No Nanny State - Molon Labe!

You lie!
-- SC Representative Joe Wilson to Barack Obama

Barry did his health care speech last night. I could not listen to it live. I had the same problem when Dubya would talk. I knew that if his lips were moving, he was lying to me, one way or the other. I knew that it would cost me either money or freedom, or both.

It's the same with Barry.

The TV and radio were both playing clips of the speech, and I had it in my head to discuss his comment that marginalized Americans who are exercising their right to petition the government for a redress of grievances as "bickering".

I spent a part of this morning reading the transcripts of the health care speech. I wanted to see what he said, not be influenced by how he said it.

The transcripts took me down another path.
----------

What is a 'right'? I found a definition that most matches with my beliefs on FreeRepublic.com -

A right is the sovereignty to act without the permission of others. The concept of a right carries with it an implicit, unstated footnote: you may exercise your rights as long as you do not violate the same rights of another—within this context, rights are an absolute.

I like that. You can do as you wish as long as it doesn't stop another person from exercising the same right. For example, I don't get to exercise my right to keep and bear arms, then use my guns to stop someone else from doing the same.

This concept of exercising rights while not infringing on the rights of another goes deeper, though. Your ability to exercise your rights cannot place a burden on another individual.

Simply because you want to exercise your first amendment right to free speech, does not give you the right to require a newspaper to spend their money on paper, ink, presses and manpower to print your words.

If you want your words in print, you must bear the burden of getting them printed.

Again, FreeRepublic said it very well -

A right must be exercised through your own initiative and action. It is not a claim on others. A right is not actualized and implemented by the actions of others. This means you do not have the right to the time in another person’s life. You do not have a right to other people’s money. You do not have the right to another person’s property. If you wish to acquire some money from another person, you must earn it—then you have a right to it. If you wish to gain some benefit from the time of another person’s life, you must gain it through the voluntary cooperation of that individual—not through coercion. If you wish to possess some item of property of another individual, you must buy it on terms acceptable to the owner—not gain it through theft.

The only legitimate claim or burden placed upon another is through taxes paid to the government to enforce your rights. Using the example from above, the government is not in place to provide you with printing presses. They are there to ensure you can operate your presses.
----------

fascism - a governmental system led by a dictator having complete power, forcibly suppressing opposition and criticism, regimenting all industry, commerce, etc., and emphasizing an aggressive nationalism and often racism.

So, I read through Barry's speech, and I was horrified. Plain as day - with no qualification or excuse - he is conferring a right to a select few individuals, and requiring that I pay for it.

Now, even if we provide these affordable options, there may be those -- especially the young and the healthy -- who still want to take the risk and go without coverage. There may still be companies that refuse to do right by their workers by giving them coverage. The problem is, such irresponsible behavior costs all the rest of us money. If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits. If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors. And unless everybody does their part, many of the insurance reforms we seek -- especially requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions -- just can't be achieved.

In one fell swoop, he is granting a right to health care. It's actually more than that - he's requiring you have health care insurance if you live in the United States. Most importantly, it will be a crime if you don't have health care insurance.

In the good old days, before a new right could be granted, the congress and the states had to agree to it. It used to be called the 'amendment process' as detailed in Article 5 of the Constitution.

Now, we just pass a law, and it's called, 'progress'.

Suppressing dissent. Regimenting industry and commerce. Aggressive nationalization.

Sounds like fascism to me. What else could it be called?
----------

Look at what he's saying, and the implications -

If there are affordable options and people still don't sign up for health insurance, it means we pay for these people's expensive emergency room visits.

He's using a federal law that prohibits a hospital from refusing treatment to anyone that shows up on their doorstep, as rationale for requiring we all continue to pay for this treatment, but in a different way, and somehow it will be less expensive.

How about you allow private hospitals to turn people away, or to at least transfer them to the county hospitals that were established for the indigent?

But far and away, this was the single most frightening aspect of his 'vision' -

If some businesses don't provide workers health care, it forces the rest of us to pick up the tab when their workers get sick, and gives those businesses an unfair advantage over their competitors.

I thought he was all about 'competition'. Why not just be right out front and say you are nationalizing all business in America?

There are a million things that go into a company business plan. Price, product, quality, location. A huge component is employees.

A business makes a decision on how to least expensively produce its product or service. It may decide that it doesn't give a damn who fills the jobs it has. Quality and customer service are irrelevant - it just wants to produce the most products for the lowest cost and charge the highest prices it can get. The market will decide if their business plan is correct - they'll either buy the product or not.

Another business may wish to pay a salary of 150% of the market, offer flexible scheduling, a great 401k plan, but no other fringe benefits. They may believe they can retain the best employees for their particular business with that model. Their employees can decide to spend the higher wages on health care insurance or on crack cocaine. Or leave and take a job with a company that DOES offer benefits. It's their choice. Again, the market will decide if their business plan is correct.

Barry's plan takes those options away. If a business is mandated to offer benefits, IT is now placed at a competitive disadvantage. It will either have to cut salaries, cut employees, cut retirement benefits or cut quality to stay competitive. Or go out of business.

Is Barry going to tell them what to cut as well - or allow them to make any cuts at all?
----------

I'm telling you, if this passes, there will be one way, and one way only to survive: Get out of the tax paying business.

The 'public option' will destroy the private insurers. Despite Barry's assurances that not a single tax dollar will be spent on the plan, do even the most parched Koolaid drinkers believe that?

Pretty soon, Nanny HealthCo will be the only game in town, and your tax dollars will be paying for it.

The end result will be crappy, rationed health care for all. If you're going to get the same care whether you pay for it or not, why pay?
----------

An Atlas Shrugged Moment of Zen -

"Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it...

There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt.

Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

Labels: American Spirit, communism, Constitution, Corruption, criminal, debate, Ethics, Fascism, Health Care Fraud, Media Bias, nanny state, Propaganda, Self-Reliance, Taxes, welfare state

There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice, but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.
--Elie Wiesel

Not a big fan of Rush. He had his nose up Bush's kiester until right at the end of his presidency. I don't trust him to be much more than a Republican party hack. He's like Alan Colmbs or Randy Rhodes - only with an audience.

Still, he is hitting a number of issues right now that I think are right on point. In particular, he's encouraging people to exercise their first amendment right "to petition the government for a redress of grievances."

This is driving the socialists crazy.

They are whining in concert about how non-socialists are getting organized to fight this unprecedented expansion of government.

The Democratic National Committee fought back Wednesday with an online ad calling the protesters "mobs" embittered by Republican losses last fall.

My first thought was, "Why is organizing a protest considered a bad thing?" Isn't that what the first amendment is all about - joining with like-minded people and getting your voices heard?

It's clear that it is only a bad thing when it goes against the hivist mentality. Why isn't Pelosi getting her panties in a bunch when people that share her views - like the AFL-CIO - are doing the exact same thing?

“We want your help to organize major unions to counter the right-wing ‘Tea Party Patriots’ who will try to disrupt those meetings as they’ve been trying to do to meetings for the last month,” Sweeney wrote, adding, “Remember the hooligans, many of them Republican Congressional staff, who harassed Florida vote counters in 2000? We can’t let it happen again.”

We all know that she won't get upset about it because the union bosses think as she does. And the main stream press is in the bag, so the contradiction of her words will never see the light of day.
----------

Over the past 24 hours, I have seen a wondrous thing.

My wife has traditionally had a liberal-leaning view of politics. We've had a couple of "go arounds" on socialized health care and other entitlement programs.

She has a life-long friend who is an avowed communist. Shockingly (not), she's also public school teacher and big into the California Teacher's Association.

This friend of hers has a FaceBook page where she was denouncing the Town Hall protests - you know, that unruly mob - and how these Nazi's and thugs had to be stopped.

I got home on Friday night and my wife asked me what I thought about these protests.

I could almost hear the shotgun slide racking in my brain. Fling me some clays emblazoned with socialist dogma. Pull!

I asked for some specifics about the claims her friend was making. It was the usual suspects:

Violent mobs. Limbaugh/Beck mindless drones. Shouting down speakers. Nazi symbols.

I asked her to ask her friend for any proof of these accusations. Not some posting on a communist blog, but a video of these things happening. Ask her to show you just one example of each of their charges.

Right after my wife posted the request, comrades of her friend started responding to my wife's questions. More of the same assertions, but still no facts. The links that were sent were opinion pieces, not evidence.

I asked my wife for them to explain the YouTube videos of SEIU and ACORN members being allowed into these meetings - literally through the back door - while regular citizens were not being allowed in.

I asked her to have them explain how they could justify the video of a vendor of pro-freedom buttons and t-shirts - who just happened to be black - was attacked and beaten, and had racial epithets hurled at him (by another black man, btw). [Listen at right around 1 minute into the video how the SEIU thug justifies attacking the guy - "He attacked America - we attacked him"]

I suggested she ask why only the left's thinking is considered valid.
----------

I've stressed to her, to question everything, even what I tell her.

My wife then spent virtually all of Saturday on the Internet researching these stories. She commented that in all of the videos she saw, the "unruly mobs" largely consisted of senior citizens! What was in the press reports didn't reconcile with what she saw with her own eyes. Yep, there was shouting and yelling, but none of the "mob" were inciting violence. That only occurred at the hands of the SEIU and ACORN thugs.

She is pissed off!

She's now looking up the names of the two women that organized the last Tea Party which I attended, to get information on what is planned for the future. She's asked me to give her some insight on how to cut through the crap on what's being portrayed on the media so that she can teach HER students (at a private school) how to dig for truth and come to their own conclusions.

I suggested that she use her US History lessons to discuss the Constitution and ask the kids how so many of our federal laws can even be legal. Have the kids cut through the rhetoric - on all sides of an issue - and get the the root constitutionality.

It's a start.
----------

Who knows? Maybe Mr. and Mrs. Other Mike will be part of a "mob" on YouTube in the future!

Labels: American Spirit, communism, Constitution, debate, Fascism, Media Bias, nanny state, Self-Reliance, Taxes, welfare state

A buddy of mine sent me a link to this story about how the Federal Reserve Bank (FRB) is fighting-back against the call to audit their books -

Fed Vice Chairman Donald Kohn said opening up some of the U.S. central bank's most sensitive decisions to political scrutiny could result in higher long-term interest rates and hurt the United States' credit rating. Kohn was speaking before a Congressional panel where he was seeking to beat back a proposal that would open policy decisions by the U.S. central bank to audits by a federal watchdog agency.

"Any substantial erosion of the Federal Reserve's monetary independence likely would lead to higher long-term interest rates as investors begin to fear future inflation," he said in testimony prepared for delivery to a House of Representatives Financial Services subcommittee.

You know what? He's absolutely right. If the smoke-and-mirrors tactics the FRB has been employing were open to audit, and Congress then passed laws restricting their ability to print money at will, our cost of funds would increase as a result of a lowering of our national credit rating.

It would be the same as you having your hours cut at work. When you begin having trouble making your monthly expenses, you go to a bank to get a credit card or line of credit. The bank looks at your income, and tells you that they'll make you the loan, but since you're living paycheck-to-paycheck, the interest rate is going to be very high.

Your cash flow sucks, and you have no assets to collateralize the loan. You're a significant risk - you might not be able to pay back the whole loan. You're going to pay a premium for your borrowings, sport.

BRING IT ON!

These bastards only have the short-term outlook on life. they use fear to wad the panties of the Congress, and they might just back off.

What he doesn't discuss is how shutting down their free-spending ways will bring us back into fiscal responsibility. If no one will buy our debt - or if the FRB is forbidden from buying it with money they create with a few key strokes - we will be forced into living within a budget.

If the cost of that is some short-term pain while we get our fiscal house in order, so be it. Families have to do it. Businesses have to do it. States have to do it. The federal government should have to do it as well.

I've got to hand it to him, though. He has some big brass balls -

He made plain the Fed saw Paul's bill as a direct challenge to its independence that could raise the risk investors might begin to expect the U.S. central bank to start printing money to help the government finance a growing budget gap.

"History provides numerous examples of non-independent central banks being forced to finance large government budget deficits. Such episodes invariably lead to high inflation," he said. "Given the current outlook for large federal budget deficits in the United States, this consideration is especially important."

Uhm, doesn't he read his organizations own reports? How does he think the FRB has been able to buy hundreds of billions of dollars worth of Treasury notes? Leprechauns and their pots of gold?

And WE KNOW it leads to high inflation, you retard! Why in the hell do you think we're so pissed off at you idiots? WE GET IT!

He's got to be hoping that Congress doesn't...

Labels: communism, Constitution, Corruption, debate, democrats, Ethics, Fascism, nanny state, presidential, Taxes, welfare state

The idea is to establish a national level of carbon dioxide emissions, and sell pollution permits to industry as the Catholic Church used to sell indulgences to sinners.
--Ron Paul

Barry and his Loyal Minions have a plan, and it seems to be working incredibly well. They have a butt-load of socialist policy they want enacted. That was to be expected.

What I think has caught everyone off guard is their tactics. They are using Sensory Overload to rush this stuff through. Take everything and get it all passed NOW! Don't allow debate. Don't allow discussion. Don't allow dissent.

Just "Git 'er done".

I get the feeling that this is the handiwork of Rahm Emanual, Barry's chief of staff. He's the one with the, "Don't let a good crisis go to waste" quote. They recognize that they may only have two years to pass their legislation. If the economy doesn't turn around by 2010, they might not have the votes in the House and the Senate to push this through.

I've got to hand it to them, they're playing this brilliantly.
----------

This crap is wearing me down. There is just too much input and not enough push back from the people we're paying to push back. I see the stories about this Cap and Trade idiocy, and I just shake my head.

Ron Paul is one of the few Representatives that is trying to do something about this raping of America. His quote at the top of this post is spot-on.

Since no one had a chance to read the bill or debate its merits before they voted for it, they had no real idea what we are getting. Apparently, his staff has now had time to read it, and some of the nuggets are starting to emerge.

HR 2454 also gives federal bureaucrats new power to regulate a wide variety of household appliances, such as light bulbs and refrigerators, and further distorts the market by providing more of your tax money to auto companies.

Well, isn't that special? More regulations on how to live our lives, and more money to the Nationalized Auto Industry. My guess is it has to do with subsidies to the automakers so they can bring the price of "green" cars down to a price Americans will pay. They know no one would buy that rolling crap unless the prices were artificially lowered.

Wow, wouldn't it suck to be an automaker that wasn't owned by Nanny? God Bless capitalism, huh?

Of course, one of the big selling points is all of the green jobs this will create. The green industry will sprout like grass seeds spread across a fertile plot.

The only problem is, it doesn't work!

The administration has pointed to Spain as a shining example of this type of progressive energy policy. Spain has been massively diverting capital from the private sector into politically favored environmental projects for the better part of a decade, and many in Washington apparently like what they see. However, under no circumstances should anyone serious about economic recovery emulate an economy that is now approaching 20 percent unemployment, where every green job created, eliminated 2.2 real jobs and cost around $800,000 each!

Hey, why not? Didn't Barry spend something like $450,000 for each job that was "saved" at the automakers? Trading 1 green job for 2 "bad" ones will do wonders for the economy. Think of how many more people will be on the government teat - voting for Barry and his ilk so the bucks keep on flowing.

I say it so often, I probably need to change the name of this blog: We be screwed.
----------

One more time: Cover your ass.

Do whatever you can to reduce your taxable profile, 'cause Barry (and the states) are coming for your cash.

Get healthy, because getting sick is going to bankrupt you.

Buy ammo, gold, silver and long-term foods, because inflation is going to soar due to the debt we're taking on to pay for all of this mess. Get your "consumables" now.

Vote third party. Run the bums out of town. The damage is already done, and will only get worse over the next few years, but it's one of the only things we have left available to stop this insanity from getting worse.
----------

A good buddy of mine sent me the latest insight from Gerald Celente. This guy was one of the first to predict the mess we're in - way back then, he looked like a nut.

It's a long document, but I'll share some of his thoughts later in the week after I get through it.

Unlike Barry & Company, he doesn't paint a very rosy picture of our near-term prospects...

A little taste -

To keep local, state and federal governments running, and to finance stimulus packages and bailout programs, politicians will put the squeeze on the already squeezed. The biggest squeeze: property taxes. Historically, empires crash when taxes are raised beyond the capacity to pay.....

Hey look! That's already happening around the country. So if the government seizes the properties, they no longer earn ANY taxes. No one will buy it, because the taxes are obscene, so Nanny owns all private property and businesses. The system crashes and burns due to the lack of tax revenues.

Forget the "go vote" admonition above. Let it burn. Burn baby, burn!
----------

UPDATE:

I just got this cartoon from Diversity Lane. Right on point.

Labels: American Spirit, communism, Constitution, Corruption, debate, Eco-fraud, Ethics, Fascism, Global Warming, nanny state, Self-Reliance, Taxes, welfare state

You can only protect your liberties in this world by protecting the other man's freedom. You can only be free if I am free.
--Clarence Darrow

One of my brothers and I were talking about the Sotomayor SCOTUS deal. We were talking about her comments concerning how a Latina woman can make a better decision than a white male.

While not agreeing with her blatantly racist and sexist views, he said that he has no problem whatsoever with having a SCOTUS made up of many different races and gender. In fact, he thought it would be for the best.

His view was that regardless of the expectations of Blind Justice, the SCOTUS are very often given cases where things are not black-and-white. Most things in life are shades of gray. As such, it is in the interest of justice that the SCOTUS have different life experiences so that all Constitutional law is not found in favor of a specific race or gender.

After the paramedics revived me from my sudden onset heart attack/blown forehead vein, we continued our conversation. ;-)

My view is that the SCOTUS in particular, has a relatively easy job. They have a playbook - the Constitution - as their guide.

For instance, if a case is brought before them, they first need to see who has been given the "power" over the issue. Is this a state's rights, individual rights or federal rights issue? Were any of these groups given specific powers or prohibitions in the Constitution regarding the issue at hand?

If the answer is, "No", then according to the 9th and 10th amendments, the issue MUST become the domain of either the state or the individual, and NOT the federal government.

As such, the verdict of the state court becomes the official ruling for that case.
----------

Obviously, if the answer to the "powers" question is, "Yes", you follow whatever rules are set forth in the Constitution.

Here is where some of that, "grayness" can come into play. The job of the SCOTUS is to interpret what the writers of the constitution meant at the time, NOT what they want it to mean now.

For example, there is a phrase in the Constitution that I believe is the root cause of the sorry state of our nation. It's right up front in the preamble -

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

...promote the general welfare...

More importantly, I think, it raises its ugly head in Article 1, Section 8 -

The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; but all duties, imposts and excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

In this case, the founders actually had a great deal of disagreement on what, "general welfare" meant.

Madison asserted it amounted to no more than a reference to the other powers enumerated in the subsequent clauses of the same section; that, as the United States is a government of limited and enumerated powers, the grant of power to tax and spend for the general national welfare must be confined to the numerated legislative fields committed to the Congress. In this view the phrase is mere tautology, for taxation and appropriation are or may be necessary incidents of the exercise of any of the enumerated legislative powers.

Hamilton, on the other hand, maintained the clause confers a power separate and distinct from those later enumerated, is not restricted in meaning by the grant of them, and Congress consequently has a substantive power to tax and to appropriate, limited only by the requirement that it shall be exercised to provide for the general welfare of the United States.

In my eyes, the correct answer is clear as day - Madison is right - it meant providing for an environment conducive to liberty - not the "cut 'em a check" bastardization we've come to know as the definition.

Hamilton was a big-government socialist. The founders meant for Madison's views to prevail, and they included the 9th and 10th amendments to make that abundantly clear.

Just as clearly, the Hamilton view has been adopted.

Back on point: Did the race and gender of the past SCOTUS justices have anything to do with this? Obviously not. Our sprint towards socialism began in the early 1900's. The only folks on the bench were old white guys.

They were the great Constitutional scholars of their time. I fail to see how their race or gender enter the equation. They made their (poor) decisions based upon their education, the leanings of their instructors and the influences of past precedence. Since they were all white and all old, race and gender were irrelevant, as it should be.

A Supreme Court Justice is supposed to be a referee of the law, NOT an advocate for either side. By supporting a judge because you want variety of viewpoints based upon how they were raised, abused, neglected, nurtured, cared-for or chastised goes against the core principles of justice.

Justice MUST be blind.

I don't want Sotomayor to support the position of the white and Hispanic firefighters because I am white. I want her to support them because they played by the rules, succeeded in passing the test, yet were discriminated against strictly because of the hue of their skin. No other reason.

That is injustice.

In her subsequent comments, Sotomayor has made it clear that she believes race and gender MUST become a part of the law. How can you expect justice from her (or anyone that believes as she does) if you are of another race or gender?
----------

When I was having my go-around with my brother, we were trying to come up with an example of an issue that could be brought before the SCOTUS where race, gender or general up-bringing would be relevant.

Neither of us could come up with an example.

Does anyone have an example?
----------

Kinda related, in a Big Brother, "general welfare" way: I've mentioned in some comments that I am reading Ayn Rand's, Atlas Shrugged. For the first time.

As I read it, I keep running into circumstance where I think Rand is tossing red meat to the small government folks. Like many authors, she's just clipping examples from the newspaper and inserting them into the book to give it some relevance.

It then dawns on me that this book was written over 50 years ago in 1957!

It is quite amazing.

• The government passing laws to, "equalize opportunity" which are actually designed to equalize outcome.
  

• The government funding the purchase of businesses so that their control can be transferred to entities that think progressively.
  

• The government using a willing, compliant media to spread propaganda which labels capitalists as greedy leaches, with values against the common good.

Someone at "Nanny Central" is using Atlas Shrugged as a playbook. Can't wait to see how it turns out...
----------

The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only object of good government.
--Thomas Jefferson

Labels: American Spirit, communism, Constitution, Corruption, debate, Ethics, Fascism, Media Bias, nanny state, Self-Reliance, Taxes, Thought Crimes, welfare state

Liberalism is a mental disorder.
--Michael Savage

The drum beat continues. And the whacko's are dancing some sort of spastic Funky Chicken.

I was listening to a local radio station this evening, a couple of hours after McCain finished his speech. The guest host was positively frothing at the mouth. Not about McCain, but about Palin. Still.

The Dems are soiling their panties.

She started her rant with a comment about how Palin is some religious wing-nut. She quoted a couple of statements where Palin mentioned God in her remarks. She said how it so scared her that someone so religious could possibly run our country.

Being the pain in the ass I am, I went to Google and did a search of the word 'God' on his site. Here is the text of the email I sent the pinhead host on the subject:

So. God is an influence - a BIG influence - on Sarah Palin, and that offends you.

Hey, know what? I went to Barry's site to see how many times he mentions God. You know, that entity you're trashing Palin over? Ok, here goes:

"But kneeling beneath that cross on the South Side, I felt I heard God's spirit beckoning me. I submitted myself to His will, and dedicated myself to discovering His truth and carrying out His works."

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/23/a_politics_of_conscience_1.php

Or

"And so God is asking us today to remember that miracle of that baby. And He is asking us to take that bullet out once more."

http://www.barackobama.com/2007/06/05/remarks_of_senator_barack_obam_14.php

Oh, and this (from the same page as above)

"Right here in this room, we believe that God is big enough to overcome the smallness of our politics; that He is big enough to overcome our doubts and our cynicism and our worries; that He is big enough to love children of every color and creed and political label."

In fact, that one page had about a dozen references to The Big Guy.

Ya know what? When I checked Barry's whole site, I found 100 PAGES - not instances, but pages - that mentioned God.

Does the thought of God guiding people so offend your twisted little liberal mind, that you are willing to trash them for their beliefs? Well, girlfriend, you better start trashing Barry, 'cause he seems to be a BIG believer.

It must be heartbreaking for you. You may want to become familiar with the phrase, "People who live in glass houses should not cast stones."

I'll say a prayer for ya.

Mike

----------

You all know how to search any website using Google, right?

Just in case:

Go to Google.com (duh). In the entry box you use the following format:

site:www.yoursite.com (space) search string

So, I used the following entry (yes, you key in the word 'site:') :

site:www.barackobama.com god

I use lower case letters, because you'll get the words that are both in upper and lower case on the website.

Now, Go Forth and Search!

Labels: debate, democrats, Life and Times, Political Correctness

Holy shit are we in trouble....

I'm registered as an Independent. The past two presidential elections, I voted Democratic. My reason wasn't because I thought Gore or Kerry were any good, they were just the lesser of two evils.

I watched the first part of the Democratic debate last night, and had to turn it off after 10 minutes or so. Good God, is this the best our country can produce? What a bunch of blithering losers. Pissing and moaning about how one hates the war more than the other, but how, "my good friend" so-and-so has good intentions. It was disgusting.

Not one fucking leader among them all.

I've said before, that, at least in my lifetime, George W. Bush is easily the worst president. Even worse than Carter. At least Carter was only inept. Bush has that going for him, too, but he has also gutted the Constitution, placed our country on the brink of bankruptcy, unnecessarily engaged in a war that has cost us 3400+/- American lives and opened our borders to unfettered assault. And that's just the stuff that come to mind.

But, if Hillary Clinton were to win the Democratic nomination, I would start a movement for a Constitutional ammendment to allow Bush to stay as long as he wants. That's how much I hate that shrew.

I want to root for the Republicans, but I see little salvation there as well. My guy, Ron Paul, seems to have stepped on his dick regarding his comments about why we were attacked. He was absolutely right, and didn't even come close to saying we were at fault, but that we simply have to understand that there will be ramifications to our actions.

My second choice, Tancredo, doesn't seem to have much traction. Hunter sounds good, but is probably too right-wing for much of America. Rudy makes me want to puke. McCain scares me almost as much as Hillary. Romney has changed is colors in recent years to seem more conservative.

Thompson? Geez, who knows. He looks and sounds presidential, but I know nothing about what he stands for, or is against. He could be as much of an empty shirt as all of the others.

sigh.....

Labels: debate, democrats, presidential