"Reformed" Gays For Obama!

Senator Barack Obama has come under fire recently for allowing the "reformed" gay gospel singer Donnie McClurkin to perform in one of his campaign's sponsored concerts. Many groups have accused him of pandering to the anti-gay southern church-goers, and quite frankly, they won't get off his ass about it.

McClurkin says that he was delivered from homosexuality by the grace of God, and that he realized his life-style was "not God's intention." He has also stated that he became gay due to being sexually assaulted by male family members in his youth. This also seems to explain why women can't seem to keep their hands off serial rapists.

There is no doubt McClurkin exemplifies the "change" aspect of Obama's campaign, and maybe just in time. The homophobic vote is one that is often ignored by candidates, and it is estimated that these so-called "homophobes" make up a significant part of the population. In fact, many seem to be concentrated in Christian churches, which is the area Obama is targeting. It is also important to note that these people hold very strongly to their beliefs, saying that "homophobia is not a choice" and that instead, it is something placed in them, almost as if by a higher power.

But perhaps McClurkin's message can help bring Obama's campaign to the forefront. If history tells us anything about politics then there is nothing like preying on irrational fear and ignorance to help raise a few dollars. Obama is promoting an idea that might be most appealing to many groups: a society in which there is no need for civil unions.

Things I Just Don't Understand

There are probably a lot of things I don't understand, many more than I could write about here, but I'm just going to focus on two of them.

First of all, Bill O'Reilly. Now I enjoy his show, and I watch it as much as I can. I don't agree with everything he believes or says, and I think I speak for most of his viewers when I say that half the fun of watching The O'Reilly Factor is calling Bill an idiot and hurling insults and rebuttals at the screen from the safety of a couch.

O'Reilly tends to do stories that amount to little more than journalistic pornography. In fact, one of his main stories today, a piece on Girls Gone Wild, featured actual pornography! Naturally, this discussion contained provocative video of young girls, and followed a story in which O'Reilly deplored the way our culture exploits provocative young girls.

Finally, and probably more importantly, I still can not nail down Rudy Giuliani. I would like to stop short of calling him disingenuous, because I think he may actually believe his own nonsense. My biggest qualm is that he speaks about 9/11 as though it is his big accomplishment! This seems akin to lauding yourself for the plague just because you happened to be King. In my opinion, September 11th is an important issue, but it should be a talking point for no candidate.

Unfortunately, it seems he has dragged his wife into it now. She seems like a nice enough person, although it was difficult to tell because in their interview with Sean Hannity I think she was told not to answer questions with any detail whatsoever. Her favorite line was probably "You know Sean, I'm really not a very political person." I thought this was pretty honest, but then counted at least four (it may have been five) references to 9/11 during the relatively short time she actually answered questions.

I just can't get behind this guy...it seems to me that he would say whatever he thought would boost his name further up the polls.

I was going to post pictures of these two, but for some reason blogger won't let me. Hopefully they fix it soon, because just having to read my writing can get pretty boring.

CNBC Republican Debate

Well, another Republican debate is over, and the public is in a tizzy over the results. This debate was held in Dearborn, Michigan and featured Rudy Giuliani, Mitt Romney, those six other guys like them, and Ron Paul, who is kind of like the guy who always gets picked last on the playground. Although I don't have specific statistics, I'm pretty sure the ratings put the debate somewhere between midget thumb wrestling and the convertible bed infomercial. Anyway, let's get right to the analysis.

First, I would like to expose my bias on the subject. I, as well as many who have seen the debates and heard him speak, favor Ron Paul for the Presidency. Thus I will most likely unfairly mock or berate the other candidates in this and future writings. Actually, I take that back, I will still mock or berate them, but I plan to do it fairly.

This particular debate was focused on the economy, and since I have a feeling that most Americans can't tell you much about the Alternative Minimum Tax, or how the federal reserve regulates the market and sometimes causes inflation, I will leave those subjects alone. For me, there was really one question that hurt the two major candidates, Giuliani and Romney, and that is the question I would like to address.

MATTHEWS: Governor Romney, that raises the question, if you were president of the United States, would you need to go to Congress to get authorization to take military action against Iran's nuclear facilities?

ROMNEY: You sit down with your attorneys and tell you want you have to do, but obviously the president of the United States has to do what's in the best interest of the United States to protect us against a potential threat. The president did that as he was planning on moving into Iraq and received the authorization of Congress...

MATTHEWS: Did he need it?

ROMNEY: You know, we're going to let the lawyers sort out what he needed to do and what he didn't need to do. But, certainly, what you want to do is to have the agreement of all the people -- leadership of our government as well as our friends around the world where those circumstances are available.

Yes, you read that correctly, before going to war, President Romney wouldn't consult with the Congress, but rather with his lawyers! Now that may not sound like a very good plan, but then again, you haven't seen Mitt Romney's lawyer.After that brief exchange, you may have thought Romney had the dumbest remark of the night sewn up. But no! In a stunning upset, Giuliani pulled in with a worse gaffe during that same question.

As a set up, this is how Congressman Ron Paul answered the same question:

MATTHEWS: The same question down the line, gentlemen. It's so important.

Congressman Paul, do you believe the president needs authorization of Congress to attack strategic targets in Iran, nuclear facilities?

PAUL: Absolutely. This idea of going and talking to attorneys totally baffles me. Why don't we just open up the Constitution and read it? You're not allowed to go to war without a declaration of war.

I know what you are thinking..."Gee, the Constitution, that is something I haven't heard a Presidential candidate mention in a while." But now, the moment you've all been waiting for, the number one flub/downright stupid statement of the night, and here it is:

PAUL: Now, as far as fleeting enemies go, yes. If there's an imminent attack on us. We've never had that happen in 220 years.

The thought that the Iranians could pose an imminent attack on the United States is preposterous. There's no way.

Only minutes later...

GIULIANI: It really depends on exigency of the circumstances and how legitimate it is, that it really is an exigent circumstance. It's desirable, it's safer to go to Congress, get approval from Congress.

If you're really dealing with an exigent circumstance, then the president has to act in the best interests of the country.

And the point of -- I think it was Congressman Paul made before -- that we've never had an eminent attack, I don't know where he was on September 11th.

PAUL: That was no country.

That was 19 thugs. That had nothing to do with a country.

GIULIANI: And since September -- well, I think it was kind of organized in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And if we had known about it, maybe -- maybe hitting a target there, quickly, might have helped prevent it.

Yes, of course, a preemptive strike on Afghanistan or Pakistan, that would have stopped it for sure! Never mind that the terrorists who hijacked the planes had been in the U.S. for months beforehand preparing for the attack and even living here. I'm sure an attack on a country where the group they belonged to was hiding would have stopped everything in its tracks. Not to mention this statement begs the question: where should we attack? Does Al-Qaeda have a big headquarters with gold trim and a giant sign? This is a decentralized, non-governmental terrorist organization. What do we gain from attacking a sovereign nation? Furthermore, we have had an almost constant military presence in the Middle-East for decades, which did nothing to prevent the attacks.

Unfortunately, Giuliani seems concerned only scaring the American people into a flawed foreign policy, unfortunately now he seems to even be willing to use dishonest arguments to do it.

In, conclusion, I think that Giuliani is blinded by his own propaganda. He seems to think of everything in terms of 9/11, and apparently seems to have historic amnesia that began at the beginning of the 21st century. The reason I say this is because I think that there may very well have been a legitimate objection to Dr. Paul's comment that we have never had an imminent attack posed against us, but it was not 9/11. The one that immediately comes to mind is Pearl Harbor, which drew us into the last legitimately declared war we fought, World War II.

I apologize for this being so long and not all that amusing, but this was a subject I hadn't seen covered in the news that much (with the exception of the Romney answer, which is why I was able to make a joke rather than actual commentary), and one that struck me as being important.

Idaho Lowers Standards!

Have you ever thought to yourself "Gee, I should really move to Idaho."? Me either. But if you were going to, now would certainly be the time. Never has being an Idahoan, or Idahoese, or whatever people there are called been so easy. Standards for good citizens are at their lowest levels in decades, and not to mention every new citizen gets a copy of the new book One Great Thing About Idaho.

All this comes on the heels of the news that Senator Larry Craig will still be inducted into the Idaho Hall of Fame after being embroiled in one of the more bizarre scandals in recent history. The Hall of Fame committee stands by their decision to place Craig in the Hall, stating that he "has made a great contribution to Idaho over the period of 20-some years." Unfortunately, that has absolutely nothing to do with what he is famous for.

But Craig has really earned this nomination. He has always been a strong advocate of ethics in politics, even serving on the House Ethics Committee. In fact, he is so opposed to unethical activity, that when Representative Barney Frank, who happens to be gay, was reprimanded for his activity with a gay prostitute, Craig pushed for a harsher punishment.

And, if you are still not convinced that Craig is a man of principle, just look at this. He voted against Habeus Corpus for detainees, and for the Federal Marriage Amendment, which declared marriage to be between a man and a woman, and relieved states from respecting the full faith and credit clause when it comes to gay marriages. Hey, and who said hypocrisy wasn't popular?

But, if you can't select for the Hall of Fame a man embroiled in a gay sex scandal who has a history of voting to restrict gay rights, who can you pick?

Faux Pin?

For some reason that I am not aware of, the big story of the day has been Barack Obama stating that he will no longer wear the U.S. flag pin on his lapel. Obama has been questioned about the decision, and remarked that instead of wearing the pin he is going to try to "tell the American people what I believe will make this country great."

To me this is a just a huge travesty. That someone in our nation thinks they can be elected to a public office without wearing a pin of the flag that office represents is absolutely ludicrous. Sure, perhaps Obama can talk his way into seeming patriotic some of the time, but how are people going to realize his love for his country at times when he is silent? These are the times when a machine-painted, mass-produced piece of metal with a pointy thing and tiny inscription that reads "Made in China" can really come in handy.

Obama's comments also included the opinion that the pin may have become a "substitute for real patriotism" in the years after 9/11. I, on the other hand don't think it has been a substitute at all, rather a supplement. For instance, Presidential hopeful Sam Brownback used to have rather low levels of patriotism, but look at him now. Note: Photo has in no way been altered to be a comic exaggeration.

By now, you probably agree with my argument that low priced fashion accessories are the most important thing to look for in choosing a candidate, so I've decided to go one step further. I will be designing clothing that I hope to market to these Presidential candidates in the future. I've released an exclusive photo of what you may be seeing on the campaign trail.This is going to be great. Patriotism is awesome, and there is not better way to show you have it then by constantly shoving material representations of it into your constituent's faces. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm putting together a little pile of World Trade Center rubble for Rudy Giuliani to stand on every time he speaks.

I'm Back!

I know I haven't posted anything in a while, but I hope to get back in the swing of things, and perhaps one day, even have a successful blog. I'm going to try to start posting at least a few times a week, so that I can write more stuff that one person reads.