This past Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press" with Tim Russert, the following exchange occurred, in which Presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) admitted that his 2004 position on the Iraq War (which is 180 degrees different that what it is now) was 100% politically motivated:

TIM RUSSERT:  You were not in the Senate in October of 2002.  You did give a speech opposing the war.  But Senator Clinton’s campaign will say since you’ve been a senator there’s been no difference in your record.  And other critics will say that you’ve not been a leader against the war, and they point to this:  In July of ‘04, Barack Obama, “I’m not privy to Senate intelligence reports.  What would I have done?  I don’t know,” in terms of how you would have voted on the war.  And then this:  “There’s not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and George Bush’s position at this stage.” That was July of ‘04.  And this:  “I think” there’s “some room for disagreement in that initial decision to vote for authorization of the war.” It doesn’t seem that you are firmly wedded against the war, and that you left some wiggle room that, if you had been in the Senate, you may have voted for it.

SEN. BARACK OBAMA:  Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war.  And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party’s nominees’ decisions when it came to Iraq.

Now, unless you really believe that there isn't "much of a difference" between the position of the guy actively waging the war (George W. Bush) and the one who was "opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, four, five, six and seven" (Barack Obama), I'd say the senator is lying.  Like every other Democrat in the race, his positions on the war are, by his own admission, politically inspired.

Now that's exactly the kind of principled leadership we need, isn't it?!


For this and other commentaries, please go to www.BoldColorConservative.com

In response to a question from NBC's Meredith Vieira, quoting a credible scientist who said he did not see the "smoking gun" which pointed to global warming as a human-caused phenomenon, Al Gore could only respond by trying to discredit the scientist and complain that the media has been too balanced in their coverage of global warming.  His justification for such a ridiculous statement?

Gore claimed that you don't need an opposing view when you report that the world is round, so why would you need one when reporting on man-made global warming?  There's a "consensus," claims Gore!  Well, Galileo might have something to say about "consensus" if he could speak today.

Galileo, 17th-century astronomer, was the first to popularize the idea that the earth was round and revolved around the sun.  His ideas so deeply upset the "consensus" of his day that he was put on trial and jailed for the remainder of his life.

Now, I'm not about to concede the idea that man-made global warming really has a scientific consensus.  There's actually a lot of debate within the scientific community.  But instead of joining that honest, healthy debate, Gore instead chooses to cower behind his imaginary cloak of "consensus."  If his evidence is really that solid though, why is he so afraid to debate the data with scientists who disagree?

History has shown time and again, such as in the case of Galileo, that consensus does not equal proof.  History will prove Al Gore wrong as well.

Besides, Al's campaign is not really about saving the world from a human-induced Armageddon, but expanding the size and scope of government.


Related "BoldColor" Blog Entries:
1. "Inconvenient Fix"
2. "Convenient Lies"
3. "Sensational, Yet False"


For this and other posts, please go to www.BoldColorConservative.com

Tune in TODAY from 1:30-4pm central time, as we will again be guests in....Mac's World!

Iowans can tune in to 98.3 WOW FM and everybody else can listen live online here.

Please feel free to suggest topics for discussion in the comments section of this post.  We will try to check them periodically throughout the show as well.

A liberal at the DailyKos has proposed a "simple solution" that will abruptly end the war on terror.  Blogger "Yacka Jah Yacka" says Americans should "convert to Islam."  Wow... that's brilliant!  Why didn't I think of that?!

The basis of this ridiculous argument is two-fold.  First, no Americans take their faith seriously, so what would it matter if we're praying to Jesus or Allah?

"... of all the Christians in America today who profess to be religious, how many of us are seriously devout?"

Well for starters "Yacka," me.  Faith is the foundation of my life, and prayer the means by which I seek guidance from my Savior.  It's not a "mindless" ritual as you suggest.  Christianity and Islam are neither compatible, nor interchangeable, and I will never bow my knee to Allah nor acknowledge Muhammad as a prophet.  "Yacka," you may not be the only American who is lacking sincerity in your "religion," but I'm not the only practicing sincere faith.

Second, "Yacka" reminds us that:

"Osama Bin Laden promised the wars would be over if Americans convert to Islam."

Well "Yacka," if you want to take Osama at his word, be my guest... I guess I'm just a little skeptical when the world's leading terrorist offers us a deal.  But you should at least get Osama's promise right.  He's not asking us for nominal belief in Islam and mindless prayers to Allah.  He said that if we want peace with him, not only must we convert to Islam, but we must then scrap our Constitution and submit to Sharia law.

I'm sure most American women love the idea of full-body burqas.  I bet Gap could design some pretty stylish ones!  Plus, they've probably never really enjoyed education or working outside the home anyway.  Oh, and I bet all Americans would simply love capital punishment for sexual promiscuity, marrying someone your parents don't like, or for those pesky infidels who refuse to convert.  And we'll execute them publicly, in order to set an example.

I say "Yacka," you truly have a bold vision for the future of America.  Me?  I'd rather keep the Constitution, continue in Christian faith and devotion, and win the War on Terror the old fashioned way... with superior military might.


Also posted at www.BoldColorConservative.com.