Romney vs. Obama. Is there a difference?

"Romney and Obama are the same".

That is the phrase I keep hearing from those who simply refuse to concede defeat. You know exactly who I am referring to here. I never thought it would come to this. Instead, we find ourselves in a fight against the most radical left president in American history, and the Republican challenger is viewed as "just as bad". The nonsense is laughable. They are the same misguided and misinformed people who love to say, "Fire them all! Republicans and Democrats are all the same!". Ok, should we fire Paul Ryan? Allen West? Marco Rubio?  Many now are unable to understand the simple differences between a potential Romney presidency, and the current Obama administration.

We can start by delving into personality and influences. Do I really need to explain to you how Mitt Romney and Barack Obama differ as men and leaders? I'm not going to, because it is unnecessary. Romney has led a life of executive leadership, and a successful one at that. Do we need to discuss early life influences? Romney had his father, George Romney, a successful businessman and governor. Obama had Frank Marshall Davis, Bill Ayers, Derrick Bell, Jeremiah Wright, etc. It shows in how both men developed into who they are today.

-What would a Romney administration look like? Would we have radicals such as Eric Holder, Van Jones, Anita Dunn, Steven Chu, Eboo Patel and others? Barack Obama has clearly built up an administration of people all sharing his agenda of "transforming" America. Does Romney hold the same deep seeded hatred for this country as Obama does, and would he act as such if he were to be president?

-Would a Mitt Romney presidency treat our strongest allies with as much disrespect and contempt as this current administration has? On the flipside, would he pander to nations that hate us? Would President Romney bow to the Saudi king?

-Would President Romney apologize to the rest of the world for America's mistakes? Would he apologize to Afghans after they murdered our troops? Would he sympathize with the Islamic world that calls us "The Great Satan"? Would he be indifferent towards the conflict in Afghanistan?

-Would a President Mitt Romney appoint potential Supreme Court nominees like Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor?

-Would a Romney administration try to ween us off oil in order to usher in green energy like Obama and his energy secretary are doing? Would a Romney administration choke our very own oil supply that lies at our fingertips in the Gulf, in Utah, North Dakota, and Alaska?

-Would a President Romney advocate the redistribution of wealth and embrace Occupy rhetoric like Obama has? Would Romney be a business friendly president? A capitalism embracing president? Or would he pursue "taxing the rich" to give to the poor? The two economic views are so polarizing, it gives you a headache. What gives me an even worse headache, is the fact that so many people simply don't understand the differences.

-Would a Romney administration be as rabidly pro abortion as the Obama administration? Does Romney openly support partial birth abortion? Would Romney rescind the Mexico City Policy on day two of taking office as Obama did, allowing federal tax dollars to flow to overseas nations to fund abortions?

-Would a Romney budget be as catastrophic as an Obama budget?

-Doesn't Mitt Romney's vast experience and proven record in creating wealth, balancing budgets, hiring employees, and reversing deficits count for anything? How does Mitt Romney's economic background fare against Obama's?

"Romney and Obama are the same". My foot.

You know, the further I get along in this post, the more I realize just how pointless it is. There is no comparison, because Barack H. Obama is just that bad.

To be fair, I am disgusted I even have to do this. One year ago today I would have laughed if I ever thought I would be defending Mitt Romney of all people. Mitt Romney, if you'll recall, was always my last choice to be the nominee. I am by no means a Mitt Romney "fan". Never, ever.

But it has come to this and we can't change what has already been done. Mitt Romney is already the nominee and it is going to be either him or Obama. Granted, he is not the best conservative, but I can't think of any greater incentive or motivation to vote for Romney than imagining a 2nd term for Barack Obama.

If Barack Obama wins in 2012, you are going to see an Obama you haven't seen before. If you think he is bad now, wait until 2013. Just as he so candidly told Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, "After my election I'll have more flexibility." More flexibility to do anything and everything he couldn't accomplish due to political constraints in the first term. Lame duck Obama is going to go all out. In addition, a second term for Obama could likely alter the makeup of the Supreme Court indefinitely, if indeed Ginsberg, Scalia, and Kennedy do retire. The balance of power in the judicial branch from Obama appointees would cause far left ripples this country could never recover from. On the flip side, if Romney were in office during this time, this would present a golden opportunity to cement a center-right majority in the court for years to come.

Why am I going to vote for Romney? Because somewhere out there is a rabid liberal who is going to vote for Obama. Maybe a latte sipping, Che worshiping, Occupy hippie in Berkeley. Maybe a pro-abortion, progressive female who wants "free birth control". Maybe a Black Panther thug who hates me because of my skin color. It doesn't matter. Somewhere out there, I am going to cancel out someone's vote. And 20 years from now I can look back and say I did what I could to keep Barack Obama from taking this country down an irreversible path. You bet I am voting my conscience in November. My conscience says do what is right to beat Obama. No matter what. This isn't an allegiance to the Republican party. I am not even a registered Republican. This is an allegiance to America and a vote for the economic future of the United States.

"But how will your life change personally if Romney gets elected?" is the question I hear often. To which I will reply, how did anyone's life personally change from the Reagan years, to the Bush years, to the Clinton years, to the Bush Jr. years, to the Obama years? Presidents have little impact on the personal lives of the citizens. But the influence of presidents have an extremely large and long lasting impact on the country as a whole. Through judicial appointees, economic policy, defense policy, spending, etc. To people who are still voting for Ron Paul, here's what I think of you. I think you are so bitter and ticked off the country didn't embrace your guy like you thought they would, that deep down you want another 4 years of Obama, just to teach America a lesson. You are going to vote for "Dr. Paul", the savior, even though he has less of a chance at winning than the chances of life on Pluto. Have at it. I am going to vote my conscience too. And my conscience tells me that I will do anything I can to keep Obama from a second term.

Making the case for Christ.

In 1846, Simon Greenleaf, one of the foremost authorities on law and evidence in American history, published 'Testimony of the Evangelists' (The Testimony of the Evangelists, Examined by the Rules of Evidence Administered in Courts of Justice). In short, Testimony of the Evangelists was a complete look at the evidence for the Resurrection of Christ and a conclusion based on the facts. Simon Greenleaf was an agnostic who sought to disprove the Resurrection as a hoax. He came to the opposite conclusion; that, in fact, there was just as much evidence for the Resurrection of Jesus as any other event in history.

It is a sad state of affairs in this country when there are "intellectuals" who refuse to acknowledge historical facts. There are many who refuse to believe the Resurrection ever happened. Even more shocking, there are many who refuse to believe Jesus Christ ever existed. These same people, who routinely tout their superior intellect, have no qualms in accepting the existence of Ceasar, Cleopatra, or Alexander the Great. This willful ignorance is the product of a society that prides itself on rejecting Jesus and ridiculing those who believe in Jesus.

This rejection of truth can best be summed up in one clear, concise quote from Scottish scholar FF Bruce:"If the New Testament were a collection of secular writings, their authenticity would generally be regarded as beyond all doubt." Because the Gospels are a religious text, they are automatically rejected as fallacy, with no historical merit whatsoever. This is a misguided approach, and anyone who wishes to learn with an objective, open mind, has a duty to reject such ignorance.

The Bible is a remarkable document and Jesus was a remarkable figure. If anyone wants a single, crystal clear reason that separates Christianity from Islam, or any other world religion, compare Jesus to Mohammad, or any other religious figure. There is no comparison. As far as the Bible, I would like someone, anyone, to explain to me how a text written by 40 separate authors, over a span of roughly 1400 years, all with a common message, including fulfilled historic prophecies, is not the true inspired word of God. If you choose to reject the Bible, you put your faith in the alternative, which is just as irrational, if not more so, than the faith you reject.

The Resurrection is the cornerstone of the entire belief system and if this event never occurred, the entire belief falls apart. So let's pose a few questions.

I first would like to point out the obvious, as Simon Greenleaf did. The 12 Disciples. These men, as the historical record proves, lived and followed Jesus during his adult years. They traveled long distances to preach the gospel of Jesus. They continued to do this even after the crucifixion of Jesus. Most suffered horrible torture and death for their evangelism. Peter was crucified upside down in the year 69 AD. Andrew was crucified on an X shaped cross, by his own choice. James was executed by the sword in the year 44. Bartholomew was skinned alive and beheaded. Thomas was speared to death. Paul was beheaded around 67. Why would these men continue to preach if Jesus had not proven he was more than a mortal man? More so, why did Christianity spread like wildfire throughout the Roman Empire in the years after Jesus's death?

I have used this analogy before and I will use it again. Imagine if a mass following of JFK worshipers had swept the United States and beyond after his death. These Kennedyians professed their love, commitment, and devotion to JFK as the one, true God, suffering horrible torture and death for their faith in him. Of course this did not happen, because JFK never exhibited any characteristics as being anything but a man. So one begs the obvious question. If the man we know of as Jesus had not performed miracles and risen from the dead over 2000 years ago, why did a mass following throughout the Roman Empire ensue? Is it rational to believe that hundreds of thousands of people were willing to experience some of the worst torture and death imaginable for a guy who was no different than anyone else? Not rational. More so, I find it astonishing that the word of Jesus spread from Judea to much of the Roman Empire so quickly, without email, without airplanes, and without phones.

Roman historian Flavius Josephus, a pagan, wrote: "When Pilate, upon the accusation of the first men amongst us, condemned [Jesus] to be crucified, those who had formerly loved him did not cease [to follow him], for he appeared to them on the third day, living again, as the divine prophets foretold, along with a myriad of other marvellous things concerning him."


The mere fact even this historical testimony survives in a miracle, as Roman authorities in that time focused the majority of their historical documentation efforts on the civilized parts of the Roman Empire and not the far reaching, dark corners of the empire, such as Judea.

The abundant list of questions remain. What is the purpose of the historical text of the Gospels? Is it a fabricated hoax? If so, what was the motive? Why did the twelve disciples continue to preach a lie after Jesus died? Why did thousands of people across the Roman Empire convert to Christianity in the months, years, and decades after Christ's death? Is it possible for thousands of people to be willing to suffer excruciating torture and death for a known lie? Etc....

I have come across many people who willfully reject Jesus, his very existence, and the Resurrection. But, not one of them, when asked these rational questions, has provided a plausible explanation for how mankind pulled off this incredible hoax. Many are quick to dismiss facts. But they aren't willing to provide an explanation of their own. So many people ridicule and mock Christians for believing a "fairy tale" while at the same time their rejection of it forces them to put their faith in the most intrinsically, well crafted and executed hoax in the history of mankind. Which is more logical? 

Any objective person who claims to have a truly open mind about the proven existence of Jesus and the Resurrection will come to the rational conclusion. 

Baltimore man beaten, robbed while crowd watches and laughs.

You can learn a few things from this video.
1) Alcohol never leads to anything good.
2) Being in an urban area at night never leads to anything good.
3) It's ok. He's white.

The War on Women is a farce.

From a woman who gets it. Fuzzy Slippers knocks it out of the park.

"Projection. I say it often, but when it comes to "feminisms," it's something that I know only too well, having (much to my own shame) bought into 1980's "feminism" for much of my undergraduate and graduate careers. The whole point of feminism, we were indoctrinated to believe, was to . . . oh, blah, blah, blah, you know the schtick, "the personal is political," "gender is a social construct," "the domestic sphere is oppressive," "women will not be silenced," yadda yadda yadda. One of the main, arguably the only, tenant of this craziness is that women have the "right" to their reproductive organs, that the misogynist, white male-dominated western culture reduced us to "bare foot and pregnant in the kitchen" status and that we had an obligation to demand more.


Feminism, as I've discussed previously, was not originally about women being manly, shaped in the image of the revered and envied white male (that's just what it became); it was about actual equal rights in voting (suffrage), property ownership, and employment. It got twisted, savagely and unrelentingly, by leftists who understood that women, like black people and every other invented and segregated "group," could be manipulated to work against their own best interest.


"Women's health." We hear about this non-stop from leftists, and what they mean by that is always and only related to reproduction: free and frequent abortions and free birth control. When a leftist says "women's health," they never ever mean heart health or cancer prevention/treatment or . . . anything not related to abortions and birth control. Okay, sometimes they mean breast cancer and hand out pink ribbons. But that's it. Women, for leftists, are nothing more than the sum of their reproductive/sexual organs and the management thereof. They harp on about how "being a woman isn't a preexisting condition," but what they really mean is that it is, that being a woman means that our "health" is only related to how many abortions we've had and how easy and cheap (or free) birth control is.


In this relentless attack on women as human beings, leftists crank up a phony "war on women" based solely on who pays for abortion and birth control (both are legal and readily available to women in this country, they just want tax payers to fund it, regardless of our own personal and/or religious beliefs). But as the recent video from Smart Girl Politics notes, women care about the economy, the Constitution, and a myriad of other issues (aside: one of the things that turned me off '80's feminism was an article about "women's issues" that focused--and you can't make this stuff up--on things that "issue" from a woman's body. Reading that I became convinced that "feminism" was dedicated not to equality but to oppression, not to seeing women as people but to seeing them as "other"--the very thing that all the "isms" claim to reject but actually embrace--and exploit--with wholehearted and gleeful gusto.)


So, no, BO and leftists, you don't speak for me, not as a woman and not as an American."

On racial profiling.

The recent tragic death of Florida teen Trayvon Martin has sparked national outrage among the black community. Many have claimed he was "hunted down", "stalked", and murdered because he was black. Just today mega rich entertainer Tyler Perry claimed he was a victim of racial profiling, despite admitting he was in violation of traffic laws. Activist liberals and CAIR cry foul in the "racial profiling" of Muslims by the NYPD. Everywhere all the time, there is someone out there claiming they are being profiled in some way.

I agree with them. And I agree with racial/religious/(any criteria you want to throw in there) profiling. It is effective and necessary. Let's get something straight. Racial profiling does not equal racism/discrimination. Profiling of any sort is a simple adherence to Newton's Third Law in some aspects. It is why in Israel, airport security officials target young, Muslim men from Arab countries instead of 70 year old women from Britain who are trying to enter the country. It is also why police departments in largely urban areas of the United States profile young, black males (and any person wearing "thug" attire for that matter) instead of nicely dressed Asian businessmen. In addition, it is why George Zimmerman immediately had suspicions of Trayvon Martin, after his neighborhood had endured a rash of burglaries and other crimes, all by young, black males.

For anyone reading who has not worked in law enforcement, security, or EMS, and lives near any major metropolitan area, I encourage you to purchase a police scanner and listen in for just one night. I will let you draw your own conclusions from there.

I would wager you have "racially" or "religiously" profiled someone before. Even the most bleeding heart liberal would be guilty of racial profiling, if they shared a flight with a turban wearing man of Arab decent any time since 2001. They give not a second cautious thought about the blonde haired, blue eyed German woman in the seat across from them. The citizens of Boston, Massachusetts most likely profiled British redcoats in the days, weeks, and months after the Boston Massacre took place. I doubt they profiled Dutch merchant ship sailors who docked in Boston harbor. In the African bush, lion prides routinely profile hyenas because hyenas routinely attack, kill, and eat lion cubs. But they don't profile flocks of flamingos. The old farmer down the road profiles every day. After all, it is coyotes breaking into his chicken coop, not squirrels.

The fact of the matter is that profiling, racial or otherwise, is a natural social reaction to another social action. It may not be fair in all cases and it may not be right in all cases, because we know not all people of any targeted demographic are guilty of anything. But it exists nonetheless, and there is a reason why it exists. The sooner people understand these simple facts of life the better. And until you make an effort to stop the action there will always be a reaction.

Afghanistan has become the forgotten war.

Forgotten by the media. Forgotten by the President. And forgotten by the American people. Unless of course one of our own goes on a violent rampage and kills civilians. The fact of the matter is, the American people have grown weary of the eleven year war that has costed so many American lives and so much money. Ten years later it seems we have made no progress.

Just hours ago, 4 more US troops have been killed there, blown to bits by a suicide bomber for Allah. We may hear about this on a short blip on the nightly news but that will come and go, and Americans will continue on with their lives as baseball season starts, American Idol ends, and the election heats up.

What is truly appalling is the utter indifference Barack Obama has exhibited since day one of his presidency towards our efforts in Afghanistan. In just a little over three years, from the beginning of Barack Obama's presidency to today, 1,288 US troops have lost their lives in Afghanistan. That is more than DOUBLE the amount of casualties suffered from the entire war leading up to that point, from the fall of 2001 through 2008.

Alas, that is the forgotten story. There are more important things to worry about. Like government run healthcare. And birth control. Racism. NCAA Basketball.

On a personal note, I have many close friends stationed in Afghanistan now. They go about their jobs every day because it is their duty. But they know that their Commander in Chief couldn't care less about them.

It is time to discontinue the ground war in Afghanistan. Leave a special ops contingent behind. Continue the drone strikes. But the "hearts and minds" effort is futile. It's a failed notion. It's too bad we don't have a leader who understands this.

Bolivia: The World's Most Dangerous Road

Known as the Road of Death/Camino de la Muerte. It is actually called Yungas Road and encompasses a 40 mile stretch from La Paz to Coroico.





Be thankful next time you drive to work!

Will Ron Paul supporters vote for Romney?

It appears not. Those still soured and bitter over Ron Paul's utter failure this year still plan to go their own way and not do their part this fall to defeat Barack Obama. So be it. It's a lose lose for them. Obama win- "thanks a lot for the help". Romney win- "We didn't need you anyway."

This just baffles me. It really does. Now, I understand Ron Paul is the only true, limited government candidate. I understand that Mitt Romney is maybe a little too liberal for the average conservative. I understand that Ron Paul offers the only real vision for radical change in this nation's thinking. All good stuff. There is one problem though. Ron Paul can't win! Not, he won't win. He CAN'T win. There comes a point when reality has to set in for all. And reality is this. Mitt Romney or Barack Obama.

I am disgusted, and frankly extremely irritated, at this "holier than thou", idealist and non-compromising attitude from the Ron Paul faction. If Ron Paul had fared well in the primaries this year there is no doubt in my mind that the GOP would back him against Barack Obama. I would be his biggest supporter in the fight against the most anti-American, big government, far left president in this nation's history. But that didn't happen. Ron Paul showed he can't win. He didn't carry a single state. Maybe two at the very most, if voter fraud did indeed take place. Why should I support him? Why should anyone support him? Ron Paul could have at least proved to America he can win big somewhere. Anywhere. He didn't, nor did Newt Gingrich or Rick Santorum. Mitt Romney is going to be Obama's challenger, and that is just a fact of life.

Instead of doing their part to remove Obama from office, they are going to vote for "Dr. Paul", despite the fact he can't win. Then they can go home with a clear conscience, pat themselves on the back for being a "true" American, then sit down the browse some more Infowars articles while they listen to the TV personalities gleefully spout about how Barack Obama has won a second term. "I showed those hypocrite Republicans. America deserves another 4 years of Obama for not supporting Ron Paul..."


Whatever. Like I have said before, online poll votes, spam emails, and Youtube thumbs ups don't win elections. Real votes do. If Ron Paul voters decide to vote Ron Paul in November like they did this spring, I doubt it will affect the outcome much. 

Michelle Obama tells children to convince grandma and grandpa to vote for Barack.

Michelle Obama to kids: Tell grandparents they are 'wrong' for not voting for my husband


Unprecedented. Appalling. Un-presidential.

I can think of quite a few things the GOP has going for them this year. Joe Biden. Steven Chu. Unemployment. Gas prices. And Michelle Obama.

LIVE PHOTOS and VIDEO: Tornados hit Arlington and Dallas

Semi trailer 

I am sure you have already seen this amazing video already posted on the Drudge Report but here it is again:


Based on the pictures, F3 maybe? Let's hope it isn't anything worse.

MORE TO COME...

New Video of tornado throwing tractor trailer...

VIDEO: 2012 NCAA Championship- The Fray sings the worst national anthem ever.

In probably the worst rendition I have ever heard, The Fray tonight disgraced the national anthem once again like so many artists these days do. Why do bands and singers feel the need to personalize the national anthem? Shameful. They made Ozzy's rendition of 'Take Me Out to the Ballgame' sound good.

The best ever national anthem performance in my opinion...



Now that's how it should be done. Your thoughts?

Chris Christie calls ex-Navy Seal an idiot.

That was the gist of 90% of the headlines we saw a while back when New Jersey governor Chris Christie got into a heated exchange with an unruly, disrespectful Rutgers student at a townhall meeting, who just happened to be an ex-Navy Seal.

Well, the media pounced on that one just like they do every other non-story to paint Republicans in a bad light. Here we see the old, fat, angry Republican spouting more "intolerance" and "hate" towards....(*GASP*), a veteran!

Here is ABC, whom I like to call "Another Bullsh*t Channel", spinning the story the way they always do. Notice they don't play any of the actual exchange, apart for the fat, angry Republican calling him an idiot.

Now here is the actual exchange showing the "untouchable" veteran being disrespectful and constantly interrupting Christie.


Let's get something straight. Just because you are a veteran doesn't mean you have the right to be disrespectful and free from criticism. As a veteran myself, I am happy to see Chris Christie put that hoodlum in his place. I am sick and tired of people thinking veterans are free to do whatever and say whatever they want, free from scrutiny. Veterans deserve respect. They don't deserve to do anything they please. Also, being a veteran doesn't make one an expert on every political matter. Playing the "veteran" card is no different than playing the race card.