About Me

Name: Armanius
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

Blog Roll

 

Media once again shows its liberal colors

The NY Times talked about how unimportant and irrelevant the John Edwards story was to the world. The NY Times talked about how it always proceeds with caution when accusations can harm the lives of people. The NY Times talked about how its lack of coverage of the Edwards story was not a sign of the newspaper being in the liberal tank. But rather, it was cautious and good journalism. Boy, that spinning sure went out of the window pretty quickly when it came to Gov. Palin's pregnant teenage daughter. When it came to Palin's daughter, that story was worth three page one articles! Not one. Not two. But three page one articles!
 
Similarly, both the newsmedia and newspapers around the country have been blasting stories left and right about how Palin is "conservative" and "ultra-conservative". But the same media never mentions Obama or Biden as being "liberals." Obama's press secretaries Katie Couric and Brian Williams have kept up their barrage of leading questions during interviews that often suggest positive answers when it comes to Obama, while suggesting negative answers when it comes to McCain and Palin.
 
When Palin was announced as the VP choice for McCain, MSNBC ran under the heading of "Breaking News", "How many houses do McCain and Palin own?"
 
The media has suggested that Palin shouldn't be running for VP, because that would be a deriliction of her duties as a mother of a down syndrome child. Or that Palin was at fault for having a down syndrome child. Perhaps, the liberals would applaud Palin if she had chosen to abort the child.
 
I wonder what the media is going to talk about if Obama wins and the Dems take total control of the Senate. Who are they going to criticize, the remaining 30 or so Republican senators? Here's my prediction, something bad is going to happen in Iraq in 2010, and the media is going to say, "oh, that was all President Bush's fault."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

DailyKos liberals' vicious attacks against Palin

Once again, the lunatics at DailyKos show their hypocrisy. The self-proclaimed champions of women's rights have been denegrading Gov. Palin's accomplishments all day long making sexist remarks, and even suggesting that Palin's 4 month old down-syndrome baby is really the son of Palin's teenage daughter. DailyKos bloggers argue that this will the Republican's "Edwards Scandal." Can you believe this trash? It's so ironic how the left accuses conservatives of being "hatemongers" when in fact liberals are the REAL hatemongers. They talk about freedom of speech, equal rights, and civil liberties. But apparently those rights only applies to other liberals.

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

Putin and American politics - endorses Obama

Taking a page out of Democrat playbook, Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin told CNN that the United States pushed Georgia into a conflict with Russia to give one of the U.S. presidential candidates an "edge" in the election. Of course the Dems will take this and run with it all the way to the moon. Looks like Putin wants to give Dems some more ammo against that "warmongering" McCain.
So let's see which goons across the globe have thrown their support behind Obama's candidacy -- Gadaffi, Putin, Hamas spokesperson Ahmed Yousef, Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez.
 
I guess it just never occurred to Obama supporters to ask the question, why do all these goons like Obama better than McCain ...
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: America is as bad as Russia

Obama makes me ill. I have not accused Obama of being "unpatriotic" or "un-American" yet. But the more I hear him talk, the more I can't help but to think that his relativist view of good and evil will take our country down a path of appeasement and moral decay that we may never recover from. In a speech made in front of Virginia supporters two days ago, Obama not only compared but equated the Russian invasion of Georgia with the war in Iraq. Obama rebuked Russia and then said that America has not set a good example. Last I remember, Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili wasn't murderning thousands of Kurds and political opponents. Saakashvili wasn't under a mandate to cooperate with U.N. inspectors about dismantling its weapons of mass destruction program. Saakashvili wasn't talking tough about how he has some surprises in waiting for anyone that challenges him. Saakashvili wasn't paying off U.N. with the oil for food program. Is Obama ignorant, an idiot, intellectually dishonest, a liar, misguided, or just a fool? Maybe he's all of the above. Did Obama forget that Saddam wasn't a very nice guy? Or as John McCain said in the 2004 Republican Convention, Saddam wasn't exactly running an "oasis of peace" in Iraq. This idea of relativism that Obama and so many liberals have is just simply appaling. There is no right and wrong. There isn't good and evil. Maybe that's why Obama said that we must "confront" evil when Rick Warren asked whether we should ignore, negotiate with, contain or defeat evil. Note that Pastor Warren did not give Obama the choice of "confronting" evil. Obama decided on confronting, because the word confronting is totally open ended and ambiguous. Confronting can mean stepping in front of evil and attempting to stop it. Confronting can also mean pointing it out by saying "look, there's bad guy there." Or confronting could just simply be telling evil, "you are being bad." Obama has no moral core. He has not set values. And a lot of liberals like Obama's ideology and value system (or the lack thereof), because they find the idea of relativism a great way to validate their own lifestyle. Liberals want to do whatever they please and not have anyone preach to them about consequences. After all, who are we to preach about what is right and wrong. That's what Obama says. And liberals just love that.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama and Rezko: what great deal for a mansion!

According to the Chicago Tribune, the Obama campaign released a statement giving "slightly" more details about Obama's relationship with Chicago developer Tony Rezko. Obama is alleging that the $1.65 million he paid for a mansion was the "best offer" the owner received, even though it was $300,000 below the asking price. The seller has allegedly confirmed that he did not give a "discount," even though Rezko's wife bought the adjoining empty lot for $625,000, the full asking price for the empty lot. Obama says that his offer was $1.3 million, and that he increased the offer twice. I am no real estate expert, but if the original asking price was $1.95 million, why in the world would any seller ever respond to a low ball first offer of $1.3 million? That's a difference of $650,000 or 33% less than the original asking price. Is that common? Maybe the mansion was overpriced to begin with? You make the call.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Michelle totally fair game thx to Barack

Remember how Obama kept saying to leave his wife alone, even though she was out there campaigning for him and saying stupid things? Obama told Pastor Rick Warren that he always consults his wife when making decisions.
 
"There are so many people that are constantly helping to shape my views and my opinions. You mentioned one person I'd be listening to, and that's Michelle, my wife, who is not only wise, but she's honest. And one of the things you need, I think, any leader needs is somebody who can get up in your face and say boy, you really screwed that one up. You really blew that."
 
Well, if he consults Michelle and she is constantly helping to "shape" his views and opinions, then she is certainly fair game when it comes to determining what kind of person she is and what her political, social, religious, and moral beliefs are.
 
I'm sure libs out there are going to say, well, he said that in terms of his personal life, not administrion. They will say, Obama said later on that in "terms of administration ... blah blah blah." Baloney. He never said that he would not consult Michelle for his presidency. First, he said that he would be "listening to" Michelle. Then when he talked about in "terms of the administration," his reference was about not restricting himself to just three advisors, not that he would not consult Michelle.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama wants to reduce abortions? BS!

Obama told Pastor Rick Warren that he wants to reduce the number of abortions by starting programs to help and encourage mothers to keep their babies. Yeah, right. Let's start such a program "encouraging" would be mothers to keep their babies, while at the same time starting a program using TAXPAYERS' money to give free abortions. How does providing free abortion help in reducing the number of abortions? How does allowing unrestricted late term abortion going to help reducing the number of abortions? Obama wants to help reduce abortions while making it easier to get abortions. Oxymoron. Or actually, just a moron.
 
Obama was sort of right when he said that America's greatest moral failure is failing to "help the least of these." He's partially correct, because all the liberal pro-choice people in America have failed to help the least of these -- the innocent babies who are being aborted.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: McCain doesn't know what he's up against!

Obama said yesterday “I don’t intend to lose this election. John McCain doesn’t know what he’s up against. He can talk all he wants about Britney and Paris, but I don’t have time for that mess."
Aren't his statements totally idiotic? He clearly is dillusional like Nancy Pelosi. Obama really believes that he is what the world has been waiting for. Does he really think he's the second coming of the Messiah? That's the tone of his statement that McCain "doesn't know what he's up against." Yeah, Obama, you are the juggernaut right? You are indeed what you've been waiting for. A loone! And then Obama goes on to say McCain "can talk all he wants about Britney and Paris, but I don't have time for that mess." The irony of it all -- who keeps bringing up Britney and Paris every time when speaking during $8 million fundraisers that only rich people can afford to attend? Obama himself!!! When was the last time McCain said anything about Britney and Paris? When was the last time the ad was even played on TV? So Obama has no time for that mess, but he keeps it bringing "that mess" up over and over and over again.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Nader: Obama will choose Hillary as VP!

Politico.com reported that Nader called in and predicted that Obama will choose Hillary as his VP. I actually agree with Nader. Obama can't ignore the 18 million votes Hillary got, and he is sweating bullets right now. Slowly but surely, the "real" Obama is being revealed, whether it's his extreme disregard for the life of a baby born alive, or his relationship with terrorists like Bill Ayers. Heck, even Gadaffi, who called Obama his "Muslin" brother, has endorsed Obama!! So Obama is going to suck it up, and select Hillary. We all know that Obama will do whatever it takes to win. Just look at the pandering that he has engaged in for the DNC, which is nothing short of the Bill and Hillary Show!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama's blame game is getting old - SHUT UP!!!

Obama is at it again accusing McCain of "questioning his patriotism and character" just because McCain said that Obama was "legislating failure" in Iraq. For someone who prides himself as an intellectual, Obama sure is missing the intellect to understand the difference between questioning judgment versus questioning patriotism. Mr. Obama, if you ever come across this blog, here is some help for you. Questioning your patriotism would be something along the lines of "Obama wants us to lose the war, because he doesn't care about America." Questioning your judgment would be more like "Obama believes that the outcome of the war in Iraq is not relevant to America's national security, so he doesn't care if America loses the war in Iraq." Get it?
 
All kidding aside though, Obama is not lacking in intellect. He is only lacking in honesty. And yes, I am personally questioning your character, Mr. Obama. While Obama and his campaign constantly harp about McCain's purported "attack" ads, what is Obama doing? Each time he opens his mouth, he talks about how McCain does not care about the average American. Obama talks about how McCain has been bought by the oil companies. Obama talks about how McCain has been bought by Georgian lobbying. If that is not questioning McCain's character and patriotism, what is it? Does that sound like questioning McCain's judgment? Certainly not. Obama is questioning McCain's honesty and integrity. In the real world, what Obama is saying is that McCain is taking bribes. Hey, that sure sounds like a crime eh? In essence, Obama is accusing McCain of being a criminal. Wow, that sure sounds like questioning McCain's character to me. But of course Obama never attacks his opponents character. No, not Mr. Obama!
 
So here it is to you, Mr. Obama. Shut the hell up and just talk about change and your pay grade!
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (1) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

So much for relying on NATO to do anything!

Here's the latest on NATO doing anything to make the Russians angry. We ought to get rid of NATO and form a new organization with just the Eastern European nations which know what Russian domination is all about.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Saddleback: McCain and Obama differences

The "Showdown" at Saddleback was of course not an explicit showdown. It was not a debate. It was a Q&A answer where Pastor Rick Warren asked questions to each of the candidates without the presence of the other candidate. Warren asked the same questions to both candidates. While it was not a debate, this format actually worked great in differentiating the candidates. Here are my thoughts on the "showdown." This is not a comprehensive list of the differences, just my initial observations. I will likely discuss some times in more detail later. In interest of full disclosure, I am a McCain supporter. For the full transcript of the Warren interviews, click here.
 
General observations:
 
(1) Obama spoke in generalities and avoided making any bright line stances on issues. Obama failed to give definite answers to some of the questions, and took a much more "careful" approach by attempting to not offend anyone.
(2) McCain was much more decisive in his answers, and often showing much more passion for his beliefs than Obama. There were a couple of instances where McCain gave his answers before Warren was done with the question. Obama campaign is accusing McCain of having heard the questions during Obama's portion of the interview.
(3) Obama's lack of significant life changing experiences, which is partly due because he is much younger than McCain, really showed in his answers. As Obama talked about his past experiences as part of some of the answers he gave, there was no real sense of revealing who he is, and making an emotional connection with the audience.
(4) In contrast, McCain's experiences really made a connection with the audience. I personally got choked up a couple of times, particularly when McCain said that his toughest choice was to forego the option of early release from Vietnamese captivity which resulted in three or so additional years of torture. When McCain said that, you could see that it is still a difficult and emotional subject for him to talk about.
 
National security and foreign policy:
 
(1) Obama again talked about obtaining internaitonal consensus and support to act. He wisely strayed from saying that America needs U.N. approval before acting, but then followed up by saying that America still needs international support. He used Bosnia as an example of not having U.N. approval while at the same time having international support. Obama talked about "containing" evil when asked by Warren whether or not evil exists, and whether America should leave it alone, negotiate with it, contain it, or defeat it. Obama's answer was contain evil, and used the genocide in Dafour as an example of evil. Obama also pointed out that America has domestic evil and that America should approach confrontations of evil with humility, because America has been guilty of doing evil, even though America may have had good intentions.
(2) McCain on the other hand said that evil must be "defeated." McCain didn't even hesitate for a second in providing that answer, unlike Obama's calculated and measured response. McCain talked about defeating Al Qaida saying that nobody attacks our country and goes unscathed. This again was a very powerful response made by McCain as he said that he will follow Bin Laden to the gates of hell if necessary to bring Bin Laden to justice.
 
Economy:
 
(1) Obama said that rich people are the families that make above $250K annually, and called the middle and lower class families who make below $150K. I am not sure what Obama thinks about families that make between $150K and $250K. Obama said that people above $250K would see a moderate increase in taxes, while people under $150K would see a tax cut. Obama's reasoning for increased taxes is that the government needs more money to pay for services that the country wants. And Obama said that the government needs money to pay for the wars.
(2) McCain said that there is really not a definition in terms of annual salary as to who is rich and who is not. Rather, rich can be sometimes defined by having a family, a house, and being happy. McCain said that if Warren really wants a dollar figure, how about $5 million. McCain then quickly said that his opponents are going to have a field day with his $5 million statement, but that his point is that he wants everyone to pay less taxes. He said that tax revenues are not problem. It's the irresponsible spending of tax payers dollars such as using $3 million of taxpayer's money in studying bear DNA. McCain joked that he wasn't sure if the DNA study was related to a criminal proceeding or paternity testing.
 
Social, moral, and ethical issues:
 
(1) Obama refused to give an unequivocal answer as to when does a baby receive rights, when Warren talked about abortion. Obama stated firmly that he believes in Roe v. Wade. And then he said that he wants to pass programs to encourage woman to not have abortions by providing them with options to keep the babies alive. Obama said that Bush's anti-abortion policies have not reduced the number of abortions (he is wrong). Obama also stated that most women who undergo abortion are not making these decisions without carefully thinking about it. Obama generally said that he would continue to support embryo stem cell research, but that he hopes that stem cell adult research will eventually curtail the need for embryo stem cell research. Obama said his selfishness as a youth, which led him to use drugs and drink, was one of his greatest moral failure.
(2) McCain said he is firmly pro-life, and strongly said that babies have rights at the time of conception. He also talked about adoptions when Warren asked about a federal plan to help the 140 or so million orphans around the world. McCain gave an example about the adoption of a daughter that Cindy McCain met when doing some work with Mother Theresa. McCain said that new skin stem cell research makes debate about the need of embryo stem cell research moot. McCain said that his failed first marriage was his greatest moral failure.
 
Flip flops and reaching accross party lines
 
(1) Obama talked about welfare reform as a change in position. However, he was not very clear which direction he changed to. His example of reaching across party lines was campaign ethics and finance. He said he reached to McCain in his first year in the senate. But he forgot to mention that he then backtracked after being criticized by fellow Dems, which actually infuriated McCain.
(2) McCain's flip flop was offshore drilling. He said that he reached across party lines on issues like torture, out of control spending, and climante change.
 
List 3 people whom you would rely heavily upon in your administration
 
(1) For some odd reason, Obama decided to talk about his wife and grandmother first. Then he said that "in terms of administration" he would rely on more than three people. He went to to list Sam Nunn, Dick Lugar, Tom Colburn, and Ted Kennedy.
(2) McCain's three advisors would be General David Petraeus, Representative John Lewis (D-Ga), and Meg Whitman, CEO of Ebay.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Liberals and Moral Relativism

Fictitious standard of morality. That's what a former Jesse Jackson advisor named Ronald Walters said tonight in Hannity & Colmes, while arguing that a presidential candidate's moral values are not relevant. Walters said that infidelity is not something to really dwell into, because no one knows all the "circumstances" surrounding the infidelity. In other words, Walters believe that there are situations in which infidelity is excused depending on the circumstances. Walters was responding to Sean Hannity's argument that if a husband (i.e. John Edwards) cannot keep his vows to his wife, then why should voters believe what that unfaithful husband says?
 
Alan Colmes then turned the question around to conservative guest Amanda Carpenter, and started saying that McCain cannot be trusted, because he himself admitted that he had cheated on his first wife thirty years ago. Colmes kept asking if there was any difference between McCain and Edwards. Carpenter didn't have a good response, but I do. I doubt that Colmes will ever read my blog, but I am going to write it anyway.
 
First of all, let me make this clear -- I believe that infidelity is wrong. There are no excuses. There is nothing that justifies the breaking of a sacred vow. And in that sense, I do believe that men like McCain and Edwards committed sins, and need to be closely scrutinized to see if they are indeed people who will hold on to promises that they make.
 
That being said, Edwards' infidelity goes beyond just pure sexual indiscredtion or a momentary lapse of judgment. Edwards not only broke his promise to his wife, but then he lied to cover it up. He lied repeatedly and only came clean when he was trapped. To cover up the infidelity, Edwards has broken several campaign finance and tax laws by paying off his mistress Rillie Hunter as well as Andrew Young, Edwards' former campaign aide (and alleged friend)/  Young took the fall for Edwards by claiming that the mistress' baby was his. Edwards obviously did not care about Young, or else he would not have asked him to take the fall. Edwards fathered a child, and was/is perfectly willing to abandon that child to the life of single parenthood. Last but not least, Edwards campaigned for president under the banner of "moral values." He is not only a cheater, and liar. He is also a hypocrite.
 
If McCain also engaged in an elaborate law breaking cover up scheme of his infidelity and child abandonment, then I'd harp about McCain too.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (1) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Dems in power = censorship of the Right?

It appears that even the FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell is concerned about how the "Fairness Doctrine" might be used in the near future. In an an article posted in the Business and Media Institute website, Mr. McDowell stated that:
 
“I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”
 
“The Fairness Doctrine has not been raised at the FCC, but the importance of this election is in part – has something to do with that. So you know, this election, if it goes one way, we could see a re-imposition of the Fairness Doctrine. There is a discussion of it in Congress. I think it won’t be called the Fairness Doctrine by folks who are promoting it. I think it will be called something else ..."
 
You will recall how Dems have been harping about bringing back the "Fairness Doctrine" to force radio stations to give equal air time to liberal point of views. Obviously, such a movie would be nothing but a blatant attempt to silence conservative talk shows that a majority of radio listeners prefer to listen to over their liberal counterparts.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (0) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Obama: no tax for seniors??

I am all for tax cuts, but Obama's proposal for selective tax cuts and rebates for certain segments of the population make no logical sense. In fact, his proposals seem to serve only one purpose -- buy the votes from segments of the American electorate. Andrew Taylor wrote an article for the AP which covered some of the mind boggling reasoning for not taxing senior citizens who make less than $50,000. In the article, Robert Greenstein of the liberal think tank Center on Budget and Policy Priorities said the following:
"Most low- and moderate-income seniors already owe no income tax. Among seniors with incomes below $50,000 who do owe income tax, a significant number have modest incomes because they are retired but possess substantial assets. Given all the problems and needs the nation faces, targeting relief to this group isn't a priority."
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (17) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive