Daily Journal

Lights on, Nobody home – Adios mi amor

Is anyone paying attention to what vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin is saying?  

Why is an ethics violator recklessly lobbing character assasination darts into the air?  

If this is the strategy, are McCain campaign advisors frantically posting their resumes on

Answers to these questions and more on Ramblings, forthcoming.


Palin guilty of ethics violations
Palin guilty of ethics violations

The state Personnel Board investigation found that Gov. Palin did commit ethics violations by allowing her husband to use her office and position to put pressure on state employees in the effort to fire state trooper Walt Monegan.


To date, two other ethics complaints are being investigated involving Palin.  One, by activist Andree McLeod, alleges that state hiring practices were circumvented for a Palin supporter. The case is not related to Monegan’s firing. The other, by the Public Safety Employees Association, alleges that trooper Mike Wooten’s personnel file was illegally breached by state officials.

In what could concievably be called Palin-speaque “let’s just call a spade a spade.”

After watching Palin’s carefully scripted (yet still clumsy) responses in the vice presidential debate, is there any question that anything she says is NOT meticulously composed?  The Republican propaganda machine is far, far too controlling to allow someone of Palin’s popularity to fly solo.  

So what could possibly be the motivation behind sending this inexperienced, slightly stupid, albeit affable, less-than-squemish curd out to do the dirty work?  

Let’s consider the two possible outcomes.  

If the Republicans win, party loyalists can laud the feisty, fresh exhuberence of a political outsider who helped champion the cause and initiate true change in a stodgy, suffocating, good-old-boy network.  

If the Democrats win, she’ll become a scapegoat for all the incoherent, asnine blunders made obviously by campaign organizing underlings with more venom than gray matter.  

Either way, she’s screwed.  

If the Republicans win, she’ll dissappear.  I expect a few controlled appearances, but for all intensive purposes, her political career will be over.

If the Democrats win she’ll be disowned and fade back into the perpetual Alaskan dusk, never to be heard from again.

by David Kelsen – scourge

Daily Journal


By David Kelsen

McCain in favor of abortion
McCain in favor of abortion

Vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin, admitted on Saturday (10/11/2008) in Johnstown, Pa. that Republican presidential candidate John McCain is IN FAVOR OF ABORTION in cases where the pregnancy threatens the woman’s life. Additionally, In an interview on “Meet the Press”, McCain stated that cases of rape and incest are legitimate exceptions to anti-abortion views, which is in direct opposition to The National Right to Life stance. John McCain also told associated press reporter Ron Fournier that he would not support the repeal of Roe vs. Wade. McCain has got this voter thinking, What is going on? When it came to so-called legitimate exceptions, Dan Quayle correctly answered yes to the cheap-shot attempt by a savvy 11 year-old girl (obviously a democrat) in 1988. When asked if she should bring a baby to term that was conceived by paternal incestuous rape, the illustrious Mr. Quayle responded:

“You’re a very strong woman… Though this would be a traumatic experience that you would never forget, I think that you would be very successful in life. ” —-

Of course at the time, the girl was 11 years old, and not technically a woman. Quayle’s sharp sense of character assessment aside, telling a complete unknown prepubescent she’ll be successful post excruciating traumatic event is simultaneous artificial encouragement and deep ignorance. Which brings us back to McCain. Flip through some of his documented quotes sorted by presidential race and you’ll find a variety of different answers pending on the year, which makes sorting by relevance that much more difficult. Cut back to abortion, what determines a threat to a woman’s life? A physical condition exclusively? What if the expectant mom is a sociopathic convicted felon for child sexual abuse? How will she take to the child she was forced to birth? Or as in the example brought before VP Quayle, can you say with complete confidence that an 11 year-old girl’s life would not be threatened by a pregnancy and subsequent birth? Who are YOU to determine someone else’s fate? Pro-lifers call abortion murder, yet they can justify murder when the expectant mothers life is threatened. Why…? If pro-lifers believe as they say and life begins at conception, then why are there any exceptions? Murder is murder.
The abortion issue is too complex for a one-size-fits-all ruling. The decisions need to be made by the individual families involved. Diversity is one of our country’s greatest assets. The over zealous religious right believe that their way is best and continue to impose themselves on those who do not believe as they do. Some call that lack of respect. The republican spin-doctors are using the highly charged emotional juice from this issue to further their agenda. Freedom and the right to choose is called Democracy. What’s it called when the government chooses for you?

(the statements above are all true, although some may appear out of context, the author accepts no responsibility for the enlightenment of others through manipulation.)

Daily Journal

Jesus is not a Republican

Let’s start with some facts:

  • Jesus was crucified long before the U.S. existed
  • Jesus did not have a political affiliation
  • Jesus was a Hebrew
  • Barak is a traditional Hebrew name (and existed in Jesus time, as opposed to the name Jesus, which did not)
  • The Old Testament was written in Hebrew primarily, and Aramaic

The English translation of the bible is an interpretation of a interpretive translation.

The first amendment of the U.S. Constitution establishes your right as a citizen of the United States of America to believe what you want and say what you want.

When 33 pastors participated in “Pulpit Freedom Sunday”  in September 2008, they complained that their 1st amendment rights were being violated.  In truth, only their tax-exempt status was at risk, however literature distributed by the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) stated that in most cases, nothing would actually happen.  So far, nothing has.  So why the big deal?  Churches are not obligated to file a return with the IRS.  In a 2006 article on it was reported that the average church income is close to $5 Million per year.  Imagine having to suddenly pay taxes on that.  It’s not about free speech, it’s about the money.  But it gets worse.

Every church that participated in this event supported the 2008 Republican candidate from Arizona.  Coincidentally, the Alliance Defense Fund is based in Arizona.  Pastors reasons for swaying voters are mainly issues concerning abortion, same-sex marriage and stem-cell research.  With the exception of Roe v Wade, neither candidate would change the laws regarding these issues on a federal level.  So why would you support one or the other based on religious conviction.

Some Christians falsely believe that our country was founded on Christianity.  In the 16th Century, Queen Elizabeth punished those who would not conform to the Church of England.  For that reason, the United States of America was specifically designed to seperate church from state.

Devout Christians including Thomas Jefferson and James Madison believed strongly that religion should be separate from government.  The Constitution and the Bill of Rights apply to each and every person regardless of race, creed or sex.   So why do these pastors feel the need to mix their churches back in with the government?

Who is actually behind these actions?

Pro-lifers who supported John McCain also supported a war that was started under false pretense.  Pro-lifers that supported McCain supported the killing of men, women, pregnant women and children equally.  There is no question that the decision to invade Iraq was based on incomplete information at best, and deceit at worst.

Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’neill told “60 Minutes” of the newly elected Bush administration that “From the very beginning, there was a conviction that Saddam Hussein was a bad person and that he needed to go”.

Former Secretary of State, Colin Powell, who delivered the knock-out punch that convinced Americans of the threat, calls his dissertation on Sadam’s Weapons of Mass Destruction the lowest point in his life, that the information given him by the White House was anything but an intelligence document, some characterized it as a “sort of Chinese menu from which you could pick and choose”.  Secretary Powell was not told that one of the sources had been flagged as a liar and fabricator.

Former CIA director George Tenet stated that VP Cheney had is sights on Iraq as early as late 2001, early 2002 even though they knew Osama Bin Laden was in Afghanistan.  To think that we have not been fooled is naive, but to believe that it was “God’s will” in invade Iraq is insane.

“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it” – The Friends of Voltaire, Evelyn Beatrice Hall – 1906

Our country is a melting pot of cultures that have the freedom to choose their individual religious and philosophical beliefs.  Faith is the practice of tolerance, understanding and love.  Any law inhibiting ones ability to choose based on religious belief or preference goes against the very principle that our country was founded on and is therefore un-American to the fullest.  Government does not belong in your church.

If you’re not fighting to keep it out, you don’t get it.

Daily Journal

Obama vs McCain on the economy

This poignant video sums up the political approach by each candidate.

[flashvideo filename= width=”450″ height=”366″ /]

This youTube clip was found on the Jed Report