Blatant Reality

I was wandering around Obama’s website today, looking for anything that might be of interest when I stumbled upon this in the “Kids for Obama” section:

You read that right, that’s a list of 10 things that KIDS can do to help out the Obama Campaign.

Now when you think about it, this section is fairly disturbing. For one, its obviously targeting kids that are way to young to even be thinking about politics. I reached this conclusion just by looking at the picture located on the same page:

I guess Obama is following the same strategy that Tobacco companies used to use (still use?) to get people smoke: if you can get them hooked when they are young, you will have them coming back for more for life.

Anyways, another thing that was a little less disturbing but far more funny was the 4th bullet point in that list that asks kids to draw pictures of Obama in the White House. The only reason that is funny (other than the fact that it is obviously targeting the preteen audience) is because of the whole New Yorker incident that happened last week.

With the way that Obama reacted to that caricature of himself and Michelle, I don’t know if he will be able to handle pictures drawn with much less talent and much less tact.

I mean, these are kids, who knows what they might draw? Think about all the problems you could get if kids don’t get Obama’s skin color just right. I mean kids aren’t that good at blending colors let alone picking them (who in the world has ever seen a polka dotted pig in real life?). Should Crayola make a color called ‘Obama’ to help solve this problem?

What will happen if a picture from one of his ‘kids for Obama’ leaks to the press that portrays him as too black, too white or even too green (in the literal sense, not the environmental)?

And what about those ears? People think that George Bush looks like a monkey but Obama’s ears certainly make him a candidate for animal comparisons. Monkey? Elephant? Bush Baby? The jury is still out but what would Obama do if a kid just happened to draw a picture that made him look something a little bit more…errr…wild?

I mean the New Yorker looks tame compared to some of the pictures kids could draw. At least with the New Yorker you could explain everything away with positive meanings. Take a look:

• Obama could be in that style of clothing because he embraces multiculturalism,
• The picture of Osama is there to help remind him who the real enemy is
• The flag is burning because that’s the the only proper and honorable way to dispose of a flag
• Michelle is dressed like that to symbolize that she is a strong, feminist woman who can take care of herself
• The fist bump is just a way to minimize transmitting germs due to extended physical contact as in a hug, kiss, or handshake

Do you think a kid could put that much thought into a picture that? I doubt it.

Anyways I just wanted to throw that out there. What do you think?

You know that conservatives are in trouble when people are actually debating whether Barack Obama or John McCain will be the better ‘green’. Take a look:
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/jul/17/uselections2008.barackobama

Yesterday, MoveOn.org conducted over 200 different protests around the country to protest McCain receiving contribution from oil companies. I just happened to live by one of these protest so I headed over to check it out (and hope for something interesting to happen). This particular protest took place at the Shell Station on the corner of Skinker and Delmar (aka The Loop) which, I might want to add, is arguably the most liberal place in town.

And that fact got me thinking, what’s with Liberals protesting on their home turf anyways? Isn’t the point of a protest like this to get their ideas out to people who don’t already know/agree? Or do Liberals just like to protest in these areas so they can feel good about themselves when every other person who drives by honks their horn in support? Feel free to answer below.

Anyways, nothing really interesting happened but here are some picture I took of the event that I thought you might enjoy.

Here is one of the typical liberal cars that parked in the gas station parking lot as the owner of the car was out on the curb protesting. For those of you not from Missouri, the far left bumper sticker in the window is for Sam Paige, a democrat running for Lieutenant Governor and the middle is for Jay Nixon (no relation), a Democrat running for Governor.

This is the protesters lining the sidewalk in front of the Shell Station. They weren’t that active (aka no chants) and basically the protest was an hour and a half of them talking and commiserating about how bad McCain is and how wonderful Obama is.

Another protester who would yell at the cars driving by that McCain is a puppet to the oil companies.

Here is a sign that one of the protesters dropped on the ground. I never did check to see if it was picked up (I’m guessing it was but wouldn’t that be ironic)

And then we have the parents who dragged their children out to this event.

Mom on far left with her two kids.

Now for the group shot which was taken just as they were finishing. The group never did look like it ever reached the 49 people that had pledged to show up.

If you want to see the flier that they were handing out it can here see here(front) and here(back).

As you can see, the protest was pretty boring as I hinted at before because nothing really happen. Some people honked their support, some people flicked them off, and some people just plain ignored them. However, there were no verbal fights that you sometimes see at these kinds protests. Once again, I blame the lack of “action” on the fact that they held this protest in friendly territory.

Why didn’t I stir up some trouble? Well first off, I didn’t want and physical harm to come to my camera if things got ugly and secondly, I just don’t like picking fights. They left me along so I left them alone.

In all honesty, the main reason I didn’t mess with them is because they were attacking McCain on his energy policy and, the fact is, McCain has yet to prove to me he actually knows what he is talking about on this topic. What could I even attack them on since I don’t even believe McCain is going to do right by us with regards to energy? Is he going to be better than Barack, most likely, but that really isn’t saying much.

Anyways, if anyone else went to one of these things and they saw a little more action, please leave a link below.

Gore = Ambien. Hmmm…. This is the first time I have heard the comparison but now that I have heard it, it does make sense. Read more here:
-
http://www.newsweek.com/id/47829

As you might have already noticed, I am going in a somewhat new direction with the website by mainly focusing on Environmental, Energy, and Global Warming issues because I feel these topics will have great significance in the coming years. However, there will be times like this were I just can’t help but post an article about another topic.

This really just makes my blood boil to even think that some of these liberals who have been hooting and hollering for the past year that the surge isn’t working to finally admit that it has worked and that it was there idea the whole time. I refuse to even publish the outright lies that these liberals are saying on my blog but you can read all about it with commentary here.

I will republish this part of the commentary that highlights Obama’s foresight into the whole Surge situation.

And yet the Democrats whined, “We need more troops” in mantra like fashion, meaning not that the surge would be a success but that the additional “surge” troops in Iraq would be insignificant. Barack Obama’s comment at the time captured the prevailing lefty sentiment rather well: “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

 

Wow! What judgment!

Obama seems to be in a little conundrum about whether or not to support ethanol subsidies. Better yet, he still hasn’t decided who these subsidies help: the nation which he wants to represent or corn-growing Illinois (my emphasis).

Today, in a New York Times article on Obama’s support for ethanol, Jason Furman, the Obama campaign’s new economic policy director, is quoted saying that Obama’s stance on the issue was based on the merits, a determination that ethanol subsidies are in the national interest. “That is what has always motivated him on this issue, and will continue to determine his policy going forward,” Furman said. The article continues: “Asked if Mr. Obama brought any predisposition or bias to the ethanol debate because he represents a corn-growing state that stands to benefit from a boom, Mr. Furman said, ‘He wants to represent the United States of America, and his policies are based on what’s best for the country.’”

 

It was the expected answer during a presidential campaign — except that it flies in the face of what Obama himself said on the issue a few months ago. Asked about his support for ethanol during a press conference at a gas station in Indianapolis in April, Obama was remarkably candid in explaining why he backed the subsidies: “Look, I’ve been a strong ethanol supporter because Illinois … is a major corn producer,” he said. He went on to say that he was concerned about reports that ethanol was helping drive up food prices, and that he saw ethanol as merely a transitional option that would eventually give way to biofuels that were more efficient and has less of an impact on food prices, such as ones made out of switchgrass.

Dr. Dobson of Focus on the Family has criticized Barack Obama for distorting the Bible’s teaching for his own political gain. Take a look at the article here:
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080624/ap_on_el_pr/rel_dobson_obama

It’s about time that McCain gave me something to look forward if he wins the presidency.

Sen. John McCain called Wednesday for the construction of 45 new nuclear reactors by 2030 and pledged $2 billion a year in federal funds “to make clean coal a reality,” measures designed to reduce dependence on foreign oil.

 

(…)

 

“Every year, these reactors alone spare the atmosphere from the equivalent of nearly all auto emissions in America. Yet for all these benefits, we have not broken ground on a single nuclear plant in over thirty years,” he said. “And our manufacturing base to even construct these plants is almost gone.”

 

Even so, he said he would set the country on a course to build 45 new ones by 2030, with a longer-term goal of adding another 55 in the future.

 

“We will need to recover all the knowledge and skills that have been lost over three stagnant decades in a highly technical field,” he conceded.

Powerline Blog has more on this here.

It seems that Obama really doesn’t know what he wants to do about the whole Iraq situation. To the American public, he is sending the signal that he will get us out of Iraq. However, while he is telling us that, he is telling the Iraqi’s that he will stay there until the mission is completed. Mixed signals? I think so.

You can read more here:
http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/12141

Here is McCain’s latest global warming ad.

Sometimes I wonder if Gore endorsed the wrong person.

Hat tip New York Times.