer of the world around him. He also does not pretend to be a man of few opinions. The general views he holds have been shaped by scholarship, study, experience and common sense.

As the author of this blog finds himself on the road very frequently, he has noticed that anytime he sees an Obama bumper sticker, by default, he looks at the driver of that vehicle with disgust and sympathy. The author's disgust is not necessarily directed at the individual driving the car, his sympathy is. The disgust is aimed directly toward Obama, as a political figure, and toward the establishment that has accepted him as a legitimate contender for the most powerful office in the world. The sympathy is for the poor schmucks who are gullible enough to think that he's a new kind of candidate and that he's going to bring any type of worthwhile change.

The reason for the "Here's your sign" reference comes in at this point. As most of this blog's readers may know, Bill Engval of Blue Collar Comedy has a routine wherein he outlines some of the stupidity of the people around him. In his view, stupid people should have a sign that they wear around their necks to warn everyone else just how dumb they are. These people don't only annoy with their lack of intellect or judgment and the resulting conversation and questions, but they are also potentially dangerous to themselves and to the people around them.

As an American first, and everything else second, the author of this blog truly believes that ours is a government of the people, by the people and for the people. By espousing such a belief, the author--out of principle--admits that anyone who loves this country and has any idea for its betterment can legitimately justify holding a place in elected office. Obama may love certain aspects of this country, but he has provided no real evidence that he loves this country. In fact, on the contrary, he and his "high minded" ideals would weaken the United States of America on a daily basis.

The man who, in one of his more popular speeches, claimed that words are not just words is the same man who has said that he's been to "all 57 states, one more to go... except Hawaii and Alaska" [paraphrased, but not misrepresented]. If I do my math correctly, that means that Mr. Words-Count thinks we have 60 states in the Union (For those of you who support Obama: 57 + 1 + 2 = 60). Here's your sign:

He's also the same man who voted for sex ed for kindergartners (Illinois General Assembly Senate Bill 0099), admitted that doing so was the right thing to do in a speech to Planned Parenthood, but now that McCain's campaign has highlighted that vote in a campaign ad he denies it. He's even got folks in the news media accusing McCain of lying about this. Just last week on "The View", Joy Behar confronted John McCain on this very ad and one other that also is factually correct (another "inconvenient truth" for Obama and the Democrats): "Now, we know that those two ads are untrue. They're lies." Joy Behar... Here's your sign:

This wordsmith is also the same man who wants to meet with terrorist organizations and regimes that harbor them without pre-conditions, giving cowardly terrorist who hide among civilians diplomatic recognition and thus fueling the fire of their efforts. He also claims that keeping your tires adequately inflated would be the equivalent of getting America off foreign oil and that it would greatly and positively impact our efforts at turning back man-made global warming (on which there is no scientific consensus, but plenty of the political variety).

Barack Obama has also voted that if an abortion fails and the child is born, that since the original intent of the mother and the doctor was to terminate the pregnancy, it is legally justifiable to execute the infant. This is that same Chicago politician who said that if his daughters make a mistake and mess up, he doesn't want them punished with a baby.

This is the same genius who was the president of the Harvard Law Review, taught at the University of Chicago's Law School and worked as a community organizer, but never actually authored anything of merit or consequence. His campaign doesn't speak about his 12 years at the law school, but everyone knows that he was a community organizer. To this day, the only evidence of what Barack Obama was about during all of those years is what we know of his associates. He worked for ACORN, a non-profit, "non-partisan" organization that has been found guilty of registering deceased persons, the same individuals multiple times, and fictitious persons to vote (which is why the author joked with a few members of his family that he would vote for Obama, the Obama way: 3 times). He was involved in at least one illegal real estate transaction. His pastor of 20+ years, the one who baptized Obama's daughters, and to whom he donated over $21K, is the famous America-hating, race-baiting Jeremiah Wright. His good friend and neighbor, William Ayers bombed the Pentagon and still defends his actions in doing so. His first choice for an adviser to help him find a running mate was a longtime Democrat supporter, fundraiser, and illegal mortgage holder from Countrywide who stepped aside to avoid additional controversy.

Obama is a man who was elected to the Senate in '04, but by the time his presidential campaign was in full-swing, he had only been in the Senate chambers on 143 days. He never held a committee meeting as a Senator. He has argued that he runs his own campaign--and that doing so gives him all the executive experience he needs to be president.

The list of gaffes, lies, historical re-writes, instances in which he shows he has no knowledge of how government works, logical incongruencies, etc. can go on forever. The bottom line is that this candidate is an embarrassment to the United States of America. He has no character, he is empty, he is a prime example of the bad side of Affirmative Action. He is a fraud. To all those who know about the examples to which this author has alluded and still support him, you are worse than the rest of his supporters who are just simply ignorant of reality. But either way, to all Obama supporters, Here's your sign!

Abstinence

I have heard so many people over the past three days talking about the ineffective nature of abstinence that I may lose my mind. People who claim to be sophisticated or smart, who also say that abstinence is inferior to contraception have got to be the most intellectually deficient people on Earth.

These people also tend to be liberals. I used to work with a self-proclaimed, Karl Marx adoring socialist. She always used this same garbage that she had learned at Albertson College of Idaho regarding abstinence and also abortion. She asserted that abstinence leads to more STDs and teen pregnancy than not abstaining from sex. On the other issue, she detested people who had abortions and abhorred the idea of abortion all together, but refused to say that it should be banned. She suffers from the John Kerry Abortion Syndrome (JKAS). I will touch on that momentarily.

Back to abstinence. If two mortals choose to have a baby together, and they choose to do so according to natural laws (without test-tubes, petri dishes, other people's samples, etc.), those two individuals must have sex. So, if two people decide that they do not want to have a baby together, the logical way for them to ensure this is to not have sex--or in other words: the practice of abstinence. Following that same logical pattern, no one can have a disease trasmitted to them sexually if they are not sexually involved with someone who has that particular disease.

The difference between teaching abstinence and presenting the more popular sex ed programs is the assumption that children in school have no self control. Abstinence programs teach kids that the only 100% safe option is to abstain from sexual activity and encourages students to do so. Sex ed programs tells elementary, junior and senior high school students that society has no expectations of them. In fact, society expects that kids have no standards, no self-control and no ability to accept responsibility. Sex ed teaches moral failure and provides tools to try to erase the consequences.

Kids today know what sex is and they know what the consequences are. Still, many of them choose to exercise their agency--their personal decision-making tool--to get involved sexually anyway, because of impaired judgment, curiosity, a passionate crush (again, impaired judgment), etc.

The liberals in society will always turn to society first. They look to the community (i.e. the government) to provide for individuals' needs and they put the blame on the community is something negative happens to the individual. Conservatives, on the other hand, believe in individual responsibility. Conservatives realize that people actually do have the right to choose, and that with choices come consequences.

Liberals don't like the idea of consequences because their ideas always fail. They always fail. Why? Because results aren't what liberals use to gauge the successfulness or failure of a policy, but rather how good or how bad the intentions were at the introduction of the policy. Look at the war on poverty. It has been going on since the Johnson administration and very little has changed. Here's a little economics lesson for liberals and democrats. As the average income of citizens increases, so does the poverty line. One of the American Left's main campaign issues will always fail because the objective of "bringing people out of poverty" cannot happen. As more and more people are making more and more money, the definition of poverty will grow in a parallel trend.

I would like to interject one additional free economics lesson for the liberals out there. The American economy is not in a recession. All of the experts continue to be "surprised by the quarterly growth" or "small growth in the economy surprises analysts, hard times still expected by the experts". These people are idiots. If they are experts, how can they be wrong every time a report comes out? Why are they always so surprised? The exact definition of a recession is: two consecutive quarters of negative growth. With all of the bad economic news out there, mixed in with a two-front war on terror, natural disasters, energy shortages caused by our enemies, China's and Russia's military and economic build-ups and the attacks of September 11th, the economy throughout the Bush administration has been extremely resilient. We have not had a recession at any point throughout the entire doom-and-gloom days of the "worst administration ever".

Anyway, back to the topic. I conclude by returning to the JKAS. John Kerry shared his belief that abortion was wrong, but then stated that he refused to force his beliefs on others. Let's dissect this. Abortion is wrong, according to Kerry, but that is only his belief. Does this mean that if he (and other lawmakers) believes that domestic violence is wrong, or that drunk driving is wrong, or that child pornography is wrong, or that honor killings are wrong that he shouldn't speak out against them? If he believes these things, but not enough to stop them, where can a line be drawn?

The socialist I worked with felt the same way. She believes that abortion is murder, but that women have the right to choose. The idea that an abortion is a woman's right makes no more sense than declaring legal a mother's right to murder her children later on in life when times get tough. What difference is there between a mother killing her inconvenient fetus prior to birth and drowning her inconvenient child after birth? None! Either way, the result is the same. One less life to be lived and one less frustration to overcome.

Once again, we see that liberals throw out logic and reason in the name of their grandiose intentions. Their goal in life is to enable anyone to do anything they want without being bound by consequences and personal responsibility. Conservatives believe that freedom is the ability for one to decide for one's self what path to take in life and using the associated consequences as life-building experiences. Liberals, conversely, believe that freedom simply means freedom from consequences. If they can do anything they want without the inhibitions that come as a result of poor decisions, that is freedom. They are like children, actually. Care free and self-absorbed...someone else will always be there to take care of the serious stuff.