A bunch of random thoughts concerning the election

In no particular order, kind of a 'stream of consiousness' thing:

1. I have read many comments from liberals about the fact that poor ole McCain supporters were not really for McCain, but just AGAINST Obama, as if that is in any ways important. If you are a liberal with this view, suppose one side was someone you really did not much care for (say George Bush) and the other side was Adolph Hitler. Would you be more voting for Bush or against Hitler? The choices are what they are and a person just has to make what he thinks is the wisest choice among what is there - even though he may not like even the wisest choice. In my case, I decided to cast a vote that I could feel good about (3rd Party vote) even knowing the guy had a zero chance of winning. Admittedly, if the race would have been close in Alabama, I would have voted for McCain.

2. I don't for the life of me understand why when there is potentially really controversial information about a candidate, it is wrong for us to wonder about it or even speak about it. There have of course been rumors that Obama was Muslim. I have heard rumors that he had been addicted to Cocaine at one point in his life. I had heard rumors that he was gay or bi. Now, admittedly these may be crazy. They may be flat made up. They may be totally baseless. My personal feeling right now is that Obama is not a Muslim (more on this later, though). I do not think he shows any characteristics of a drug addict, although I have actually seen him admit to smoking pot frequently when he was younger. I really know nothing about his sexual preferences, but have no knowledge of any deviancy on his part. So, unless someone could really produce evidence for any of these, then of course it is silly, immature, and unChristian to spread such rumors around. If there is any evidence for any of these, then I think they are legitimate concerns and are open for discussion in a campaign.

However, there are are other areas in which there have been persistent rumors that seem to have more backbone. Mr. Obama's past activities and ties with other people and organizations would say a lot about who he is. He has been associated with who knows who.

At the very least we could talk about Jeremiah Wright. 'Pastor' Wright has openly touted 'Black Liberation Theology" and the writings of James H. Cone including "A Black Theology of Racism" (you can find Wright touting this book on youtube and he has in the past at least, cited this book as a founding document for his church. ) This book and this man and this "theology" which term is used in the loosest way possible, is simply hate filled anti-American racism. The major premise of the book is that community defines theology. Therefore, the 'black' community can define a 'black theology" that suits their needs. Of course, the other premise is that historical orthodox Christian theology is "White Theology" which has been used to oppress blacks. Note here then that 'theology' which correctly would be the objective study of God with no racial connotations at all now becomes the subjective statement of our own racial prejudices clothed in the righteous garb of religion. There is 'oppresive' white theology and black 'liberation' theology. Where is God in this view?

According to Cone and Wright, they can not worship a God who is not on the side of the Black Liberation movement. If God is on the 'side' of Whiteness then they hate that God.

Here are a few excerpts from this book:

1. "[W]hiteness is the symbol of the Anti-christ."
2. "The goal of black theology is the destruction of everything white, so that blacks can be liberated from alien gods."
3. "The black experience is the feeling one has when attacking the enemy of black humanity by throwing a Molotov cocktail into a white-owned building and watching it go up in flames. We know, of course, that getting rid of evil takes something more than burning down buildings, but one must start somewhere."
4. "Black theology seeks to analyze the satanic nature of whiteness and by doing so prepare all nonwhites for revolutionary action."
5. "We have reached our limit of tolerance, and if it means death with dignity or life with humiliation we will choose the former. And if that is the choice, we will take some honkies with us."
6. "To be black is to be committed to destroying everything this country loves and adores."

Now, I ask you dear reader, rearrange the black and white above and what would our media do to anyone even remotely associated with it? Anyone white who can even by the third or fourth degree be remotely associated with anyone even remotely racist can have their any hope of attaining public office destroyed. Remember Pat Buchanan in 1996? Remember Trent Lott?

But, what did we do in this case? We elected a man president who for twenty years attended a church that was self described as based on these racists writings/rantings. Then, when it briefly became a political issue, he dropped it like a hot rock and the rest of us are suppose to just shut up and never mention it?? Excuse me??? I am absolutely sure I would get labeled a racist by some for even mentioning it here.

No, I do not believe Obama is a Muslim. I believe Obama is a lifelong member of a church that falsely uses the name of Christ to buttress marxism and anti-white bigotry.

Add to this other known ties at some level or other with terrorists, Chicago mafia types, marxists, vote fraud scams and the like and there is tons of smoke, but we simply must assume that there is absolutely no fire. If we want to do a fire investigation, we are labeled as fearmongers, haters, racists, etc. It really boggles the mind.

3. Sarah Palin was absolutely unready to be President, we are told. But Barack? Oh noooo. Time as a street agitator, a while in the Illinois State House, and a hudnred some days in the Senate make him uniquely qualified for the most powerful job in the world. Wright, er. Right.

4. I didn't much care for McCain, that is for sure. I do think much that McCain would do would be much the same as Bush. I do not agree at all with the direction of the country under Bush. I think we are heading in the wrong direction. However, with politics, there is a multitude of directions we could go. It is not that we go the MCCain way or we go the Obama way (which in a lot of instances are not all that different) There are a million other directions to proceed. So it is not just that since I do not like the current direction, I must vote for the change that Obama represents.

5. As bad as I think Bush has been and McCain would have been, it would still be far easier to turn things back and right the ship had McCain been elected. If Obama get's his way, and with majorities in both houses, he might, he can do almost irreperable damage. Once you let the cat of socialized medicine out of the bag, you absolutely can not be put back in. If his policies go through, we are stuck with them short of a revolution of colonial American proportions.

6. Related to this, let's just be as clear as possible. Obama is a socialist. I know I am not suppose to say this just like we are not suppose to bring up any ties to any shady characters in his past (or present). But it is the truth. People misunderstand this in many ways. a. they do not even know what socialism is b. they think they know and they actually think it is a good thing. c. they think it is allowed in the constitution d. they think it is Christian, etc. All of these thoughts are dead wrong. Socialism not only has never really worked (though through extensive use of smoke and mirrors has been made to look like it is working for a time) but actually socialism CAN NEVER work. It is an impossibility. it inevitably leads to lower standards of living and higher government power and persecution. It is impossible for it to do otherwise.

7. Obama has given indication that he will go to great lenghts not only to not allow further restricitons on abortions but to propogate more and more abortions. He has stated that the first thing he would do as president is sign the freedom of choice legislation. Ok, we know where his prioirities lie. In Illinois, he voted against legislation that would have protected the life of a child that survived an abortion procedure. Instead, they were just throwing the child in the garbage to die. Even many other liberal pro-aborts supported this legislation, but not Mr. Obamonation. Obama would be by far the most pro-abortion President in the history of the United States. What, therefore will he do in court appointments? What legislation will he push, and sign if it passes? If you are a Christian and voted for Obama, how do you justify voting for someone who is so pro-abortion?

8. Obama has given indications that he is rabidly pro-gay agenda. Now, I do not mean to imply that a candidate for president should desire to bust into homes of homosexuals and cart them off to the Gulags. Although I find the practice disgusting, and a horrible abomination against a holy God for which there will be a price to pay, I do not think it necessarily the job of the government, esp from a presidential office, to interfere with what two consenting adults may do in private. (The church has a major job to do here, for sure, though! But that is through preaching, teaching, admonishing, ministering, etc.)

But, if Mr. Obama gets his way, it may soon be illegal to preach against homosexuality. The homosexual agenda may be ramrodded at our kids through the schools, etc.

The link below is to a blog by a Robert Gagnon. Now, he is not some sort of blinded conservative. He is actually from a theologically far more liberal tradition than I. He has written a book about the Biblical view of homosexual practice that has garnered rave reviews by both conservative and liberal reviewers, even a liberal homsexual advocate. In other words, he is not simply on some sort of conservative soapbox. However, he details his concerns here about the above items (Obama's views on abortion and homosexuality) There are tons of links on this as well.

Again, how/why would a Christian have voted for this man?

http://robgagnon.net/ObamaWarOnChristians.htm

9. I am not the least bit upset over the fact that a black man got elected. I actually can truly understand why millions of black Ameicans would be very excited at the prospect of voting for a Black man. I have not experienced what they have. While there is a lot that is perception, there is a lot of reality to the history of blacks in this nation as being in an oppressed state. This is vindication of sorts for them. I understand that.

In fact, I am all for racial reconciliation and a Black president could go a long way toward that end.

Unfortunately, this is not the case with Obama. His policies will do far more harm than good, maybe even irreparable harm. I believe at the very least he has some very bigoted associates. He is from a marxist background. He is pro-death, pro-gay agenda. He is not the person, regardless of his race or gender, to lead this nation where it needs to go. He is apparently going to lead it in precisely the opposite direction than where it needs to go.

I hope it is obvious to anyone reading this that neither I, nor millions of other, white conservatives were against Obma because he is Black. We are against him because of his issues.

10. Nontheless, I am adamant that we all, black, white, liberal, conservative, need to pray for our leaders - democrat, republican, white, black, male, female, conservative, liberal. We need to pray not that our will or their will be done, but that God's will be done to His Glory and for our good.

Tuberville'w Record

I know I've turned this into a sports blog, but lately I have not had time to write about much of anything, and I can churn out this sports stuff without much thought!

I found a site where I could actually calculate Tommy Tuberville's tenure at Auburn to determine how I think he has done. Because of the 13-0 season in 2004, and because for a time he had a pretty good streak against ranked opponents, everyone just sorta figures Tubby has been highly successful and one bad season should not do him in. However, consider....

Tuberville's overall record as of today at AU is 84-38 which is a .689 winning percentage. That is not too bad, though it is certainly not legendary coach status for sure. It is roughly the same percentage that Shug Jordan maintained at Auburn for 25 years, and is lower than Pat Dye's percentage. However, consider that Jordan came into an Auburn program that had been down and out for over thirty years, (they were o-10 the year before) was beat like a step child by Bama on a regular basis, but in his 7th year he won a National title. Beginning in his 8th year he had to compete in every way imaginable with the Bear who was basically the perenial SEC champ every year, as well as frequent NC winner or at least contender. That is, Shug, over a much longer period of time and against much greater odds still maintained basically the same record as Tubby has during a ten year streak in which Bama was down and out.

Dye took over an AU team that had not beaten Bama in recent memory, and turned it all around and made it a competitive rivalry again.

Tubby did do a good job getting AU back competitive again, and has beat Bama in 7 out of 9 tries (best pct of any AU coach by far) but he has done so during the bleakest years at Bama since the 1950s and he has still not managed to take full advantage of the situation - never once beating UAT handily and now losing the recrruiting battle severely.

However, when we look at that 84-38 record, we need to also understand that Auburn is 18-0 (as they should be) against 'cupcakes' (Ball St., The Citadel, etc) and 5-1 against what I would call 'mid level' non-conference competition (Central Florida, South Florida, etc.) Against anything remotely approaching 'quality' non-conference teams, Tubby is 9-9. This includes his total records against Clemson (1-0) Georgia Tech (0-2) Kansas State (1-0) Michigan (0-1) Nebraska (1-0) North Carolina (0-1) Penn State (1-0) Southern Miss (1-0) West Va (0-1) USC (0-2) Syracuse (1-1) Va Tech (1-0) Washignton St (1-0) and Wisconsin (1-1). So, TT is 23-1 against those teams which he should be 23-1 against, and 9-9 (.500) against teams that should be about his equal level. I would say that .500 makes him 'average' wouldn't you?

What about the SEC? As stated before, the greatest thing in his coaching career is his 7-2 record against Bama (of course it looks like it is about to be 7-3). But again, this has been against a down and out Bama program. The 2002 and 2003 victories were sweet for their own reasons, and all these wins over the hated Bamers are great, but on basically every one of them, AU has struggled and just come out victorious by the skin of their teeth. The last Bama win, however, was a 31-7 thrashing (when AU was actually a better team that year) and this year looks like another thrashing. In other words, when AU is (supposedly) up and Bama is definitely down, Auburn eeks out a bunch of wins. When Bama is up and AU is down, it is a thrashing. (of course, AU could win or give them a good game this year, but from here it looks like it might be ugly).

Overall in the SEC, AU is 52-28 for a .650 pctg. That is good (if .500 is 'average' then .65 is above average) However, there are certain teams that during these ten years, AU should pretty much beat every single time. The proof of the pudding is, how do they do against 'quality' SEC opponents.

Right now, AU is 5-5 (.500) against LSU, and have lost twice in a row. They are 5-4, and surely about to be 5-5 against UGA, which would include a third loss in a row, probably by a large margin for the third year in a row. Although TT has a rep as a Gator beater, he is actually 3-4 against UF. He is 4-1 against UT, but that includes this year when UT was down and out worse than even AU. And it includes beating them twice in the 2004 13-0 run. Stepping down a slight level in quality, and this is one that really makes me mad, AU is 5-5 against Arkansas. Arkansas this year is a terrible team, yet they beat AU. Several times in these ten years, Ark has routed Auburn. Several of the 5 victories AU has over Ark have been nail biters that could have gone either way.

Auburn has also lost three times to Ole Miss, and three times to MSU. And now they have even lost to Vandy.

Against 'Quality" SEC opponents (throw out Ole Miss, MSU, KY, Vandy, SC) AU is 29-21 for a .58 winning percentage.

If you can look even deeper than the records, you will see what I have already hinted at....AU wins usually close, ugly games, but loses bad. Alabama, LSU, Florida, Arkansas, and Georgia have all routed Auburn under TT. I am not sure how many times AU has routed those opponents, though. I know they did once or twice agains UGA and LSU, but the point is, there have been many very ugly losses during these ten years, and a lot of the victories have been games that could have gone either way.

Of course, there will always be some close games that you win, and some you lose and I guess AU has won more than they lost. But here is the real point in all this....Supposedly TT has done an outstanding job at AU, and it is unfair to talk of firing him after one bad year. The truth is, AU has done average under TT, has lost some very embarassing games, has in every year except one totally failed to show up for at least one game per year, has one one SEC title in ten years, has had one really good season in ten years. AU has essentially been an 8-4 team year in and year out and usually 2-3 of those wins have been against absolute cupcakes, and 3-4 of those wins have been against teams they should beat 8/10 times. Against comparable teams, AU is basically at .500 which means they are doing average.

In ten years under Tuberville, AU has been average.

The question for the AU nation is, "Are you satisfied with average?"