About Me

Name: C. L. Palmer
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

We Find Out Tomorrow... Maybe

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, November 03, 2008 11:36:58 AM
Al Gore may have done more damage to the Democrat party than he could possibly have imagined by the recount fiasco of 2000. You see, he opened a can of worms (or lawyers, your call) that can never be sealed again. Litigation after an election is now looking to be the norm in the American political process. Sure, ACORN put the final nails in the coffin of a civil election process, but it was Al Gore who cut the wood and laid out the frame. How can Democrats possibly complain? They started it!
 
Frankly, as a Republican, I'm glad we're finally going to stand up to election fraud. Kennedy would never have been president without it; the fear of a repeat of such tactics is what caused the whole Watergate mess in the first place. Sure, Nixon was wrong to cover the mess up, but his intention was to prevent criminality, not cause it. Now that Gore and ACORN have set up the groundwork for us, we can make the valid case that no final result ought to be announced until we make sure that all voters registered were legal. In addition, if George W. Bush has any testosterone left, he ought to punish illegal voters to the full extent of the law. I'm talking prison time, my friends, followed by immediate deportation where possible.
 
The corruption of the democratic process is intolerable if we desire to be a nation governed by and for the people. The question becomes, "Which people?" The answer ought to be obvious, but to the Liberal-minded, nothing is ever simple. Ergo, an explanation is in order. The People whom the government represents are the American citizenry. Not illegal aliens. Not legal residents who are not yet citizens. Citizens of this country, and none other. In my opinion, even a dual-citizen should not enjoy the right to vote. Sheer, undivided loyalty should be the key factor in deciding who does and does not enjoy the franchise here, or in any sovereign nation.
 
Indeed, sovereignty is the crux of the issue. If our electoral process is allowed to become corrupt, we have no sovereignty anymore.
I, for one, find such a proposition intolerable. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Dream Made Real... Almost

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Wednesday, October 29, 2008 2:23:58 PM
Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. had a dream, a vision of a day when men would be judged by the content of their character, when the issue of race would finally be left behind, when we would all see ourselves as part of one conglomerate people rather than a jumble of divergent races and cultures. The Obama nomination, and the subsequent debate, represents a near-realization of that vision. Republicans from John McCain to Rush Limbaugh have not criticized Barack Obama for his race, but only for his words and actions. Frankly, the issue of race has only been raised in response to charges of racism on the part of the Obama camp. That, in brief, is the problem. It isn't the white racists who carry the torch of racial differentiation these days; it's the descendants of those who were once victims.
 
The average white Conservative would much rather forget the issue of race as a whole. To begin with, the very concept of racial division is becoming somewhat obsolete. Many, if not most, of us are of mixed racial heritage. I myself am part Cherokee. My children are Pomo Indian and Hispanic. My neice is white, black, and Philipino. In my family, race is simply a moot point. I notice the same trend occurring all over the country. Let's face it: despite the fervent wishes of Liberals everywhere, the Melting Pot still exists and is doing its job.
 
Moreover,  those of the thirty-something generation and younger have never lived in a time when racism was viewed as tolerable. We have a hard time conceptualizing just what everyone is so upset about. I, for one, don't carry around anger because banks forced my grandfather off his land during the Dust Bowl. By the same token, I have little sympathy for those who blame their indigence and lack of success on slavery and past racism. Those things didn't happen to you! Aside from the ever-depleting population who experienced segregation first-hand, most African-Americans have never experienced legally enforced racism. Few have experienced even acts of explicit, overt racism either. Thus we constantly hear of "code words," "looks," and the "you can just tell" variety of experiences which often tell more about the percipient than the accused racist.
 
In short, it's time we got over the issue of race. The Republicans have. Someday, if they see it as politically expedient, even Democrats may. Only when a black candidate can run without anyone, especially the candidate himself, even thinking of race as a factor will Dr. King's dream have come true. We're halfway there. Barack and friends, the ball is in your court.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

With no Conservative, It's a Popularity Contest

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, October 20, 2008 9:15:19 PM
Let's face the music. John McCain is a political nerd. He can't express himself clearly. His mannerisms are stiff and nervous. He grins self-consciously, as if afraid someone might notice.
 
Barry Obama, on the other hand, is a jock. He's self-confident and assured. He is smooth. He says what he means with such suave grace that we'd fain ignore the content in favor of the presentation. Sure, he's a Marxist, but he's cool!
 
The content of Obama's message would be enough to give the race to McCain if McCain's message were significantly different. It's not, though. Obama wants to socialize health care. McCain wants to socialize the mortgage business. They're both socialists; the key difference is not how much but how fast. Frankly, I'm somewhat more afraid of the slow descent into communist hell than a quick dunk. A full plunge might generate some outrage. I've seen society slide gently down the crap-hole long enough to realize that incrementalism is far more dangerous than extremism. If you can change the definition of normal by slow alterations of the social fabric, you'll eventually get where you're headed. McCain would continue the slow slide, while Obama would dive into the deep end.
 
At the end of the day, with no clear distinction (in spite of the demonization by both parties), we're stuck deciding between a nerdy semi-socialist and a cool Marxist. Either way, we're screwed!  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Tom Brokaw Chose the Questions

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Wednesday, October 08, 2008 8:19:17 AM
I know this sounds a bit cynical, but am I the only one who noticed just how alien the questions seemed to the people reading them? One woman literally had trouble pronouncing her own words. Excuse me? Isn't the point of a "town hall" forum that people get to choose their own questions and raise the kinds of issues that may not be getting a lot of attention? Wouldn't you have liked to hear about immigration, tariffs, and paying off the national debt? Wouldn't you have liked to hear about what kind of criteria each candidate would have for nominating someone to the Supreme Court? There would actually be some meat to that conversation. This debate seemed like a conversation not about whether or not we should be socialists, but just how fast we ought to travel in that direction. Even if Brokaw didn't write the questions, he certainly seemed to have picked the safest ones for Obama. It almost seems as if Barack had given him a pre-approved list of issues from which to choose, and he stuck to it. I mean, in any crowd you'll get some safe questions for Obama, but I'm sure at least one person asked about Jeremiah Wright. Somehow, I imagine Brokaw blowing his nose into that sheet of paper, or perhaps bringing it into the restroom with him.
 
McCain wants the government to buy up individual housing? Is he crazy? I know this runs contrary to most ofthe coventional wisdom, but low housing values are good for America. They make buying a home affordable for the rising generations. This artificial crest of home prices necesitated the kinds of idiots-only loans that got us into this whole mess. If we can keep housing affordable, well, people can afford it. Why are gas prices too high, but house prices too low? Yes, the banks were screwed over by the regulations and government policies that encouraged stupid loan practices (by the way, McCain should have taken that angle in the debate), but the net result, once we bail out the banks, is affordable housing. That's not really such a bad thing.
 
This debate only made me more confused as to whom I want to win. I'm afrid of what Obama might do, but more afraid that we'll never notice just how much over the precipice we are sliding until we hit bottom. Last night, McCain had the historic opportunity to explain how and why command economies (like Obama's health care plans would produce) have failed and always will. He opted instead for obscure finger pointing about votes no one really cares about or understands. And sadly, Sarah Palin wasn't there to bail him out. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Palmer to Obama: I un-endorse you!

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, September 22, 2008 11:38:52 AM
Those of you who have read my blog before will know that some weeks ago I officially endorsed Barack Obama for president. I'm now officially taking that back. I refuse to endorse McCain, but I'd like to suggest to any and all conservatives that we'd better get over ourselves, swallow our disgust, and vote for him anyway.
 
I endorsed Obama based on the supposition that America has fallen asleep, and only a real punch-to-the-gut would awaken her. I realize now that I was wrong, for two reasons. First, we're far worse off than merely asleep. Second, Sarah Palin has awakened the conservative lion from its long hibernation. All conservatism needs to win votes is someone who can and will forcefully express it.
 
There is a vast pool of idiots from which the Democrats can draw votes. This is the lazy class, the class (consisting both of rich and poor) who would rather have someone else do things. The lazy rich would rather have government fight poverty than do it themselves. Even though every non-profit, non-government attempt to help the poor has been significantly more successful than government's attempts, these deluded fools see federal control and redistribution as the best means of solving poverty. Many of these people themselves came from poverty, but never mind. What worked for them couldn't possibly be the solution for everyone else. Hard work and education only help the fortunate few; the rest need to suck leech-like from the underbelly of society. Could Ted Turner have spent his billions developing a low-cost healthcare system, privately owned but not for profit? Could he have used the same business savvy that developed cable television to solve this crisis without Uncle Sam?  Sure, but then how would that expand the scope and power of government? Turner, and others like him, would rather write the occasional huge check to the U.N. and Democrats than take the initiative to solve these problems themselves. If they spent all of the time and money that they so willingly give to liberalism on eradicating poverty directly, they'd have done it by now.
 
The lazy poor need no explanation. They are the whiny minority who spend more time complaining that they don't get enough welfare than they do looking for a decent job. These are the morons who blame racism for their problems instead of looking in the mirror. They've always been the same, and will be until we stop coddling them. Our "generosity" has robbed them of initiative and direction over their own lives. They have no dignity because they have never accomplished anything to inspire true pride. This is our fault, as a nation. We have come to accept this state of affairs. Our low expectations for certain groups of people amounts to an implicit racism, a racism to which even the professional race-baiters are blind. I say racism, but what I mean is disdain. After all, this group is not defined in terms of color. The lazy poor constitute a smudgy rainbow over our slums and ghettoes.
 
Too many of us fall into these groups, or at least accept the basic premises that define them. The excitement over the Palin nomination, however, promises to change that. For too long, the same wrinkled faces have expressed words with which we have become all too familiar. Directness of speech has been severely wanting. Candor has been seen as a liablilty. The tone of expression heard from Washington "conservatives" has been that of a tired old man, largely because that's who we've had in Washington. Palin adds a note of sincerity, of vigor, and of excitement that we really ahven't heard since Reagan. She inspires the same optimism that Reagan did. I want to go back to being an optimistic conservative, not a sad old windbag shaking his cane at the world as it passes him by. That's what we've become. Palin, and the new generation of true-blue conservatives behind her, promise to change that.
 
I don't think we need an Obama to get a Palin. We may just get one without him.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberalism's True Colors: Red and Yellow

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, September 15, 2008 10:44:29 AM
I've always found it interesting that the media have assigned red to Republican states and blue to Democrat ones. Don't they have it backward? Think about it. Red has always been the symbol of communism, which is (now officially, thanks to Barry Obama) the party platform of the Democrats. Shouldn't their map color be red as well, to avoid confusion? Isn't New York more of a red state, communism-wise, than Indiana? It must be a purposeful obfuscation of the truth. The media tycoons who came up with the color scheme must have been aware that if they made the Democrat states red, everyone would get the symbolism, so they went the other way. Still, every election cycle, I find this incredibly confusing. Am I alone in this?
 
If the media want to avoid the confusion of the red/blue state colors, they might go white/yellow. The Republicans could be the white states (which, at least considering the racial stereotypes most liberals maintain, would make sense to the media), and the Democrats could be yellow. I doubt even the Democrats themselves could mount much of an objection; they themselves admit to being anti-war in most every case. If they objected too much, we could always threaten to take the disagreement physical, which would both cause them to acquiesce and prove our point in the bargain.
 
I realize that the red/blue color scheme is designed to evoke a certain sense of patriotism, but let's be realistic. To most of the media, patriotism is another word for nationalism, and nationalism is evil. I doubt they'll really care much, although they might flinch at the notion that their attempts at misrepresenting the characteristics of the two parties have failed. They really do see themselves as much more sophisticated than the rest of us, and thus able to manipulate our feeble minds with relative ease. That's why they despise talk radio so much; its success reveals that we are able to think for ourselves, that we don't need a bunch of pointy-headed idiots to tell us what the facts mean. We are capable of assimilating data on our own, thank you very much.
 
Okay, I realize that my suggestions to change the color schemes of the state-by-state maps on election night will go unheeded. Still, someone had to say what we were all thinking. Let the Reds be red! Who do you think you're fooling, NB-AB-CBS?
 
Only yourselves.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Camel and the (Republican Party) Tent

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Thursday, September 04, 2008 5:41:26 PM
If you are one of the unfortunate few who are unfamiliar with this allegory, allow me to sum it up for you:
 
An Arab merchant is travelling across the desert on his camel. He notices that a sandstorm is coming, so he quickly pitches his tent and shelters beneath it, leaving his thickly-furred camel outside as the tent is barely large enough for one. As the storm rages, the camel sticks its nose inside the flap. The merchant thinks, "How can I deny him this? It must surely be difficult to breath out there in the storm."
 
A few minutes later, the camel puts its entire head in the tent. The merchant doesn't object, as he understands that the sand must surely sting the eyes and ears of the poor beast. A few minutes later, the camel puts its neck inside as well. This, too, is allowed. Later, the camel's front two feet make their way into the tent. By this time, the merchant has curled himself into a ball to make room for the camel. He is quite uncomfortable, but knows that it would take a lot of effort to make the camel back out. He decides just to live with it.
 
By the time the storm is over, the camel is completely inside the tent. The merchant lies buried in sand outside.
 
Fellow conservatives, we are the merchants here. The "big tent" of the Republican Party is making many of us feel uncomfortable. The nomination of John McCain was like the camel inserting its feet into the tent. Now we, the true backbone of the party, find ourselves having to curl up and endure. Face it: We have lost control of our own party.
 
Now we are faced with a Faustian dilemma if ever there were one. Do we simply go with the flow, and accept irrelevance in the future of the Republican power structure? Or, do we stay home in November and allow a rabid socialist to run the country? Neither option is particularly attractive. I am the last person to say that we ought to elect Obama. McCain is certainly the lesser of the two evils with which we are presented. Just for that, he has my vote. Why? Not voting is voting for Obama. I can't do that. But part of me, a big part of me, wants to see Obama win. Perhaps, as Poe described it, I've fallen victim to "The Imp of the Perverse." Maybe, seeing us contemplating the view from the precipice, part of me is simply tempted to take a flying leap. I don't believe that's it, though. I have faith in the average American. We've been Slouching Towards Gomorrah for so long that few would notice the few steps McCain would take us in that direction. Obama, on the other hand, has some shock value. I have enough faith in America to believe that once we see what liberals really want to accomplish, the pendulum will finally start to swing in the right direction, which is the Right direction.
 
Best case scenario, for America? McCain wins, Palin governs, and yes, I know that's a horrible thought. I am ashamed already for thinking it. But... am I wrong? 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain to Dems: Check! But is the match won?

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, September 01, 2008 2:41:10 PM
The surprise appointment of the female governor of Alaska as the Republican vice-presidential nominee sent shock waves through the media and the Republican base last week. As strategy, it's a no-brainer. Hillary supporters are angry with Obama and the DNC for rejecting their girl; McCain appoints a female, hoping to sop up some of those voters.Will it work?

I don't think so. Republicans aren't particular about the gender of their candidates. We tend to vote issues over personality. Leaving aside the fact that John McCain was even elected the nominee (a feat largely made possible by the existence of open ballots in many key states), we will admire the savvy behind the choice, but it won't be enough to get us to the polls for McCain. He knows this. He didn't nominate her for us. He did so for Democrats. They, not us, are his target audience.

If he was after the Republican base, he would have nominated Romney. Sarah Palin is a good choice. Don't get me wrong. As far as I can tell, she would make a fine president if such became necessary. Her Conservative credentials are solid. However, a Romney nomination would have locked in the votes of all of us who felt that McCain was nominated largely because of a couple of dirty tricks.

McCain has a similar problem to Obama's. A significant number of Republicans were backing the other horse, passionately so. His nomination doused our hopes, quenching the flame that had ignited so much excitement during the early stages of the primary. We were hoping for another Reagan, but we got a Dole. That fact alone may well affect Republican turnout this November. McCain can get all of the Hillary voters he wants, but without the support of the base, he's toast.

I have said before and I'll say again that I think the nation needs an Obama victory. We need someone to wake us up to the realities of Left-Wing extremism. We have forgotten where that road leads. It will be painful, but it will lead us to a brighter future. We're a bit like addicts, we Americans. We're addicted to pork and deficit spending, addicted to our entitlements. We'll never get around to weaning ourselves without hitting bottom. Thus, I support Obama. He is the rock bottom we need so we can bounce back into sanity and common sense.





Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama bounces... straight down!

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Wednesday, August 27, 2008 8:24:59 AM
Despite all of the media adulation (or perhaps because of it), Barack Obama's poll numbers are down behind John McCain in both of the major opinion polls. Why? Is it Bill Ayers or Jeremiah Wright? Nope! Go to my blogspot post to find out:
 
 
If you like it, bookmark the page. My goal is to post here once a week (at least) and there once a week. It's the same blog, but different sites and different posts. Weird, but I hope you enjoy it.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

How Obama Sees America

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, August 11, 2008 3:00:21 PM
As the Obamessiah continues his speechmaking, it becomes apparent that he has quite a bit of disdain for the average American. Just how dumb does he think we are?
 
We're so dumb, we never change our oil or inflate our tires.
 
We're so dumb, the only reason we won't vote for him is that he's black.
 
We're so dumb, we can't understand why insulting white people isn't racism.
 
We're so dumb, we think killing terrorists will stop them from killing us.
 
We're so dumb, we think that increasing the supply of oil will lower prices.
 
You know, with the exception of the first two, he may have a point. I think that if Barack Obama went to a Jeff Foxworthy concert, instead of laughing he'd just nod his head and agree with the redneck jokes. He'd think it was a sociology lecture.
 
Since I can't figure out how to post pictures here, I'll link you to my other blog for a little cartoon about Obama's gas price theories.
 
 
Enjoy!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Why I Won't Vote for Obama

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Thursday, August 07, 2008 11:22:41 PM
I know this sounds very contrarian of me, but I can't bring myself to vote for Barry Obama. I want him to win; I haven't changed on that issue. I just can't envision myself contributing to it personally.
 
Since I don't feel like repeating myself overmuch, I'll refer you to my other "Use of Reason" blog to explain why:
 
Read around this one too, if you like. It has a lot of good posts from the past few months.
 
Or, read another little enterprise of mine:
 
 
This one's just for fun.
 
Thanks for reading! I was beginning to feel like I was shouting at the wind.
 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's Race Is His Biggest Asset

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Wednesday, August 06, 2008 10:32:34 AM
I know we're all thinking it. Geraldine Ferraro even had the nerve to say it out loud, and was practically denounced as a racist. Barack Obama is where he is today because he is black.
 
I know, some people are probably thinking, "Well, it's about time it started working for people instead of against them!"
 
In a sense, I can see why you'd feel that way. In racial terms, it certainly shows the growth we've had over the last fifty years. But at the root of it all, we still have the problem. We're still considering a man's race. To me, race is about as important as eye color. Would I care if the president-to-be had green eyes or blue eyes? Would that ever overshadow his foreign policy, tax policy, or energy policy? Of course not. For many Americans, however, that is precisely what is going on with regards to Barack Obama.
 
He is, for liberal white America, salvation from original sin. The original sin in this case, of course, is slavery. Our ancestors enslaved millions of Africans, or at least purchased and imported millions who had already been enslaved by their fellow Africans. In psychological terms, this is our unpardonable fault, at least to those who suffer from the mental disorder known as White Guilt. So we freed the slaves, thousands upon thousands of us dying in the fight to do so. Republicans fought to overcome a Democrat filibuster to pass the Civil Rights and Voting Rights acts. At that point, officially, blacks had all of the legal rights that whites did. That was over forty years ago.
 
I'm thirty-five years old. Segregation was never a reality in my lifetime. In school, I was always taught that the races were equal. I sat in a classroom with black, Hispanic, and Asian kids, and never noticed until we were taught about the racial conflicts that had occurred before our day. I don't feel guilty.
 
I want Obama to win because he'll show us all just how bad Liberalism truly is for America. That is very selfish of me; I'm a teacher, so my job depends less on the economy than on simple population. As long as there are kids, I'll be employed. Maybe that's why I have the luxury of feeling this way. My job isn't really at risk if Obama wins.
 
Getting back to the main point, we all know, despite how much he protests to the contrary, that if Barry Obama were as white as the grandmother who raised him, he'd be nobody. He wouldn't even be a senator from Chicago. That isn't racism, that's just plain observation. His views don't make him stand out. He's only considered eloquent because of the soft racism of lowered expectations. What does he have to offer besides the potential to assuage the conscience of white America?
 
In one word: Nothing.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Dangers of a McCain Victory

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Tuesday, August 05, 2008 4:33:28 PM
There are four possible scenarios this November. I will list them in order from best to worst.
 
1. The Republicans sweep Congress, and John McCain wins. This is the only circumstance where I believe John McCain will feel safe to act like a Conservative. He will feel that's the way the political winds are blowing, and, let's face it, that's the kind of politician he is. If he feels a push to the right, he'll go there. That's straight talk, from me at least. A Republican legislature is the most important aspect of this scenario. As much emphasis as the presidential race may get from the news media, those of us who actually pay attention to this stuff realize that the composition of the Congress is infinitely more important. That is why the next best scenario is...
 
2. The Republicans take control of Congress, and Barack Obama wins. This will be the classic Bill Clinton scenario. Obama will pontificate, complain, use (and hopefully wear out) the race card, and generally make an arse of himself, but will be unable to do any real damage. In the meantime, the freshman Republicans will still have cajones enough to advance a Conservative agenda, balancing budgets, scaling back Liberal spending programs, maybe even banning earmarks. (I can dream, can't I?) Sure, Obama will take credit for everything the Republicans forced him to do, but at least it will get done.
 
3. The Democrats keep the Congress, and Obama wins. Okay, on the home front, everything will go to Hell in a handbasket, just like it did the first two years of the Clinton administration. After that, however, we'll get the chance to say "I told you so!" and elect a new Congress. Trust me, even two years of unchecked Liberalism will be enough to convince America that there needs to be a change. If we're lucky, Obama will be a one-termer, and we can get on with real Conservatism that much faster. Remember, Bill Clinton would have lost, even to Bob Dole, if it weren't for Ross Perot. How the Libs have the gall to complain about Ralph Nader's measly couple of percentage points is beyond me.
 
4. The worst case scenario is if the Democrats keep the Congress, and John McCain wins. As much as I admire his military service, being a Republican maverick means going along with the Liberal agenda even more than the rest of your spineless peers. What we'll get is another Liberal administration, but with an "R" next to it. Just as Obama would take credit for any success Congress has, John McCain will be given the blame for any failures caused by another term of the Pelosi Congress. She will then blame Republicans in general, and use that strategy to gain seats in the next election, and foul things up even more. Conservatism, and America in general, will be set back for decades. If such must occur, I'd rather be able to blame a Democrat, wouldn't you?
 
The Congress and Senate are the real seats of power in this country; read your Constitution. They are the first branch of government to be addressed, and for good reason. Military command aside, the president is largely a figurehead. Sure, he can veto, but Congress can override it. Besides, ask yourself: Do you see John McCain using the veto pen?
 
I don't.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (5) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

America Needs Obama in the White House

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Monday, August 04, 2008 10:49:07 AM
I have changed my mind. I want Barack Obama in the White House. America needs him. We need an Obama victory so badly, I don't even care if the Democrats register thousands of illegals to ensure him a victory in California, Texas, Arizona, and New Mexico. (Oh, wait. They already have.)
 
You see, it takes a Carter to get a Reagan. America needs to experience what unbridled Liberalism will do to this country before it will elect a true Conservative. The mere fact that John McCain is the Republican nominee tells me that the time is ripe, yet again, for a Liberal from Hell to come in and lay waste to America. From those ashes will rise a rejuvenated America.
 
So, yes, I want Barry Obama to win in November, despite the fact that he will cause us temporary misery. It has to hurt if it's to heal.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama Fakes to the Right... He Scores!

Posted by C. L. Palmer on Saturday, July 12, 2008 2:22:53 AM
By now, only a complete boob could believe that Barack Obama is anything near a centrist. I don't think he (nor most of his media sycophants) has any clue what that would entail. Let's see: "I'll pull out of Iraq (maybe a little more slowly). I'll stick it to the corporations, you know, those pesky folks who pay your salaries, but I'll give the "middle class" a tax cut. TAX CUT!!! I don't hate (all) white people; Karl Marx was white. My old pastor, you know, the guy I quoted so often in my hope book, is a racist bigot, or at least he talks like one. My grandma was white. Sure, she had some issues, but I gotta love her. I won't really get rid of NAFTA, because NAMBLA might think I was banning them, and they're a key voting block for me. I'm going to remain silent on the whole gay marriage issue. You will note my stark silence on that subject. By the way, if you question my motives for this drastic rightward shift, you're a racist."

Ah, yes, he might as well call himself "Ronald Reagan Obama". How the heck does this tripe qualify as anywhere near the political center? Well, if you're a whacko liberal, it's not only centrist, it borders on gun-toting militia talk.

You see, the media have no comprehension of what the true political center is, because they can't comprehend what the true Far Right entails. Let me, therefore, explain the positions of the Looney Left, Far Right, and Center using strict logic.

ABORTION
Looney Left: Any type, any time, for any reason.
Far Right: No type, never, regardless of why.
Center: Some types, at some stages of the pregnancy, only for certain reasons (rape, incest, or a threat to the mother's life).

ENERGY
Looney Left: Solar, windmills, and cellulosic ethanol from leftover marijuana stalks.
Far Right: Drill and refine. That's all.
Center: Drill and refine for now, investigate other options for the future. (A comprehensive approach.)

TERRORISM
Looney Left: Embrace Islam. They hate us because we are evil, and maybe a little because George Bush is president right now. Just ignore the problem, elect Obama, and terrorism will go away.
Far Right: Turn the Middle East into the world's largest punch bowl.
Center: Go after the bad guys. Make allies for the future. Spread freedom so that area of the world will understand us better.

IMMIGRATION
Looney Left: People should be free to live and travel wherever they want. We have no right to enforce our borders. Plus, we ought to grant the rights of citizens to those who come here illegally, including voting rights.
Far Right: Gun them down as they cross the border. If you catch them here, execute them.
Center: Build a wall. Enforce the immigration laws already on the books. Make sure all voters are actual citizens.

GAY RIGHTS
Looney Left: Gays are actually better than straights. They don't help overpopulate the world, plus they have good taste. They deserve more rights than straight people, including the right to marry someone of the same gender. Young children need to be taught about these truths as well.
Far Right: "If a man lie with a man as he would a woman, both shall die, and their blood shall be upon their own heads."
Center: If you want to do abnormal stuff in the privacy of your own home, I won't stop you, but don't try to make me sanction it, accept it, or pay for its medical consequences.

Do you see the pattern here? The media have no idea what the real Far Right believes, so their calculation of what the word centrist means is inherently flawed. On most issues, the Republican platform is the definition of the logical center between the two possible extremes. The media, and Barack Obama, define centrism as somewhere between Josef Stalin and Ronald Reagan, tending closer to Stalinism. This is their fatal flaw, and the reason that they are so often amazed at the outcome of election after election.

Let's amaze them again.



Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive
« Previous12Next »