Tuesday, June 24, 2008

More on Evangelical Pastors and The Lack of Leadership

I recently read an article saying that young evangelicals are turning away from the GOP. With Christian leaders such as T.D. Jakes, along with Dobson, Hagee, etc., is it any wonder? At a time when both young and old are looking for some kind of direction, all they are getting is a group of fence sitters and whining, pouting so-called leaders who haven't the intestinal fortitude to do what they need to do.

Our Pastor recently sent out this article, and I find it very fitting for this post. This Pastor is not lacking in leadership.

Mark 6:17-20 (NIV)
For Herod himself had given orders to have John arrested, and he had him bound and put in prison. He did this because of Herodias, his brother Philip’s wife, whom he had married. For John had been saying to Herod, “It is not lawful for you to have your brother’s wife.” So Herodias nursed a grudge against John and wanted to kill him. But she was not able to, because Herod feared John and protected him, knowing him to be a righteous and holy man. When Herod heard John, he was greatly puzzled; yet he liked to listen to him.

The applicability of this passage to us today jumped out at me as I started thinking about our national elections this coming fall. Like me, you’re probably disappointed with the way politics has been headed in our nation. It seems each election is more negative than the last…and I’m sure it won’t be any different this fall.

And, as always, you and I are called to take a stand on moral issues. John the Baptist took a stand on a moral issue that turned political. Here’s what this passage shows me about how to do it:

1) John took the biblical stance because it was the right one to take, not necessarily because it was the popular stance;
2) Some people (Herodias, for example) didn’t like the stance he took;
3) John’s own moral character was impeccable, which gave him the confidence to take a stand; and
4) Even though John opposed Herod’s position, apparently John wasn’t disagreeable or ugly about it.

John stood for righteousness and he did it the right way. You and I will need to do the same thing this fall. Here are the potential results:

1) You might lose your head, but
2) You’ll receive the Lord’s blessing.

John was, in fact, murdered for the stance he took. But note what Jesus said of him: Matthew 11:11-15 (NIV) “I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he. From the days of John the Baptist until now, the kingdom of heaven has been forcefully advancing, and forceful men lay hold of it. For all the Prophets and the Law prophesied until John. And if you are willing to accept it, he is the Elijah who was to come. He who has ears, let him hear.”

Don’t be afraid to take a stand. Do it in a way that honors the Lord. Be prepared for consequences and expect the Lord’s blessing.

After reading this I suggest you take what our Pastor has written into consideration as you read the statements concerning Bishop TD Jakes and ask yourself--Did he take a stand?

I wonder if TD Jakes has actually given any thought as to how his credibility has fallen as a spokesman for the solid religious evangelical right since his seeming endorsement of Obama for President.

While Jakes did not come out and directly endorse Obama, he certainly did not do as one would expect an Evangelical Pastor to do. Instead, He said, "Yes, we met, and I found his beliefs to be genuine." Thus, Jakes failed the test and rode the fence. TD Jakes could not come out and condemn Obama because so many of his predominately African-American congregation supports this empty suit based on only one facet--his race. Jakes condemnation would have cost him dearly in congregants, and that would certainly hit his pocketbook, which at this point appears to be more important to Jakes than standing up for what is right and what he supposedly believes and at one time preached. If TD Jakes fails to condemn Obama, then he is turning away from what he preaches.

If TD Jakes supports Obama, then he is supporting Ethnic Cleansing. How, you ask? Because Obama supports abortion at any term and has voted as such, going back even to his days in the Senate. African American women are almost four times as likely as white women to have an abortion. According to the Alan Guttmacher Institute, more than 43 percent of African-American pregnancies end in abortion. Although African-Americans represent only 12 percent of the American population, they account for almost 35 percent of all abortions. In Mississippi, for example, while African-Americans represent only 37 percent of the population, they account for 73 percent of the state's abortions. More than 78 percent of Planned Parenthood's abortion centers are in or near minority communities. If this were occurring in a foreign country, the Black leadership would be screaming Ethnic Cleansing, and if they were honest and not politically biased, they would call it as it is in this country. The party of Obama claims to be the only party that reaches out and cares for Black people, yet they support the most damaging and most horrific form of genocide. Jakes' refusal to condemn Obama and the Democrat Party is an endorsement of this genocide.

TD Jakes seems to have adopted his Prosperity Gospel over the Gospel of the Good News of Jesus Christ. His followers flock to hear Prosperity preached but never hear that it is obedience to the Lord that will bring prosperity, not just sitting back and “wishin and a hopin” for such. Supporting genocide, ethnic cleansing, abortion, what ever one wishes to call it, is not being obedient to the Word of the God. Murder is condemned by God and the support of what Obama stands for and the Democrat Party stands for is in direct disobedience. Those who follow such will not prosper. TD Jakes will not prosper until he openly and unashamedly condemns Barack Hussein Obama.

If the evangelical community fails to call TD Jakes to task over this, then they, too, are party to such and will not survive. There are too many fence sitters in the evangelical community and too few who are willing to take a stand against the abomination that with Obama this country faces.

TD Jakes, either speak up or Shame on You!

Saturday, June 21, 2008

Tuesday, June 17, 2008

How The Religious Far Right Will Help Elect Obama


As I was reading the political writings this morning in several newspapers and online, I came across a few articles on how Obama is working to win the South and how he intends to pull the evangelicals into his fold and defeat McCain. One particular article about McCain claims:

“[McCain] has also gotten himself into trouble with high-profile Evangelicals like James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family, who never warmed to the Arizona senator and has said he won't vote for him.”

This just irritates me to no end, and so I have put my feelings on the subject to paper and published in the blogsphere for all to read.

The crybabies like Dobson and his political stooge, Tony Perkins, are mad because they are no longer considered “Kingmakers” (see “John McCain Distances Himself from the Far Right) so they will simply pull up their soiled pants, take their sandbox toys, and go home pouting rather than vote for the Republican nominee. They will do so in an attempt to show that they still are the “power” in politics. They will cut off their nose to spite their face and allow the most leftist nominee in the history of this country to be elected, a nominee who backs “genocide” of his own race through abortion and has no qualms about allowing living aborted fetuses to be killed. He calls it “rights”; I call it murder, and so should Dobson and the rest of the religious far right fanatics. Yes, I call them fanatics because only fanatics refuse to bend in their agenda-driven ideology. They would rather see a candidate like Obama elected than to bend. I call them fanatics, whiners, and pouters because that is what they are. They will stay at home or throw away a vote on some non-viable candidate like Bob Barr and allow someone like an Obama to be elected. In doing so, they will be saying, well we can’t have it our way, so we won’t play. In doing that, they are allowing the very things that they detest to become a reality. They rant and rave about California and the “gay” marriage but will, by default, vote for such by refusing to vote for the GOP nominee, and for no other reason than they think he is too liberal. Well, just what the heck do they think Obama is, a far right of center candidate? They rant and rave about abortion but will vote by default for the individual who supports killing a live aborted fetus. The bill did not pass, yet Obama supported such genocide.

Furthermore, these whiners and pouters would vote by default for one who voted for many more of the things they claim they are against and have made part of the agenda and a “must” for candidates they support. They would rather allow Obama to be elected, the one who voted against filtering pornography on school and library computers and voted for sex education for kindergarten children through the 5th grade.

In 2001, he voted “present” on a bill to keep pornographic book and video stores and strip clubs from setting up within 1,000 feet of schools and churches.

Twice, Obama voted against bills prohibiting tax funding of abortions.

In February 2004, Obama’s wife, Michelle, sent out a fundraising letter that actually stated her concern over the rise of conservatism in the Country, and said that ‘so-called’ partial-birth abortion was a legitimate medical procedure that should be protected.

Yes, Dobson, Perkins, Hagee, Wildmon, and the rest of the religious far right fanatics, whiners, and pouters should feel really proud of their non-votes, their throw-away votes, come January when they have elected, by default, the most liberal, leftist, socialist in the history of this country. They will have succeeded in destroying the GOP and allowing total secular humanism to become the ruling party in this country. Be prepared for the consequences.

Thursday, June 12, 2008

Texas schools and Islamic Indoctrination

Pete Morrison, Of the Pete Morrison Report, a conservativeTexas blog and newsletter wrote a very interesting article in his most recent newsletter. Sometime Pete is a bit to the right for me on some subjects but in this particular instance I happen to agree with him and wish to share what he wrote. For those of you not in Texas, remember, Texas is a fairly conservative state with some very solid conservative ideals. If this is happening in Texas, just think what is happening in your state. Please note his reference to Council on American-Islamic Relations, an Islamic group with strong ties to terrorist and also ties to one Barack Hussein Obama, the Democrat nominee for President of the US.

I believe the article deserves reading by all regardless of the state in which you live. Take time to read and then think if it is or could happen in your town or state.

Texas ISD Promotes Islam

Schools are where young minds are shaped, molded. Each school day
teachers spend seven, eight hours with students - our children -
and have the profound ability to impact their minds in both a
positive and negative manner.

Yet while most of our teachers have a genuine concern for the
education of our children, the liberal elites in our country see
public schools as the front line, trying to promote a
counter-culture - one that is at war with traditional America.
Multicultural-promoting textbooks have distorted our nation's past
and its heroes, accusing them of a railing litany of crimes and
oppression of indigenous people and non-Christians.

Now the sights of the bureaucrats in charge are aimed squarely at
our children and the hope is to indoctrinate them into hating and
despising their culture and their history. Inoculation is
difficult, particularly when good teachers are forced to use
textbooks that are littered with distortions and half-truths about
our nation's history.

Even worse was the recent presentation at Friendswood Junior High
near Houston, a 30-minute lecture on Islamic life- part of a
yearlong parade of "respect", "tolerance" and "cultural awareness"
that serves to re-educate our children. As you can guess, the only
thing this "tolerance" finds intolerable is traditional Christian,
Texan culture and civilization.

The two guest speakers discussed topics covering various aspects of
Muslim culture - religion, food, dress, practices and famous
Mohammedians. These speakers were not historians merely giving a
historically accurate survey, but two female Muslim proselytizers
from the Houston branch of the Council on American-Islamic
Relations
, a group with strong ties to terrorist organizations.

The topics of the talk included:

* What is Islam?
* Adam, Noah, and Jesus: All Prophets
* There Is One God Named Allah
* The 5 Pillars of Islam
* Islamic Prayer: 5 Times a Day
* The 5 Stances of Islamic Prayer
* Islamic Dress
* Ramadan
* Famous Muslims

Now had this happened in a liberal bastion like New York or
California, such anti-Western propaganda might be par for the
course. But this is Texas!

When news of a 1984-like-Orwellian-style, one-sided discussion of a
religion that has declared war on the West reached the children's
homes, parents didn't only ask, "What did you learn at school
today?," they got mad. Very mad.

Letters were written espousing the anger and frustration that the
principal of the school, Robin Lowe, had failed to let the parents
know of the program and the talk. The school district spokesman
even acknowledged this failing, although bemoaning that Lowe had
the best of intentions in arranging the talk.

She has since been asked for her resignation from the school and
has taken on the role of test coordinator.

The policy of the District clearly states "parents are to be
informed about the purpose and content of presentations so that
they can keep their children out if they think the material might
be offensive or inappropriate."

This report would argue that a so-called 'fair' assessment of Islam
would probably be considered highly offensive and inappropriate.

A parent whose child is an eighth grader at the school told The
Houston Chronicle that she was very upset about the inappropriate
discussion.

"We can't say 'One nation under God' in school, so I definitely
don't think (the presentation) was the right choice," she said.
"I'm not a prejudiced person ... but Muslims, from what I know of
the faith, don't want to be incorporated with Americans. Look at
what's going on in the world right now, with the war and with 9/11."

Whenever you read of classes or yearlong festivals that will expose
our children to "multicultural" information - Afrocentric views of
history, Islam, Chinese or other cultures - you should step back
for a second and contemplate. Are the children actually learning
about another culture, or are they learning to hate their own?

Traditional Americans are constantly lectured about the greatness
of other cultures and scolded for the supposed horrors of
Imperialism and our own culture. Yet, how many hours are being
wasted in China on learning about the moral superiority of Western
Civilization and the amoral nature of The Boxer Rebellion? China
is too busy taking our jobs and building up their military to waste
any time on such self-destructive education and behavior.

As the news broke about the Islamic lecture, the Houston Chronicle
was aghast that "ignorant" parents would have the gall and audacity
to question the educational methods chosen by a principal. How dare
someone question the rule of a liberal potentate and undermine her
authority!

Imagine the opposite outrage by the Chronicle had an administrator
allowed a Christian speaker to discuss in 30 minutes the virtues of
the faith that once held sway over this nation. Indeed, the unholy
trinity of anti-American acronyms, the ACLU, the ADL and PFAW would
have all joined in chorus condemning such an action. But in this
incident, they were silent, proving that their stated objectives of
"tolerance" and "separation of church and state" are nothing more
than fronts for their war on the traditional people and faith of
this country.

But this country is waking up. Thanks to the Internet and email,
the people on our side are communicating and organizing
spontaneously, even on the small scale of a local school district.
Ten years ago, this would not have happened, and the grassroots
outcry from concerned parents caught this liberal administrator by
complete surprise.

What this story demonstrates bluntly is simple: raising your voice
will work. Writing letters to your children's schools voicing
concerns, even righteous anger, over how education is being
practiced does produce results. Good ones.

More importantly, festivals of falsities - such as the notion that
Islam is a religion of peace - will not and cannot be accepted.

This kernel of good news shows that good people can make a change,
albeit at the local level. That's a great place to start!

Sources:

http://galvestondailynews.com/story.lasso?ewcd=93f76b3cc324d2c2

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5811373.html

Saturday, June 7, 2008

Did Hillary Try too Hard

You will note the date as being 23 January 2006 when Andrew Sullivan made these statements. It seems that he must have had some real deep insight into the problems facing Hillary Clinton and he also asked the question if the Centrist Independent would pick John McCain over another Clinton. He didn’t get his wish that she not run but the rest of his piece was spot on. Now half the answer has been given. They didn’t pick another Clinton. The question now is will these same centrist reject Obama as too far to the left for their taste and stick with John McCain. I believe the answer is yes. These independent centrist are the ones who did not like Hillary’s leans to the left nor her attempts to triangulate as Bill did in his run for President. Obama is seeming attempting to do some triangulating on his own with his moving his membership from Trinity but yet not totally denouncing the teachings which he sat under for nearly 20 years. He has attempted to remove himself from Tony Renko without totally withdrawing and leaving too many unanswered questions on the real relationship plus a lot of obvious “misstatement” or plain ole lies if you will. He attempted to remove himself from the good Father Pfleger but he did not condemn his teachings. He is attempting to triangulate his statement on meeting with terrorist with no pre-conditions to now saying that certain understandings would have to be met. He tried to triangulate on Iran by saying the military option is not off the table. But then maybe he didn’t since from his past comments military options are never on the table to begin with. It seems the LSM didn’t want to ask the right questions on this one either.

Will Obama triangulate himself enough to move the centrist independents away from him or toward him. He is slick but not as slick of the old master of slick Bill Clinton who invented the triangulation in recent American politics. Bill’s slick wore off as did Hillary’s and Obama’s slick is wearing thin. I wonder what Andrew Sullivan will write next on this situation. Here is what he said in 2006.

******************** **************************** **************************

*** It seems that Mr. Sullivan has had an epiphany or perhaps just an intellectual experience and has now switched his allegiance to Obama. He thinks Obama is the right “face” to put on America but says little about his qualifications other than being a brilliant pontificator , commonly known here in Texas and in the mountains of my former home as a good Bull****er. Never the less, Mr. Sullivan, who once thought Hillary was trying too hard to be President, seem to overlook the fact that he and the LSM are trying to hard to make an empty suit into something that it is not. Perhaps Mr. Sullivan’s new revelation came about since becoming a writer and blogger on the Atlantic Monthly. Wonder if he is related to the publisher of the Atlantic Monthly, John Fox Sullivan?

Now, finally, here is what Sullivan said in 2006:

Andrew Sullivan: She's trying too hard to be a contender
23 January 2006

IF there's a certain schizophrenia in the rhetoric of senator Hillary Rodham Clinton these days, it's intentional. There she was last week, at a predominantly black congregation, lambasting Republicans. She lamented that the Republican-controlled House of Representatives has been "run like a plantation ... And you know what I am talking about". Republicans as slave holders? Now that's inflammatory.

Then only days later we saw the other side of Clinton's split political personality, a neo-conservative one: "I believe that we lost critical time in dealing with Iran because the White House chose to downplay the threats and to outsource the negotiations. I don't believe you face threats like Iran or North Korea by outsourcing it and standing on the sidelines.

"Let's be clear about the threat we face. A nuclear Iran is a danger to Israel, to its neighbours and beyond. We cannot and should not -- must not -- permit Iran to build or acquire nuclear weapons."

Running to the Left of President George W. Bush and to the Right of him as well is not a feat most politicians are able to pull off. But Clinton has no alternative. And in that lies her dilemma. She has too liberal a past (and reputation) to be the Democratic Right's favoured candidate; and she's become far too conservative in the Senate to win over the Democratic Left.

Clinton's straddle between two political identities is, of course, temporarily shrewd. She knows full well that the Democrats' key weakness is the war on terror. They have yet to persuade the public that they can defend the West more effectively than the Republicans.

And so they have to do two things at once: oppose the President's conduct of the war, while explaining how they'd do better. So far, not so good. But at least Clinton is trying. It's complicated. Saying that you're in favour of wiretaps to spy on al-Qa'ida but want to have court warrants to monitor them is very sane. But it's not a soundbite. Compared with the Bush-Cheney big daddy act, it's not terribly convincing.

Clinton's strategy, in response, has been not just to deploy hawkish words but to back them with a hawkish voting record. She's evaluated as one of the more conservative Democrats in Congress. She has visited the troops and she says she won't revoke her vote in favour of the war to depose Saddam Hussein.

She's following her husband's old gamble: triangulate, triangulate. But Bill triangulated once he'd become president. Hillary is triangulating while trying to win over her party's left-wing base and more moderate voters. That is proving the tough part.

The Left loathes the war in Iraq, believes it was started in bad faith, and that it is counterproductive in the war on terror. It has gained traction from the internet as left-wing collective websites such as the Daily Kos ramp up the anti-war and anti-Bush rhetoric. Their favourite candidate is senator Russ Feingold, an independent liberal who is unrepentant in his anti-war stance and a big campaigner against Washington sleaze. If Feingold falters, there's even Al Gore, now well to the Left of Hillary and incensed by what he argues is systematic abuse of executive power.

Hillary's response has not been to co-opt the Left's rhetoric. She knows it would kill her in a presidential race with a centrist Republican in 2008. So she has tried to win over the base by raising oodles of money for local candidates, travelling the country to win points and curry favours.

Her celebrity can guarantee a big crowd at any fundraising event. So she just had a big shindig for the New Hampshire Governor. She raised a cool half a million bucks for senator Debbie Stabenow of Michigan last month, raked in another $US600,000 ($803,000) for the Dems in Kentucky and is scheduled to do the same in Washington state.

In all of this she has been lucky to have lacklustre Republican opposition in New York state, where she faces re-election as senator this November.

Secure at home, she's pursuing Bush's 2000 strategy of amassing so much campaign money and so many favours that she becomes the "inevitable" nominee for 2008, regardless of her ideological blur.

Two men, however, stand in her way. The first is Mark Warner, a telegenic, youthful retiring Governor of Virginia, who turned one of the redder Republican states blue with smart governance and fiscal responsibility. Governors almost always have the advantage over senators in presidential contests because they have had to make decisions rather than simply debate them in Congress.

Warner is also -- how to put this nicely? -- fresher than Clinton. Yes, there's nostalgia for the 1990s, but not that much.

Which brings us to Hillary's other problem male: her husband. It's impossible to imagine him in the White House as a "first lady" figure, arranging state dinners and redecorating the Lincoln bedroom. Electing Hillary means re-re-electing Bill.

When Bush Jr was elected no one believed his dad would actually be running the show (although a few chastened conservatives might have appreciated some old-school moderation at the helm these past few years). Electing Hillary will be the same two-for-one deal it was in 1992 and 1996. Americans like moving forward, not backwards.

At some point, Hillary's positioning will also hit a wall of opposition. That wall will either be the Democratic left-wing base of activists, a base that rallied to her in the White House largely because of her rabid right-wing opponents, not because of her centrist policies.

Or it will be centrist independents who'd pick John McCain over another Clinton.

My own hope is that she doesn't run. She doesn't have the instinctive connection with people to be an effective national politician: she's too cold, too calculating, too distant.

Her speeches have been getting better but still make Gore seem like a good performer. And a repeat of the acrimonious culture wars of the '90s is about the last thing the US needs.

Besides, there is a perfect position for her in American public life, and it's not in the Senate, despite her eminently respectable record there. She belongs on the Supreme Court. She's a lawyer who wants to change the world. That's almost a job description for a liberal justice. But she'll need a Democratic president to put her there. Maybe some of the cash she has been raising will help bring that about.

It could fund far worse causes: Hillary's own presidential ambition, for one.

Andrew Sullivan is a writer for Britain's The Sunday Times

Thursday, June 5, 2008

Why Oil is So High

I received an e-mail from a friend yesterday about why the price of oil is so high and how this has been allowed to happen. I then ran across a headline this morning saying that the price of oil is now $126 a barrel, and the dollar grows weaker. The Europeans are preparing to raise interest rates later this year, and this sends the dollar falling even more. Of course, the price of gasoline and oil are rising all over the world as the demand from China and India grows at unprecedented rates. We were warned of this trend in the 70s, but our Congress has yet to act in a positive manner. They have postured and finger pointed while allowing the environmentalists to control our future through lawsuits to stop drilling; expansion of oil refineries; development of alternate fuels, especially nuclear, which is the cleanest and the most proven of all the other alternatives, including wind. I know some will want to jump on wind being cleaner, and while that may be true, it is still unproven and requires more land resources and can be harmful to migratory birds. Alas, the enviro-nuts will not admit to this while touting wind as the wave of the future. Some areas of the country are not suited to wind at all, as we are here in Texas and other parts of the west, but all areas are suited for nuclear power plants. Europe has proven their reliability for many years now, but our government drags their feet in allowing the expansion of this safe and clean source of power, all in the name of political expedience. Some will disagree, but I will be waiting for them to present a more proven alternative. We have wasted enough time. It is now time to build the reactors that will provide the power for America’s growth. It is time to drill and to develop the shale resources into oil as well, instead of being held hostage by terrorists. Terrorists held our Embassy people hostage beginning in November 1979, and America has been held hostage to their oil production since that era. It is time to break the hostage situation by declaring war on the lack of initiative by our government in development of alternative fuels other than the ridiculous grain-based Ethanol that is so loved by the enviro-terrorists, and demanding that drilling begin yesterday in areas where we have known oil deposits.

Now read the e-mail that I received and see if it does not speak volumes of truth.
Our country has all of the resources we need if we were smart enough to use them.

(HatTip to classmate and friend Chuck Jones for the e-mail)



Subject: Think about it


The OPEC minister will look you in the eyes and state:

"We are at war with you infidels. Have been since

the embargo in the 1970s. You are so arrogant you

haven't even recognized it. You have more missiles,

bombs, and technology; so we are fighting with the

best weapon we have and extracting on a net basis

about $700 billion/year out of your economy. We will

destroy you! Death to the infidels!

While I am here I would like to thank you for the

following: Not developing your 250- to 300-year supply of oil

shale and tarsands. We know that if you did this, it

would create millions of jobs for US citizens,

expand your engineering capabilities, and keep the

wealth in the US instead of sending it to us to

finance our war against you bastards.


Thanks for limiting defense dept. purchases of

oilsands from your neighbors to the north. We love

it when you confuse your allies.


Thanks for over-regulating every segment of your

economy and thus delaying, by decades, the

development of alternate fuel technologies.


Thanks for limiting drilling off your coasts, in

Alaska, and anywhere there is a bug, bird, fish, or

plant that might be inconvenienced. Better that your

people suffer! Glad to see our lobbying efforts have

been so effective.


Corn-based Ethanol. Praise Allah for this sham

program! Perhaps you will destroy yourself from the

inside with these types of policies. This is a gift

from Allah, praise his name! We never would have

thought of this one! This is better than when you

pay your farmers NOT TO GROW FOOD. Have them use

more energy to create less energy, and

simultaneously drive food prices through the roof.

Thank you US Congress!!!!


And finally, we appreciate you letting us fleece

you without end. You will be glad to know we have

been accumulating shares in your banks, real estate,

and publicly-held companies. We also finance a good

portion of your debt and now manipulate your

markets, currency, and economies to our benefit.


THANK YOU AMERICA!"




Tuesday, June 3, 2008

Obama's VP Possibilities

I picked up on the speculations of possibilities for Obama’s VP and here is my take on the “chosen”. Also in the summation is what the stubborn far-right is going to have to do to stop Obama and it ain’t staying at home and refusing to vote like spoiled children who don’t get their way in the sand box.

Joseph Biden, 65 - The senator from Delaware, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Another Senator and not perhaps a good idea for another Senator on the ticket

Wesley Clark, 63 - A retired Army general and former NATO commander who ran unsuccessfully for the presidential nomination in 2004,. A loser who couldn’t even rally the troops to carry enough votes to make a dent. However it would be a great McGovern type ticket. Two anti-war on the same ticket and it would be 68 and 72 all over again.

Hillary Clinton, 60 – It ain’t gonna happen. Hillary’s supporters don’t want her as VP they want her as POTUS. Obama folks don’t want the Clintons but then the division that would cause could create even a larger margin of victory for McCain.

Chris Dodd, 64 - The Connecticut senator, a fluent Spanish speaker and expert in Latin American issues, is the chairman of the Senate Banking Committee:

An intelligent individual who should have been the front runner in the race and would have a had a great chance of winning the WH.

Chuck Hagel, 61 - The Republican senator from Nebraska, a conservative Vietnam veteran but outspoken critic of the Iraq war, would help Obama reach out to independents and Republicans and reinforce his promise to bridge partisan divides. Again another anti-war voice which would be shades of McGovern and a certain defeat. Hagel brings even a bigger arrogant ego than Obama. That will guarantee a McCain victory

Tim Kaine, 50 - The Virginia governor: Too unknown even with his term in the congress and now Governor of VA. The Dems should consider him for a run next time around

Sam Nunn, 69 - The former Armed Services Committee chairman from Georgia is a respected foreign and military policy voice, Too conservative for Obama and would make a better Republican VP choice than a Dem. He is more in line with Republican voter values than with the Dem voters

Ed Rendell, 64 - The Pennsylvania governor has been one of Clinton's strongest campaigners and he could help woo her supporters and help deliver a key state. He would turn off most of the hard headed far right Republicans because of his stand on partical birth abortion and abortion in general plus other issues that make up the Dem platform. No cross over voters for him on the ticket.

Bill Richardson, 60 - New Mexico governor, a Hispanic, could help with Latino vote: Unfortunately Bill blew it with his endorsement of Obama. He might have had a chance to take the nomination had he acted like he was serious in the beginning. He blew it with the independents and swing voters.

Kathleen Sebelius, 60 - Two-term governor of Kansas could bring some vital elements to the ticket: She is not interested. She may make her own run for POTUS after Obama is defeated.

Ted Strickland, 66 - The governor of Ohio,. As they say, Ted Who?

Jim Webb, 62 - The first-term Virginia senator, Vietnam veteran and former secretary of the Navy. His arrogance out does Obama and he has made few friends in the Congress. He is anti-war and that would loose him the vote of many vets in this country. Too many don’t appreciate his views on Iraq and feel that he has, like Kerry, betrayed them in some ways. I would not vote for him. His record as Sec of Navy under Clinton would be a good tool for McCain since he was behind the Naval cuts during Clintons massacre of the military and the intel community.

Obama will have to find a southerner that the folks can identify with and I don’t see this as a possibility. He won’t draw enough votes in the South except from the Black community and the few elitist in academia in the south to even think about carrying those states. Without the south and the west he can’t win. Bill Richardson is a westerner but has trouble carrying anything other than the Latino vote as shown by his poor showing in the beginning of the nomination season.

Should he pick someone like Webb who could possibly carry some of the White luggage in some southern states the far right will have to get over their religiosity and remember there is no perfect candidate outside of Jesus and he is not running. They will never find a perfect candidate regardless of who runs. McCain may not be their choice but at least he stands with them on the abortion issue and the marriage issue. He may have looked at civil unions and found little to object to in those but his stance is still marriage is between one man and one woman. The so called Kingmakers for the far right had better get their act together and bring their flock into the fold for McCain or they will face defeat on every hand for their issues. They will think the Tribulation has begun. Once the far left agenda is in place it is a fact that there will be no turning back the hands of time to rid themselves of what they stubbornly allowed to happen by not voting for McCain. They will have no one to blame except themselves.