goldenbearsworld.com

We all have heard about Barack Obama’s rise to his historic nomination this year.  We witnessed Hilary’s historic run this election season as well.  What the democratic party did this year is remarkable, and it’s good to see minorities and women take a bigger role in this country. 

Do you recognize these names: Justice Scalia, Justice Thomas, or Condoleeza Rice?  Obviously you have, and all of these minorities hold important positions within our government.  The problem with this group is that they are conservative, not liberal.  It seems like whenever a liberal minority is in office, or is running for office, it’s a monumental moment that is great for America.  But if the candidate is a conservative, the spin on them is much different, and can even turn negative. 

Let’s use John McCain’s nomination of Sarah Palin.  Sarah Palin, governor of Alaska, is now the running mate of John McCain, and the attacks on her came fast and hard.  I understand that she was criticized for her lack of experience, but she was also criticized for being “out of touch.”  Democrats and the media were quick to point out that she doesn’t form to the mold of what they believe a woman should be.  Attacks included: she has five kids; including one who has down syndrome (this concerns pro-choice organizations), she has strong Christian values that is dangerous to liberal beliefs, and she tends to put her family before her career.  In other words; critics of the nomination say that “SHE’s NO HILLARY.”  Forget what she has gone through, forget that she is a great model of sacrifice and putting her family before herself.  Many liberals are saying because she’s conservative, doesn’t have a poor me/women/minority attitude, and because she puts her family before her career she’s, out of touch and no Hilary.  Sarah’s monumental nomination isn’t being portrayed that way, it’s being viewed as a danger and a threat to woman and minorities because she doesn’t fit the mold of a liberal candidate, and because of that it’s not as monumental if Obama would have picked a liberal woman; how sad.

Wow, what a speech Obama gave last night.  (Yes, I am being serious).   I thought that Obama did what he needed to do.  He commended McCain when he needed to, hit him hard when he needed to, and appealed to the voters’ emotions.  He was extremely solid, fluent, and has drawn many comparisons to Bill Clinton.  All the pundits believed that his speech was one of the best because of the way it sounded and how he carried himself.  But when the emotions go away, when America forgets what he looked and sounded like, how will his speech look like then? 

The speech sounded great, but how does it read?  When we are looking for a candidate, we want to know what was said, not HOW it was said.  Looking back, and reading some of the transcripts of the speech, it looks like any other political speech.  “I will not raise taxes, but I am going to increase the number of programs.”  Where is he going to get the money to increase the programs; oh, corporations and the rich.  “I will not raise taxes, but I will tax corporations more.”  What does he think is going to happen if he taxes them more?  They’re just going to sit back and eat the loss?  No, they’re going to pass it on to us, and we’ll still be in the same position. 

I challenge all supporters of Obama to read the speech when the dust settles.  Read what was said, not how, and then question “How is he going to do this.”  “How will this NOT effect me?”  I guarantee if that happens, logic will kick in, and all that will be left are empty promises.

It’s election year; in case you haven’t noticed, and things are beginning to heat up. Candidates are calling each other out, tentions are flairing up in house holds, and talk shows are trying to persuade listeners to vote for a certain candidate. Things can get kind of confusing during an election year, and I like to keep things as simple as possible. So, when I go vote for a cadidate, I think about an old saying: “you are the company you keep.” When I sit down and think about those who support Obama, then I realize that there’s no way I can vote for him. Here are five groups (maybe a little more) who will vote for Obama that cause me not to vote for him:

1) Hollywood- I like Hollywood. It’s a fun town, has nice weather, and sometimes it produces good movies and shows. It’s the people inside Hollywood I don’t like. The majority of Hollywood are way left leaning liberals who think socialism is ideal, and well… just look how they live their lives, not quite the model citizens.

2) The world- you take a look at how receptive the world is of Obama, and it’s frightening. They view him as a god who should be enthroned. If you see how Europe is turning out, and how the countries are being run; especially France. Why would we want a candidate that these country fully accept? I don’t want a candidate that the world despises, but I surely don’t want one that the world loves.

3) The youth- don’t we always complain how the youth are lost, confused, and don’t know how to run their own lives. Then why should I vote for a candidate that the youth fully embrace. Doesn’t make sense to me.

4) The poor- this isn’t a knock on the poor; but I don’t want to vote like the poor. They want handouts from the government, and will vote for the party that gives the most handouts. The people should help the poor, not the government. Government programs are good for temporary fixes, but many feel that they can’t live without the assistance.

5) Air America, moveon.org, Atheists… ENOUGH SAID.

6) Finally… Uniions. Unions were fine and dandy back in the 50’s, but now they are money grubbing organizations who protect the worker at all costs; even those that don’t deserve protection. Don’t believe me, look at the teacher unions. Also; they take union dues and give them to candidates, that’s just wrong.

When I sit down and see who is voting for Obama, I realize why I won’t vote for him; he truly is the company he keeps.

One of the main things I don’t like about Washington (on both sides of the aisle), is that they seem to really enjoy talking out of both sides of their mouths. Republicans preach morals, but many of the get wrapped in some sort of scandal; the democrats preach fair elections and reforming; but many of the are wrapped up in pork barrel and ear marks. One thing that I don’t seem to understand is “the separation of church and state.” I do understand the government not giving federal money to churches, and places of worship. I also understand how churches cannot endorse a certain candidate because of the their tax status. What I don’t understand is how democratic candidates are can continuously be invited to places of worship, sit on the alter during service, and give a political speach either during or after the service. Isn’t this the same as a church endorsing a candidate? Over Father’s Day weekend, candidate Obama sat on the alter during a service, and gave a rousing speech about black father’s being absent from the family unit. Many news outlets praised him for his words, and said that he was right on. Can you imagine the uproar if a conservative Catholic candidate gave a rousing speech on abortion or any other type of conservative talking point? The media and democrats alike would be outraged; they probably even cringe at the thought. Democrats are so against religion in the public square, they even send troops into conservative churches to see if they are endorsing a candidate. There is obviously a double standard when it comes to the use of the Sunday pulpit. As long as you’re a liberal church endorsing a liberal candidate; by all means use the pulpit to spread the word. But if you’re conservative, and believe there is absolute right and wrong (that’s were the drawing point lies; I’ll talk about that in another post), then you’re violating laws, and must be reported. The pulpit is used for sermons and homily’s, not for politicians to spread their garbage.

Either the media isn’t doing it’s job, or the voting public is blind; or it’s a combination of both.  It seems like whatever the democrats do, they are let off the hook, and Republicans are inspected with a fine tooth comb.  Some of the things the democrats have done are;  Filibustering Bush’s nominees, holding special meetings so the president can’t exercise his congressional right to elect a recess apointment, and now turning off the lights while the Republicans are trying to hold a debate on energy and off shore drilling.  Democrats have left for the summer recess, while some Republicans stayed to continue the debate (whether it be by morals or show, only they know).  Nancy Pelosi allowed Congress to adjourn without coming up with an energy plan, and turned out the lights on the Republicans.  Yet, the newspaper reports continue to blame some Republicans, gas companies; and voters continue to blame Republicans and Bush.  Ladies and gentlemen, right now the Democrats are running the country.  They have been for awhile now because of the Filibusters, and now by making Bush a lame duck president.  They didn’t allow him to overhaul social security, they aren’t allowing him to work on the energy crisis, and they have attempted to block almost every nomination.  Also, they are spewing more negative junk than McCain is, and McCain is getting lambasted for his negative campaign.  One of these days, the media either fairly or accidentally will report the news fairly, but right now it’s not, and voters are being duped.

Here are some poll numbers: a majority of Americans largely place the blame of high gas prices on oil companies and not necessarily on Democrats in Congress. Sixty-eight percent pointed the finger at U.S. oil companies, and 65 percent blamed foreign oil producers, while 54 percent blamed the Bush administration and 31 percent Democrats in Congress.  How is this possible? The democrats need to be held responsible, and the media needs to be agressive and not hold a double standard.

Will the love affair between between Obama and the media please stop!  Here we are, a few months away from the election, and the media is in awe that this man is going to Afganistan and Iraq.  Breaking news is all over the place, programs are being interupted, it’s like we should make today a national holiday (or Monday since today is Saturday).  He has gotten more attention for going that Bush, and when McCain is over there, it’s like there’s no story at all.  A couple of things to point out: 1) It is going to be interesting if the media will show how the military personel really feel about his plans for the war and national security.  The last time I checked, the military was overwhelming voting Republican, and they want McCain in the office over Obama.  2)  Will just one reporter or anchor bring up this question:  Why the hell did it take Obama so long to get over there?  This should be his second or third visit, not his first.

The love affair between Obama and the media is sickening for a couple of reasons; and I just want to hurl when I hear the press cover him sometimes.  Very rarely is he asked tough questions, and any mistake that he makes, instead of pointing it out, the’ll spin it and make the republicans look evil.  The media has a lot of power and influence, and I just have a feeling that that the way the are covering this race, the Republican party has no shot this November.  I will admit, the Republicans put themselves in this situation as well, but, the media needs to be objective, and they are not at this point.  They are courting Obama and standing McCain up.

I keep hearing the democrats say that this nation is divided, we need to unify the nation.  We need to get this nation together again.  Well Thursday, Nancy Pelosi came out and said that Bush was a total failure.  I’ve said several times on this blog; I don’t have a strong opinion about Bush.  There are some things I agree with, and somethings that I don’t.  But to call him a total failure is ludicrous, especially with a do nothing, blocking congress that we have now.  Bush couldn’t do anything his final term because of the democrats blocking everything.  See, Nancy is right; our nation is divided.  It’s not divided in the terms that the democrats say though.  Our political parties are completly divided, and the democrats want to gain control of everything and “unify” the country by being able to pass every democratic bill and legislature.  This isn’t unifying, it’s taking control.  The country needs to be unified by compromise on both sides of the isle.  This nation is full of whiners that want to get their own way (from citizens to politicians).  Whiners don’t compromise, they find ways to get their own way.  Everyday gets scarier and scarier.

Late last week, one of McCain’s staff members said that we have become a nation ofo whiners.  I understand that McCain had to back off for political reasons, but I agree with the statement.  Back in the golden days, the United States was a nation of doers.  Citizens didn’t wait or expect the government to bail them out, they tried to find ways to bail themselves out.  These days all we hear about is, “The government has to do this, the government has to do that.”  The goverment is here to protect the citizens and help the citizens, not do everything for the citizens.  As citizens, WE need to do things for ourselves.  Go back to school if you don’t have a degree (the government will help you), start your own business if you’re unemployed (the government will gelp you), get a second job like I did for a little while (government can’t help you there).  Take action to help the country, don’t just take action every 2 or 4 years by voting, but take action in your daily life. 

News sources all across the United States are quick to say that Bush’s approval ratings are at their lowest, and that no president as received such ratings since… (insert president here).  Sources cited are Iraq war, economy, direction the U.S. is going, world opinion, etc.  I haven’t heard a source cite congress yet.  Bush can’t do anything right now.  He can’t do anything because the democratic congress and senate is overriding almost every Bush bill; making him a lame duck president.  What I’m not hearing though is how Congress’ approval rating is in the single digits.  That’s right, the single digits.  You see, the democrats are so focussed on blocking Bush on everything, that he is unable to do anything; and the voting public is starting to notice.  It’s going to be interesting to see what’s going to happen this fall.  We may have a democratic president, but will we have a democratic house and senate, or will thre be a split?

I’m shocked.  I don’t know if I’m more shocked that a senator has proposed a 55 mph national speed limit, or that it was proposed by a republican.  As you can imagine, I’m against this proposition, and I’m sure that the majority of Americans are against it as well.  There are two reasons that I’m against it.  First of all, it saves a lot of time being able to go 75 mph on the freeway.  My family and I just recently took a trip to San Diego, and we got there in 7.5-8 hrs.  The reason that it took that long is because we took a two hour stop in Yuma.  We enjoyed that 75 mph speed limit because our two children slept pretty much the whole way.  By lowering the speed limit, we’re adding an additional 1.5-2 hours to our trip, this is disasterous for young families.  The other reason that I’m against this is because it’s big government.  The state should dictate the speed limit, not the federal government.