What's this? Someone lacking HOPE?

Yup, that's me. I'm fresh out. And I don't want change, either -- whether I can believe in it or not. And, no, I can't.

That's a great many negatives, isn't it? Lest you think I'm a pessimist, let me tell you what I am about, rather than just what I'm not about. I am about completely sick of the Cult of Obama, Obama supporters (Baracktards, I've heard them called), hope, change, and other empty rhetorical devices that cause crowds to practically wet themselves and otherwise educated adults to abandon reason in favor or lemming-like crowd-think (a much more mindless version of groupthink).

How many of you saw Conan: The Barbarian? Remember when James Earl Jones, as Thulsa Doom, spoke to his followers? And they murmured, en masse, "Doom....Doom...Doom...."? How far is that from 17,000 people losing control over their bodily functions when Obama blew his nose?

Anyway, this blog, whatever it ends up becoming, is about two things: first, my highly subjective loathing of the cult-like following Obama has amassed and his increasingly arrogant behavior; and second, my highly objective issues with his philosophies, policy ideas, and plans for America.

And just in case you're wondering right now where my objective side is (after all, that snot story is pretty subjective), go read this one and think about it long and hard. If Obama is as smart and perceptive as he acts, and his flunkies insist, why the major lapse on Crazy Reverend Wright? If Obama was really an active, involved, invested member of his church, can we really believe that he was totally ignorant of Wright's views on America? Wait, wait..it's just his pastor, right? Wrong. If Obama gives money to his church -- which he insists he does -- isn't he, then, subsidizing that line? Wait, there's more: if he's tithing, and clueless about what the money is in part supporting, doesn't that raise a valid question about his judgment? If he's not tithing, he's lied to us, because he says he does. If he's clueless, isn't that a strike against him for president? And if he did know, and didn't do anything about it in the name of being "tolerant" doesn't that make him both a liar and a moral relativist?

Yeah, sure, I'd love to have a president who throws money at things without asking where it's going or what it's doing...huh, sounds like pretty standard liberal behavior, actually. Either way, he's losing points in the mind of the rational voter: liars can't be trusted; overly trusting fools create problems for themselves (and others); and moral relativists are the bane of modern American society. Anyway, think about it.

So there you have it. Join the fray...I hope this gets ugly.