Founders of the Future

The Wars We See

2011-08-31T14:42:00.003-04:00

Iraq. Afghanistan. Vietnam. World Wars I and II. We've even fought a war with ourselves.

And, largely, we've emerged victorious. While that may be contested from one side of the aisle or the other, we are still America, and our spirit has survived the wars we fight.

At least, it's survived the wars we see.

The closest we've come to seeing the real wars going on in America was the Civil War. To most, it's just a dark spot in history that we recognize now as foolhardy and tragic, but nothing more. If anything, it connotes nothing more than the first relative conquest of prejudice, at least by law. When people think of the Civil War, they think of Lincoln, slaves, and Confederate flags.

They don't think of the year 2011.

But we are indeed fighting a civil war every day. When we have no shortage of real and dangerous enemies in the quickly (d)evolving world around us, we manage to find foes in our countrymen.

Can anyone truly tell me that terrorists are not a threat? Can anyone truly tell me that they'd rather we hadn't killed bin Ladin? Can anyone truly tell me that it would have been better not to fight the American Revolution? I think we can all agree on the point that we are America, and I think we can all agree on the point that we would prefer to continue to be.

Does anyone want higher taxes? Does anyone want unemployment? Does anyone want higher gas prices? No matter which side of the aisle you're on, deep down we all have the desire for true freedom. We are still America.

The parties (or should I say ideologies, since the parties barely define anything anymore) are divided, that much is certain. And our country was founded on conservative principles. But no matter how wrongheaded certain ideologies may be, they have a right to express themselves and share their ideas for what it right.

But they don't even do that. Neither side does.

At this point, it doesn't matter what's right and wrong, because no one really cares about that. I could go on all day (and have many times) about the evils of liberalism and the benefits of conservatism. I could name a million reasons why we need to do it this way instead of that way. But sadly, American political discourse is not yet at that level.

Before we can debate right and wrong, we must first acknowledge that there is a debate to be had, and that the debate we are now heatedly engaged in is not that. We aren't debating whose idea is better for America. I don't think we even know what we believe at all. And since we don't know what we believe, we have to cover it up by making our opponents sound crazier than we are. We aren't even fighting an ideological war anymore; we're just throwing manure at each other's faces and screaming incoherent "talking points," shouting epithets at imagined enemies.

I'm sure our real enemies, i.e. al Qaeda, the Taliban, are laughing their heads off right now at the fact that we spend more time fighting over what to fight about than we do fighting them.

What are we really gaining from the politics of America today? Screaming that one or another group is racist, pinning one or another public enemy as a right-wing religious zealot, indignantly claiming that one or another candidate is insane... Why? Why do we engage in this? These aren't "tactics." This is the most ridiculous war that's ever been fought. And we don't seem ready to surrender (cough, win, cough), even though we're all losing.

Why did President Obama have to schedule a congressional address on the day of one of the GOP primary debates, a debate that's been planned for a long time? According to FOXNews, "the administration would 'welcome' a decision by debate hosts to 'adjust the timing of their debate so that it didn't conflict'... [but will continue their plans for the address] regardless of 'whatever the competing opportunities on television are, whether it's the wildlife channel or the cooking channel.'"

They claimed that it was "coincidental," yet cited "competing opportunities." Conveniently, they mentioned the wildlife channel or the cooking channel, as if that was where the real competition would come from.

This is one more attack in the war that we don't really see. The media reports the casualties constantly, however. Unemployment, stock market fluctuations, rising oil prices, confused voting Americans who are wondering if it might be better just to not vote at all this year.

What do we gain from this? What do we gain from not having any talking points of our own and hoping it'll be enough just to refute the other side's equally nonexistent talking points? What do we gain from calling names and wasting time pretending that we care enough to try? What do we gain from endless hours of fruitless debate that produce nothing but a lukewarm compromise or two that will leave us, in the end, in the same place we started but with more damage to show for it?

This is the war we don't really see.

Or is it the one we really don't want to see?

What do we gain from ignoring the wars we see?

Cast Party

2011-07-25T16:17:00.003-04:00

I've come to the conclusion that the world needs a therapist. It has way too many problems, and I'm sick of living with it. Sadly, the "sane world" store is only open on Smundays, which is actually a good thing because if there were other worlds available the liberals would have already seized them and started talking smack about their atmospheres.

Like, for real? Your stupid ozone layer isn't broken, you just forgot to plug it in.

And speaking of the realm of environmental fanaticy (yes, I just coined a word), if you're worried about the trees, why don't you just go plant one? Get out of my face.

Poor America. We need a therapist all to ourselves. Like a cosmic Dr. Phil.

Or, we could all get a life and take charge of our country because we have a whole world on our shoulders and it's a little too late to be pretending nothing's wrong. And, like I said, it's a long time till Smunday, and while the Earth is definitely not going to get barbecued by lack of ozone, we might blow it up ourselves. And there's not a new one out there anywhere. (Except for wherever the liberals came from.)

For example, Obama called a debt ceiling meeting a while ago with congressional leaders. Oh, my mistake, he called two. One with the Democrats and one with the Republicans, to talk to them individually about working together.

Just a thought, but as far as working together goes, being in the same room might help. But what do I know? I'm just a concerned American citizen (and part-time unlicensed Internet therapist for the world at large).

This is getting very, very old. You know those movies where everything works out in the end and people don't get obliterated by the sheer might of evil?

This isn't like that.

This is like one of those movies where the main character is staring at post-apocalyptic Earth and thinking eloquent, productive thoughts like, "Oops." To paraphrase. This is like one of those movies that makes you feel sick, so you throw up in your popcorn bucket and dump it on the bald guy in front of you, starting a fight and possibly burning down a small-town, double-screen movie theater that wouldn't have made it in this economy anyway. This is like one of those movies where you take off your 3D glasses and--oops--you were in the movie the whole time, but you sat there in your comfy theater seat, confident that there's always a happy ending (and if there isn't, you can get a refund). But there are no refunds. There are no happy endings for the compliant seat-watchers.

We were going to give out complimentary tissues at this therapy session, but all household items are now being rationed due to the fact that the system sucks.

Do I sound radical? Do I sound crazy? Do I sound like I drank too much coffee during a Glenn Beck marathon? Do I sound like all of the above?

Bravo. You've just learned the art of noticing something.

Notice anything else?

Like the fact that our elected officials--Democrats and Republicans alike--are running around Washington like chickens with their heads cut off (not that they needed them anyway)? Like the fact that the rest of the world isn't blind and if they aren't peeing their pants right now because their economies depended on ours they're laughing their butts off because they've figured out how to replace the dollar as the world reserve currency as soon as the United States takes one more step toward the edge? Like the fact that we're wasting our time on these silly, pointless things while people are out there dying for our country, and all we can do for them is have "meetings" and hope something "productive" happens? Like the fact that we have no idea who we are and no idea where--or if--we'll be in ten years because we were never ones for the long-term, were we? Like the fact that, as much as we pretend, this debt ceiling "argument" is just the cherry on top of one enormous ice cream cone that's going to kill us all?

And if that's not how it's going to go down, then tell me. Tell me we'll pull through this. Tell me that even if Congress and the White House do nothing, we'll still pull through 'cause that's America's thing. Tell me you can't taste the desperation. Tell me you can't hear the thunder rumbling in the distance. Tell me we don't need to do anything except get up for a refill on popcorn and enjoy the show.

And if that's what you're telling me, if that's what you're saying, then FINE. Enjoy your movie.

Don't hold your breath for a sequel.

But you might want to take a look at the prologue.

Act I, Scene I. People are persecuted. They cross the sea, looking for freedom.

Act I, Scene II. People want to explore the world. They cross the sea, looking for new life.

Act I, Scene III. People are oppressed. They fight back.

Act I, Scene IV. People WIN.

Act II, Scene I. People have no idea what to do, now that they've won.

Act II, Scene II. People draft the Articles of the Confederation.

Act II, Scene III. The Articles of the Confederation fail miserably.

Act II, Scene IV. People come together to discuss and deliberate over what the heck they're going to do now. They don't speak to the press. They don't speak to the people. They are the people. And they make choices.

Act II, Scene V. A Constitution is born, and people discover that they are people first. And the people second.

Act III, Scene I. Bad stuff happens. People, with darker skin, want freedom.

Act III, Scene II. People fight. People are divided. And a house divided cannot stand. (Ahem.)

Act III, Scene III. People win. People come together. And people discover (rediscover?) that, the way things should be, being people and being the people should co-exist. They should be one.

Act IV, Scene I. Many things have happened, and now the people are in the midst of a Depression.

Act IV, Scene II. During these times, the people still hope, still work. But there is a growing separation between "people" and "the people." Now, it seems "the people" means "the few who decide what people get."

Act IV, Scene III. Over half a century later. People have long since emerged from the Depression. Or have they? Are their minds still mired in what happened in those days? The choices that were made, the precedents that were set?

Act V, Scene I. People struggle to remember the beginning, and struggle to see beyond just a few years ahead. Things are dark.

Act V, Scene II. Everyone

Sits

Down

For

Movie.

The script ends there. There are no directors or producers or fancy cameras to edit out the bad parts, the parts where we mess up.

There. There's your therapy. I may sound more like a nagging mother with a political complex than Dr. Phil, it's true.

But SUCK IT UP. I'm not a therapist.

Because a therapist, I've decided, isn't what we need.

What we need is already here. (See Act II, Scene V.)

It's all up to us. Every one of us.

So, as I said before, enjoy your movie.

See you at the cast party.

This Is Why We Fight

2011-07-05T13:23:00.002-04:00

The 4th of July. What kind of images does that statement prompt? Waving flags? Red, white, and blue sequined top hats? Parades and fireworks? Hot dogs on the grill, afternoons at the beach, Americans celebrating who they are?

If you answered yes to that, kudos. If you answered no, you might be who I'm talking about.

Because at my 4th of July parade, amidst the veterans and the flags and the marching bands, there was also a group of people shouting. "Peace! Stop the wars!"

Dear fellow citizens, obviously, we would stop the war if we could. No one wants to fight. No one wants to die. Everyone wants peace. But you can't just say you want peace and leave it at that. It's not that easy. You say you're working for peace, or marching for peace, or protesting for peace.

Yeah, well, we're fighting for peace. Because we want it that badly.

Is the American Revolution included in the "wars" you want to stop? Because the American Revolution is still going on, every day. It's what started us, and what keeps us going. And guess what gets in our way? (Ahem.)

The 4th of July is for celebrating America. Slamming our foreign and military policy, not so much.

Because, cupcake, war is a fact of life. It's a fact of existence. And if you don't think that's true, you should learn a few things about your fellow humans. It doesn't mean it's right to fight. But you know what would happen if America didn't fight? We'd be annihilated. And you'd get your peace. You'd rest in peace. If that's what you want, then go for it. But go for it somewhere else, because the rest of us are busy defending our country, whether at home, or as the soldiers you berate.

Do you have no gratitude at all? For the people who risk their lives just so you can live in a country where it's okay to bash them for it? For the people who miss their families at Christmas, the fathers who miss their children's birthdays, the mothers who worriedly wait for their son's call because they're off in a war across the sea fighting for you? Fighting for your peace?

You know what? I bet that the men with amputated limbs and the boys who watch their friends die and the people who never make it home and die in POW camp or alone in a field or a forest somewhere, I bet they want peace as much as--or more than--you do. I bet they wish they could see their families. I bet they wish they didn't have to fight. I bet they wish there was no such thing as war.

And this is why we fight.

Look out the window at the nearest American flag.

This is why we fight.

Look at your children, your parents, your friends.

This is why we fight.

Look at the beautiful, spacious skies, the amber waves of grain, the purple mountain majesties above the fruited plain.

This is why we fight.

Look in the mirror. Look around you. Now close your eyes and imagine being anything you want. Being safe. Being peaceful. Being free. And realize you are.

Realize that this is why we fight.

I could never understand the courage of a soldier.

It's something I turn over in my mind all the time. You're putting your life on the line day after day. You're watching your friends die around you. You're separated from your family, not sure if you'll even live another day to see them through a computer screen. You're working tirelessly, faithfully, day and night, through all kinds of conditions, whether it's raining water or bullets. And you're there. You're there. You're right there, in the middle of it, and you don't pee your pants or run or hide behind someone else.

You stay.

And not only do you stay, you fight.

And not only do you fight, you win.

You win a victory for us every single day. Every day, whether you live or you die, whether you fight or you fall, whether you talk to your family for the first time in weeks or go another night without them, you win a victory for us with every day that you fight, with every day that you stay, with every day that the enemy falls and with every tired step you take in the name of your country--in the name of us.

There is nothing more deserving of praise. There is nothing more deserving of recognition and honor. We never did anything for you. And you fight for us. For our safety. For our pride. For our freedom.

And I wonder how you do it, day in and day out. How you're strong enough, brave enough.

And then I realize that this is America. (thank you)

Land of the free. (thank you)

Because of the brave. (thank you)

Thank you.

To all the lost soldiers, to all on their way home, to all that still strive for peace on foreign battlefields...

America thanks you.

Happy 4th of July.

You are why we fight.

The Falling House

2011-07-03T15:20:00.004-04:00

So there have been calls to raise the debt ceiling or else things will get "bad."

Um, unless you can elaborate on that, you've already given us bad, it's already bad, it's still getting bad, so it seems like not raising the debt ceiling wouldn't be that much of a problem.

There is a problem, though (weird, right?), and that problem is this: There are all of these "or else" type threats floating around, but no one is telling us what will happen if we DO agree to raise the debt ceiling. How will it benefit us? How will it benefit my children, and their children, and--if children haven't been outlawed by then--their children?

We are America. We've been through "bad." We've been through worse than "bad." We were in a war with ourselves. I mean, come on. That's about as "bad" as it gets.

So stop threatening us with "bad." We want results, not threats and excuses.

Because if there's one thing I know, it's that when you raise the roof, the house starts falling apart. There's a strong foundation, but the walls are cracked and unstable.

And you want us to blow the ceiling off the place?

Like I said, we are America.If you have a problem with that, please take it up with a representative at our offices in Somewhere Else.

This is, thankfully, the sentiment of most sane Americans. (And luckily, the quantity of sane Americans has been growing as of late.) There is no clear consensus in Congress, either. However, there is talk that this might not matter. Because there is talk of--wait for it--reinterpreting the Constitution (gasp) in a manner that would allow Barack Hussein Obama, current occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (indefinitely, until we find a President) to bypass Congress and raise the debt ceiling himself.

Wow. It seems like you'd need to be pretty strong to raise a roof. You'd need to have a lot of power to raise a roof. Wouldn't you?

Wouldn't you indeed.

And here I am, sitting in my living room, blogging. Here you are (all two of you), sitting there reading this blog. Sitting. Blogging. Reading. A couple of angry remarks at the state of things, and then, look, our favorite show is on.

As we sit in our living rooms, do we realize that the house is falling?

Indivisible

2011-06-28T12:58:00.004-04:00

"I'm sorry that I didn't keep my word and be the stubborn, obstinate lunatic I promised to be. Which isn't to say I won't try hard in the future. It's just that some flip-flopping is necessary in order to further THE MASTER PLAN. So just hang in there and re-elect me, and I promise, I'll be just the partisan President you've always hoped for. I am the Messiah, you know. I am the only one who can save America. Er, I mean, we are the only ones. So turn your thinking caps off, stare at biased television screens, and pay my salary with your tax dollars while I use them to campaign for more. You've been a wonderful audience. God Bless America. (But not America exclusively; bless the Middle East, bless Russia, bless China... Oh, are we still rolling?)"

And so begins another presidential election in this, the United States of America.

But it doesn't really matter.

Actually, it does, but try convincing the rest of the country of that. Because we currently live in a country where we have no sense of identity, no sense of pride, and no sense of patriotism. A prime example of this (though you wouldn't be hard-pressed to find many more)occurred in Eugene, Oregon.

The dispute?

This one's a doozy. You know, I think I can actually see where the Left is coming from on this one. Namely, the nearest drug dealer. Because unless you're on your way back from a date with a substance, your argument shouldn't be this lacking in substance.

To introduce this dispute, I'd like to first define a word. The word is "divisive." It means "tending to cause disagreement or hostility between people."

Now, tell me if the following is divisive: "I pledge allegiance to the flag..."

Yes. Yes it is. It is divisive between a terrorist and a Marine, divisive between Saddam Hussein and the little old lady across the street, divisive between Osama bin Ladin (cue liberals' chorus of, "May he rest in peace") and a newborn baby. It is divisive between someone who loves and pledges allegiance to America and someone who does not.

It should therefore not be a problem on the Eugene, Oregon city council, since I do not believe any of the above pairings exist on said council (though in light of recent events, I could be wrong).

Indeed. Sadly, when a proposition to say the Pledge of Allegiance before every meeting was struck down by a vote of 5 to 2, the accompanying excuses were that the pledge "does not unite us," according to Councilman George Brown, and apparently, to Councilwoman Betty Taylor, is equivalent to reading from the Koran.

Where are the hate speech advocates when you need them?

Because I believe that statement was very divisive. We're trying to befriend the Muslims, and some moron goes and pulls a stunt like that, comparing their holy book to the Pledge of Allegiance! If I were a Muslim, I would be very, very offended.

Sarcasm aside (for about 3.24 seconds), what is this woman thinking? Yes, of COURSE, reciting an oath to your country is the same thing as reading from the Koran. (Somehow I think, if proposed, the latter would receive less opposition.)

According to FOXNews.com,

Resident Anita Sullivan summed up a common viewpoint: “So you say I pledge allegiance and right there I don’t care for that language,” Sullivan says. “It sort of means loyalty to your country; well, I feel loyalty to the entire world.”

Even after the compromise proposal passed and the council began its regular meeting Monday night, the pledge was still too hot to handle.

A motion to say the Pledge of Allegiance was shot down even though it would be the closest meeting to July Fourth. Those voting against the measure said it was just too soon. They’ll wait until the next meeting.

I'd like to point out that apparently pledging that your country is indivisible is divisive. Ponder that a moment. With me now? Great.

Look, I don't mean to be pushy (or--gasp--divisive), but if you don't care to pledge allegiance to your country, maybe you should leave.

Because, yes, it "sort of means" loyalty to your country. Call me crazy (you won't be the first), but that's kind of the idea. Is your country not a part of the world you feel loyal to? Did I miss something? (Besides the obvious thing I missed, which would be when the general population decided to be ignorant traitors--oh, wait, I know when that happened.) It's okay to feel loyal to the world and your country at the same time. In fact, your country is one of the powers your world depends on, so I would suggest loyalty.

I mean, honestly? We have people, going on national TV and saying, "I'm uncomfortable with this whole 'loyalty to country' thing." Here's a newsflash: In "the entire world," there isn't freedom of speech. Your country is one of the few places, ironically, where you can say you hate your country. (And most don't hesitate to do so.)

What they do hesitate to do, however, is comply with the rules. The compromise stated that the most recent meeting would be one of the Pledge meetings, as it is the closest to the Fourth of July. But the argument against it is that it's just "too soon." Um, actually, it stopped being "too soon" in 1776, so unless you (to say nothing of your minds) are that old, it's not "too soon."

But it may be too late.

But, you know, whatever. America will bounce back; we always do, right?

Sure. But it's because the people care enough to do so. If you always take your medicine when you're sick, you don't suddenly stop taking it and say, "Oh don't worry, I'll bounce back." You don't deflate your basketball and say, "Don't worry, it'll bounce back." You don't snap your boomerang in half and say, "Don't worry, it'll bounce back."

Worry. And act.

Because we can't be sure we will bounce back until we make sure we will bounce back.

And we may be running out of time. (Gee, really?)

The rest of the world isn't blind. They're probably more aware of our troubles than we are, actually. And we sit here hating our country, instead trying to make friends with our enemies.

We are our own greatest enemy.

But since I don't think any of us want to blow ourselves up (aside from certain individuals on the city council of Eugene, Oregon), maybe we should focus on our other enemies.

Making friends is perfectly fine, as long as we completely obliterate their will and ability to fight first. (In other words, the hand that shakes theirs had better be a powerful one.) We need to assert our power. Or they will.

I'm not saying we go on bombing sprees and kill countless innocents. I'm saying we speak softly (but firmly) and carry a big stick. (In case you've fallen victim to American public education [which we borrowed from our friends the Germans, who used it to indoctrinate their people into anti-Semitism from the youngest age possible], you may Google that quote to see who it belongs to.)

For example, nuclear arms reduction treaties are a dangerous waste of time. First of all, it shows weakness. Second of all, we're America. We keep our end of the deal. How do we know whether or not the other side is keeping theirs? (Hopefully we'll know more than 3 seconds before we explode.)

Because there are people out there. People like al Qaeda, people like, for example, Iran, which apparently has the ability to build larger weapons but won't because they can already hit who they want to hit (namely, the U.S. and Israel).

What to do? What to do? (Inviting them for tea is not an option. Sorry, Obama.)

Oh, here's an idea: we stop acting like idiots and we recognize a threat when we see one and stop trying to please them and walk on eggshells, because those are not the shells we should be worried about.

But no. Because that would be racist, bigoted, (insert liberal catchphrase [a.k.a. name to call conservatives] here), and just plain MEAN.

I've long since stopped caring.

So, in the spirit of mean-spirited conservatism, I'd like to end by saying this:

We are America. WE ARE INDIVISIBLE. ONE NATION. UNDER GOD. And I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Who's Your Mommy?

2011-04-28T13:29:00.003-04:00

A tree.

Your mother could also be any of the following: a leaf, a twig, a pebble on an overgrown dirt path. All of these things are the equivalent of your mother because, as Van Jones and his groupies insist, Mother Nature is, in fact, a person.

And he wants this fact to be recognized by the entire global population. The former Obama administration "green jobs czar," his newest shenanigans involve the push for human rights for Mother Nature.

Never mind the impossible logistics of this, i.e., nature isn't human. Never mind the fact that this will undoubtedly lead to "mouthpieces" for Mother Nature, which is the liberal rhetoric translation of "people who cite the rights of a tree in order to bring about a liberal utopia."

I mean, it's Van Jones. Come on. We saw this coming.

Oh, wait, we didn't. Because we let it happen.

I find it interesting that a personhood amendment seems so atrocious (this would give the rights of a human to all people [born and unborn]) while the people who promote, in essence, the personhood amendment for a tree, remain un-lynched. Not that lynching is a proper course of action, but we have a right and a responsibility to be angry. At our government and at ourselves.

As it stands now, the only thing we can find the strength to be angry about is the neighbor's dog barking or the Internet crashing. Really? Over four thousand babies die each day while the rights of trees are invoked as the long-lost secret to a functioning global society, and all we can do is gripe?

In my ninth grade class, I asked a number of random people if they knew who Rick Snyder was, or Nancy Pelosi, or even Joe Biden.

You'd be surprised at how many people had no idea what the heck I was talking about.

Or would you be that surprised?

If you're as angry as you should be, you probably aren't surprised at all.

And if you're as angry as you should be, you know that you're the only person who can do anything about it.

The Iceberg

2011-04-06T09:05:00.005-04:00

I really don't understand why they're threatening us with a shutdown. That's like threatening a small child with candy. Or a new puppy. Or a freaking pony.

In other words, PLEASE. SHUT IT DOWN.

What makes them think it's going to be so bad if the government shuts down? Gasp! People will start taking responsibility for their actions! They'll be able to define "America" and "patriot" without looking them up on the internet! They'll find hope in their lives for once! That WOULD be horrible. I can see why they'd do everything in their power to make sure such a tragedy does not befall the constituents they hold so dearly to their hearts.

We are at the point where this question begs an answer: What happens when an unstoppable force meets an immovable object?

Ever heard of the Titanic?

The story of the Titanic actually gives me hope, for once. You see, conservatives are the immovable object. We are the iceberg. And the ship of liberalism and big government seems impossible to sink. Like trying to sink the ocean itself.

But they're getting cocky.

Conservatives are willing to make cuts and sacrifices, admittedly not as much as we could and arguably should be, but as much as we can without a major upset. We'll get there.

Liberals, on the other hand, aren't willing to do anything but expand government so they can do even more nothing, but with a higher price tag. They are appalled at the mere mention of the Republican budget because, lo and behold, it's actually a budget, not a super-sized, overcharged credit card.

It is a day of reckoning. Will the iceberg prevail (morbid as that sounds), or will the ship simply take even more drastic measures on an even more perilous path? Because right now, the iceberg and the Titanic are standing face to face. They're having little talks and pretending to get things done (they're good at that), but in reality, they're just waiting for the other's next move. It's time to show our true colors (i.e. red, white, and blue).

You know what they always say about icebergs? That there's more than meets the eye, under the large, but largely unassuming, tip? Well, it's true here, now. There are so many conservatives out there who have been either screaming or muttering for so long that they've lost their will or their voice or both and are hiding under the surface.

It's time to tip the iceberg.

Because, in reality, we need drastic action. It was drastic action that got us here. We take it for granted every day, but, really? Do we really need the government to force socialistic reforms on our healthcare and economic system? Do we really need them to know and monitor everything we do and are? Do we really need them to do anything but govern? (Rhetorical questions, but feel free to answer them as loudly and spiritedly as your heart desires.)

A conservative budget is a step in the right direction, but we need more than steps if we want to tip this iceberg, show our true colors, and sink the ship once and for all. (At least until they use our taxpayer dollars to build a new one... But hopefully that day is far off in the future, and hopefully, we'll be ready.)

But the iceberg stands, ready to defend itself, its country, and its freedom, and the ship is bearing down on us, full steam ahead.

"White House Summit Fails to Yield Budget Deal as Shutdown Approaches," screams the FOXNews.com headline. Well, of course. You didn't think the Titanic would turn around and go home, did you?

Obama has, of course, labeled the discussion as "frank" and "constructive." But he doesn't go much farther than that (i.e. what the heck he plans to do with our nation). He hasn't clarified exactly what was "frank" and "constructive," but don't worry, folks. If it came out of Obama's mouth, it must be true (and even if it isn't, it is). Besides, he's the emblem of "hope"! Or is that not so applicable or appealing anymore...?

According to the ObaMessiah, "If we are serious about getting something done we should be able to complete a deal, get it passed and avert a shutdown." Nice cover for the fact that you REALLY DON'T CARE. The first part of that statement is the important part, but since Obama's speaking styled is hypnotic, it doesn't really matter what he said. But let's pretend it does. The thing is, as a liberal, he's perfectly content with doing nothing at all on taxpayer payroll. We aren't serious about anything. As much as politics is their profession, it's only a joke.

Except for the part about it being funny. At all.

"No one wants a shutdown," claims House Speaker John Boehner. I am a fan of his, but I really have to disagree, especially when he goes on to insist that there are "honest differences." Yeah, if by honest you mean that one group wants to conspire thievery behind closed doors and the other wants transparency and accountability. Although I guess if they're honest about being anti-American...

But, of course, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's comments were even more appalling. (At least we can count on him for something.)

One of his comments: "We're not there yet."

Aren't we, now? I hadn't noticed. The proper statement will be. "We will fight for the rights of the American people to our last breath," not, "We're not there yet." But I suppose, seeing as how it's Reid, that wouldn't be "honest." Even though it sure as heck is a difference.

A White House aide reported that there are "signs of progress" in the debates. Which means we can expect this year's budget to be released sometime in the next decade, with no small amount of carnage along the way.

Harry Reid insists that Democrats have been trying to meet Republicans halfway but that they "won't take yes for an answer." We'll take yes for an answer when it comes out of your mouth in response to "Do you love your country? Do you want what's best for it? Will you do everything in your power to keep your constituents safe from foreign threats and from yourself?" And when you follow through on that "yes."

Another thing: I'm sorry, I wasn't aware that "halfway" was an acceptable way of doing business with the American people. I wasn't aware that "halfway" was good enough when it concerns liberty and Americanism. And besides, "halfway" to a Democrat is like tripping and falling in the general direction of the other party.

Another Reid comment: "We've narrowed the issues significantly."

Now, I don't know, as a fifteen-year-old, very much about government summits. Except for the ones that are posted on YouTube for everyone to see. Okay, so I guess I do know enough to pick out the trend. Let me lay it out for you:

Obama: *chin resting on his hand, eyes periodically closing*

Random Republican 1: *fires off credible statistics* And that is why we need to take action, now. The future of our great nation is at stake. Our constituents have spoken time and time again--

Random Democrat 1: Shut up. The election's over, fool.

Random Democrat 2: Yeah! Racist!

Random Republican 1: (flustered) As I was saying, it is our duty to--

Random Democrat 1: You're wrong. Stop campaigning. Sexist.

Random Republican 2: For real, we need to buckle down and get this done. There's a shutdown looming in, like, two days.

Random Democrat 3: Oh, pulling out the crisis card, are you? Too bad. We already did that. Bailouts!!

Random Republican 3: We're talking about the budget, not the...

Random Democrat 4: I have to go to the bathroom.

Random Republican 4: Can't it wait until we've at least used the word "budget" once? Or at least deliberated over something instead of calling each other racist?

Random Democrat 4: ...Racist.

Random Democrat 5: I want a sandwich.

...You get the idea.

And somewhere along that plotline, someone suggests yet ANOTHER short-term budget proposal. If it goes through (because a government shutdown would be horrible), it'll be the third of its kind in TWO MONTHS. And it'll be passed by Republicans without needing a single Democrat vote.

President Obama cites that we have already passed two in as many months and that that is "not a way to run a government." And sitting up late at night hypocritically debating whether to be fiscally responsible while the entire duty of the government and the welfare of your constituents on the line... That's a way to run government? In that case, bravo. Wonderful job.

Is this what our taxpayer dollars pay our elected officials to do? Well, yes, but the question is, should it be?

The more important question is, what are we going to do about it?

We're not on taxpayer payroll. We don't have the luxury of power. At least that's what they want us to think. But in reality, we're the employers. I honestly don't understand why we've let it get this bad. But we have.

We've allowed presidents like Obama and his Democratic Congress to do, basically, whatever the heck they want. And what they want to do is to use a "scalpel" instead of an ex to address our deficit.

I think they need to get their terms straight. A scalpel is used for medical procedures. To fix something up. To get to the heart of the problem.

Um, we are already at the heart of the problem. Recession, stalled budget plans, three short-term measures in two months? We're at the heart, and it's beating fast.

In contrast to a scalpel, an ax is used for murder. For cutting down trees. Kind of what they've been doing to liberty and individual freedom for the past almost 100 years.

Do they really want to murder our deficit, or do they want to pick at it with scalpels that only make it bleed and swell? If they won't, I hope someone has the courage to pick up the ax, run, crazed and wild-eyed, at the monstrosity that is our deficit, and murder it as violently as possible.

If that sounds morbid, it's because it is. It shouldn't be this hard. But it's what we need to do.

For example, Republicans proposed a spending measure earlier this year that included $61 billion in cuts. A brilliant step in the right direction.

Democrats won't budge.

To make matters worse, an upcoming vote on whether to raise the debt ceiling is SURE to produce even more STELLAR result that the recent summit. Can't wait for that. "Well, the issue on the table today is whether or not we should continue to bury our future in mountains of debt." Um... Is this a trick question?

Basically, we have a government that is unwilling to do anything. We have a broken system and a broken spirit. All in all, we're not looking so good.

Did you know that there was a big dispute over having the bald eagle as our national bird? As regal and majestic as it looks, it's a scrap-eater. It feeds on dead stuff.

I think that we couldn't have picked a better bird. The image of America regally leads the world forward, while in reality, we may be just scraping by. But we get by. And when it's all said and done, the carrion, the dead stuff we eat allows for new life, new growth. It sustains us, because we make do with what we've got. And we've got a lot. We've got the wings and seeds of freedom, and justice, and hope. And one day, we'll be flying off into the proverbial sunset, remembering, but not looking back.

Can bald eagles smile in utter triumph?

Can icebergs?

The Great Donkey Migration

2011-03-10T08:45:00.003-05:00

Remember when people were up in arms (not really, since guns are immoral... 0_0) about the deliberation and composition of the certain bills without a single Republican present (and then passed with minimal Republican votes)? Oh, you remember that? Well, it looks like liberal media attempts to make you forget have failed.

Anyway. The same thing happened in Wisconsin with their budget bill, but let me tell you why we're not mad about this.

The Democrats COULD have been there if they wanted to. But they were hiding in a cave in Illinois. So I have no sympathy.

I mean, really? They ran away from their JOBS. It's their job to vote on legislation and do their best to protect their constituents. (Being liberals, they already failed at that second point.) The people of Wisconsin are waiting for their budget, and the Senate Democrats decide that they're just going to schedule a sudden vacation and take off. (I thought that was something they only did mentally, not physically.)

And the bill they're running from? A budget cut bill. Of course. Because nothing scares a Democrat more than the notion of fiscal responsibility.

They claim to be fighting for the rights of their citizens, but how can they do this from Illinois? They're not fighting the good fight--they're kicking us in the shins and running.

Speaking of that fiscal responsibility that I mentioned earlier... Responsibility is such a novel trait in today's society. Maybe, if they're stripped of their collective bargaining rights, teachers will begin to take responsibility, too.

Because getting notes from the fake sick note vendors on every corner within a one-mile radius of the protest, and skipping out on their jobs without penalty in order to retain legal rights to skip out on their duties as teachers... That's just plain irresponsible.

Many teachers, sadly, do not teach. But there is nothing to distinguish their positions from the positions of those who do work, who do teach. The education system is corrupted, and we do nothing about it (because these teachers are protected by the ironclad unions). Maybe, now that they're stripped of their collective bargaining rights, they'll be forced to practice responsibility and care for the students they are entrusted with.

Or they could all just run away to the nearest protest. Or the nearest other state, if they follow the example of their valiant protectors.

It just keeps getting better and better. Where are the children these people are supposed to be teaching?

Probably learning, actually. I wouldn't be surprised if the state of Wisconsin experienced a drastic increase in test scores during the absence of these teachers.

Everything I've ever done, I can credit to genetics, and less than ten teachers in my ten-year career in the public school system. The other teachers, besides those ten, are the ones who would be hiding in caves or receiving fake sick notes from street-corner "doctors." I learned nothing from them.

I wasn't aware that there was even debate over global warming or evolution or overpopulation until I figured it out for myself. Public schooling had taught me one view and one view only. So not only are these people raising idiots, they are raising those who will follow them to their caves and protests of justice.

If these people want collective bargaining rights for their jobs, they can start by actually performing their jobs first, and see where that takes them.

I'm fairly sure it won't be a cave in Illinois.

Quick question: the teachers at this protest, and the senators in Illinois... They're still on our payroll, aren't they? Our taxpayer dollars are still paying them to be lazy and afraid, aren't they? Maybe, maybe not. It's the fact that I can even wonder that bothers me.

I've called Democrats cowards before, but I never thought they'd go to such lengths to prove me right. If I call them socialist and anti-American often enough, they might get themselves deported.

But enough beating that dead horse. We have others.

We have donkeys, too. They've recently begun a massive migration to Illinois. (And they can STAY there.)

Who Are We?

2011-02-28T15:07:00.003-05:00

Who are you?

Who are you?

To some, you may be a spouse, a co-worker, a best friend. You might be the life of the party, or you might be the party-pooper. You might be a teacher. You might be a boyfriend or girlfriend. You might be a mother, a father, a brother or a sister.

For some, when they hear your name, they smile because of some inside joke you two had eleven years ago. For others, when they hear your name, they laugh because of the stellar job you did in the school play when you all were in high school. For still others, hearing your name might make them think of certain qualities. Are you strong? Are you fearless? Are you daring? Are you spontaneous or shy? Are you athletic or are you a couch potato? What are your favorite TV shows? What music do you listen to? Are you tall or short? Sarcastic or literal? Do you have a great sense of humor, or are you one of those people who is completely socially inept? Are you a good cook? Do you have a lot of friends, or not so many? What do you and your friends do together? What are your ambitions, your hopes, your wishes, your dreams?

No one cares.

Not as far as the government is concerned, anyway. To them, you're just a number.

It wasn't always like this, here in America. But today, the government is huge. And that’s why they have such control over us. That's why they can label us with numbers and tax us out of existence without ever knowing our names (among other things): because America’s debt and its government are both spiraling out of control. We, the people, have less power than we realize. And that, too, is part of their plan.

America's original plan goes by the name of ‘The United States Constitution.’ And I believe that this plan is what will restore America to its former glory. This plan is the future, if we act in the present. I hope this plan will be in the history books fifty years from now: how America returned to the founding principles in the Constitution. We are the history of America. In order to understand the monstrous task in front of us, we must understand our past counterparts, and how they completed this task, not really that long ago.

America was founded because the government currently in place was too oppressive to the colonists, and they were not represented. We fought a war for America against the strongest army and navy on Earth with inexperienced, uneducated militiamen and won. America was founded because all of those people believed in something better.

We signed a Declaration of Independence. Of freedom. I believe that the Declaration was as much written for the people of that time as it was for the people of this one. The Founders signed that document because they wanted to ensure freedom for their generation from Britain, and freedom for future generations from any oppressor, abroad but especially at home, that would stand in the way of freedom. In short, the Founders knew that men could not resist the idea of power, neither then nor now. But they also knew that men could not, when it came down to it, resist the ideas of hope and justice and freedom, either. And it was those ideas that America was founded upon.

According to the Declaration, we have the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and the government enforces those right with our consent. The consent of the governed. It all circles back to us, because we are the ones who fought that war. We are the ones who tasted the sweet blood and sweat and pain and fear and triumph of freedom. When it comes down to it, we are the ones who wrote the Constitution, who wrote America’s story. We, the people.

Sadly, however, we, the people have allowed government to grow more powerful than the Founders ever intended. Thomas Jefferson warned, "Every government degenerates when trusted to the rulers of the people alone. The people themselves, therefore, are its only safe depositories." The people are the only ones who can keep America alive. And we have slipped from our watchfulness. Those who watched our watchfulness chose that moment to strike, and once they did, there was no going back. This brings me to my second point: a more recent and more disturbing history of the United States of America.

It is arguable when it began. In my opinion, it began with the Great Depression or, rather, our response to it. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt responded with what he called a “New Deal” for America. It was definitely new, because we had never been introduced to anti-Americanism before. And it was definitely a deal, but not for us. For the Progressives.

FDR took advantage of the crisis by ushering in a new era of reforms aimed at combating the crisis on the surface, but in reality aimed at nothing more than expanding the role of government. The government was allowed to reach into every facet of our daily lives, under the guise of "protecting us from another Great Depression." Maybe these reforms would be acceptable, even beneficial, had they been repealed as soon as the Depression was over or it became clear they were not producing the desired effects. But systems like Social Security still exist today.

Why is this bad? Because Social Security is a Ponzi scheme doomed to fail. The system is bankrupt. It was only put into place to give the government even more intrusive rights to your money and your information. Didn’t believe me earlier when I told you you were simply a number? You have a Social Security number, don’t you? That’s all you are to them.

According to Reuters (which cited a Treasury report), the national debt is projected to be $19.6 trillion 2015, about a $5 or $6 trillion increase. What could the government possibly be doing that would require an almost 40% increase in the debt in just a few years? Being way too powerful. That’s what.

But what can we do? I'll show you. Even though the Founders already did that themselves.

“A wise and frugal government, which shall leave men free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned - this is the sum of good government," says Thomas Jefferson. So, what must we do? We must aim for a wise and frugal government. We must elect people not based on the letters next to their names, but the truths in their hearts. We must be frugal, and not spend more than we need to on earmarks, on extravagant and irrelevant proposals. We must not take from those who have earned. No Robin Hood-style government. Welfare programs are to be reserved for extreme cases if they are used at all, and in those cases, to be used temporarily. We must not tax people out of existence. A small government will not require a large tax revenue.

A small government does, however, require the will of the people to sustain and restrain it, for people to speak up. Because, as Jefferson states, "All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent."

I believe America is full of people of good conscience. Silent people. Oppressed people. People of good conscience who have been silent and oppressed long enough. Vote. Protest. Be heard.

I ask you again, as I did at the beginning of this post: Who are you?

Jefferson answers, "Do you want to know who you are? Don't ask. Act! Action will delineate and define you."

And if you act on what I have said here today, you will be defined, maybe even in the history books, as America.

Life As We Know It... Or Don't

2011-02-04T09:05:00.005-05:00

Life. What does that even mean, anyway? People walk around saying, "I hate my life" or "I love life" or "Life is good" or "Life is tough." But what, honestly, does that even mean? Sometimes I think we don't give half a thought to the words that come out of our mouths. (In fact, I'm sure--have you listened to the Democrats [and Republicans] lately?)

But honestly, when the word "life" passes our lips, do we even realize what we're saying? Do we have any idea that we're invoking the most precious, most fragile miracle of the known and unknown universe? Do we realize how we take it for granted every day?

We don't. Or else I wouldn't need to ask.

In Washington, D.C., I had the opportunity to, of course, participate in the March for Life, a Vigil Mass at the Basilica of the National Shrine of the Immaculate Conception, and a youth rally held at the D.C. Armory Stadium. I haven't felt so truly alive in a long time. It's only when you're fighting for life when you realize how truly amazing it is, this glorious prize you're fighting for.

At the Vigil Mass, if we weren't all Christian there would have been brawls breaking out everywhere over floor space in the CRYPT--two hours before the Mass even started. That's how crowded it was. Crowded with thousands upon thousands upon tens of thousands of people who were there to fight for the pro-life cause.

There's that word again. Life.

At the D.C. Armory Stadium, there were TEN THOUSAND young people like me there. At the other session held at the Verizon Center, there were twenty thousand. Thirty thousand young people amassed in the service of a single cause: life. When everyone started singing and doing the hand motions to "Awesome God," it was like looking out at a sea of people. A sea of life. What else could it be? I've never, NEVER felt more alive than I did at that rally, at the Mass, at the March.

It makes me think of all those people who wander around searching for the meaning of life, when they should be just living. That's the meaning of life. Life is one of the most simple, profound words in the English language. Its meaning is itself.

At the March for Life... Well, obviously that was one of the greatest things I've ever experienced in my life. Half a million people or more, all gathered in our nation's capital for a single purpose: life.

Honestly, I can't think of a greater cause to support. Life. Simple. Profound. Beautiful. Why wouldn't you want to support life?

Because we don't understand what it truly is. Because it's become so easy to rationalize. Because it's something we take for granted. Because it's something we put labels and price tags on, when in reality, all life is universal, and all life is priceless.

Fifty million. Fifty million souls. Gone, since the legalization of Roe v. Wade almost forty years ago. But I hate the number 50 million. Why? Because it's a statistic. And these lives must be known by more than just a statistic. They must be known as people, each individual one, each member of the 50 million.

When we acknowledge that life is life, that life is precious, that life is a miracle, that life is a right that no one has the right to take away from anyone else, only then can we begin to live.

If we can't live, we're somewhat screwed, so I suggest we start very soon.

50 million. Imagine everyone you know, wiped off the face of the Earth. Fifty million. What if we randomly selected 50 million members of the U.S. population to be annihilated (we really do this)? That's 16% of the population, or about one in six people. Your chances of being killed? One in six. Scared?

It's a lot scarier when it's personal. When it's you whose life is hanging by a thread (or an umbilical cord). Here's a newsflash for you: It is personal. You are connected to everyone on this Earth. You share their common humanity, and if we can kill our own children, we can kill anyone. We can kill you. Just keep that in mind the next time you denounce pro-lifers as crazy religious zealots. That we may be. But it might save your life.

Life. There's that word again.

We take it for granted until it's gone, and then we can't take anything back. There are no returns, both in your own life and FOR the life of someone else.

Killing innocents is wrong. Killing innocence is wrong.

Abortion, therefore, is wrong.

Join me. Join us. Join the fifty million dead, and the millions across America and the world. Fight for life, or die trying.

True life is found in the willingness to die for it.

And, of course, God bless America.

:)

Washington, D.C.

2011-01-21T11:31:00.002-05:00

It's been a while since I last posted. Proof: I'm sitting in a hotel in Baltimore, Maryland, who knows how many miles from home, getting ready to go on a train that will take me to our nation's capital.

Naturally, being the geek that I am, I'm excited beyond words.

This weekend, some friends and I are getting a tour of the Capitol (not the White House because Obama doesn't want any potential witnesses when he makes secret backroom deals with China), we're going to the March for Life, to a Planned Parenthood on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade, and a youth rally after the March.

On top of all that, we're going to be in D.C. all weekend! D.C.! Hopefully I can check out George Washington University as well as some other cool places, like the Holocaust Museum and some of the Smithsonians.

The only bad part about it is, D.C. is a place where spending only four days in it is agony. I could spend my whole life there and never absorb enough (which I plan to do). Unfortunately, certain elected officials share that opinion.

And that is why I'm here.

I'll keep all my faithful followers posted... Well, I'll keep posting, anyway. :)

D.C., baby! (As of yet, that's still a relatively positive thing.)

The GOP

2010-12-10T12:59:00.002-05:00

What does the GOP stand for anymore? And by stand for, I mean what do they believe in? Although it may also be useful to come up with a new acronym for them. How about Group Of Porkers? They just tapped Hal Rogers, known as the "Prince of Pork" to head the House Appropriations Committee. Which sends exactly the kind of message they've always wanted to send to the American people: an inconclusive one. Am I right? (When I ask that question, it's ALWAYS rhetorical.) They campaigned on slashing federal spending. It got them elected, allowed them to sweep into Congress like a river flooding its banks. And now some other things are going to overflow; namely, your taxes, their spending, and of course, their lies. Pretty much all given.

Which is why people need to learn how to vote as if the letters "D" and "R" didn't exist. While the Republican platform (well, what's left of it) seems to be a remedy for America's "situation" (okay, maybe not, but it used to), it's not like they'll follow it. In the end, Democratic politicians and Republican politicians are still politicians. They're more bipartisan than they'll admit, because they're both exactly the same.

I swear, half of voting Americans would be clueless at the polls without the letters "D" and "R." No one votes on principles or voting record anymore; they simply vote on the basis of race, religion, party, or sex. Honestly? No wonder we're so screwed up. This is how we choose the people who run our country. I bet most of us just flip a coin every time we make a choice, am I right?

I'm fourteen and I have more convictions than a lot of voting Americans. And yet I can't vote. But YOU can. I'm doing all I can here, which is, sadly, not much. I'm going to D.C. this January for the March for Life. In second grade and since I've written our Presidents and other elected officials, including Ben Nelson, that... ahem, idiot... from Nebraska. But I don't have the power of voting. I can only influence those who do.

Sadly, they'd rather take advice from a genie or a flipped coin than a politically active teenager. So.

Why are we letting this happen? Why can't the GOP be the Grand Old Party anymore? Why are they just Good Old Politicians or Group Of Porkers? Is this America? Really? Is that the best you can do?

We fought Great Britain for our independence and won. We fought OURSELVES and won. That takes some freaking skill. We're fighting terrorists! We're fighting! And yet most of us are sitting here at home, watching the news and MOCKING our troops, criticizing them for giving their lives for us, complaining about elected officials but not having our own convictions, not doing so much as writing to one of them. Really? We're viewed around the world as the selfish fatties. Among other things. We view OURSELVES that way. We actually debate over whether or not to say the Pledge of Allegiance in school. We debate over whether or not we should be treating terrorists so meanly. And yet we kill babies. We save trees and terrorists, but we screw babies. We burn our flags, we slam our own country. Do you realize that every time you slam America, you're attesting to its greatness? In other countries, you slam your nation, you're DEAD. Dead. We don't realize how great our nation is.

And if we don't realize how great it is, we can't realize how hard, fast, and far it's falling.

So wake up. Realize that there is more to the world than pop culture and... well, pop culture. Realize that you need to realize things. And realize them. Realize your dreams, your hopes, your ambitions. Have convictions. Love your country, or leave. Support your troops or go fight against them, because that's just as bad.

You're American. YOU. ARE. THE. LUCKIEST. PERSON. ON. THIS. PLANET. If you don't like America, leave or make it better (often, there's little difference between the two c:).

Maybe you're going through a tough time. Yes, the economy is bad, no matter what Barry-O tells you. It might not get better for a long time; it'll probably get worse, especially with all these politicians running around. But that's the thing about America: things get bad. But things get better. In America, yes, you're free to fall.

But you're free to fly.

You're also free to take that freedom away, so watch it.

DO something. Or something like that.

Don't be like that Group Of Porkers. Don't be a Good Old Politician. Don't be a God Of Pitifulness. Don't be a... yes, I'm sitting bored in class so I'm trying to think up acronyms. Anyway. To put it simply:

DON'T BE AN IDIOT.

You're free to be an idiot, of course. But you're also free to make a change. In your life, in someone else's. It starts with one small change.

I'd start now, before you give your freedom so freely away.

Restoration

2010-12-03T14:59:00.003-05:00

What do liberals have against those who take hold of the American dream and ride it wherever they want to go? That's the American dream. Why do they want to crush it?

Don't answer that.

Liberals think in terms of entitlement. Conservatives think in terms of opportunity. In America, we are not entitled to a job, a house, education, healthcare, a six-figure paycheck. But we have the opportunity to achieve these things. Liberals hold that we are entitled to mediocrity. We're entitled to the same thing as everyone else. In an entitlement mentality, no one can get ahead. Admittedly, no one can fall behind, either. But how are you to get ahead if you don't come from behind?

People speak of the chains of poverty. I may be called selfish and naive for saying this, but there is no such thing in America. In America, you always have the opportunity to rise. It may be hard, but you can if you put your mind and heart to it.

Liberals would have us truly in chains. Not of poverty, but of mediocrity. They believe everyone is entitled to be as good as everyone else. And if no one can be better or worse, as long as we all have the same standard of living, that standard can be anything. Or nothing. And we can't get out.

Speaking of not being able to get out, America: WE NEED TO GET OUT NOW. By get out I mean get people out of Congress, get out of the situation we're in financially, and get out of "entangling alliances" such as the New START treaty. And all the climate change treaties and countless other things. But MOST IMPORTANTLY, we need to GET OUT of the mindset we're in, the rut we're in. A feeling of entitlement never amounts to anything, does it? In fact, it makes us feel worse, because we never get everything we want, because others cannot give it. Only we know what our dreams are, and only we can achieve them.

That's another problem. We've lost sight of our dreams. Are we content to just do nothing, be nothing, just go through life instead of living it? Where's our sense of pride? Where's our sense of America?

Who are we? Do we even care? Why are we teaching young people one-sided liberal opinions formed by the government instead of teaching them to think, and once we've got that down, to do it for themselves? Why are we content to compromise? Why must we meet the government at their end? We, the people, need to do something.

How is it that there are three hundred million of us and we all act so powerless?

Oh, I know. Because a few people have convinced us we are. We are so gullible. In our own defense, we've been trained to be so since we entered public schools at ages five and even earlier.

Reform doesn't even begin to cover INTRODUCING what needs to happen in America. Change? Nope, it's beyond that. Revolution? Close, but I don't think we're quite there yet. Keep that one in mind, though. It's not even along the lines of transformation.

It's called restoration.

Does the year 1776 mean anything to you?

Must We Define "Terrorist" Again?

2010-11-18T07:44:00.003-05:00

Okay, you know, let's just clear a terrorist of TWO HUNDRED AND SEVENTY-NINE charges and just put the terrorist in jail for about twenty years. Possibly for life. But possibly for just twenty years. At which point the terrorist will be fully "rehabilitated" and the liberals will launch a campaign to integrate all terrorists into society. They seem to already play a big role in our society, so I don't see why we need to give them more.

Perhaps he would have gotten a more harsh sentence had a key witness been allowed to testify in the trial. But no. Oh, no. Because the witness had been uncovered under harsh interrogation techniques. So any evidence gleaned from those interrogation techniques, including a key witness, is invalid because we're mean.

We're mean to the people who plot to kill us daily, and would give their lives to end ours. And we're "mean" to them. It's "mean" to do what's in our best interests as a nation because that offends possible future allies (by that I mean terrorists who the liberals stubbornly insist can be rehabilitated).

Honestly? This terrorist is a prisoner of war. He has no place in civilian courts. None whatsoever. Of course, Obama has no place whatsoever in the White House... So I guess there's a trend going on here. (Just wait, there'll be terrorists in the White House before... you... know.. it... oh. Right.)

But back to the issue at hand (the innumerable other issues will have to wait). I think that it would be helpful to pull up the definition for "terrorist," just to clarify for the seemingly massive number of people who still don't get it. (Dictionary.Com)

ter·ror·ist
[ter-er-ist]
–noun
1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Under this definition, Obama would, in fact, be a terrorist. He advocates terrorism. Don't try to tell me that giving a terrorist the rights of a U.S. citizen is not advocating terrorism. Don't tell me closing Gitmo and prohibiting "mean" interrogation techniques isn't advocating terrorism. And don't tell me that Obama hasn't terrified you. Because, liberal or conservative, he probably has. It's just his thing.

Of course, it's all right to discriminate against Christians, the unborn, the elderly, and, you know, patriotic Americans... BUT LOOK AT A MUSLIM THE WRONG WAY AND YOU COULD BE JAILED FOR LIFE FOR HATE SPEECH! Whereas an actual terrorist faces a minimum sentence of twenty years.

Once again, I don't see what is at issue here, or how we constantly, continually defend the indefensible. Airplane security, interrogation, trials, the Ground Zero Mosque: As much as I love debating, these shouldn't even be debatable. Some things are, by nature, taboo to a society. And yet here we are. We kill babies. Our government takes our money and does with it what they please, and when they run out, they take more. On airplanes, we frisk two-year-old boys and ninety-year-old women, but if an airline has more than two young Arab males in secondary questioning, it gets fined. We are at WAR with Muslim extremists. There's no getting around it. You can't deny that we're fighting a war. But we're not winning the war on terror, because half of elected officials refuse to admit it exists! We have a description of the suspect. It's not "discrimination" if you take a suspect into custody. It's called justice. If they're innocent, they'll get their due. But if they're guilty, we have to make sure they also get their due.

I feel much, much worse for the families of those who lost their lives on 9/11 than I do for an Arab who gets some extra screening at an airport. You fly on U.S. airlines, you understand that we have a problem and are addressing it. Otherwise, take a boat.

We aren't allowed to interrogate terror suspects for fear that we're offending them and that they'll hate us. Their hate and offense are both caused by one thing: our existence. And unless Obama wants America to stop existing (maybe he does), then we should stop walking on eggshells when we have national security at stake.

And terrorists? As citizens? Really, who do they think they're fooling. CITIZENS are those whose deaths terrorists are responsible for. Terrorists are war prisoners, and should be treated as such. Except that's mean.

Mean? Mean is killing 3,000 people in the space of a few hours. Mean is murdering people in cold blood, for no other reason than that they're American and you're a psychopath. Mean is refusing to take the measures needed to avenge the dead and ensure that as few more as possible die. Mean is refusing to take control and protect your country.

Mean is being insensitive to the tears of your countrymen and building a mosque near where Muslim extremists killed THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE. THREE THOUSAND PEOPLE! They can move their mosque. We don't owe them anything.

We're not at war with all Muslims. But the people we are at war with are almost all Muslims. If you feel uncomfortable acknowledging this, I suggest you step down from any position of power you may hold and hand it over to someone more sensible and capable. Like my cat, for example.

Hitler Campaigns For The Right Of Jews!

2010-11-05T08:48:00.007-04:00

Hitler campaigns for the rights of Jews!

Oh, never mind. It's just Cuba and China campaigning against the United States for "human rights." The "against the United States" part is the only thing that really matters, of course. If human rights were really at issue, they'd be hypocrites.

This is obviously nothing more than an anti-American stunt, much like, say, trying terrorists in civilian court. Anti-American hate will be spewed, some regulation will be passed, and we will continue down this road of insanity. Just watch.

The Obama administration has decided to join the convention, unlike the Bush administration. Is anyone else sensing a pattern?

Under the guise of "taking the process seriously [which] contributes to the universality” of the human rights process. Newsflash: you don't take JOKES seriously.

Pause to entertain a conspiracy theory:

All the liberals in the world are conspiring to bring the United States down. Well, yeah, that's obvious. But what devices are they using? Let's just say, for the sake of my conspiracy theory, that they have employed the following:
1. The UN
2. al Qaeda and other terrorist groups
3. various elected officials
And what use would they have for each of these? Well, each one can somehow bring the U.S. down. Terrorists, of course, can bomb us, which not only shakes our security (both our sense of and the actual), but can cause financial problems and political and ethnic divisions. The UN is great at screwing with things, and they're also powerful and well-known. They are a great device to put pressure on our government, spread propaganda about us, and pass universal regulations. And, of course, having people on the inside (elected officials) is great for them, too. They also use newspapers, TV and radio shows, and any medium they can to spread propaganda, or at least hide the truth. I don't think we've realized how far they've got their hands in the cookie jar, so to speak. Even without employing terrorists.

America honestly has much better things to do than deal with these bogus claims. Especially by Cuba and China. This makes it even more obvious that it's just a cover-up. All this will do is make us more lenient toward terrorists and illegal immigrants.

Does this sound suspiciously like the liberal agenda? Yes. Yes, it does. So you can see where I'm coming from.

Although it seems like everything that is evil in the world sounds suspiciously like the liberal agenda.

To Be Or Not To Be America (It's Not A Question, It's A Call)

2010-10-24T14:18:00.001-04:00

To be a citizen or not to be a citizen, that is the question. It’s not whether or not they can vote. Citizens vote. Non-citizens don’t. You want to vote, become a citizen. That’s the only issue at hand here: whether you want to be a citizen or not. If not, don’t expect voting rights.

We cannot blur the citizen-immigrant line much more without it becoming just a figurative idea that is sometimes applied, but more often not. If immigrants are “loyal, patriotic, hardworking Americans,” which sounds just like what a citizen should be, they should become citizens! See how that works?

The path to voting for non-citizens is not a ballot deciding whether they can vote. It’s called citizenship.

If non-citizens can do everything citizens can, what’s the difference? If there is no such thing as a border, is there such thing as a country? If there’s no such thing as America, there is no such thing as an American. How would you like ceasing to exist? Does that fit in with your plans for the weekend?

Of course, if there was no such thing as America, we could all just kind of sift over into the World Union people are trying to form. I mean, the dollar’s dead anyway. We’re down the economic drain. Our President’s a screwhead. Our policies, parties, and culture is tearing at the seams. We’re teetering on the edge of a cliff in the middle of a tornado. It makes sense to just abandon everything, doesn’t it?

Heck no. We could have abandoned ourselves in the middle of the Revolution. We’re losing this thing anyway, and don’t know what to do if we win it. Let’s just give up. But we didn’t. Building the Transcontinental Railroad, settling the West, we could have given up. But we didn’t. Fighting the Civil War, we could have just said, “Screw the South.” But we didn’t. And we never will. No matter how jacked up things may seem, this is America, and always will be.

Although I admit sometimes things seem hopeless.

Take healthcare, for instance. Last week a leading manufacturer informed workers that their healthcare costs would rise partly because of the law. The law that was supposed to provide a competitive market by being something better, not making the other companies worse. Everyone who signed that bill (all of them Democrats) knew what they were signing (this time). No one in America knew, but that didn’t matter to them. Their constituents had a pretty good idea, though. All you had to do was watch the clips of Obama talking about ending private insurance. All you had to do was listen to him selling that law and you knew it was bogus. But what could we have done?

Let’s not go there right now.

We all knew that job-based coverage was pretty much screwed. We all knew that the government was going to dominate the market like Big Business in the 1800s and 1900s. We knew it was coming. But the worst part was knowing we were powerless, short of a rebellion, to stop it. This is not how it should be. We are not helpless onlookers. We ARE the government. We are what creates them, funds them, keeps them in existence. At any point in time we can end them. They seem to have forgotten that there are more of us than there are of them. And we don’t believe in gun control.

You can see the Democratic schemes at work. A Democratic governor laid out a plan for employers to shift workers into the taxpayer-subsidized healthcare plans that will be available (soon to be mandatory) in 2014. There’s the manufacturere who told workers their premiums would jump. According to Governor Phil Bredesen of Tennessee (a Democrat), "The economics of dropping existing coverage is about to become very attractive to many employers, both public and private." Does that sound like undermining private insurance to you?

They’re not even trying to hide it anymore. Either they’re very smug or know they’re screwed in a week and are just doing everything they can to screw us, too. Probably both.

Employers are considering shifting most or all healthcare costs to workers. Coupled with the economy (which is, we’re told, “improving,” which is another way of saying “it’s still pretty ugly and we don’t feel like telling you about the mess we’ve made”), this adds up (or subtracts) to the middle class being a little bit screwed. Just a tad.

The middle class has depended on job-based coverage for decades. 150 million people rely on it. There are, according to B. Hussein, 47 million uninsured Americans. I wonder if that number will be higher or lower in ten years.

That raises an interesting question. What will things be like in ten years? Will we be on the streets? Will we be dead from terrorist attacks? Will we have fling cars? How high will taxes be? Will America even still exist the way it does today? It’s sad that that is possible. That we can wonder. What will we be doing in ten years? Anything? Nothing?

Sometimes I wonder if it isn’t better to just start a mini revolution and start over. Keep the Constitution, keep the system, keep the bare legal necessities of survival, keep the core of our society, the stock market, that kind of thing. Scrap everything else.

Of course, the world economy would plummet. You probably can’t even pull something like that off. Maybe you don’t keep anything but the Constitution. Maybe you don’t even keep that (though you’d hopefully model the new one on it). Hopefully you do it right.

Think about it. You’re painting a picture and it starts to rain. Drop after drop hits the paper until the picture is a runny mess. Do you keep painting? Do you take it inside, let it dry, and paint over it? Do you pull out a new piece of paper?

I don’t know what’s right, or what’s going to happen. But I feel like something is going to happen. Something big. A storm is about to break.

All I ask is that we’re ready. That we cling to our money, guns, religion, kids, and freedom. That we never forget who we are.

We are America.

And Obama, nothing is ever going to change that.

And we’re not apologizing.

The Cost

2010-10-23T12:00:00.002-04:00

Price of gas: about three bucks, maybe more.

Price of income: around a third of what you make.

Price of freedom: whatever we sell it for.

The elections are ten days away, folks. Ten days. Are we really thinking about what will happen as a result of our choices? What the cost will be?

We have all these people promising to make things better. Maybe they can. Maybe they can't. If they do, though, what's the cost?

Is free healthcare worth the control the government gets? The taxes they impose? The regulations and restrictions they create? Is free stuff worth freedom? Is a promise of a better life that has been broken many times worth higher taxes and more corruption? What are you willing to risk in the name of hope?

Have you even considered what things will be like in ten, twenty, thirty years? And what you can do to influence it? What do you want? What do you want for your children and grandchildren, for yourself in retirement? What do you want for those you love?

These politicians can make promise after promise, but in the end, you decide what happens. Unless you give all of you're freedom away, but we're not quite there. Not yet.

Maybe they can give you all of your wildest dreams. But what will it cost you? Your family? Your friends? Your freedom?

Can it last?

Is it worth the cost?

I hope we thin of all of these things in ten days, and all days to come. I hope we use our heads, not our feelings or whims or the heat of the moment. I hope we really stop to think about things (before that becomes illegal). I hope we realize the truth, the implications, the cost of electing those who would lead us farther down the road we're on.

We have the power. It's in our hands to change the world. No offense to Harry Reid, but we're saving the world, down here in America. We go to work every day. We come home and feed our families. We work hard for the American dream, and we live it every day. We send our kids to school and pay taxes that fund who-knows-what and more. But why? We don't have to comply to the government's every wish. They comply to ours. Because in addition to all of those aforementioned other things we do, there is one more, very important thing. Look out, Democrats.

We vote.

Saving The World

2010-10-22T14:52:00.006-04:00

Harry Reid is trying to convince his constituents that he saved the world and they just don't realize it. How'd you save the world, Harry? Invent the internet?

I guess we must not have noticed. I get a mental image of Harry Reid flying around in blue and red spandex, his cape billowing in the wind, and get the feeling that that would be something we probably couldn't help but notice. He must have been humble in his world-saving and suddenly decided to brag about it. With no relation to the upcoming elections, of course.

According to Reid, we'd be in a world-wide depression if it weren't for him. Thanks to him, we are merely heading at breakneck speeds toward a depression instead of being in one. Thanks for saving the world, Harry.

I don't believe him. Did he win a Nobel Peace Prize? No. Obama is the Savior, not Reid. I think Reid may have missed that memo. "Hey, all play-acting as God normally on schedule is cancelled due to Obama being the Savior. Force of habit does not matter. As much as we may want to, no Democrat but Obama can claim to be God (while simultaneously obviously not believing in him). Are we clear?" Yeah, Harry must have been out doing typical Democrat Saturday-night stuff when that memo came out.

And I don't know where America was when the "Harry saved the world" memo came out. Probably out working, filing taxes, taking our kids to school.

Harry telling us he saved the world is actually a jab at himself. The world is not looking very saved. That's like a homeless man telling his kids he got pizza and dividing a piece of pepperoni among his five kids and wife. Yeah. Thanks.

So, Harry, little suggestion, next time you save the world, can you do us all a favor and stay out of it?

Wrong

2010-10-21T13:45:00.001-04:00

There was a comic in our local paper yesterday. One frame. Pictured were a witch, an anti-gay demonstrator, Hitler, and a Tea Partier with a dunce cap on his head. “I’m not a witch,” proclaimed the witch. “I’m not a homophobe,” insisted the demonstrator. “I’m not a Nazi,” declared Hitler. “I’m not an idiot,” pronounced the Tea Partier.

How eloquent and original to call a Tea Partier an idiot. That’s certainly never been done before, and the word idiot has fallen out of use. It’s good to see it making a comeback.

This is the left’s sorry attempt at... well, whatever they’re trying to do now. The sad thing is, any competent observer can tell the difference between Hitler and the witch and the Tea Partier and the demonstrator. First of all, Hitler would never say he wasn’t a Nazi. That’s what he was. And a witch is a witch. Granted, she could have just been dressed up for Halloween. So the only one they know for sure is Hitler. But the button on the demonstrator’s jacket said, “Gays are immoral,” not “I’m afraid of gays.” Bill Clinton was immoral (yet is still celebrated by society). Are we afraid of him? That could go either way, but most people are not. Think of all the adjectives liberals use to describe conservatives. Following liberal “logic,” they’re afraid of all of us! Score! And finally the Tea Partier. You can’t prove to me that a Tea Partier is an idiot. Of course, it was a somewhat clever comic(for a liberal), but I’m obliged to rip it to shreds.

Not that I’m all that pleased with Republicans either. You know the feeling of, “Come on, guys, you had this handed to you, take it”? (Ironically, this handout [the increase in popularity among voters] came from Democrats [the lords of the handout].) Why can’t they do it right now that they have the chance? Why couldn’t they be doing it right even when they didn’t have the chance, so that when the chance came along, they’d be ready? Why did they have to screw themselves over so that the party is divided now? The Tea Party should actually be called the GOP, because they’re everything Republicans should be.

Should be. That’s the operative word here, isn’t it?

America should be income tax-free. America should be governed by, for, and of the people. America should be one of the most revered nations on the planet, not an object of disdain from foreign countries and even our own elected officials and citizens. There should be a sense of “should be.” There should be ethical standards. It’s WRONG to murder babies. It’s WRONG for same-sex couples to marry (or act... married...). It’s WRONG for us to be afraid of our government. It’s WRONG for us to worry that terrorists and violent criminals will be let loose in our own backyards. It’s WRONG. I’m not going to sugar-coat it. It’s not just immoral, unethical, unconventional, or whatever adjective you want to apply to it. It’s not disputable.

It’s WRONG.

We as a society cannot accept the idea of “wrong.” What Bill Clinton did wasn’t “wrong.” What al Quaeda did wasn’t “wrong.” What the Fort Hood shooter did wasn’t “wrong.” Some people might think so, but some people don’t, and we must respect everyone’s opinions.

Good luck with that. Hijackers are heading a plane for the White House and you want us to respect their opinions? Not to stop them because that would be religious discrimination? Give me a break, liberals. In theory their ideas are... well, cute. And ideal. But they logically cannot work. It can only end in chaos.

Gee... Has that happened before?

We’re laying the foundations for the World Trade Center memorial. Are we going to be stupid enough to let that fall, too? (Read between the lines: Are we going to be stupid enough to let liberals get in power again?) I realize that it happened while Bush was President, but he had just taken office less than a year before, and quickly took the measures needed to ensure that it would not happen again. Which is more than I can say for B. Hussein, who’s only concerned with continuing and accelerating Bush’s spending policies. Not his tax breaks, not his pro-life and anti-terrorism stances, just the spending. If Obama “had this dumped on him,” he should have started cleaning it up, instead of setting records for most debt accumulated per year by a President.... IN HIS FIRST YEAR.

Blame all you want, just don’t expect any favors... like votes...

Skewl

2010-10-19T15:24:00.025-04:00

Some schools (not necessarily the school I currently attend, any school I have previously attended, or any school I am in association with, but not necessarily NOT one of those schools previously mentioned) are making an effort to be more modern while being environmentally friendly. It is obvious that the measures that, shall we say, certain schools have taken were not extensively researched, at least not as thoroughly as they should have been.

For example, it will definitely contribute to the school's attraction if they give their kids laptops. What with the whole "going green/paperless" thing, people are sure to come flocking. Plus, hello, it's a freaking laptop. What high school kid doesn't want a laptop?

Me, actually.

I mean, yeah, I'd love to have a personal laptop. But to use it all the time, never to touch a pencil again, to experience the frustration of running out of lead, to bask in the satisfying rhythm of pencil scratching paper... eh, it's a writing thing. But seriously, there's something about writing things down with your own hands that makes it.. personal. This is your story. Not the computer's. You wrote this. I think it aids knowledge retention and allows students to function more adequately.

We take our geometry tests online. We have to press the protractor to the laptop screen and measure an angle. And we can't extend the lines because, honestly, who's going to draw on their laptop screen?

I get headaches almost every day. I've always been really sensitive to exposure to screens, whether it's TV or computer or a Gameboy or what. I already have bad eyesight, so I can't even begin to imagine what this screen's doing to my eyes and my brain.

Then there's the distraction/temptation factor. You give a kid a laptop... Honestly? What teenage boy isn't going to be playing games in the middle of the lecture? Or, better yet, using the screen to hide the cell phone they're testing on.

It sickens me how we're all like lap dogs, always eager to please and full of ourselves when we do. "Oh, we're saving trees by going paperless!" When did paper become the universal symbol of all that is evil? I love paper. I have this thing for completely blank sheets of paper. I have to fill them up. Documents on a screen? Not the same effect. You don't learn the same way. But since it's currently the fad, I guess that's what we're going to do. And we'll be so proud, parading ourselves around. Good for us. (You've figured out by now that it is my school that I'm talking about.) No one thinks about the consequences. If we're ahead of the curve, who cares that we'll all be blind and brain damaged in twenty years? What does it really matter as long as some tree somewhere isn't cut down for a few more days? What does it really matter as long as we meet the standard of liberalism that is so ingrained in our culture. We don't even realize that they've infiltrated every aspect of our lives. The very thoughts we think are contaminated.

Why?

Because they have our children. They have our children in their hands (when we let them live, that is) from ages three and four to age eighteen (sometimes longer). Add to the list of things that should be privatized (Social Security, welfare [aka charity, ever heard of it?], and infrastructure spending are already on the list): schooling. They have our children. They have the future. They're controlling it. Public schools are the principal vessels of liberal indoctrination. All the legislation that comes with the package too, of course. Like "No Child Left Behind"? Yes, I am willing to rip on Bush because I know what's right and what's wrong, as opposed to what's Democrat and what's Republican. Our school took in two students who were kicked out of their old school for trying to start a mafia. Well, we can't leave any child behind (except the ones lying dead in the commons).

And where's the other end of that deal? What about the people who are too advanced for their grade level and are forced by law to remain where they are? Sure, we're not leaving anyone behind (except everyone in the public school system [it's not like most teachers really care, with the exception of a few--I've had some pretty awesome teachers--because the unions will fight for them whether they deserve better pay or not. There's no incentive for good teaching, just bad teachers demanding more pay than they're worth]), bu we're not promoting success, either. Mandatory mediocrity is what it is.

So, in short, public schooling (among many, many, many other things) is completely screwy and is going to either fail itself or result in the failing of America.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I need to get my sleep. I'm taking a state-mandated standardized test tomorrow morning.

We Know The Drill

2010-10-19T08:26:00.005-04:00

Besides being a better football team, there's another reason to prefer Michigan State over U of M. I'm just going to be blunt here: Michigan kills babies.

I know that's old news, but I thought it appropriate in light of recent athletic events to rip on Michigan a little.

Anyway. Midterms are in about two weeks. Sadly, it's been more than that amount of time since I've posted, which shows how busy high school is. (Last I knew there were 75 days until the elections.)

Personally, I'm supremely ticked. We have the chance to take back America and we can't even unite our party or pick candidates who stand for anything but, basically, moderate Democrat ideas. If you're not a Republican, please don't soil the name. (I consider myself a Tea Party Constitutional Traditional Conservative GOP Republican, emphasis on the "Grand Old" in GOP.)

And of course, clinging to what hope they have, Congress is postponing the vote on extending the Bush tax cuts. If the Democrats voted on that before the election, their being screwed would be more than speculation.

But that never stops Obama from running his mouth. You'd think he got paid to--oh, yeah. You know, I sometimes almost feel a little sorry for the guy. Not really, but it has crossed my mind. I mean, he's too stupid to know when and how to lie. He seems bent on destroying Republicans while subconsciously destroying his own party. I suppose I should thank him for that.

Anyway, if you're enjoying your retirement, lounging by the golf course, reminiscing about your hard work in your youth, well... say goodbye to the golf course, at least. Because the government just might (which is news-speak for "they will") tax your dividends as income to pay for their ever-expanding budget.

You know, if I was a Democrat, I would have so much fun in the focus groups I'm sure they have. I can think of tons of ways to suck your hard-earned money right out of your pockets. How about taxing you for anything your minor children earn, and taxing them, too? Bonus! How about taxing them for the five bucks they made mowing the lawn? Basically, anything is taxable. So watch out.

I'm so sick of hearing this "Obama had this dumped on him, he inherited it" crap. Well, sucks to be him! He shouldn't have run for President, then. The per-year rate at which he's piling on the debt is already more than double Bush's, and he's been in office less than two years! (Heaven forbid he get re-elected.) You think he's going to stop? Between blaming Bush and becoming the savior of terrorists everywhere, I doubt he has time to rethink his economic policies. He'd have to figure out how to think first, anyway.

It's times like this when I'm almost tempted to believe in evolution. Some people really seem to have the minds of apes.

Speaking of that, I wrote a myth for English, "The Origin of the Origin of Species." It's about how the theories of evolution and overpopulation were born. I'll leave it at that, and you can finish the myth yourselves. It's great because my teacher is a big lib (who I'm sure considers himself some kind of independent, "new" liberal), but also a great teacher, so I'm hoping he got a kick out of it. I almost wrote it on the origin of the liberal, but thought that to be a bit much. :D

On taxing dividends: there's apparently constitutionally not even supposed to be an income tax, an argument I'll be researching extensively (when I find time).

So. In summary, the apes in Washington are trying to screw us without officially proclaiming it. Honestly? The Democratic Party has been around how long? We know the drill.

Gotta Love It (Since Hate Is Illegal)

2010-09-12T18:57:00.002-04:00

You gotta love the hypocrisy of liberals. With them, inconsistency is the one thing you can rely on.

They spend how many hundreds of billions of dollars on stimulus, and then they worry about whether or not we can "afford" tax cuts for the rich. Priceless.

They are extending the Bush-era tax cuts for the middle class, however, which is a good thing. If that's the only option, as John Boehner said, we'll take what we can get.

I guess that's what you have to do when Obama's in the White House and Dems dominate Congress.

Read between the lines.

We'll take what we can get, and then we'll take the midterms.

Of Mosques and Men

2010-09-12T18:40:00.002-04:00

No one is denying the Muslims the constitutional right to build the mosque. We're just asking for sensitivity on the issue of the site of the building.

If this really weren't a political stunt, Muslims would have no problem moving the mosque, would they? It would be of no consequence where the mosque was, and out of empathy and sensitivity for fellow Americans, they would move the mosque. They would quietly agree with the American people. This would not be an issue. And yet.

Were this not a political stunt, it would have no place in politics at all.

And yet.

My English teacher this year is a hardcore liberal, as I believe I've mentioned before. And he was trying to get us to think outside the box. (Little Red Riding Hood is the story of a transvestite pedophile.) He asked how we'd like to know that 9/11 was a conspiracy by our own government.

Earlier he had told us not to hate Muslims and gays. Of course, hate means anything that would remotely offend anyone in any way, shape, or form. So "discriminating" and "profiling" would fall under that category, right next to "suspicion" and "wariness". So in that sense I hate Muslims. Anyway, he tells us not to "hate" Muslims, and yet we can be as quick as--quicker than--we want in "hating" our government and assuming they were behind the 9/11 attacks. This is the logic of the liberal. You can't win, or they'll call you a name and point to your argument as evidence for theirs. You can't catch them in their own lies, because they'll just deny it with such convincing zeal that everyone will think you're crazy "which they will staunchly affirm).

The only solution is duct tape.

If this mosque is built (the "if" is just meant for grammar, not as a description of reality), al Quaeda will see it and remember that Obama is President and they can do whatever they want. At least, I'm sure they have the constitutional right, from the living (dying) constitution, to do so.

But that doesn't mean they should.

Never Forget. Ever.

2010-09-11T17:40:00.002-04:00

Yesterday night I was watching a documentary on Fox News about 9/11. I watched a cloud of dust engulf the space where the towers used to be. I saw people screaming, crying, running, dying. And I thought, there is no freaking way that the people who did this to MY COUNTRY are going to build their mosque anywhere near there. No way. I would march down there myself and... I don't know, do something, if my parents would let me. :/

Pastor Jones, who I've been hearing a bit about, the one who was/is going to burn Korans today? While I question the truth of his statement that the imam was going to move the mosque if Jones didn't burn the Koran, what happened on msnbc yesterday morning was simply unbelievable.

On Morning Joe, they called the guy in just to lecture him and implore him not to burn the Koran, and then they cut him off. He said nothing. They wouldn't let him. The last thing they said on the matter was, "And I think that's all we need to hear about that." Yeah, all we need to hear and then some. Since when is it the job of a news organization to lecture someone on morals and not give them a chance for rebuttal, as if this is the absolute truth and you are totally in the wrong? Since when does an interview consist of a lecture and then, oops, something appears to have interfered with our connection. Yeah, something interfered. It's called B.S.

How does this sound? Muslims have the constitutional right to build a mosque near Ground Zero, but that doesn't mean it's the right thing to do. However, if your Saturday plans are burning the Koran, SCREW YOU, YOU DISCRIMINATING BIGOT! TAKE YOUR HATE SOMEWHERE ELSE!

How about, Screw you, you insensitive political stunt man! Take your anti-American sentiment somewhere else!

Another thing. Notice Obama "vs." terrorists and Bush vs. terrorists. Obama: "Don't be mean. Don't discriminate. They have a constitutional right to kill Americans... oh, wait. That's a different issue. I think my cue cards are out of order. Anyway! we need to be nice so they'll be nice, too."

Bush: "HUNT THEM DOWN."

Whatever else he may be, whatever else he has or hasn't done, Bush got it right on a couple things. Abortion, for one. And keeping America safe. Which is his job. His job isn't to keep Muslims safe. That's not in the Presidential Oath of Office. Bush seemed to grasp that. Obama, not so much. Although, we should cut him some slack since he's not familiar with the customs of this country.

Speaking of the country, I have U.S. History this year, and I am LOVING it. We're starting with the end of the Civil War/Reconstruction. It's awesome. But the theme kind of seems to be "Oh, the poor South. They lost the war and now their land is ravaged, their women are widowed, and their children are orphaned. And here come the big bad Radical Republicans, who want them to--gasp!--take an oath of loyalty to the Union! The horror! The humiliation! They want civil rights guaranteed! They want the South under military watch! They won't let former Confederate officers run for office! What did the South do to deserve this?????

I assume this was an act of racism by Republicans against whites. Or, hey, blacks. It's all the same. Whatever.

Screw the South! If they didn't want it to happen, why'd they start the war?

While we're on the subject of school, my science book is written like some liberal's diary. It tells me to open my mind and heart. It says that overpopulation is a serious problem that worsens almost every problems faced by humans today. The last part of the first chapter tells me to advance into the cosmos because "we live in an exciting time!"

It's like the self-help book for today's troubled liberal. Which I don't need because I'm not troubled or liberal. (It's pretty hard to be one without the other.)

While we're talking about troubledness, transexuals are actually at odds with the liberal worldview. If we're supposed to accept people "for who they are," well, why don't they have to accept THEMSELVES for who they are? How come they get to change?

I suppose it's wrong to judge their "lifestyle choices." Fine. I just hope you don't judge my "lifestyle choice" to start tee-peeing liberals' houses.

Why must they screw our country? What do they have against it?

Shrug. What does it matter? Smart people (I hope I don't have to specify the party) are going to DOMINATE the elections in a couple months. And then Obama won't be able to pass bills like he does, and even if they do go through (which they won't unless we elect RINOs [like in Michigan's gubernatorial race]), it'll take longer because Republicans, even, most RINOs, have this thing about READING bills before they pass them.

Anyway, American or liberal, we all have a job to do. For liberals, it's to balance out the awesomeness of using your brain. But until we have enough brains for everyone (and not by redistributing them), we'll have to do our best to keep our country safe. Which means no more 9/11. Or tolerance thereof. (That's me, the mean Republican who doesn't like people blowing up my country.) 9/11 must be remembered, not repeated.

You see, I don't remember 9/11 very well. I was, like, five. But even though I don't really remember it, I will never, ever forget.

God--And I Do Mean God--Bless America

2010-09-05T10:46:00.005-04:00

A high school student in Colorado was told that he had to take down two U.S. flags flying from the bed of his pickup truck because they might make other students uncomfortable.

I'd like to ask the security official to please remove the "F America" sticker from her forehead because that makes some people uncomfortable.

The security official reportedly told the student that the school promoted diversity. ("America doesn't have a national language or a national religion, so why have a national nationality?!?!?")

Yes. We all know that the word American, and the American flag, is offensive to some Americans.

... ... ...Wait, what?

The only "Americans" that the American flag offends are idiot liberals and terrorists. These people aren't really American anyway. Soon we won't be able to eat meat because it offends vegetarians, we won't be able to use guns because... never mind, that's already in the works. We won't be able to use paper or live in houses because that offends trees and their human spouses. We won't be able to go to church because... Oh. Again, that's already in the works. Ah, the things we do for the sake of political correctness. Aren't we just adorable?

Speaking of "Americans," Republicans are leading the Democrats in the polls by ten percent, the largest gap in almost seventy years. Bam.

However, Republicans need to pull themselves together. Literally. There are the Tea Partiers, the GOP, the Constitutional Conservatives... I happen to agree with a lot of these branches, but I think that all of the... denominations of Republicans need to unite. That's how we get the votes. A great guy with great values running with a label nobody's heard of is just going to dilute the votes.

Another thing: we need to stop running moderates. All they do is slowly compromise anything they've said they believe in (which is little in the first place). RINOs need to get out. You can't be a cafeteria conservative. Either choose or join the Dark Side. May the Force be with you.

Republicans need to change the face of their party into a strong face that people can trust. Because being better than Democrats is not going to help America or keep them in power. Saddam Hussein was "better than" the devil. That doesn't make him good. Republicans can't be better. We have to be the best.

And we can, if we vote smart, don't kill babies, and work hard to make the world a better place (through strength, not taking military funds to save the llama tree or something).

So fly your flags! Unite! Vote!

And most importantly, think.

And Democrats, as for you guys... just, um... keep doing what you do. It gets us elected so we can undo it.

We'll put those crosses back up in Utah. We'll remove the terrorists from the White House and from your backyards and courtrooms. We'll save babies (and really save them, as in save their lives, not put them on welfare). We'll pray, to God, for America (three birds with one stone). We'll establish a state language. Oh, oh, we'll get borders. Those would be nice. And freedom, with no extra charge! We'll give people's money back... Oh, the things we'll do, the places we'll go, the people we'll see. I love America. We need to elect officials who do, too.

God (not Allah) bless America.

Unprecedented

2010-09-03T21:18:00.001-04:00

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2010/09/feds-sue-arizona-sheriff-in-civil-rights-probe.html (It won't come up as a link, so just copy and paste this if you want to read the whole article. Sorry.)

So let's say you're a sheriff in Arizona who's trying to do his job and keep illegals out.

Who's more likely to immigrate from MEXICO, Mexicans or someone else? I'm thinking Mexicans, and that is also what Sheriff Arpaio thought.

Logic is discrimination, just as dissent is discrimination. Heck, purple kitties are probably discrimination.

Anyway, Arpaio says he won't turn over records in this "civil rights" case because the feds haven't stated what they're looking for. (Although, since we're talking the Obama administration here, it's obvious what they're looking for: a reason to be over-PC.)

Not to mention the fact that, you know, they're completely out of line. If they find out some of the Mexicans Arpaio was "discriminating" against were Muslims, he can kiss his behind goodbye.

Best yet, they've called his actions "unprecedented." Has the federal government ever sued a state before? Have they ever sued a sheriff before? No.

This is what is known as "unprecedented."

Resting in Pieces vs. Living In Peace

2010-09-03T15:53:00.004-04:00

Almost sixty percent of Americans (which is really 100% of Americans) believe the Iraq War was the right thing to do.

I'd rather live in a strong peace than die in a weak one. There's not even a contest there. Peace comes through strength. The only peace the weak get is that which they rest in.

I have a question to ask the 35% of "Americans" who believe it was wrong: if war is not the answer, what is? Do we just hide in bomb shelters until we've lost everything and pieces of the American dream are scattered across the bomb-scarred plain, until even the cockroaches are gone?

Or do we get off our lazy, illogical, scared, weak, weenie butts and do something?

According to 58% of Americans, that is indeed what we do.

A Field In Pennsylvania

2010-09-03T15:25:00.004-04:00

"Guess what?"

"The jobless numbers are climbing, even though we're 'recovering' and the stimulus is 'working.'"

"Yeah, but I bet you didn't know that--"

"Republicans want Obama to 'change' like he was supposed to by doing something that actually HELPS the economy."

"Oh. Okay, so you do know. Well, you'll never guess what Obama said in reply."

"'We're heading in the right direction'?"

"Wow. I guess this is getting pretty predictable. But I bet you don't know what the Democrats want to do in order to KEEP heading in the right direction."

"Push through another hundreds-of-billions-of-dollars-worth of stimulus?"

"Okay, never mind."

In other news, the Ground Zero mosque and a terrorist organization are in the same funding pool. A key investor in the mosque also happened to be a key investor in Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development, or HLF, which is a terror organization that supported the terrorist group Hamas.

Of course, the "investor," Hisham Elzanaty, thought he was donating to an orphanage when he donated to HLF. Well, he is helping create orphans...

And now he's, of course, funding the mosque (not to be confused with the terrorist organization he funded previously). What's wrong with the mosque? We've been over this. It's an issue of national security. A bunch of Muslims go in to "pray," meet, walk two blocks, and bomb whatever we put in place of the World Trade Center (in case they don't already own it anyway). Another issue is: Osama bin Ladin's out there, he looks and says, "Hey, look. That Obama idiot, bless his heart, is a Muslim-friendly, clueless dirtbag. Bombs away! Heck, I might even get a medal, or, hey, a Nobel Peace Prize for this attack." It's an issue of national dignity as well.

And finally, it's an issue of sensitivity. Americans, like the brave souls who saved the White House and crashed in a field in Pennsylvania, are the ones who deserve anything here, like respect. We can respect Muslims and Muslim Americans, too, but Americans should care for Americans first. Terrorists aren't even a close second. If Muslims really were peaceful and respected America, they'd move their "cultural center" a few blocks. But they won't, because this is them pushing the envelope a little bit farther (because, you know, they didn't push it enough on 9/11). If we let them have this, they'll take anything. If we let them have this mosque at Ground Zero, they'll soon take Ground Zero itself. And maybe the Pentagon.

And maybe a field in Pennsylvania.

Electronics

2010-09-02T10:15:00.002-04:00

A new Obama administration rule requires that medical records be digitalized. Those who don't make the switch by 2015 (when, God willing, someone else will be President), of course, must pay a penalty. You don't comply with socialism, you pay a penalty so the government can use more of your money for more socialism. It's a great gig they've got going.

Of course, many small rural hospitals or small community hospitals can't pay for either the transition to electronic records or the fine for not transitioning to electronic records. So they're pretty much screwed, I guess.

Not to mention the fact that people's personal information is at stake. First of all, hackers, et cetera can steal their Social Security numbers. Second of all, I'm sure that if the government wanted a peek at your personal information, all conveniently digitalized, they could get it. Conspiracy theory? Maybe. Maybe not.

I bet that soon, everything that used to have to be on paper will be digitalized. Take the Constitution, for example. All you'd have to do to change it would be to open a Word document and edit it.

And Obama could easily make a fake birth certificate if it was electronic. Just type out the words, "I was born," and make everyone else make the switch to digital birth certificate. No one would be the wiser!

How about all money has to be electronic, too? The government would be able to get their hands on it a lot more easily if it was electronic, because they could just take it right out of your bank account. No more tax forms, the government just takes the money and you don't have to worry about a thing.

Oh, the possibilities for electronics. It makes sense. I mean, the current administration can't even give a speech without them.

;)

Does America Have A PROBLEM With Islam? 0_0

2010-09-01T13:37:00.005-04:00

Bobby Gosh asks in in a Time magazine article: Does America have a problem with Islam?

Does Islam have a problem with America?

This is like the liberals who ask, "[Why] do the terrorists hate us?"

Yes. The terrorists do hate us, as evidenced by the fact that they take sick pleasure in blowing us to pieces and knocking down our skyscrapers.

Why do they hate us, you ask?

Well, it's partly (though not completely) because of their religion. Don't try to tell me it's not, because first of all, liberals act like they have no IDEA why the terrorists hate us, but they seem to know with ABSOLUTE certainty that it is NOT because of their religion. "Islam is a religion of peace," they claim, and therefore it is completely illogical that Islam is a reason for terrorism.

Islam is a root of terrorism. Why else would they shout, "For Allah!" as they murder thousands of innocent Americans? Why are almost all terrorists Muslims? It's not a coincidence.

The other reason the terrorists hate us is because we are America. We do not approve of stoning adulterers or restricting women's rights. We especially do not approve of bombing anyone we don't like for no good reason.

We are freedom-loving, capitalist, creative, innovative, successful patriots. Liberals, please, don't take offense. I didn't mean you.

And finally, terrorists don't like us because they're psychotic maniacs.

But back to the matter at hand: America's "Islamohpobia." This is the worst fake disease/deficiency ever invented. Even worse than ADHD, ADD, and ODD. This goes beyond making parents who can't discipline their children feel GOOD.

This makes people who can't love America (liberals [and] terrorists) feel RIGHT. It's much worse.

I ask again: Does America have a... a PROBLEM with Islam? Yes and no. America doesn't hate the MAJORITY of Muslims, those who claim they don't practice the extreme interpretations. But we do hate those who, you know... hide a bomb in their pants as a Christmas present, fly planes into buildings, go on shooting sprees, and in general wreak havoc, destruction, death, and mayhem wherever they go, all in the name of Allah.

Yes. I think we have a problem with those people.

I feel bad for average, everyday, non-psycho Muslims. But if they want to live in America, they have to understand that we need to do everything we can to keep it safe, and all the terrorist attacks for many years have been committed by Muslims. If they really are patriotic, as they claim they are... they should have no problem with keeping their country safe.

But really. What kind of questions are we asking? What we really need to know is, does Islam have a problem with America?

Because if it doesn't somebody's got a heck of a lot of explaining to do.

FOR ALLAH!!!!!!!!!!

2010-08-30T15:19:00.003-04:00

Huh? Oh, yeah. The title. Well, Obama said we should put on a full-scale attack, so the title refers to what most terrorists yell as they attack.

Speaking of that, Obama HAS to be a Muslim. All terrorists are. Who cares what the mainstream media says? According to them, there's no such thing as a terrorist anyway (unless the terrorist is a racist, bigoted Republican).

Anyway, Obama has called for a "full-scale attack" to rejuvenate the economy. You mean, the Wall Street takeover and the stimulus weren't full-scale attacks? Well, I'd hate to see a real one, then. Looks like I don't have a choice though. Obama said his administration is "hard at work" trying to find new ways to promote economic recovery. New ways, huh? What, they're going to ambush the economy from behind instead of full-on collision?

And of course, he's trying to guilt Republicans into letting the bill pass. What happened to new ways? Looks like same old same old around here.

This isn't recovery. This is putting the brakes on as you go over a cliff. Yeah, you slow down, maybe even turn around as you skid around, but sooner or later you're going to take the plunge. If only you hadn't put on the brakes, you might have landed in the lake a little ways out from the bottom. But now you're heading, fast, for the rocks.

And brakes don't work in free-fall.

For the last time (not really; I know I'll say this again), the free market needs to be free in order to be the free market, function as the free market, and prosper as the free market. Hence the title and the words "free" market.

But of course, there are no such things as words to liberals, number one because half of them only know gibberish, indefensible statements, and ridiculous accusations, and number two, because those of them that speak English (and no, Ape doesn't count) have rewritten it anyway.

Racist=Republican
Lie=anything Republicans say
Choice=baby-killing
Civil unions=gay marriage
Partisan=Republican
Bigot=Republican
Idiot=Republican

And many more I'm sure you're familiar with, including my favorite:

Christian=Muslim.

Where Are We?

2010-08-26T07:29:00.002-04:00

Where are we?

Some might say America. However, as we've learned, that is sadly not the case.

Some might say in the middle of a recession, under the reign of a tyrannic dude in the White House. (He has lost the right to be called President.)

Those people would be right, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about Catholics! Where are we? Where's our sense of pride in our faith, where are our morals? Why are we letting B. Hussein speak at our universities, giving honor to a politician who vehemently opposes the notion of the sanctity of life.

What is a Catholic, anyway? We don't live like we should (and I'm not saying I'm a model Catholic). We don't stand up for our beliefs, largely because many of us don't have them. Our church was founded by Jesus Christ! We're powerful! And we need to stand up with that power. We need to protect our brothers and sisters who are slaughtered every day. And we cannot support or endorse someone who supports and endorses this slaughter.

So stand up! Jesus founded this Church, not to let us sit around in pews for an hour a week, but to come closer to Him and to bring the rest of the world closer to Him and the truth. The rest of the world includes unborn children, each with a soul and a story.

So, I ask you, Catholics, one more time:

Where are we?????

2010-08-24T13:46:00.002-04:00

Silly Democrats, tricks are for... oh, never mind. You trick people all the time.

There's the race card trick.

There's the partisan card trick.

And apparently, they're still clinging to the Bush trick. You'd think they thought we were a BIT smarter than that. (However, seeing as how they think we're stupid enough to pull an elaborate, conspiratorial prank on, electing them is also stupid, in their eyes, because they think we're stupid.) So about the Bush trick. House Minority Leader (and hopefully Speaker of the House come November) John Boehner is proposing that Obama fire his economics team. I agree. And he can resign while he's at it.

But of course Joe Biden is saying, "So that's you're plan? Fire Obama's economics team?" I actually think it's a great plan, and would help "point this economy in the right direction." (Except, unlike previous claims that certain actions have done just that, we will see some recovery, LONG-TERM RECOVERY, from doing this and other things Boehner mentioned.)

The other things sound suspiciously like things Bush did while in office, however. But I believe that that is not viewed as a bad thing anymore.

Still, I believe that "by comparison" judgment is wrong. So Republicans better get some new ideas, too. Which I'm sure they will, since they tend to, you know, THINK.

Oh, here's one! How about Obama fires his wife? Because I'm sick of her sitting on a stage in a schmancy dress telling us what schmucks we are for being such schfat, carbon-schpewing jerks.

In Search Of Truth

2010-08-19T13:53:00.005-04:00

Lies, hypocrisy, where does it end? We need some good, honest, everyday hardworking people in our government. Everything is arbitrary, nothing is what it seems, but at least people flip-flop consistently. I guess it's easy to tell what party controls the government, isn't it? Read on and you'll see what I mean.

Freedom of religion apparently only applies to Muslims. Just to prevent further confusion, I think they should outlaw Christianity already and declare Islam the national religion and get it over with. Honestly.

The imam who supports both the Ground Zero mosque and the terrorist organization Hamas (not to be confused with each other) is being payed by the feds (aka by the taxpayers) to spread messages of religious freedom and Islam as the Religion of Peace throughout the world. I guess 9/11 just didn't get the job done.

I actually don't see the problem with building a Muslim place of worship near Ground Zero. I mean, Ground Zero already IS a Muslim place of worship. In fact, the ultimate act of Muslim worship was COMMITTED by Muslims when they crashed PLANES into the World Trade Center. Anyone remember that?

So yeah, we PAY a Muslim to spread "religious peace" (it wouldn't surprise me if we paid Obama to spread bull--oh, wait, we do), but in Utah, it is religious discrimination to pu crosses on the side of the road.

Well, what else would they have us put there? Maybe we could get some stimulus funds and put up some SIGNS for them.

The 14 crosses erected along Utah roads to commemorate fallen state Highway Patrol troopers convey a state preference for Christianity and are a violation of the U.S. Constitution, a federal appeals court said Wednesday.

Really? Because last time I checked, crosses on the side of the road tend to convey mourning and respect for the dead, not a demand that everyone become Christian and burn the non-believers.

A three-judge panel from Denver's 10th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals said in its 38-page ruling that a "reasonable observer" would conclude that the state and the Utah Highway Patrol were endorsing Christianity with the cross memorials.

"This may lead the reasonable observer to fear that Christians are likely to receive preferential treatment from the UHP," the justices wrote.

Who's the "reasonable observer"? Is he an American? Does he know what crosses on the side of the road usually stand for? Does he know what the word "death" means? Or is the reasonable observer a blind man on a unicycle from the Himalayas? If so, the ruling makes perfect sense.

If people put crosses as grave markers, that doesn't mean everyone at the funeral or he city or whoever owns the cemetery "endorses Christianity."

American Atheists, Inc., the Texas-based group that sued to have the crosses removed from state property, argued that the crosses could imply that the trooper who died there was a Christian.

I notice no one worries about the "reasonable observer" worrying about atheists getting preferential treatment from the UHP. We need to get that imam to Utah.

And about the trooper who died being portrayed as a Christian, well, the crosses were only erected with permission from the family. It's really none of American Atheists, Inc.'s business whether a trooper is portrayed as Christian. The families are fine with it. Oh, wait, I forgot. Liberals don't believe in families. Or troopers. Or roads. (Cars drive on them and ruin the environment. However, they also provide them with a useless venue for stimulus funds, so they're a bit torn on that issue.) They only care about doing everything they can to smear Christianity because they know they're wrong and they know they're bitter about it.

"Unlike Christmas, which has been widely embraced as a secular holiday ... there is no evidence in this case that the cross has been widely embraced by non-Christians as a secular symbol of death," they said.

Funny thing, even though Christmas has been "widely embraced as a secular holiday," the liberals are trying to end that, too. Remember the campaign a while back to change Christmas trees to "holiday trees"? Yeah.

So the left is trying to eradicate Christianity, and why? Well, so the Muslims can take over, of course.

In fact, almost 1 in 5 Americans believe B. Hussein is Muslim. But that was the poll taken BEFORE his remarks on the Ground Zero mosque.

Time magazine conducted a survey AFTER the remarks, and 24% of the 1,002 adults surveyed think he is a Muslim.

I think he is a Muslim, a terrorist, and on top of that, here illegally. Of course, a statement from the White House testifies to B. Hussein's Christianity, saying

"President Obama is a committed Christian, and his faith is an important part of his daily life," the statement read. "He prays every day, he seeks a small circle of Christian pastors to give him spiritual advice and counseling, he even receives a daily devotional that he uses each morning. The president's Christian faith is a part of who he is, but not a part of what the public or the media is focused on everyday.

"The poll's findings are not surprising given the scope of the issues we are focused on -- a recovering economy, bringing troops home from Iraq, putting health care and financial reform implementation in place. The president's strong Christian faith is what guides him through these challenges but he doesn’t wear it on his sleeve."

You can say all you want. The truth is: Anyone can fake being one thing and actually be another. (Caution: between-the-lines subtext zone.)

And of course he doesn't wear his religion on his sleeve. After all, he lies about it every day. I honestly don't care what they say anymore. I've been lied to enough. I remember being a little kid and finding out that there was a debate about global warming, that it wasn't an undisputable fact. I remember finding out that cutting down trees and using electricity wasn't considered bad by everyone. I remember finding out that I couldn't trust anyone but God and I'd have to find the truth for myself. And the truth I've found is: Whatever the case, Obama is not what he seems. (Actually, he's not what he PRETENDS to be. To me, he's everything he seems. The truth is still elusive for some, though, but they'll come around.)

Speaking of B. Hussein's hypocrisy, this may interest some people.

President Obama's fundraising spree across the country to help his party retain power isn't just reaping millions of dollars for Democratic candidates -- it's also said to be costing taxpayers millions of dollars.

And it's leaving a massive carbon footprint, too.

One analyst estimated Obama's five-state, three-day tour cost taxpayers about $2 million.

On top of that, the carbon footprint, or pollution generated by the travel, probably matched "something of a size-32 shoe," said Pete Sepp of the National Taxpayers Union, a group that promotes smaller government and fewer taxes.

Obama began his cross-country dash on Monday, taking his GOP-bashing message to Wisconsin and Los Angeles. On Tuesday he went to Seattle, and on Wednesday to Miami for a total of nine fundraising events.

Taken together, it's an 8,000-mile, fossil fuel-burning odyssey that, by pairing official events each day with political ones, allows him to bill taxpayers for most of the cost of the trip -- a tradition that long predates the current president.

"Whenever a president travels, the tab can run up for taxpayers," Sepp told FoxNews.com.

The White House did not respond to an e-mail seeking information.

So he's using our money to fund fundraisers for his party? And liberals get angry when corporations endorse candidates. But when the President uses taxpayer money to travel the country (not on one of his many vacations, but on a political campaigning spree), liberals have no problem with it at all. Of course not.

And they didn't respond to requests for information. So much for transparency. Where can you get a good cup of truth nowadays?

Not only is he wasting our money to raise money for candidates we won't even vote for if we've learned anything this year, but he's damaging the precious environment he holds so dear. Well, as long as it's not a CORPORATION destroying the environment, it's all good.

Not only that, but most people who pay taxes are Republicans. That's just an assumption, but my evidence is that Democrats have no qualms about raising taxes, and they support welfare, because a lot of them are on it. Republicans don't do these things because they know what it's like to work and pay taxes. But it's just a theory.

Anyway, let's just say, hypothetically, that more Republicans pay taxes than Democrats. So Republicans are fotting the bill for the Democratic president to campaign for Democrats. Hard-working people are paying for the President to campaign for people with no respect for or UNDERSTANDING of their hard work, paying for the President to campaign for his own party members, who will just take more money from them after they've paid to have the President get those people elected.

Speaking of money and working, jobless claims are at the highest they've been since November. That's the highest in almost a year. Looks like the stimulus is really working.

So if it's working so well, 1) why are there so many jobless claims, and 2) WHY does B. Hussein feel the need to pass a jobs bill? I've had about enough of his bills.

In fact, I've had about enough of everything! I need truth! I need something besides B. Hussein's monotonous rhetoric.

Of course he pulls the partisan card. Whenever he wants his way, he blames Republicans by calling them partisan. Which is actually very, very partisan. Has he ever called Democrats partisan? I sense some discrimination going on here.

The stimulus, all throughout the healthcare debate, the Wall Street overhaul... he's called them partisan so many times that I almost wish someone would call Republicans racist, just for a change of pace.

"Um, Mr. President, your fly's down."

Obama: "You partisan bigot! This is not the time for politics! The election's over!"

Seriously, that's getting old. How about this:

"Um, Mr. President, you have a ketchup stain on your shirt."

B. Hussein: "I believe this is the time to step above the walls created by racism and embrace a new beginning for you, for me, for America. I ask only that Republicans join me in this endeavor, though I doubt they will. Still, Allah, er, I mean, God bless them and God bless America."

B. Hussein's supporters in the media and elsewhere: "Racist! We have reached a civil rights milestone, yet still there are some on the right--mainly white Christian conservative males--how will not rest until blacks and other minorities are wiped out completely. All those who disagree with the Anointed One... er... the President should have their tongues sawed off with rusty nails and should be locked up, or burned alive! We owe black people for the years of misfortune we caused them. Down with whites! Down with Republicans! What's that? Yes, I know, but no one knows about the President's white half. It's a secret!"

Yes, I yearn for good old-fashioned cries of racism. I assume they'll get tired of the partisan card after a while... Well, all except Obama, who is somewhat tone-deaf (or conniving and devious) politically.

Ooops. How rude. That was racist. Or was it partisan?

No. I've got it. It was a covert endorsement of Christianity.

Shhhhhhh.

Anchor Babies: Now They Care

2010-08-18T20:51:00.003-04:00

It's interesting that the only time you can get liberals to defend babies is if they're non-citizen babies. Sure, American babies don't have a right to live, but Mexican babies have the right not only to live but to be U.S. citizens just for being born here.

What if we suddenly found out that Osama bin Ladin was born here? His parents weren't citizens (that I know of... 0_0), but according to Democrats, he should be a citizen if his first breath was taken here on American soil. What if Osama bin Ladin had a kid (like any girl would ever marry [or whatever it is psychotic terrorists do to join in loving unity] him) in America??? What would liberals do then? Automatically give ciizenship to the son of a terrorist?

Generally, the way to become a citizen from a previous status of non-citizen is to (I know this sounds crazy) apply for citizenship, get papers signed, get a green card, whatever.

Being born here doesn't guarantee citizenship.

But, while we're on that subject, even if that were true, Obama still wouldn't be a citizen. So if they're doing this for him, they should give it up (they should give it up anyway).

Having your children be automatically citizens is an exclusive right of Americans. If ANYONE can be an American, the American will cease to exist.

There is a bright side to this. We have liberals recorded now on tape defending babies. I never thought I'd see the day, since baby-killing is the one thing they never flip-flop (aka cover up their psychotic beliefs with a false reversion of position) on.

For another thing, illegal immigrants DO NOT have the right to be here in the first place, so if they had a baby on U.S. soil, they should be punished for being here, not rewarded.

That was what Harry Reid was saying in '93, but of course he's flip-flopped since then, since the Messiah has ordered the Democratic masses to be friendly to immigrants. Muslim immigrants especially. In fact, Muslims get a green card and a free ticket to Manhattan.

Do You See What I See?

2010-07-30T21:43:00.004-04:00

How can we not see the truth?

I'm listening to B. Hussein talking in Ohio, streaming live from FOXNews.com. Wow. This guy just doesn't quit, does he? That's the issue with stupid people: they're stupid enough to think they're smart and keep doing the stupid things they're doing. It's sort of a vicious cycle. No one knows why God created stupid people, but with them around, I suppose we know why there are smart people.

I'd like to raise a question: what came first, stupid people or smart people? Liberals or stupidity? I'm not going to be like the liberals and act like I know everything about creation, et cetera. I'm just asking out of curiosity what people think about the origin of the liberal and all the psychological and mental disorders associated with liberalism. :)

Anyway, in all seriousness, I honestly believe that B. Hussein is a terrorist. I refuse to compare him to Osama bin Ladin any more because he is worse. When bin Ladin attacks, you know it. It's like getting struck by lightning. That's that. Something big, powerful, and painful.

When B. Hussein attacks, it's like boiling a frog live, slowly raising the temperature until we're completely screwed without realizing it. He is worse because what he does directly impacts every American and will haunt us forever even if the legislation is repealed. When B. Hussein strikes, he has the media behind him, he has Congress behind him, he has "Americans" behind him. He disrespects life, disrespects America and the free market system, he disrespects Americans with opinions aligned with those expressed in that one paper, what's it called... ah, yes, the U.S. Constitution.

Listening to him talk, I see a communist, a liar, a conniving, devious terrorist. I see someone who wants to abolish the free market and knows how to sugar-coat that wish.

I see a terrorist in someone's backyard (not the ones from Gitmo who are already there).

If I ever met with President Obama, I cannot say whether or not I would shake his hand. Would it be immature or patriotic not to? I know how it would be portrayed, of course.

Possible responses with handshake:

1. Pleased to meet you, Mr. bin Ladin.
2. Are you enjoying your stay in America so far, sir?
3. So, have you finished drafting the new Constitution?
4. Something in Arabic.

Obama's arguments for everything he does always include a sob story or two. Well, there are sob stories on both sides. They prove nothing but that the world is imperfect and you can't please everyone. Which seems to be his other argument. "Can't please everyone, so I might as well destroy America while I'm at it."

You know how they fool us? They go after the kindergartners. They teach them about sex, so then they have sex as soon as they're old enough and realize how great abortion is. They teach us how houses, paper, and toilets are bad and we're destroying our Earth, thus creating mindless little soldier-bots to do their bidding. It's evil with a cute face. Ever seen the commercials with little kids talking about saving Earth? Yeah. They teach them that they're no greater than the apes, thus convincing them they are liberals. They teach them to accept gays and shun and/or challenge Christianity. They teach them evolution. They teach them that big corporations are bad, bad, bad. And of course the kids believe it because, after all, they learned it in school.

So what is the answer? Move to North Korea where people are saner? Dig yourself a grave? (Make sure you don't uproot any trees to do it, though.) The answer is to stand and fight. Revolt!

Join a tea party. Sign a petition. Get a job. Run for office. Teach your children. Load your guns. Grab your pitchforks. Light your torches. Shout the truth. Fight for freedom. Make up more motivational three-word sentences!

It will soon be too late. They'll take our guns, our freedom, our rights, our money, our jobs, our torches and pitchforks, our voices, our children. Our hope. Our faith.

Without hope how can we fight back? We cannot be crushed or defeated. It's now or never, because if we don't act now...

Ve iz scrood.

Loopholes

2010-07-28T19:15:00.007-04:00

(Quotes from FOXNews.com)
When the Democrats want to find a loophole, there tends to be one.

When Republicans are being unconstitutionally prohibited from enforcing immigration laws that will help keep our country safe, alas! No loopholes are to be found.

For example, the Democrats found that there is no provision in the healthcare bill, or, gasp, the almighty executive order, that would prohibit federal funding of abortion in high-risk insurance pools.

The high-risk program, called the Pre-Existing Condition Insurance Plan, was meant to help those denied coverage over pre-existing conditions until the broader provisions of the law go into effect in 2014. The law set aside $5 billion in federal subsidies for the program, which is supposed to be either administered by the state or the Health and Human Services Department.

Of course, abortion in these cases would be prohibited unless the life of the mother was in danger, or in the case of rape or incest. Which leaves room for the "health" of the mother, or if the baby has an even conceivable possibility of minor deformities. Which is code for "we cover abortion through all nine months of pregnancy for any reason whatsoever." You are either for or against abortion. If you're for it at all, you're for it. At all is a modifier, but the meaning is the same.

It doesn't matter what you tell the public. The executive order cannot trump a law. The insistence that you don't cover abortion except in certain cases is not true. YOU STILL COVER ABORTION. Innocent babies still die, no matter how you label it. If I was getting aborted, I wouldn't care if my abortion was termed "covered" or not. The outcome is still the same. And if you support any abortion at all, any abortion at all is supported.

Now for the Republicans' issue. Instead of cracking down on immigration to keep our country safe, the Democrats are engaging in petty squabble over perfectly legitimate legislation. "Well, I have a lot of illegal immigrants on hand right now who can tell you just how illegitimate this law seems to them, how it's impacting their lives and families, how it's making living in America harder for them, illegal immigrants who could tell you just how unfair this monstrosity of a law this really is. Oh, what's that? The immigrants don't speak English? Can we get a translator up here? Ah, yes, thank you. Now, according to our translator, this illegal immigrant thinks that it's not fair that he can't get a job, according to Arizona's law, just because he illegally moved his family here and is now mooching off the taxpayers. He says he applauds Judge Bolton's decision to let him get a job and protect him from racial profiling by invasive officers." Well, then. (Just in case it's not too clear, that's a make-believe scenario.)

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked some of the toughest provisions in the Arizona illegal immigration law, putting on hold the state's attempt to have local police enforce federal immigration policy.

Though the rest of the law is still set to go into effect Thursday, the partial injunction on SB 1070 means Arizona, for the time being, will not be able to require police officers to determine the immigration status of anyone they stop or arrest.

U.S. District Judge Susan Bolton also struck down the section of law that makes it a crime not to carry immigration registration papers and the provision that makes it a crime for an illegal immigrant to seek or perform work.

Well, it only makes sense to block the toughest parts of a law whose aim is to crack down on illegal immigration, right?

And of course they should be able to get a job. I mean, they're just law-abiding citizens like the rest of us. (Except they don't pay taxes, they aren't citizens, and they broke the law by setting foot in this country. But other than that, yeah, I'm totally happy to remain unemployed for the sake of a drug-smuggling, pot-smoking vagrant who has no intention of respecting the American dream other than to steal it. It's all good.)

There is no reason to oppose any part of this law other than nothing more than a blatant contempt for the American way of life. Borders are there for a reason. Once they become meaningless, once our very identities as Americans become meaningless because anyone can be an American easily (and untaxedly), there will be no more America. At least then Obama can be our President legally.

Get this: the Mexican government applauds the decision (imagine that). Kind of like when Fidel Castro praised Barack Hussein Obama. Wonder what our old buddy Fidel thinks of this? Or is he already on the White House staff?

Foreign Minister Patricia Espinosa told reporters that the injunction was a "first step in the right direction."

Yeah, no. It's a step over the line (and the border).

"The court by no means disregards Arizona's interests in controlling illegal immigration and addressing the concurrent problems with crime including the trafficking of humans, drugs, guns, and money," the ruling said. "Even though Arizona's interests may be consistent with those of the federal government, it is not in the public interest for Arizona to enforce preempted laws."

Of course, unless you take "disregarding" to mean "disregarding". If the court "by no means" disregards Arizona's interests in controlling the immigration problem, why are they not allowing Arizona to control the immigration problem?

And if Arizona's interests are consistent with those of the federal government, what's the problem? It is, actually, in the public interest to enforce "preempted laws". The feds are too busy bailing out Wall Street and need a bit of help. And who better to help them than the BORDER STATE with the biggest immigration problem? If they won't let Arizona help, won't let them enforce the laws, who do they expect to get it done? Alaska? How many illegal immigrants from Mexico do you think cross into Alaska every year? I've got a pretty good guess. Maybe Michigan or Wisconsin, North Dakota, Montana, Washington or Oregon? How about Maine? I think they'd do a GREAT job addressing the illegal immigrant problem. I mean, they're in such a prime position to deal with drug traffickers and smugglers from Mexico, don't you think? Hey, let's ask Canada to help!

Or maybe we could let a state pass an effective law to help solve their immigration problem. If Arizona's law isn't what the feds and the courts are looking for, do they have a better plan? Maybe they could make it illegal for a police station to have more than two Latinos in custody the way they do (or at least did) with young Arab men on the airlines (pre-9/11 and possibly post-9/11). That seemed to work well!

If the Arizona law is preempted by federal law, then there shouldn't be a problem. It should be at most helpful, at the least harmless. Correction: it IS at most helpful, at the least harmless. To say there's "nothing wrong" with it is an understatement. It's what the feds should have been doing all along. The federal program should encourage the passage of laws like this if it's immigration they really care about.

Wait a minute. They do care about immigration. Or, rather, immigrants. They think they should get jobs, raise families, get healthcare--all without paying taxes (because only law-abiding citizens do stuff like that). In some ways, the illegal immigrant is more protected, revered, and benefited than the U.S. citizen. If that doesn't scare you... you must be a Democrat.

"This fight is far from over. In fact, it is just the beginning, and at the end of what is certain to be a long legal struggle, Arizona will prevail in its right to protect our citizens," said Jan Brewer, governor of Arizona. I hate to break it to you, Jan, but there's no such thing as a "citizen" anymore.

Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio plans his 17th crime and immigration sweep. He planned to hold the sweep regardless of the ruling.

Arpaio, known for his tough stance against illegal immigration, plans to send out about 200 deputies and volunteers who will be looking for traffic violators, people wanted on criminal warrants and others. He has used that tactic before to arrest dozens of people, many of them illegal immigrants.

"We don't wait. We just do it," he said. "If there's a new law out, we're going to enforce it."

Great idea. I just hope he doesn't get a lawsuit filed against him by the President of the United Stataes.

Honestly, I cannot comprehend this. First of all, the Arizona law is perfectly legit, and that's an understatement. It's constitutional, it follows federal regulations, and has great potential to impact the illegal immigration situtation in America in a very positive way.

Second, the President should not file a lawsuit against an individual state for an individual state law. It is just wrong. It's communism, that's what it is.

Third and finally, doesn't Obama have better things to do? Like, I don't know, murder innocent babies, pass socialist reform bills, take over Wall Street, bow to foreign royalty, have lunch with Bill Ayers... that kind of thing? Does he really have time to file a lawsuit against a legitimate and beneficial piece of legislation that corresponds with federal regulations and aids the feds and the American people in conquering illegal immigration?

Maybe he had time for the lawsuit on his vacation.

I have the highest respect for the highest office in America. I do not have respect for anyone who refuses to respect that office. B. Hussein, as I am going to start calling him, is questionably legally (he is possibly an illegal immigrant himself) and constitutionally (socialism, murder, communism, lying [he hasn't raped anyone yet, but we can still impeach him]) the President of these United States. He is not the ultimate authority; the Constitution is. And as a Christian and a minor, I will respect authority.

But I'm sure B. Hussein will find a loophole in the Constitution (presumably one he makes himself as he shreds it) that will allow him to continue his undeserved tenure as President of the United States of America.

Such Improper, Innappropriate Opinions Will Be Dealt With Accordingly

2010-07-27T15:08:00.002-04:00

Since when do you have to change your beliefs to pass a class? Since never. In fact, Jennifer Keeton, 24, pursuing a degree in school counseling at Augusta State University, has been informed that unless she changes her "central religious beliefs on human nature and conduct," she will not even be given the opportunity to fail. She will be expelled.

So, what, anyone who wants a job has to be a liberal now? That doesn't make sense at all. Liberals don't get jobs.

And who the heck would want a liberal counseling their kids? I think someone who views homosexuality and transgender issues from a conservative Christian vantage point can provide the best counseling of all to these types of people, if that's what's worrying everyone. What's going to help a kid more, giving them an alternative to the tough lifestyle they've CHOSEN, or saying, "you poor, misunderstood soul"? Counselors are supposed to help people solve problems and feel better, not deepen their senses of conviction that they're helpless victims of an unalterable fact.

She has been asked to take part in a "remediation plan." Oh, right. What are they going to do, strap her to a chair in a murky basement and brainwash her with a hair dryer? Or will they sit her down and address her problematic belief system? Or they could just use duct tape.

Or, or, maybe they could let an American student with a dream have her own opinion and not expel her for it. Any takers? Yeah...

It's not as if she's a hater. Most conservatives I know have no hatred toward the PEOPLE, just the lifestyle. The only haters here are the ones vowing to expel a student for her opinions.

Homosexuality is a choice, a behavior, as is altering yourself. You can choose. You can always choose.

Unless you're talking about your beliefs, in which case you don't have a choice.

2010-07-24T05:32:00.005-04:00

The deficit for this year is going to be 1.47 TRILLION DOLLARS.

(I didn't title this post because no term can grasp the atrocity of our government right now. But I might seem "unprofessional" if I don't follow general writing guidelines in an article about the government... yeah, somehow I don't think unprofessionalism is MY problem. So I won't title this. [Actually, I forgot the title. **wink**])

That's over one fourth of Bush's accumulated debt over EIGHT YEARS. Let's just hope we aren't stupid enough to give this idiot that long.

The government borrows 41% of the money it spends (41 cents/dollar). That's crazy. We owe almost half of everything we spend to... well, I'm guessing mostly China. You know what would be a good idea? All the other nations of the world should form a borrowing pool for the United States government. They could pool their money and we could just draw from that pool whenever. And pay them back sometime, possibly.

Or, or, here's an idea: How about the government learns how to run a country? Yeah, I like that plan better.

The Office of Management and Budget forecasts still-high unemployment rates by the time the next election comes around.

And the best part is, we're actually doing better than expected this year. However, next year, if we spend the projected $1.42 trillion, it'll be about $150 billion more than expected.

Of course, nowadays that's a pretty inconsequential number.

OMB Director Peter Orszag stated that the numbers represent a "fiscal situation that requires attention."

Is he just now figuring that out?

Well, kudos.

That's "better than expected."

You know, Obama kind of ran on "hope" and "change." Well, the economy's forecast looks not-so-hopeful. And I guess we were all misguided in the notion that Obama's "change" was a positive thing. I guess he forgot to specify. Must have slipped his mind.

Meanwhile, he's blowing ours.

The Free[k] Market: The Countdown Begins/Ends

2010-07-21T16:16:00.004-04:00

Obama today signed into law an enormaous financial overhaul that officially turned us socialist. The countdown from when we were unofficially socialist (the day the stimulus passed, the day Obama was elected... there is dispute over the actual start of the countdown) to when we officially, legally became socialist has ended.

For all future generations: America became socialist on Wednesday, July 21, 2010. Most people will never know, though, because the media will never tel them and liberals will never consent to cutting down a bunch of trees to make new history books.

As Obama signed this bill into law, he pledged, "There will be no more tax-funded bailouts -- period."

The countdown begins today as to how long it takes for him to break that promise (and then, of course, tell us how he's "not REALLY breaking the promise, because...").

The government's "consumer protection" program enables them to do what they please with private business under the guise of "helping the consumer." In addition, the government is going to "help consumers make better decisions." It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what "help" means in this case.

The government also has new powers to break up any companies that threaten the economy. According to them.

Basically, the government has almost total control over the free market transforming it into "the freak market." Named for those who reign over it.

Somehow I don't consider it a privelege that I was able to witness America's regressional transformation into socialism.

And once Obama and the Democrats do away with term limits, I'll be able to witness our switch to communism, too.

Every time Obama pulls a stunt like this, I get caught in wishful thinking: It can't possibly get worse.

It does.

So I will never underestimate a Democrat again.

But hey! If we take back Congress, we can at least hinder them long enough to find a President.

Things are getting out of control without one.

The Authority Problem

2010-07-21T13:05:00.002-04:00

My mom says I need to respect Obama because he's in authority, no matter how much of an idiot he is. And for a while I couldn't make it past that argument. But I have solved the Authority Problem. I now have the answer for the eager masses of teens who willingly immerse themselves in the political world. Um.

Anyway, I realized that the Founders NEVER referred to the President as the ultimate law or authority of the land. They always referred to the CONSTITUTION as such. I don't have to respect Obama because 1) he's not the authority and 2) he doesn't respect authority. It's actually my duty as a citizen, and my duty, in respect to the Constitution (the authority) to do everything I can to hinder, impede, and otherwise halt the Obama Train of Opressive Recession.

So I have every right (under the Bill of Rights, which is part of the Constitution [which is the authority]) to use my freedom of speech to call Obama a liar, a terrorist, an illegal immigrant, a tyrant, and whatever I please.

That's my right, to say something about it.

It's my duty to do something about it.

To solve America's little authority problem.

"The Election's Over, You Partisan Bigot!" Says Obama In Defense Of Unemployment Benefit Extension

2010-07-19T19:15:00.006-04:00

Ugh!! I was supposed to post this a couple days ago but my brother claimed the computer. Anyway, it's still relevant because I'm sure Obama will do it again.

It's amazing to me (not really) that whenever Obama wants his way, he always comes out and accuses Republicans of being "partisan". Republicans are just doing what they know is right. By insisting that they only do what they do because they are "partisan", Obama actually becomes the "partisan in the situation. But you already knew that.

For example, in this latest round of political warfare, Obama is accusing Republicans of harboring the "misguided notion" that unemployment benefits discourage people from seeking employment. This is not the main reason Republicans oppose extending unemployment benefits, but it is a good reason. After all, why get a job when you can just live on unemployment benefits? (On that note, a quick question: Are we giving unemployment benefits to the illegal immigrants we fire in the silent raids? Just curious.) The notion is not misguided. If you get benefits for being unemployed, why stop?

Of course, this is not the case for all people who are out of work. Some are, indeed, as Obama put it, "not looking for a handout. They desperately want to work." (Which makes me wonder why Obama wants to help them at all; I thought he only liked helping people who WERE looking for handouts.) Although their "misguided notion" is often true, it is also, often, not true. Therefore it is not their principal argument.

In fact, Republicans agree to support the extension as long as it doesn't contribute to the national deficit. Seems fair enough, right? Even if the unemployed get their benefits, it doesn't help the economy to deepen the deficit. Obama insists that it isn't right to give tax cuts to the rich and deny benefits to the unemployed. Well, as far as I know (correct me if I'm wrong), cutting taxes doesn't put us in debt. And Republicans WILL extend unemployment benefits if they don't put is further in debt, either.

"The president knows that Republicans support extending unemployment insurance, and doing it in a fiscally responsible way by cutting spending elsewhere in the $3 trillion federal budget," House Republican Leader John Boehner said in a written statement. "The American people are asking 'where are the jobs?' and President Obama continues to offer only disingenuous attacks, not answers." --FOXNews.com

The phrase "fiscally responsible" cancels out anything else Boehner may have said because that's not how Obama rolls. Indeed, the American people are asking, "Where are the jobs?" and Obama is responding, "I don't know. The Republicans don't want to give you guys your benefits unless it's 'fiscally responsible'. Pshaw. Like, what does that even mean? So, yeah, blame them."

Mr. President, I'm sure Republicans would explain the concept of fiscal responsibility if you asked them. They're rather nice folks. But noooo. Who's partisan now?

The President proceeded to--you guessed it--blame Bush. "Well, he drove up the deficit, too!! And now you suddenly care!" Actually, Mr. President, most Republicans ARE ticked at Bush for driving up the deficit. It's just that they forgot about that in the wake of the disaster you wrought. You outspent Bush in ONE BILL. So don't even go pointing fingers. You have a trillion+ deficit already compared to Bush's 700 billion in 8 years. If I were you I would just quit while I have that luxury.

"There are times when you put elections aside. This is one of those times," Obama said. Um, there's no election going on, hon. Besides, I agree. Please stop campaigning. Are you trying to rub it in our faces that you won? Yes, we know you're the President. Acting like it would be nice. And if you're going to get stuck in an election, at least get stuck in your own. Bush was elected, like, six years ago. Get over yourself.

You see, Obama is THE ONLY ONE who mentioned elections. He's constantly mentioning them. This is one instance, and another was in the "bipartisan" healthcare summit a while back. John McCain was making an argument or point or whatever, and Obama just sat there with his chin in his hand staring into space. Have you ever seen a President do that on the job, let alone when someone's TALKING to him? The only time he changed expression was to roll his eyes, and when McCain finished, he said, "You know, the election's over, John."

No, duh. So why did you have to bring it up? McCain wasn't talking about it. In fact, I think, and I know this sounds crazy, but I think he was talking about healthcare reform. So why bring up the election...? It's almost like he was changing the subject and trying to make McCain look stupid...

Anyway, whenever Obama wants his way, he'll accuse you of being partisan or being stuck in an election. So if that starts happening (oh, wait, it has been happening for a while now), that's a little indicator that he's pushing a tyrannical agenda down your throat.

In case you don't pick up on that in time.

If America Is As Fat As Their Wallets, We Aren't Healthy

2010-07-17T14:48:00.002-04:00

From FOXNews.com --

As the Obama administration sets its sights on overweight Americans, demanding obesity ratings for all citizens by 2014, the White House has promoted the Obamas' personal cook to a senior advisory position.

Sam Kass, the 20-something Chicago chef, is now the White House "Food Initiative Coordinator," Kass' title reportedly was upgraded last month from food initiative coordinator to senior policy adviser for health food initiatives. His duties have not changed.

The change comes as the Health and Human Services announced this week that under the stimulus law, health care providers must establish "meaningful use" of electronic health records to qualify for federal subsidies or risk seeing their Medicare and Medicaid payments slashed. The electronic health records must include Americans' body mass index, or BMI, height and weight.

Critics say the BMI is unreliable and the ratings will lead to more government intrusion.

Supporters say the ratings will serve as motivation for weight loss.

"The fact we're now tracking BMIs', I think knowledge is power for us," nutrition expert Mitzi Dulan told Fox News."There are a lot of people that don't know their BMI and it's denial.

Dulan noted that a study by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that $147 billion is spent annually on obesity-related costs, or 10 percent of medical costs.

I think this speaks for itself, but in case you didn't get it, not only does the government now have a right to know the combined volume of your eyelashes, what tea you like to drink, and how many times you've stepped in a mud puddle, they now insist on knowing how fat you are for your own good.

And the Obama's personal cook is now a senior White House official. Again, this speaks for itself (for more info, see "Czars, Czars, Czars..." from yesterday).

I have clung to a sliver of hope for a while now, but now I say with conviction: we are SCREWED if we don't do something, fast.

P.S. I would rather be fat than have their wallets be.

Czars, Czars, Czars (I Would Continue, But My Tongue's Twisted)

2010-07-16T13:28:00.008-04:00

From WorldNetDaily--

You've seen the reports about Van Jones, President Obama's onetime "green jobs czar," and Cass Sunstein, his equally volatile "regulatory czar," and Fox News show host Glenn Beck has put together a list of dozens of such appointees.

Now here's the newest White House promotion: "Health food czar" Sam Kass.

"In a comical move even for a czar-happy president who has rewarded dozens of cronies with distinguished titles, the White House has named the Obamas' personal Chicago cook as 'Senior Policy Adviser for Healthy Food Initiatives,'" reports the Washington government watchdog Judicial Watch.

"It's no joke, even though it sounds like a bad one. The Chicago chef's rapid ascension ... has been kept under the radar for the last month," Judicial Watch said.

"Sam Kass went from being a 20-something, Windy City gourmet cook – privately paid by the Obamas to feed them – to big-time White House adviser in a matter of months," the report said.

But it makes sense, the report said, since Michelle Obama has claimed that childhood obesity is a threat to "national security."

According to an earlier CNSNews.com report, Michelle Obama confirmed – in talking about her White House campaign against obesity – that the condition "impacts national security" because it is a "disqualifier for military service."

Judicial Watch said the situation is so dire, President Obama has been convinced to spend $400 million a year on "healthy foods" in low-income neighborhoods as well as revise – at a cost of $10 billion – a federal plan to provide food to poor children in school.

Such an assembly of programs "no doubt requires a trusted senior policy adviser – like Kass – who is an expert in healthy cuisine," Judicial Watch said.

"Makes you wonder what Kass … has been putting in the Obamas' food all these years," the report said...

According to Beck's compilation, the list of czars includes:

Richard Holbrooke, Afghanistan czar

Jeffrey Crowley, AIDS czar

Ed Montgomery, auto recovery czar

Alan Bersin, border czar

David J. Hayes, California water czar

Ron Bloom, car czar

Dennis Ross, central region czar

Todd Stern, climate czar

Lynn Rosenthal, domestic violence czar

Gil Kerlikowske, drug czar

Paul Volcker, economic czar

Carol Browner, energy and environment czar

Joshua DuBois, faith-based czar

Jeffrey Zients, government performance czar

Cameron Davis, Great Lakes czar

Van Jones, green jobs czar

Daniel Fried, Guantanamo closure czar

Nancy-Ann DeParle, health czar

Vivek Kundra, information czar

Dennis Blair, intelligence czar

George Mitchell, Mideast peace czar

Kenneth R. Feinberg, pay czar

Cass Sunstein, regulatory czar

John Holdren, science czar

Earl Devaney, stimulus accountability czar

J. Scott Gration, Sudan czar

Herb Allison, TARP czar

Aneesh Chopra, technology czar

John Brennan, terrorism czar

Adolfa Carrion Jr., urban affairs czar

Ashton Carter, weapons czar

Gary Samore, WMD policy czar

Okay, Obama, I know you really, really love your czars, but this is ridiculous! I mean, really? Why do we even need half of these czars? And a HEALTH FOOD CZAR? Really? What's next, a white-bunny-with-a-black-patch-of-fur-on-its-left-eye czar? Seriously!

And Michelle Obama doesn't really care about national security any more than her hubby does. Terrorists are treated better than some American citizens while they're at Gitmo, and all the Obamas can do is preach to the cause of making us less fat? Just tax pop and get it over with already! Oh, wait, YOU DID.

Finally, let me just comment on a few of Obama's czars:

Ron Bloom, car czar: My favorite (this guy is the carz czar!)

Jeffrey Zients, government performance czar: I feel bad for this guy

Cameron Davis, Great Lakes czar: This is one that actually affects me, so I have to comment on him

Van Jones, green jobs czar: Is this that psycho "spread the wealth" guy? Is wealth-spreading (aka government office) a green job? Come to think of it, Mr. Green Jobs Czar, is being a czar a green job? Huh? Huh?

Daniel Fried, Guantanamo closure czar: Well, he sure did a bang-up job

Vivek Kundra, information czar: All "information" except that with the terms "Muslim," "radical," "Islamic extremist(s)," "9/11," and the number nineteen

Dennis Blair, intelligence czar: Dude, this guy works for the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. He's an oxymoron (Obama's intelligence czar... yeah, no)

George Mitchell, Mideast peace czar: This guy has obviously been working hard, but not harder than Obama, seeing as how the Mideast peace czar hasn't actually bowed to anyone as of yet

Earl Devaney, stimulus accountability czar: And I thought the "government performance czar" had it bad

John Brennan, terrorism czar: Obviously either an idiot (thus listened to) or not an idiot (and thus not listened to)

Sam Kass, health food czar: the newest and, as yet, most pointless addition to the Kzarz Klub

AZ Governor Is Apparently Not A "Border Governer"

2010-07-16T09:15:00.002-04:00

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/15/new-mexico-host-border-governors-meeting/

The annual border governors' conference has been moved from Arizona to New Mexico because of all the controversy over the new immigration law. An excerpt from the above article:

Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer, a Republican, called off the meeting in Phoenix after the Mexican governors planned to boycott it because of Arizona's new immigration
law.

The Mexican governors said in a June letter that Arizona's law
violated civil rights and they suggested moving the conference to another state.

I'm not sure if the Arizona governor moved it herself or if the other governors did, but either way, it's been moved and Brewer isn't going to attend it:

Brewer spokesman Paul Senseman said the Arizona governor had no plans to attend the meeting in Santa Fe, "but would certainly welcome the Mexican and U.S. governors to attend the actual Border Governors Conference in Arizona as they had all previously committed."

I'm confused by this article, actually, but it sounds like Brewer is going to hold her own conference? I don't even know.

Here is what I do know: If anyone deserves to hold the BORDER GOVERNORS' Conference, it's Arizona.

Valiant, Persevering Government Resolves Not To Give Up Until Their Mad Powergrabs Meet Success

2010-07-15T19:02:00.006-04:00

I could just post the link to each of these articles instead of copying and pasting them, but it's easier to comment and for readers to read my comments if the article is right there. All are from FOXNews.com. My comments are in bold.

"WE'RE SPENDING YOUR MONEY WELL" CLAIM SIGNS FUNDED BY YOU
Some local officials are spending freely to post street signs that let people know the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act -- better known as the stimulus bill -- has funded a highway project in local neighborhoods, an expense that has Republicans blistering over why taxpayer money is being used to promote how taxpayer money is being used.

Exactly.

State governments are estimated to be using millions of dollars to put up the signs that say what a great job they are doing spending money. Some examples:

-- In Washington, D.C., the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority spent $10,000 for a single 10-by-11-foot sign displayed at a highway project, advertising that the $15 million in stimulus funds the District received were provided by the stimulus.

-- Illinois spent about $650,000 during the last 14 months for 950 signs to be placed on 850 highway projects, Department of Transportation spokesman Josh Kauffman told FoxNews.com.

-- Pennsylvania spent $157,477 of the $1 billion in stimulus funds it received on 70 signs for 37 projects, Department of Transportation press officer Alison Wenger told FoxNews.com. The average cost of each sign was $2,250.

-- Tennessee bought 324 signs for $12,931, ABC News reported.

I must say, that is truly sad. As if we need to know how we're being helped; as if the Democrats aren't proclaiming it every day! Do they think we're idiots? (Then again, we elected them.)

But some states, including Florida, Vermont, Arizona and Virginia, aren't following neighboring states' signs.

"We decided that we were going to take all the money that we got from our stimulus projects and put it into the road," said Jeff Caldwell, chief of communications for the Virginia Department of Transportation.

Last year, the Federal Highway Administration issued guidance to states on the layout and color of signs.

The statement issued shortly after the $787 billion stimulus bill passed noted that "President Obama made the commitment that all projects funded by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) will bear a recovery emblem to make it easier for Americans to see which projects are funded by the ARRA."

Really, who cares?

On Tuesday, White House spokesman Robert Gibbs said he was pleased Republicans have noticed the nearly 11,000 road projects under way as a result of the stimulus.

"We have encouraged states to let people know how their tax money is being spent. Some post signs, some don't. I believe that as a matter of spending, those signs account for about 3 cents out of every hundred dollars that is spent on the recovery," he said.

How our money is being spent?!?!? If we really knew that, you'd be either out of office, out of the country, or both. Here are a few examples of how some of the stimulus funds were used: a study in sexual arousal in anesthetized female rats and creating a coordinated colonay of robotic bees. But you don't see signs for that.

California Rep. Darrell Issa, the ranking Republican on the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, is probing into what was required of states and jurisdictions about sign construction.

And Rep. Aaron Schock, R-Ill., introduced a resolution in the House that he summarized as saying, "We don't need to tell the American people with propaganda signs that we're spending their tax dollars wisely."

Schock said that not only is the signage an insult to people's intelligence to tell them that a road project is under way as they're driving through it, but it's a waste of stimulus funds and isn't doing anything to increase employment.

Don't be so sure about that: "The number of signs employed in the U.S. after ARRA passed has risen at exponential rates! The recession has ended! We're saved!"

But the House rejected the proposal.

"Taxpayers' dollars should not be used to advertise government programs and construct signs, but that obviously was rejected by the majority on the floor yesterday," Rep. Mike Pence, R-Ind., told Fox News on Wednesday.

"The American people don't want to see tax dollars used to promote the economic agenda of this administration. They want to see them used used toward implementing policies that will put Americans back to work," Pence said.

GAY IMMIGRANTS GET GREEN CARDS IF SPOUSE IS AMERICAN
WASHINGTON -- House Democrats are trying to broaden support for immigration reform by reaching out to the gay and lesbian community with a provision in immigration legislation that would allow gay and lesbian Americans to bring foreign partners home to the United States.

Under current law, American citizens and other legal permanent residents can get a green card or immigrant visa for a spouse or immediate family members living abroad. However, the same rights do not extend to same-sex couples living in the country.

During a news conference on Capitol Hill Thursday, Democratic Reps. Jerrold Nadler of New York, Luis Gutierrez of Illinois and Mike Honda of California, among others, urged Congress to pass the Uniting American Families Act as part of a comprehensive immigration reform package this year.

"Right now too many same-sex, binational couples face an impossible choice," said Gutierrez, who sits on the House Judiciary Committee's immigration subcommittee, "to live apart or to break the law to be with partners, their families and children."

“Government should never engage in purposeless, gratuitous cruelty and we should stop it," Nadler said.

Fox News Poll: Most Oppose Government Suit Over Arizona LawWith no support from the GOP, the comprehensive immigration bill introduced by Gutierrez last December has stalled in the House. Republicans say this legislation won't help.

"These are creative people who just have the wrong philosophy," said Rep. Steve King, R-Iowa, a member of the immigration subcommittee. "It's an alliance designed to grant amnesty."

"It tries to redefine traditional marriage. I can't support that," Rep. Jason Chaffetz, R-Utah, told Fox News. "If they're looking to truly reach out to conservatives and Republicans and do something in a bipartisan way, this isn't it."

The legislation appears to be part of an effort to strengthen support on the left, rather than the right, by targeting a constituency that has yet to be heard from in the immigration debate -- the lesbian, bisexual, gay and transgendered community.

"Last time around the pro-immigration side took us for granted. ... It is crucial to shore up the support of real genuine progressives who will pick up the phone and call their representatives," said Rachel Tiven of Immigration Equality, an organization that describes itself as one fighting for equal immigration rights for the LGBT community as well as HIV positive immigrants and their families.

Last month in Arizona, Phoenix' gay chamber of commerce urged national gay rights groups not to boycott the state over its impending immigration law that allows a crackdown by local police on illegals, saying the decision would hurt gay-friendly businesses. Proposed comprehensive immigration reform legislation in Congress is in part a reaction to criticism that the federal government has not done enough to resolve illegal immigration in the country.

Because this isn't discrimination at all! No, this is EQUAL OPPORTUNITY! We want illegals, gays, and gay illegals to feel comfortable in society. You know what? Gay unions are not marriages. Thus, they cannot bring back a spouse from a foreign country because they can't have spouses. I am sick of all this PC favoritism in the name of equal rights. Illegal immigrants are illegal, whether they're gay or not. I can't comment any more on this or I'll sound like a rage-crazed freak. It's just unbelievable...

GOVERNMENT TO FIX ALL YET AGAIN (only part of the article is here, as it was, well... quite lengthy)
Congress on Thursday passed the stiffest restrictions on banks and Wall Street since the Great Depression, clamping down on lending practices and expanding consumer protections to prevent a repeat of the 2008 meltdown that knocked the economy to its knees.

A year in the making and 22 months after the collapse of Lehman Brothers triggered a worldwide panic in credit and other markets, the bill cleared its final hurdle with a 60-39 Senate vote. It now goes to the White House for President Obama's signature, expected as early as Wednesday.

The law will give the government new powers to break up companies that threaten the economy, create a new agency to guard consumers in their financial transactions and shine a light into shadow financial markets that escaped the oversight of regulators.

Large, failing financial institutions would be liquidated and the costs assessed on their surviving peers. The Federal Reserve is getting new powers while falling under greater congressional scrutiny.

From storefront payday lenders to the biggest banking and investment houses on Wall Street, few players in the financial world are immune to the bill's reach. Consumer and investor transactions, whether simple debit card swipes or the most complex securities trades, face new safeguards or restrictions.

"I'm about to sign Wall Street reform into law, to protect consumers and lay the foundation for a stronger and safer financial system, one that is innovative, creative, competitive and far less prone to panic and collapse," Obama said.

"Unless your business model depends on cutting corners or bilking your customers, you have nothing to fear."

Republicans said the bill is a vast federal overreach that will drive financial-sector jobs overseas. Before the final vote was even cast, House Republican Leader John Boehner called for its repeal.

At an eye-glazing 390,000 words -- half the size of the King James Bible -- the legislation doesn't offer a quick remedy, however. Rather, it lays down prescriptions for regulators to act. In many cases, the real impact won't be felt for years.

One of the top regulators who will be charged with implementing the law, Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, said the Senate vote represents a "far-reaching step toward preventing a replay of the recent financial crisis."

The Senate's final passage of the bill, two weeks after the House approved it, is a welcome achievement for a president and congressional Democrats, both increasingly unpopular with voters four months from midterm elections that threaten to put Republicans in charge of Congress. Only three Republicans voted for it -- Maine Sens. Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, and Massachusetts Sen. Scott Brown. Democratic Sen. Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, who has said the bill is not tough enough, voted with most Republicans against it.

The law has been a priority for Obama, ranking just behind his health care overhaul enacted in March. In its final form, the package hews closely to the plan unwrapped a year ago by the White House and in some ways is even tougher. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs promptly cast the vote in political terms.

"This will be a vote that Democrats will talk about through November as a way of highlighting the choice that people will get to make in 2010," he said.

The political benefits, however, stand to be overshadowed by lingering high unemployment. And Republicans were betting that public antipathy toward big government and worries over jobs would trump their anger at Wall Street.

"We're going to be driving jobs and business overseas with this massive piece of legislation," said Sen. Saxby Chambliss, R-Ga.

Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Ala., who worked with Democratic Sen. Christopher Dodd of Connecticut on certain aspects of the bill, denounced it as a "legislative monster."

Whenever the government gets involved in something, it jacks it up. The free market is supposed to go up and down; it's what makes it free. It's not free if the government has its greedy, idiotic hand in it all the time. IT CANNOT FUNCTION if you don't let it. And not only is the market becoming enslaved, but so will we if we let this madness continue. The people and the businesses will work things out. The government needs to stay out or there will be consequences. No, that's not a threat. That's just the conviction of someone who observes history.

This Is Our Year (Because If It's Not Ours... Whose Is It?)

2010-07-14T18:24:00.005-04:00

This is an important election year. We, the Republicans, have the advantage. For once the Democrats' idiocy has worked in our favor, at least in the short term. But if we take advantage of this, we can work out a long-term recovery of our nation. As long as we don't lose our minds like they did.

Anyway, if anyone from Michigan Congressional District Two is out there, VOTE FOR JAY RIEMERSMA! At least go to his website (I'll post a link) and check out his campaign. (Notice I refrained from saying "check him out" because I know how kids my age are going to take that. Ah, the wonders of sex education and public schools... but [have I said this before?] that's another rant.)

When I saw his commercial I immdeiately got a good impression, so I checked out his website (knowing how false good impressions often are). After looking over his website, I sent in information in order for the campaign to contact me to help/support them in any way I could. I just hope he wins the primary.

Because who in this entire country would be stupid enough to elect a Democrat AGAIN?!?!? As for the gubernatorial race, I think I'm going to support Mike Bouchard. For one thing, he's the only one of the five candidates who had the link to where he stands on issues clearly accessible on his home page. For another, he has been a small business owner, a sheriff, and a state Senator. He has legislative experience combined with a true understanding for the everyday citizen. I agree with all of his general positions. He has a great record of lowering/opposing taxes, as well as a great record for helping the family. He pushed for the Michigan Sex Offender Registry and chaired the education committee. He's an NRA member and, best of all his daughter is going to Michigan State.

As put on his website, we need to focus more on the next generation than the next election. I couldn't agree more.

So, it's not definite yet, but I'm pretty sure my support goes to him.

We've gotta get it right, here, folks. This is our year. With any luck, this Democratic screw-up will be unrivaled by any in the future and our nation won't be completely screwed. However, if that's true, then this is our chance. We have to get the majority now, get good officials in now, and in general be smart now, or we might never have another chance.

But then, I'm sure this isn't the Dems' last screw-up. I mean, that goes against their personal theology and over a century of history.

Still, we shouldn't blow this awesome chance off.

THIS IS OUR YEAR!!!!!!!!!!

Cuz it's certainly not THEIRS.

At Least They're Not Blaming Bush For This One...

2010-07-14T17:32:00.003-04:00

The Democrats are in a frenzy trying to figure out what to do about the fact that Gibbs has dared to insinuate that Democrats might face the slight possibility of somewhat sort of not retaining their congressional majority. This wily, out-of-the blue claim is what we in the States call "The Truth."

So you can see why the Democrats are enraged. Actually, I can't, because the American public ALREADY KNOW. Anyone who would have endorsed a Democrat KNOWS. All Gibbs did was state the obvious. He did nothing to harm the Democrats whatsoever.

Oh, oh! Here's a conspiracy theory: Everyone knows that, although the Democrats are blaming Gibbs for possible future disadvantages in the upcoming election, it is, in fact, THEIR OWN FAULT for destroying our great nation in record time. However, if they can pin the blame on Gibbs, maybe everyone will think it's all Gibbs' fault that the Democrats look bad and that most Democrats aren't that bad. The conviction that most Democrats aren't bad will inspire voters to flock to the Dems and thus allow them to retain the majority. Maybe THAT'S why Pelosi is upset about absolutely nothing.

Or maybe she's just a nut who's upset about absolutely nothing.

At least they aren't blaming Bush this time.

Below is the FOXNews article on the "issue", with my comments in bold:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, the driving force behind the Obama agenda in Congress, sharply criticized White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs during a closed-door House Democratic caucus meeting late Tuesday, according to Democratic sources.

For once the Democrats are criticizing someone other than conservatives.

Pelosi, irked since Sunday by what she and other top Democrats considered Gibbs' careless and dismissive comments that Democrats could lose their House majority this November, upbraided a top White House aide as she knocked Gibbs' unwelcome handicapping of House races.

I love that word, "irked." Anyway, Pelosi is "irked" because of Gibbs' careless and dismissive comments? How about the public being irked about Democrats' "careless and dismissive" passage of the "stimulus"? Their "careless and dismissive" method of dealing with the American public, especially in the healthcare debate? Their "careless and dismissive" reactions to terrorist attacks and their general "careless and dismissive" attitude toward America? Clearly, it's not all Gibbs' fault if they happen to lose the majority.

"How could he [Gibbs] know what's going on in our districts?" Pelosi said, according to Democrats who attended the meeting. "Some may weigh his words more closely than others. We have made our disagreements known to the White House."

Senior Pelosi staff contacted the White House Monday to express displeasure with Gibbs' statement on "Meet the Press" that Democrats could lose the majority won in 2006 after 12 years out of power.

Honestly, like everyone doesn't already KNOW that.

Pelosi aides and operatives at the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee were told, according to sources, that Gibbs would "walk back" his dire prediction at Monday's White House briefing. Instead, Gibbs said he was merely -- and, by Washington standards, courageously -- stating "the obvious."

Again, I just LOVE how they're calling it a "dire prediction". This is much bigger than just something someone said. It would have happened anyway.

That declaration deepened the sense of House Democratic alienation from Gibbs that boiled over with tonight's rare broadside from Pelosi. But this wasn't the only manifestation of Democratic pique.

House Democratic leaders encouraged rank-and-file party members to vent their anger at White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel, a key architect of the successful Democratic plan to win back the House in 2006, Deputy White House Chief of Staff Jim Messina, Political Director Patrick Gaspard and the head of White House legislative affairs Phil Schiliro. Schiliro is a former senior aide to Rep. Henry Waxman, the powerful chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee and a Pelosi ally.

"There was no doubt where we, meaning the caucus, stood," a top Democratic aide said.

In the past two days, House leaders Steny Hoyer, the majority leader, and Chris Van Hollen, head of the DCCC, have declared Democrats will retain their majority.

"I don't think we will lose the House," Hoyer said Tuesday.

Republicans need 39 seats to win back the majority, a threshold non-partisan analysts say is within reach. Democratic National Committee Chairman Tim Kaine said Tuesday Republicans could win 28 seats, a much higher figure than he's previously acknowledged.

In tonight's caucus meeting, according to Democratic sources, Pelosi asked Dan Turton, one of Obama's top House legislative advisers, to acknowledge Gibbs' comment provoked unhelpful speculation about a potential midterm power shift.

Yes, his comment and his comment alone (definitely not any previous actions taken by Democrats) "provoked unhelpful speculation about a potential midterm power shift."

Gibbs did not attend the meeting. One top Democratic aide described Gibbs performance this week as "quite astonishing."

I know! I never thought I'd see a Democrat who could come to terms with reality! It really is quite astonishing.

Another Democratic consultant who works closely with the DCCC said officials there and within the party's fundraising ranks were worried Gibbs' comments could dampen enthusiasm and reduce contributions from Washington's K Street lobbyists, who might steer more money to the GOP, and grassroots activists.

Man, I'm telling you, THEY'RE ALREADY ABOUT AS "DAMPENED" AS THEY'RE GONNA GET.

The strategist described rank-and-file House Democrats as "livid."

Really? Kind of like how taxpayers and generally any patriotic American feels?

"They feel thrown under the bus," the strategist said.

The feud occured a day before Obama is due to plot legislative strategy with House Democratic leaders at the White House.

"Should be an interesting meeting," a top House Democratic aide said dryly.

One thing that might defuse the tension: Pelosi's contention at the end of tonight's caucus meeting that, no matter the current friction, Democrats should not be distracted by "friendly fire."

Pelosi and other top Democrats believe Obama should doggedly protect a House majority that has delivered on every White House priority: health care, energy, new financial regulations, campaign finance, stimulus and extending unemployment insurance and existing business tax breaks.

What will he do to protect the House majority, exactly? Get his al Qaeda buddies to blow up Republican voters? Change the Constitution so that he gets to decide who's elected? Never put anything past a Democrat.

Obama has dispatched Vice President Biden to headline fund-raisers for individual House Democrats. Obama has focused most of his personal fund-raising efforts on Senate races. Obama has headlined two DCCC fund-raisers and the Democratic National Committee, at the behest of the White House, this week sent $667,000 to the DCCC.

I hope the $667,000 came from fundraisers and not "fundraisres" (aka taxes).

And another thing: it doesn't matter how much "fundraising" they do. Everyone still knows the truth.

In fact, watching Democrats handle money only reminds them of it.

I Can't Exactly Sum This One Up...

2010-07-13T17:51:00.007-04:00

Hello, Guantanamo Bay Resort, Would You Like To Make A Reservation?

www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/gitmo-detainees-serve-time-playing-games-talking-family-skype-taking-classes/

That reminds me of a commercial for Oreos in which a soldier oversees is talking to his son through a laptop (possibly with Skype?). Except the Gitmo detainees are not American war heros. They are enemies of our country, and they get to watch flatscreen TVs and enjoy a view of the Caribbean Sea. They get to play table football and talk to their families. Aww, how sweet. And especially "compliant" detainees enjoy an increased level of freedom. Compliant? They're terrorists. They're there because they WEREN'T compliant. (...) I give up (not on changing America, but on convincing Dems; why would I want them helping me help America anyway?).

This is insane. The detainees enjoy getting to watch Twilight. This shows their level of ingenuity. And somehow we let them terrorize our nation for years because we don't want to "offend" them. Stupid Democrats.

Baseball Boycotts Arizona? (If Only The Liberals And Immigrants Would, Too...)

www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/campaign-heats-star-game-arizona/

So they want to move the All-Star game in protest of Arizona's new immigration law. Where are they planning on moving it to? Mexico?

Another thing: what's wrong with the law, anyway? It makes perfect logical sense that illegal immigrants in a state that borders Mexico tend to occasionally LOOK MEXICAN! It doesn't make sense to stop every single person and ask them if they're illegal immigrants. You have a description of the suspect. Whether the suspect likes it or not is not our problem. And listen to this (from the article at the above link):

"The law makes illegal immigration a state crime and would require local police to check the immigration status of anyone they suspect of being an illegal immigrant provided they don't stop them for that reason alone."

So, in other words, if you're a Mexican driving eight other Mexicans down the highway at ninety miles an hour in a neon orange van, you're going to get pulled over for speeding. And if the officer is astute, he will smell a rat and check the immigration status of the nine of you (and gently suggest that you refurbish your ride).

My advice to Mexicans is: if you come here, get citizenship. Whether or not you get citizenship: observe the speed limit.

This Just In: Tea Partiers Are Evil Racists Out To Get Your Children!

www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/13/tea-party-preempts-racist-resolution-condemns-bigoted-naacp/

In condemning every conservative action as racist, it is the NAACP and the entire liberal population in general who are actually the ones being racist.

There are racists in every crowd. I'm sure I would not be hard-pressed to find a few racist Democrats (gasp!). But since even racist Democrats are, in fact, Democrats, the Democrats leave them alone.

No, it's only when there is the prospect of political gain or advantage that the liberals proceed to pick apart every incident in a desperate search for incriminating evidence; evidence that conservatives are hard-hearted racists, despite the fact that they fought for and freed all those slaves in the Civil War (anyone recall that little detail?).

Well, the Democrats have found their isolated instances of racism and proceed to denounce the entire Tea Party movement as racist.

There are some racist signs, but even a blind man can see that most of our signs say, "Taxed Enough Already" and "No Taxation Without Deliberation." But since we are being oppressed by a black man (even though he's as white as he is black), I suppose we are racist. Imagine that.

I must say, this has been quite a post, but when I went on FOXNews.com, it was all right there, waiting to enrage me... I couldn't resist.

However, such a post cannot be titled easily and eloquently to include all of its parts, so I just went with the title that described the post and liberals' latest antics best.

Fire Illegals!

2010-07-12T09:41:00.003-04:00

If you find illegal immigrants employed in the U.S., what do you do?

A. Deport them
B. Fire them
C. Is this a trick question?

The answer is A. Illegal immigrants, as evidenced by the fact that they are ILLEGAL, are not legal. Any questions?

If you find an illegal immigrant, whether he's employed or not, you deport him. It's quite simple. (Unless, of course, said illegal immigrant has the entirety of the mainstream media behind him [even though he never showed his birth certificate and his Social Security number is invalid] as he desperately competes for the presidency of the United States by lying through his teeth. THEN, of course, you're not even allowed to talk about THINKING about talking bad about him.) As I was saying, it's not even an issue that deserves to be on the news. People who are here illegally are not allowed to be here. Quite simple.

At least, it was, up until the point when this idiot in the White House and his administration decided that if they found illegal immigrants employed in the U.S., they would fire them, not deport them.

Well, THAT'S gonna teach them. If they come to America ILLEGALLY, all they have to do is get a job and they're untouchable. Sure, they might get fired, but they still get to stay here and live on the streets, pickpocketing and looting. This is why we need to deport them, not fire them and LET THEM GO. (WTH?!?!?!?!?!?)

You see, firing illegal immigrants somewhat defeats the purpose of their being ILLEGAL. You can fire an ordinary U.S. citizen. (You can also try a U.S. citizen in a civilian court, even though they haven't killed 3,000 people in an act of war--but that's another rant.) Anyone who is anything but a citizen should be deported (or tried in a military tribunal).

But Obama never could stop being friendly with people like illegals and terrorists (and anyone he could get away with bowing to).

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/07/12/terror-experts-blast-obama-dropping-references-islamic-extremism/

In Obama's National Security Strategy, he apparently decided it was a good idea to drop references to Islamic extremism in the War on Terror. Well, when the terrorists are shouting, "For Allah," etc. before massacring the American people, it's a bit difficult to "drop the reference."

From FOXNews.com--[As it unveiled its new National Security Strategy last May, administration officials said the shift in emphasis was critical in undercutting Al Qaeda's efforts to portray its attacks on the U.S. and the west as a justified holy war.

Terror leaders "play into the false perception that they are religious leaders defending a holy cause, when in fact they are nothing more than murderers, including the murder of thousands upon thousands of Muslims," said top administration counterterror deputy John Brennan during a May 24 speech explaining the shift. He added that "describing our enemy in religious terms would lend credence to the lie -- propagated by al-Qaida and its affiliates to justify terrorism -- that the United States is somehow at war against Islam."]

What, we're going to convince the people who hate us that they're really NOT fighting a holy war and therefore should give up their cause immediately and without a fight? Something about the way they, you know, strap bombs to children and fly planes into buildings makes me doubt that we're going to be able to convince them of anything.

And what's this about how if we define terrorists as Islamic extremists, people will be even more convinced that we're at war against Islam? No offense, but... WHO CARES???? We ARE at war against RADICAL Islam. Whether we LABEL them or not doesn't change the fact that this is how it is. But if we could come to terms with the fact that WE ARE FIGHTING ISLAMIC EXTREMISTS, maybe we could begin to make some progress in, you know, protecting our country. Who cares if the rest of the world THINKS we hate Muslims? That's not exactly our chief concern at the moment, is it?

If we really cared about protecting our country, terrorists would be being interrogated, tried in military tribunals, locked up (not IN AMERICA), and/or dead right now, AND not only would illegal immigrants be deported (regardless of their state of employment), but the whackjobs in Washington who are stupid enough to befriend terrorists and illegals and jeopardize the safety of our nation for the sake of being politically correct would be, too.

Going Once, Going Twice... And the New WTC Is SOLD, to The Guy With The Towel On His Head

2010-06-14T09:40:00.006-04:00

First, I need to say something. I have been going over to the Fox News site practically every freaking day, in search of a juicy tidbit that I could blog/rant about to my family. But every day it was the same old thing. Oil spill, Obama, Obama and the oil spill...

Oh, hey, while we're on that subject (those of you not blessed with the mind of a bored teenager, try to bear with me here), anyone watch Huckabee on Saturday night? Well, THESE PEOPLE NEED TO BE IN WASHINGTON!!!!! There were ordinary, everyday people coming up with creative solutions to the oil spill, from soaking it up with hair to a biologically friendly mixture that absorbs it. It was amazing! These are examples of American ingenuity and resourcefulness.

Meanwhile, in Washington...

The government is not trying to solve this problem. Instead, President Obama is on a wild rampage blaming BP in search of an *** waiting to be kicked. Because that will solve all of our problems.

I can see it now: "President Obama, you're a savior!!"
"I think we've already established that."
"No, not just to Muslims, Mr. President! To America!! Your desperate chase after the *** to kick resulted in all the oil magically disappearing! It's clear that you knew just what to do and acted immediately and without reserve! Congratulations, Mr. President. I think it is safe to say you are the greatest President in American history!!" (polite clapping)

Yeah, right. This is how it really went down:

1. Monstrous national disaster strikes
2. Time passes
3. Finally, the government leaps into action, with a brilliantly formulated, precisely crafted plan of "finding whose *** to kick".

I think I know whose *** to kick. I'll leave it at that.

And now for what I intended to post about in the first place...

The United States is having different entities bid on the ownership and operation of the new World Trade Center. One of the companies has ties to, you guessed it, the Middle East. Oh, the gruesome irony!

Oh, but never mind, it's okay! I forgot that ethnic discrimination in the interest of national security is wrong. That means that the terrorists aren't really Muslims, they DIDN'T come from the Middle East, and thus it is completely logical and secure to let the Arabs own the new World Trade Center. Phew!! I was scared for a second there.

Wait, how long is a second? Because I'M STILL SCARED. THIS IS AMERICA!!! It's one thing to be friendly. It's another thing to be "friendly" (and "friendly" means make terrorists completely untouchable by morals and society EVEN AFTER they killed 3,000 people), get bombed by those you were "friendly" to, rebuild what was bombed, and then ask your "friends", "Hey, are you buying?"

"Sure, we'll buy it. That wasn't exactly in our game plan, but hey... whatever. We already owned it once."

HOW CAN WE BE SO FREAKING STUPID?!?!?!?!?

If Something Sane Works... Immediately Do A 180 And Murder Innocent Babies???

2010-06-13T14:33:00.003-04:00

http://www.lifesitenews.com/ldn/2010/jun/10060901.html

More proof that adult stem cell research is the way to go. But still the liberals insist that we must pursue the devastating and highly ineffective "option" of embryonic stem cell research.

At one point it could have possibly been argued that the liberals are only trying to help humankind (by murdering innocent children to create "cures" with uncontrollable, unstable effects). But now there is a more predictable, stable alternative that, bonus, DOESN'T KILL ANYONE, and they still rabidly defend embryonic stem cell research.

Obviously, they not only hate America, but humans in general (with the exception of Muslims). I mean, why would you constantly campaign against the best interests of your nation unless you were secretly in league with diabolical, demented terrorists?

Some liberals are just stupid, some are traitors, and some are both. Some liberals are rapists, some liberals are exortionists, some are scammers and conmen, some are liars, some are... The list goes on.

We must stop them and take back America "before it's too late."

Life

2010-06-08T21:16:00.003-04:00

Everything is s'darn relative!!! If you grew up in a town of 400, moved to a town of 4,000, and then moved to a town of 7,000, and the people in that town think they live in a small town, you obviously can't see where they're coming from. Just an observation.

So anyway, I haven't had internet for the past few days, and I just got cable after about five months without it. Now I can watch Glenn Beck and the news again!!! And I'll have stuff to post about. But Mom says get to bed, so I'll have to post some other time.

Closing remarks: Saying "I don't like politics. I don't get into it," is like saying, "I don't like air. I don't get into it." It's there, it affects you. Deal with it. Get into it, because you ARE into it, whether you like it or not.

2012

2010-05-29T09:50:00.004-04:00

This is a little late in coming, but you can blame my mom for that; she's very careful about the movies she lets us see and I just got to watch 2012. Anyway, the title of this post has a dual meaning. 1) the movie 2012, and 2) the actual year two years from now.

OK, so, the movie. There are four things I'd like to address about the movie: the religious aspect of it, the government aspect, the scientific aspect, and the family aspect (which ties in a little with religion). The underlying theme for me was humanity, which I'll get to later.

1. THE GOVERNMENT
The government, in this situation, doesn't tell the people what's coming, and it makes me wonder: How much is our government really hiding from us? I mean, if you can hide the APOCALYPSE, you can hide darn near anything. And their deception was so self-centered, too. THE WORLD IS ENDING, and you don't tell anyone because you're afraid of anarchy. Well, you're gonna die anyway, boys, so as your last duty, tell the people what's coming.

Would our government hide this kind of thing from us? Look at all the things they've hidden before and ask me that question again.

And finally, the government was ready to bar innocent people from boarding the ark. Was there room in the ark? Yes. Was there enough time? Barely, but yes. Here is what one government official said to one of the main characters,a scientist named Adrian, who wanted to let the people in, "Well, sure, you've killed the whole human race, but at least you have a clear conscience!" Or something to that effect.

And the message after that was, "If I 'saved the whole human race' by not letting those people onboard, there wouldn't be a human race, because caring for eaach other is what makes us human." All throughout the movie, we saw humanity at work, God's creatures helping one another. Which leads me to religion.

2. RELIGION
2012 is a religion basher if I ever saw one. Everywhere crosses crumble, statues fall, doomed people make Signs of the Cross in vain. Once, a character was landing a plane in the Himalayas (don't even ask)and it touched down and skidded toward the edge of a cliff. He made the Sign of the Cross, and the plan stopped at the very edge. He grinned.

The plane tipped, fell, and exploded when it hit the ground.

However, you can't banish religion from our minds. The fact that all those people who lived did, the fact that we were human enough to let them on board the ark, proves that God was at work there. No matter how much they try to bash religion, the survivors still escaped a FLOOD on an ARK. So there.

3. FAMILY
Sort of a continuation of the religion aspect of the movie, all you saw throughout the movie was families sticking together, whether it was facing death together or hanging on to life together. Jackson did all he could to save his family. Others, not so lucky (or were they?) clutched each other as they were hit by tsunamis. Phone calls were made, I love yous and goodbyes exchanged. So many families went to heaven together in that movie. I don't care whate the producers were trying to tell us. God was at work here.

4. SCIENCE
Was wrong. Gosh, I love this movie. It shows how shortsighted science is. Which is sad, because we base our lives around it. Examples:

Pluto's not a planet. Wait, yes it is... Oh, never mind, it's not.

My Grandpa was an ape. "I heard that..."

Global warming!!!

Wow. You can't trust science, you can only trust God. I think this movie sort of backfired on itself, because that was the message I got.

Oh, the humanity! People helping people, hugging people, saving people, loving people, sacrificing for people... God did a good job with us, guys. Sure, we jack it up sometimes, but hey, we're human.

Now for the actual year 2012. All I can say is, I hope the world doesn't actually end in 2012, because if we elect Obama, it just might.

Take this as a warning.

God bless.

WHAT IS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND????

2010-05-20T17:16:00.004-04:00

I don't get what is so hard to understand: our country needs to be safe. I am a person who loves Spanish. I love the language, the different cultural aspects--it's all really interesting. But we have to protect our country. I agree with the Arizona immigration laws. People who have ever been oppressed at any given point in history always take it upon themselves to blow anything that comes up out of proportion. If someone might be illegal, better safe than sorry. And if you aren't illegal, it shouldn't bother you anyway. But if you loved our country enough to move here, you should love it enough to let us keep it safe to the best of our ability. In short, you live in America, and if you love America, keep it safe. If not, get out.

That applies not just to immigrants but to the government. I swear... WHY ARE WE TELLING THE WORLD HOW MANY NUCLEAR WARHEADS WE HAVE? Osama bin Ladin's sitting in his cave going, "Mmm hmm... nice to know." You don't MAKE AGREEMENTS about nuclear arms. You don't tell the world how many nukes we have. Because let me tell you something: pledging to weaken yourself can ONLY END BADLY. Something else: you know the U.S. is going to keep their end of the deal. But Russia? While we're over here decreasing our supply and TELLING THEM HOW MUCH WE HAVE they could be over there storing up and then they'll bomb us. Why would we even reduce our nuclear arms anyway? That's just stupid. You don't survive by throwing away your weapons. I know the Obama presidency is full of "first times for everything," but that gets old. Not to mention that this first time may well be the last time, too. Because if Russia DOES keep their agreement, guess what? Some other country--or, hey, the terrorists (gosh, we have a great circle of friends)--is going to nuke us both.

Friends are great. But friends don't let friends make themselves vulnerable while they are the most powerful nation on earth.

Also, recently an author came to my library and talked about his book, Pandora's Locks. And I can prove that it is possible for Republicans to care about the environment. Jeff Alexander (the author) talked about how foreign species like zebra and quagga mussels were coming in through the S. Lawrence Seaway on foreign ships and wreaking havoc on the Great Lakes by carrying botulism (and passing it on) and eating lots of plankton (which resulted in the water becoming clearer and allowing more sunlight to penetrate, resulting in algae blooms [this algae washed up on the saechore and made beaches undesirable]). Also, foreign secies ate green algae and more blue-green algae resulted (blue-green algae can be toxic and poison people's water supplies). Also, carp, some species of whih are known as flying fish, have seriously injured people when their heavy, bony bodies collide with the heads of people in boats going 30 miles per hour. Ouch.

One solution is to close the seaway, which I think is stupid because 1) it's already there, 2) it cost a lot to build, 3) it's an economic asset, and 4) there's a better solution, which is to require all ships to have ballast treatment systems. (Ballast water is used to weigh ships empty of cargo down, but it is what carries the foreign species in [it is dumped into the lakes when the ships are loaded].) This would be costly, but I believe in the long run it would be the best choice for both industry and the environment.

However, closing the seaway I believe would be... not the best choice. Okay, I think it's just plain stupid. Everything doesn't have to be extreme; you can be pro-environment AND pro-industry without being a hypocrite (which is funny because people who are ONLY pro-ENVIRONMENT can be hypocrites).

People need priorities. They need to understand that the country comes first. We need to stop being such idiots and telling Russia how many warheads we have and threatening to close the seaway when we don't really have to.

Country first. Immigrants, the environment, Russia... sorry guys. America should be America's first priority (not in a self-centered way; in a self-preservatory way).

What's so hard to understand about that?

My Crazy Conspiracy Theories... Not So Crazy After All?

2010-05-16T14:30:00.002-04:00

It's really been awhile, hasn't it? March 3rd looks like my last post. Well then. I've got a lot of catching up to do.

First of all, the oil spill. That sucks. Bigtime. I mean, this could scar our country for decades. They're not being able to stop it or clean it up effectively. Tons of animals are already being hurt by it, and it hasn't even reached the shore yet. I actually have entertained the idea that Obama or some of his terrorist chums may be behind this. It's not really all that probable, but definitely not impossible. I mean, I know as a liberal he's supposed to care about the environment, but destroying America and/or world domination would kind of toss that out the window.

Speaking of destroying America, something IS up with this guy. Here's the deal: Obama has been using a Social Security number for applicants in CONNECTICUT, even though he reportedly never had a mailing address in that state. Also, the number was issued between 1977 and 1979, even though his first reported employment was in 1975. Why is he not in handcuffs and being impeached and removed from office and deported and possibly locked up in Gitmo (the real Gitmo, not Gitmo Americano)? Because that would be racist. Of course.

Which is another pet peeve of mine because OBAMA. IS. NOT. BLACK. The guy's bi-racial! He is HALF WHITE, for the love of whatever it is liberals love!!! And even if he was black, that doesn't change the fact that he is practically undeniably an illegal immigrant and not eligible to be President of this country, which as we speak he may be trying to sabotage!!! **takes deep breath** And did he ever even produce his birth certificate? Well, if he did, then why did Hawaii make a law that says they can ignore requests for his birth certificate? What do they have to hide?

My brother says I'm a radical conpiracy theorist. I haven't neglected to remind him that at first he thought Obama wasn't that bad. Wrong. That Obama isn't really friends with terrorists. I know at least one. That Obama is too a citizen and why don't I shut up because I'm crazy? Wrong.

Which is why it wouldn't surprise me if Obama blew up the oil rig along with being an illegal alien. But, you know... I'm crazy.

Bipartisan

2010-03-03T14:17:00.002-05:00

First of all, I'd like to say that my prayers are with everyone in Chile (and Haiti, too).

Since I don't have cable, I have no idea, other than from FOXNews.com, what Obama has been saying lately. But I can assure you that it's likely a lie.

I just read that Obama and his supporters are totally talking up the "bipartisan healthcare summit" they held last week. If that was the summit of their bipartisanship, well it's not that impressive. I think the American people share this sentiment. However, the Democrats aren't even prepared to PRETEND to listen. Did you SEE Obama when McCain was talking at the summit? He had his chin on his hands and was slouching down into his chair lazily, staring off into space, occasionally shaking his head in distaste as McCain spoke. And when he finished, HE had the gall to remind MCCAIN that the election was over. I didn't see McCain flip-flopping like a fish out of water in order to gain political points while accomplishing less than nothing.

THEN, when the subject of abortion coverage was brought up, Obama changed the subject. Gee. What a surprise. If "bipartisan" is defined as completely, utterly, and totally ignoring the interests of the American people, flaunting your self-proclaimed bipartisanship even as you walk away from the other side, rolling your eyes, then yes, Barack Hussein Obama is indeed bipartisan. If bipartisan means saying we have things in common, but having your eyes demand submission to YOUR side, yes Barack Hussein Obama is bipartisan. If bipartisan means changing your mind all the time, confusing the American public, and not caring anyway because you've NEVER cared what they thought (except maybe JUST a tad on November 4, 2008), then YES, Barack Hussein Obama is definitely bipartisan. But if bipartisan means reaching across the aisle in the best interests of the American people because they CLEARLY have had enough of whatever the hack it is you think (or not) you're doing, then, NO FREAKING WAY is BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA bipartisan.

Do I Need To Say, "I Told You"?

2010-02-21T18:09:00.002-05:00

This is old news by now, but nonetheless in triumph. I almost laughed maniacally when I heard this news, except I'm not a liberal. So I settled for a hearty guffaw and a "Celllll-e-brate good times, come on!" Because these are good times. I want to march up to every overpopulation zealot, every enviro-fanatic, every single liberal who preached to me about the environment (not that I like wastefulness), and spew CO2 in their faces: "I was RIGHT!!! THERE HAS BEEN NO GLOBAL WARMING FOR THE PAST FIFTEEN YEARS! WHAT NOW?!?!?!?!?!? WHAT NOW?!?!?!?" Imagine telling someone something FOREVER and finally being proved right. It makes me happy inside.

It's proof that the truth, eventually, always wins.

Define "Better"...

2010-02-14T17:20:00.004-05:00

From FOXNews.com (my comments in bold)--
WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration has been stronger than the Bush administration in fighting terrorism, Vice President Biden said Sunday, suggesting former Vice President Dick Cheney, one of President Obama's chief critics, is either "misinformed or misinforming."

Okay, I didn't see Bush treating terrorists as citizens or refusing to interrogate them or bringing them to America.

In an interview on NBC's "Meet the Press," Biden said he thinks Cheney doesn't listen to the facts and is trying to rewrite history.

"I don't think the former vice president, Dick Cheney, listens. The president of the United States said in the State of the Union we're at war with Al Qaeda," Biden said.

Biden said the Obama administration has eliminated 12 of the top 20 Al Qaeda leaders, has "taken out 100 of their associates, we have sent them underground ... they are on the run."

Really? Because didn't he also set one hundred or more free? Is that what he means by "on the run"? It's not "on the run" if you let them go and send them off with a candy bar and a friendly wave.

Calling Cheney "factually, substantively wrong," Biden said it's simply not true that the president is not prosecuting the war in Al Qaeda with a vigor never before seen.

I think this kind of vigor HAS been displayed before. By Bambi.

"I don't know where Dick Cheney has been. Look, it's one thing again to criticize. It's another thing to sort of rewrite history. What is he talking about?" Biden said.

He's been in America. Where have you been?

Cheney said that the Obama administration is failing to treat the battle against terrorism as war. He told ABC's "This Week" that he is glad for what the administration is doing in Afghanistan but he disagrees with those in the Obama Cabinet who "still insist on thinking of terrorist attacks on the United States as criminal acts rather than acts of war, that's a huge distinction."

Agreed. It's not war to them. It's not even a game. It's like, like... sibling rivalry. Figure it out.

Cheney said he also disapproved of President Obama's initial response to the actions by Christmas bomber Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab.

"It was closer to being an act of war than an act of an isolated criminal," Cheney said. "What the administration was slow to do was to come to the realization that this is an act of war."

It's because he was a Muslim. Of course it wasn't an isolated criminal act. Al Quaeda trained the guy! And, yes, he WAS a Muslim! Stop being PC and help the U.S.

But Biden said Cheney's criticism rings false. He added that two of three detainees tried in military courts were set free under the Bush administration, while more than 300 tried in federal courts are now in prison.

"He is not entitled to his own facts," Biden said.

White House National Security Adviser Jim Jones refused to get into it over Cheney's criticism, telling CNN that national security isn't a partisan issue. He added that it depends on what information Cheney has.

"If it's informed, that's one thing," he said.

As for the war in Iraq, Biden said it hasn't been worth its "horrible price."

Of course it wasn't. We overthrew Saddam Hussein and now Iraq has a chance, but it wasn't worth it. Tell that to all the moms and widows who were proud of their kids and husbands: their sacrifice wasn't worth it. It was worth it to those who fought for their country proudly instead of denouncing it.

He said the war was mishandled from the outset and that the U.S. took its eye off the ball. As a result, the U.S. was left in a more dangerous position in Afghanistan, where Al Qaeda hatched the Sept 11 attacks, he said.

The war also has cost the United States support from other nations, he said, but he predicted Iraq will have successful parliamentary elections next month and the U.S. is likely to bring home some 90,000 combat troops by the end of the summer.

More than 4,370 U.S. military personnel have died in Iraq since former President George W. Bush ordered the U.S.-led invasion in 2003 to overthrow Saddam Hussein. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis have been wounded or killed.

But Cheney said, "I believe very deeply in the proposition that what we did in Iraq was the right thing to do . It ws hard to do, it took a long time to do.

"We're going to have a democracy in Iraq. We do today ... This is has been an enormous achievement for peace and stability in the Middle East and security for the United States. Joe Biden doesn't believe that," Cheney said.

What does Joe Biden believe? Nothing conservatives say, even with the truth staring him in the face: we won (funny how the media couldn't stop reporting the deaths, but once we started winning, Iraq news suddenly got quiet.

Cheney said that if the Obama administration now wants to take credit for the success of Iraq, after opposing the surge, campaigning against it during the 2008 presidential race and finishing up a timetable set forth during the Bush administration, then "it ought to go with a healthy dose of 'Thank You, George Bush' up front."

Right, that's gonna happen. They're too busy pushing their liberal agenda. They don't even have time to read their own bills, let alone thank a former President of the opposite party (even though Obama is "bipartisan").

Reconciliation: Something They Desperately Need

2010-02-14T17:00:00.003-05:00

I mean my title in two ways. First, I mean that they desperately need to reconcile themselves with the American people before we impeach and deport them all. Secondly, I mean that they must really be desperate if they go to such extreme measures to ignore us in order to push their agenda.

From Wikipedia: Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster. Introduced in 1974, reconciliation limits debate and amendment, and therefore favors the majority party. Reconciliation also exists in the United States House of Representatives, but because the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the process has had a less significant impact on that body.

Basically, they can change their bill to match the House bill, thus passing it with only 51 votes instead of sixty, making the Republican filibuster irrelevant and useless. Making the American public's opinion even MORE irrelevant and useless than they already have.

This is what they call "hypocrisy". Obama claims to be a bipartisan President who strives for transparency. Correct me if I'm wrong, but a closed door doesn't seem very transparent, and the Democrats behind that door don't seem bipartisan. Just an observation.

This has been a terrible ordeal. It has become increasingly apparent that the Democrats don't give a crap about you or me. Funny how they'll all be exempt from the wonderful plan they're force-feeding us. Actually, it's not very funny, but you know what I mean.

In this healthcare debate and process alone there has been so much we should be outraged at.

-ignoring the American people
-saying we don't understand in response to our outrage (but proceeding to not explain)
-extortion/bribery (Ben Nelson)
-lies and hypocrisy (which, with Obama, is pretty much a given)

Some might accuse me of being partisan, but I'm just facing facts. I don't see Republicans doing any of this crap.

If the Dems don't reconcile themselves with the American people, we'll reconcile their back ends with the floor of a jail cell.

In Search of "Perfection"...

2010-02-13T18:24:00.003-05:00

I've come to an important realization. Since everyone has different opinions, it is highly unlikely that you will find the "perfect" candidate (unless he is a smooth-talking "black" man, in which case you would be racist and crazy not to support him). Here is an example:

I thought Sarah Palin was a near-perfect candidate for whatever the heck she ran for. Then I found out she believed in contraception. Just a little thing, and not of much importance on the national political scale. But important to someone whose moral values would not allow them to support contraception. I would still support Sarah Palin, and still believe she is exceptional in many ways, but I was nonetheless disappointed.

I believe contraception is wrong because the marital act is for those who are married and God designed us with the ability to reproduce not so we could casually, irresponsibly, and immorally have sex without the intent of creating another human that we could love and without the intent of creating a permanent union of husband and wife. I'd like to share a recent encounter at school with a boy I know. A class-clown type comes up to me and says, "Hey, Sarah, when are you going to lose your virginity?" My parents were shocked when I told them this, but it was what I had come to expect, unfortunately. I answered, "When I'm married." A different boy, overhearing our conversation, said, "Oh, let me guess, you're SAVING it. Making it SPECIAL." He spat out the word "special" like it was poison, like it was a bad thing. I almost had to laugh, then I realized how truly sad it was.

Which is why I don't support sex ed in schools. Parents need to be involved in their kids' lives and futures. A school should not be telling a kid these things. They should learn from their parents. It's sort of like government on a lower level--it should not interfere with individual rights, responsibilities, and freedoms. Regardless of where it is earned, but especially if learned in public schools, I believe in abstinence-only education. The sex ed norm is like taking a cookie jar, pacing it on the floor, and going out for two days, leaving a note to your dog (whom you did not lock up and sent no one to look after) not to get into it.

Anyway, back to the issue at hand: you won't find anyone who will be you. You're the only one who can shape the world the way you want to.

Here are my criteria for a "perfect" candidate (aka my basic beliefs):

1. Small government
2. No bailouts/stimulus/pork/earmarks
3. No welfare (charity's great, though--when it's not forced)
4. No abortion (no matter what--yes, I am a rigid, incompassionate right-wing extremist who refuses to kill an innocent baby under any circumstances; actually, I support women--I understand their pain but also know that many commit suicide after abortions because they KNOW and some suffer medical issues in the future and less than 4% of abortions claim rape, incest, or serious medical issues; wow, I just fit a fraction of my abortion argument into one parenthetical)
5. No gun control (sorry, criminals and Congress, you lose)
6. Terrorists are terrorists (no, really?), not citizens
7. Secure borders, crack down on illegal immigrants
8. No/minimal debt
9. No gay marriage
10. Implement the FairTax (do away with other--especially income--taxes)
11. No single-payer health insurance system
12. Death penalty only if absolutely necessary

There is so much more, so many things that tie into the issues above. Like the environment. I love the idea of not being wasteful and gluttonous, and think that we take advantage of our resources. But I also think that man-caused global warming (wait, no-- "global climate change", because they can't make up their minds on which extreme to lie about) is a scam. There were ice ages in the past, right? And those ice ages (by our definition, not the scientific one of when glaciers are present but the comon one of when everything is covered in ice) ended, correct? And, correct me if I'm wrong. but for an ice age to end, the ice would have to melt, right? And for the ice to melt, it would have to have been getting warmer, correct? And all this happened--gasp--before there were cars!!!! WHAT?!?!? But I thought (not really) that cars and humans, those wasteful, mongrel Neanderthals, were causing Earth to warm at the rate of Nancy Pelosi's cheeks when Wilson shouted, "You lie" to Obama (which I can't blame him for--I would have done the same thing, and added a few words). Could this mean that "global warming", er, "climate change" could be a naturally occurring process and therefore not be subject to panic in the media and among the most "sophisticated" "experts" on Earth? Maybe they could start cutting down their own carbon emissions--by shutting up about yours and mine.

Right now, our government is corrupt, full of liars and extortionists and racists and hypocrites and... well, I'll just sum it up with the term "liberals".

Huckabee and Palin

2010-02-12T19:24:00.005-05:00

I just turned fourteen and got "Going Rogue" and "Do the Right Thing" (Mike Huckabee) for my birthday. I finished "Do the Right Thing" and am reading "Going Rogue". Mike Huckabee talks about the FairTax in his book, and having healthcare instead of disease care.

I think the FairTax is a great idea, because it doesn't require government stalking and regulating. It doesn't require discrimination in the name of "fairness". The FairTax doesn't punish hard work and effort. Instead, it, if I understand correctly, would be just one tax on what people consume. That way the poor would automatically pay less in taxes because they would consume less. It would be "fair", but not discriminatory.

Then there's "disease care" versus "healthcare". Huckabee talks about how we need to "self-govern" ourselves so we have less need for civil government. This way, if we all choose to eat more healthily, healthcare costs would go down because there would be less people getting sick. We could focus on preventing diseases instead of caring for them once they are already upon us.

In Sarah Palin's book, I was truly surprised and disgusted at how corrupt, hypocritical, and cruel people were as she progressed from city counsel all the way up to governor of the state of Alaska. She was trying to put government on the side of the people, trying to limit it, trying to connect with the public and help Alaska's wildlife and its oil industry (helping the people instead of the big oil companies), because the people of Alaska, according to the state's constitution, own the state's natural resources.

Anyway, while she was mayor of Wasilla, a lady came to her office, and expressed her sympathy. Palin didn't know for what. Then the lady told her she was sorry Palin's daughter had been caught smoking pot, to which Palin responded. "She got caught? Dang! Which daughter? My toddler or my kindergartner?" Thhis is the kind of person, hardworking, determined, God-fearing, and grounded. If she and Huckabee ran together in 2012, the GOP might have a chance. And even if they didn't win, at least Reepublicans could, in clear conscience, dust off their mirrors and start using them again.

Another thing I find remarkable about Huckabee and Palin is that both had little funding in their campaigns in comparison to other candidates, but they still changed their parts of the world.

And of course, they are both strong conservatives, and more interested in "vertical politics", which Huckabee talks about in his book. Vertical politics is a sort of moving away from left-vs-right politics, and into up-and-down politics (good or bad effects). While I am still a strong conservative and believe that conservatism is correct, this is a great way of thinking.

And even THINKING at all is a great start.

When Obama Speaks...

2010-01-29T15:23:00.005-05:00

Every time. Every time Barack Hussein Obama opens his mouth, he spews anti-American crap onto all of us.
In his State of the Union Address, he said that Republicans were "stonewalling his agenda for political gain." What does he expect? "Gee, SORRY. Didn't mean to stonewall your agenda for the demise of America. Didn't mean to act in the best interests of this nation, to stand up in the face of your liberal tyranny. Won't happen again." Right. He also says that Democrats are bending under pressure from those crazy conservatives. Then he reminds them that they have the majority. "We still need to govern," he says, and the people do not expect us to "run for the hills." Okay, Democrats must REALLY be wimps if they have the majority and are "bending under pressure." And what does he mean by "govern"? If he means "completely ignore the people entrusted to your care, destroy this country, and tax whoever's left to death" then it'll be the first time he's meant what he's said. No, wait, he has come through on a few promises (bad ones). And REALLY, how the heck does he know what "the people" expect? The only way that's possible would be if he LISTENED to us, and he doesn't.
He forces us to buy healthcare (oh, and not only do we have to buy our own healthcare, but Nebraska's, too), he promotes the killing of babies, hetaxes us, passes stimulus packages that no one reads, and invites terrorists to be citizens. Imagine us capturing Osama bin Ladin and telling him, "You have the right to remain silent..." yeah, is there something wrong with this picture? Well, the NYPD will have it under control. RIIIIGHT. These are highly trained terrorists. No offense to the NYPD, but if you all die (closely followed by the rest of us), let's just say things will be ever so slightly NOT under their control.
When Obama speaks, beware, because when BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA speaks, you're either getting taxed, bombed....

............ or ignored.

Scott Brown for US Senate

2010-01-17T12:52:00.005-05:00

Scott Brown (MA) could become the pivotal vote in the Republican filibuster, throwing a wrench into Obama's plan to kill us all--er, I mean, pass healthcare reform.

And here are some of the petty accusations made against Brown: He believes in turning away rape victims because he supports the conscience rights of doctors not to administer the day-after pill. He is part of the "birther" movement (that says Obama's not a citizen) because, in the context of Bristol Palin's pregnancy, he said, "Well, I'm not sure if Obama's mother was married when he was born." How twisted do they get? I'd be perfectly all right with never experiencing the answer to that question.

First Post of '10

2010-01-09T13:43:00.001-05:00

It's good to be back. There have been three terroist attacks since Obama took office, and he hasn't even been there for a year! **winks cheerfully**

The debt is still climbing. So is the level of atrocity an act must reach in order to surprise me. Like, when I heard Obama saying he was basically Planned Parenthood's buddy, of course I laughed because it's a racist organization. Knock yourself out (which is what PP was created to do). Then I heard that terrorists would be coming to America to be in prison. In Illinois. How fitting. I was like, "Is he crazy?!?!?" Rhetorical question. THEN I heard that five terrorists would be given civilian trials. I was trembling. THIS was the last straw (but, of course, it wasn't). I ranted a little to my mom, then she shut me up, so I got on the computer and ranted some more. Now, far after the fact, I'll rant some more. Here is my vision of the apocalypse (yes, I had fun with this). Are you kidding? The people the terrorists killed are citizens. Not them! We didn't even capture them on American soil. They're war prisoners. I don't see anywhere in the Constitution that permits that, but there is this one idea of the Constitution, I believe it's a very central idea, that the government is responsible for our safety. It's one of their few responsibilities. Not only are they disregarding our safety by letting--no, inviting--the terrorists in, but they are paying more attention to the terrorists' well-being than ours. They're equating terrorist with citizen. The scale is unbalanced, so they throw the bodies of aborted babies and euthanized citizens on the scale to even it out. Then they throw some money on it. Amazingly, the scale starts to weigh less. They quickly change to a world currency and drop that on the scale. It's still not equal. So they try to decide what to put on next. Well, they reason, Obama's words seem to be worth a lot to everyone. So they weigh his words against two pennies. They add the pennies to the terrorist-citizen scale. Then the terrorists set off a bomb and we all die.

Okay. Obviously that won't happen, because who the heck would weigh Obama's words against two pennies?

Well, I'm done with my lunatic rant (aka my mom is making me vacuum).

Good-Bye, Oh-Nine

2009-12-31T18:57:00.002-05:00

**sigh**

It was a good year. Sure it was the year the socialist hypocrite got elected. Sure it was the year we decided to bring terrorists to America. Sure it was the year there were two terrorist attacks. But it was a good year.

There's not much I can say. Not anything that I haven't said before.

Muslim extremists are a threat. But that's racist.

Barack Obama is a terrorist. But that's racist (though he's half white...).

***** ******* (I don't use names of people in my life on my blog), a liberal in my grade, is a very misguided individual (to use nice terms). But that's racist (even though he's white...).

I'll only buy American-made, non-bailout cars, which is basically Ford (but that's racist against foreign countries and bailouts).

I guess I'll have to settle for being judged and labeled. If that's what it takes to save my country, it's worth it.

If you want to read more of my stuff (whoever reads this), I frequently post on republicanoperative.com (I have a link) under the handle "Freedom".

Happy '10.

Year in Review (This is Painful)

2009-12-26T18:31:00.004-05:00

Well, I don't know who still reads this, but I'm back.

It seems like Obama's been Prez forever, but in reality (which we seem to be quite out of touch with) it hasn't even been a year.

Not even a year and, let's see...

--Two terrorist attacks (Fort Hood and the Detroit Airport)(Bush kept us safe since 9/11)

--Obama Debt: $1 trillion (about)(Bush's was $700 billion over 8 years)

--Mexico City Act repealed (Bush was pro-life)

--Gitmo detainees sent home

--Gitmo detainees promised civilian trial (if they really were citizens of the U.S.... well, they wouldn't be anymore (we'd kick their beeep out))

--Plan for Gitmo detainees to be moved to Illinois

--Healthcare passed in House and Senate (Ah, yes, Ben Nelson. The Dems needed another vote to pass the healthcare bill (they had 59). Well, first the White House supposedly (they, of course, deny it) threatened to close down a central command center in Nebraska (Nelson's state) thus threatening our national security. That was obviously an empty threat, so what ended up happening is that Nebraska gets free healthcare forever (well, not FREE, exactly, the REST of America has to pay for it...) and Nelson became the sixtieth vote on the Senate plan. Well, I'll go to jail, but I'm not paying for Nebraska's healthcare. Bribery and extortion... why am I not surprised? And did they ask the other states? No. Backroom deals and secret meeting, that's what the Democratic party's all about. But I wouldn't be surprised if real estate suddenly picks up in Nebraska...)

--Climate summit concludes that we need to stop emitting carbon (which I find funny, because 1) we need to breathe (though I'm sure many Dems don't want us to), and 2) hello? The plants of the ENVIRONMENT which is soooo valuable to them NEED carbon dioxide to live...)

--White House almost decides not to display nativity

--Economy "recovers", we save jobs (using a million bucks per job in my area, yay...)

--Stimulus passes (although I don't know if randomly throwing the bill together and not even reading it constitutes "passing")

--Obama declares that gay marriage should be defined legally as marriage, but should not be legal...?

--Joe Wilson shouts "You lie!" at Obama (kudos)

--Opponents of the healthcare plan "don't understand"

--Obama gets Nobel Peace Prize for nothing (WAIT! it was for what he said he'd do)

--AND FINALLY...

1.3 million babies died, thanks to the fact that abortion is legal.

Lots of other things happened (Michael Jackson died, Billy Mays died, Tiger Woods' scandal and car crash), but how will we remember 2009? Politically, as the beginning of an error? As the year a certain movie came out, a certain celebrity died? As the last oh-something year? The year this or that car was made? What will the historians regard as the most significant event in America of 2009?

What does it matter? If we actually listened to historians, my whole list above would be gone.

What we learn from history is that we fail to learn from history.

What will we learn from 2009?

I hope whatever we learn shows up in 2012.

Happy New Year a few days early.

I'd rather be early than too late, and I hope so would you, America.

Happy New Year.

Could Abortion Be What Kills Us?

2009-12-09T10:52:00.003-05:00

That's what Sean Hannity said, inquiring whether or not the healthcare bill could get passed without prohibition of abortion specifically mentioned. I am proud to say that not a single Senate Republican is in support of the bill thus far. So maybe... maybe we're coming back?

Anyway, we better be coming back, because in three years' time, America will be so scared of Obama that they'll elect a Republican-- REGARDLESS OF WHETHER THEY'VE GOTTEN BETTER OR NOT. So we'll just be heading down a long, dark road.

I can never get over, no matter how much I try to understand, the fact that liberals think it's okay to kill an innocent child. Can someone explain why abortion should be legal, let alone for any reason, let alone ANY TIME IN PREGNANCY?

Here is the medical definiton of pregnancy: the condition of a woman or female mammal from conception until birth; the condition of being pregnant.

Here is the scientific definition of pregnancy: the condition of carrying developing offspring within the body.

Therefore, the scientific, medical definiton of pregnancy is: the condition of a woman or female mammal from conception until birth; the condition of carrying developing offspring within the body.

If it's not a baby, which clearly contradicts the definitions above, you are not pregnant. Therefore, if you insist against all reason that it is not a baby and therefore you are not pregnant, there is nothing to abort, therefore there is no need for abortion. Therefore, abortion is a needless practice and must be abolished. And what better way than in a bill that dares mention health, care, and abortion in the same sentence?

Bored

2009-11-29T16:10:00.002-05:00

Nothing is new in the political world. This horridness has become the norm and now we're bored. So sad. We shouldn't be bored while our country is being destroyed. But I think liberals took a nap, either that or we've hit bottom and can't go any farther. But this isn't the worst it can get. We can't be bored. If we're bored we'll be taken by surprise when the liberals wake up and we plunge farther down. While they've stalled in their tyranny, now is the time to act. Anyone know of a tea party in Michigan?

Status Quo

2009-11-17T17:00:00.003-05:00

So Bart Stupak authored an amendment that restricted abortion funding, which allowed for the narrow margin by which the bill passed. But David Axelrod, speaking for Obama, says he would not want to change the status quo on this. Sure, we "cannot accept the status quo", and those who do are crazy, but on this, challenging the status quo is completely unabidable. Hypocrite. Maybe some things need changing and some things need to stay the way they are? For example, maybe we need to stop killing babies, but we should stay capitalist. Is that so hard to wrap your minds around, liberals? Is that so ridiculous?

Apparently, this "shouldn't be a debate about abortion". Exactly. Don't include abortion coverage. Talk about that later. You're too busy turning America into a socialist country to debate about abortion. Let's not get crazy here. We need to be America for a tad longer, please, just for those who still cling to it, those crazies.

I mean, I completely understand that you want to get on with your socialist conquest of this nation, but some crazy folks are still clinging to thee horrendous thing our country was. Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, George Washington, John Hancock, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin... we're getting duplicates of all of those horrible rebels. We feel we must abolish the rebel movements... but no. Let them have their last time in this horrible country. Because soon they will be gone.

Okay, I'm done mocking Democrats. Wouldn't want to get in trouble for challenging the status quo.

Desperation

2009-11-16T16:01:00.003-05:00

Towns are battling to house the Gitmo detainees because of jobs. Obama's stimulus was worth jack so people are actually fighting to have terrorists come into their towns just so they can have work. They're risking their lives and those of their children and families so they can have work.

This is the "result" of Obama's "stimulus". Desperation. This is insanity. Are we really going to let these people battle to the death FOR their death? Are we really going to live with terrorists in our backyards, peering nervously out or windows before we draw the curtains and lock them every night? Our children looking over their shoulders as they walk to school, people paranoid about every bit of graffiti written on a wall.

And even if nothing happens, we'll be the lunatic country who invited the terrorists in.

Desperation.

The Chance of a Lifetime

2009-11-16T11:21:00.003-05:00

Illinois.

It's where all the terrorists seem to have connections. Obama is from there, and we're considering sending the Gitmoe detainees there.

"A once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" it is called by Dick Durbin. How true. It will happen only once in our lifetimes... and never in anyone else's ever again. Apparently it would allow Chicago and surrounding areas to create more jobs. If we're desperate enough that our job opportunities include "prison guard for terrorists", that tells you how well the "stimulus" is working.

Oh, and get this. Poor little Chicago, who doesn't get to host the 2012 Olympics. Let's make it up to them with a new tourist attraction: "Terrorist-poking for the little ones and pie-throwing for adults; cost: your will". The tourists will come in waves after that.

This is the chance of a lifetime, people: the chance to end yours.

"Never Forget"

2009-11-14T06:45:00.003-05:00

What is meant by "never forget" is "always remember". Not "endanger them and remind them of their loved ones' deaths by bringing the terrorists back for a trip down memory lane".

There is no "evidence" of any kind that would justify VOLUNTARILY inviting terrorists into America, and giving them RIGHTS like those of the ones they killed. After all of this is over, Eric Holder, Obama, and the rest of his administration are next to take the stand. I want them tried for treason, attempted murder of America, and anything else you can think of. Then I want Obama impeached, removed from office, and sent to prison for the rest of his life. Of course, that won't haooen, but that's a taste of how unforgivable this is.

This is the worst thing a President has ever done. Obama is positively the worst President in history. I don't know what he's trying to pull here, but whatever he's doing needs to be stopped. He doesn't care enough about America to be entrusted with its safety. He doesn't put his hand over his heart. He left out "faithfully" in his oath (could be a coincidence... maybe it's not). He's closing Gitmo "by January 22"; that is, if we left any terrorists behind there. He kills America's future, and the ones he doesn't kill, he weighs down with debt, inflation, and poverty. He is not my President. He's not America's President. Here's whose President he is: Al Quaeda, Muslims, and all the people he either bowed or apologized to. Let them have him. Elect Paris Hilton, for all I care (okay, maybe not, but you get the picture). Just get his sorry **Democrat** out of here.

If we don't all get blown up first.

Now there's one more issue I'd like to address: the birth control pill gives you a huge risk for breast cancer. Not only that, but anyone who's watched "Demographic Bomb" will know that we need to reproduce more. Because of "population control" we are fallling below the 2.13 fertility rate needed to merely REPLACE a population. So why is our population growing? Because the elderly are living longer. But they can't live forever, and someday our aging population will die off, leaving the population to plummet, and not enough of a workforce for the future. In places like China, where they have the One-Child Policy... they can't replace their population, no matter how crowded they seem. And what else helps cause this? You guessed it--gay marriage. If every woman needs to have 2.13 children. So if they can't reproduce... that's 4.26 less children per lesbian couple. That can add up.

So we're either going to get blown up by terrorists we invited for tea, or we're going to experience a drastic population plummet and die that way if we don't do something NOW.

Never forget, America. Never forget who you are. Never forget the people who brought 9/11 upon you. Never forget that they are not Americans and do not deserve to be treated as such. Never forget America, America.

Never forget.

Saved

2009-11-13T20:50:00.004-05:00

So the new movie, 2012, goes out of its way to avoid destroying any Muslim holy places. Sure, the Vatican goes down. A Buddhist temple goes down. But no Muslim holy places. Nope.

Just another example of media avoiding "offending Muslims". I'm "offended" by the fact that most terrorist attacks are by Muslims. I'm "offended" that my people are dying. And we can't acknowledge it. Someone save us.

Hollywood just knows they're safe because Christians won't bomb them.

Cowards.

Speaking of which, is Obama starring in a movie anytime soon?

The Terrorists Are Coming, The Terrorists Are Coming!

2009-11-13T18:20:00.006-05:00

"The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming!" the man drove through the streets of New York City as fast as he could, calling into the night, "The terrorists are coming!"

If Paul Revere could see us now...

Yeah. The self-proclaimed ringleader of the 9/11 attacks, Khalid Sheik Mohammed, along with four other terrorists, are being tried in New York City just a few blocks down from Ground Zero. They are being tried in civilian court. What? WHAT? They are not Americans! They are barbaric, mass homicidal radicals who want to KILL Americans! People who are in favor of them being sent onto American soil say "There is no more appropriate place." Yeah, no more appropriate place than the place where they killed 3,000 people. This isn't memory lane. There's no more appropriate place to kill 3,000 MORE people.

And how are we supposed to get an unbiased jury? Any true American would be biased against a terrorist. Oh, hey, that gives me an idea: if we want a jury unbiased against terrorists, hey, let's get Obama and his staff!

And what about security? NO ONE can make sure the terrorists don't do anything horrible while they are IN AMERICA. Take them to military court! What else are they but members of an enemy military? A deadly, plotting, conniving, mass-murdering, lethal military. Ask those whose loved ones DIED. They've been through so much already. Let's march terrorists through their streets, let's endanger them again by voluntarily inviting the terrorists INTO NEW YORK, by giving the very barbarians who KILLED 3,000 AMERICANS a CIVILIAN TRIAL. Like they are on the same level as the three thousand they killed.

So the terrorists are Americans. Did I mention that if found innocent, they'd be set free? Of course, we're all sure they won't be found innocent, but to even consider...

The people who did THIS...

...are Americans? We're bringing them here, we're trying them like they are...

What does America mean anymore now that liberal Democrats are mutilating it? Speaking of them, did you notice how Obama made this announcement in ASIA? Why not America, which is where the rest of the criminals apparently are? Because he is a COWARD. He is a complete and total yellow-bellied coward. He needs to come back RIGHT NOW and say it to the faces of everyone who lost a loved one on 9/11: The murderers of your loved ones are coming here, we're INVITING them here, and, get this, we're treating them as we would treat your loved ones if they committed a crime: as Americans.

Think about the video above, of all those people... all those Americans... the people who killed them are not ONE OF THEM. Think about it. Think of 9/11. We're inviting it back. Come back, 9/11, Obama the Coward says.

This is insanity. I wish I could drive Obama and the terrorists out of the America personally.

What will America BE when the terrorists come?

The terrorists are coming, the terrorists are coming...

Or are they already here?...

Check the White House.

It's True

2009-11-13T15:45:00.005-05:00

What does it mean that Hasan, the Fort Hood shooter, was a Muslim?

Well, come on, folks. Some people seem to be avoiding the fact that he's a Muslim. That's it. You can't deny it. Muslim extremists have been behind many attacks. You CAN NOT deny that. This doesn't mean all Muslims are bad, but it doesn't mean we should go out of our way to be completely un-wary of Muslims. We have to acknowledge: some of them are potentially dangerous. It's true.

You don't have to be automatically prejudiced against them, but be aware. The fact that Hasan was a Muslim is not irrelevant; it's significant. Don't ignore this, as many liberals are trying to. HE WAS A MUSLIM AND HE KILLED PEOPLE. It's true. It isn't true of all Muslims, but true of some. And some is enough for us to be careful.

Don't deny it. it's true.

Wondering With Conviction

2009-11-12T15:39:00.006-05:00

I wonder whether or not President Obama is the right President for us. No, not really. I know he's probably the worst President in history. But things that could make those pesky little on-the-fence people wonder are:

1. He doesn't put his hand over his heart when saying the Pledge of Allegiance. Okay, most people would look at that and say, "Something is MAJORLY wrong."

2. His volunteerism career includes: ACORN, and letting prison inmates work on the streets in volunteer organizations.

3. His speech about the Fort Hood massacre. Let's see... a two-minute preamble about Indian rights, and then...
"Some of you might have heard" about the shooting at Fort Hood. Yes, we might have heard. There is some possibility that some of us might have heard.

You may recognize my comments above as being similar to ones on the Glenn Beck show last night. But I didn't get them there; I simply made the remarks myself while watching the show. Just clarifying for any liberals out there seeking to accuse a conservative.

4. He kills American babies because that's the kind of caring, nonviolent, compassionate liberal he is.

5. If you're unemployed right now, you know.

6. Healthcare rationing: he can't prove it won't happen. He can't prove anything, really, because that's just the way liberals are.

7. He messed up on his oath and left out "faithfully". Coincidence?

8. His BFF is a proud terrorist (but then, so are the people he promises to set free on American soil... everyone's a terrorist these days... including Barack Hussein Obama).

9. What he HAS done has been bad.

Now he's holding a job summit. And he says there are limits to what a government can and should do, but we need to consider every additional step? And the forum is meant to prevent making any "ill-considered decisions"? Why couldn't he have had this forum sometime before the stimulus? And he says the economic growth we've seen has not led to the jobs we need? That's cause he's a fake. Because we've "seen economic growth" just like he "picked up something off the floor" when he "shook hands" with a Saudi king. Just like he's a "Messiah". I already have a Messiah.

I am convinced he's not a Messiah, and I'm wondering when I'll get a President.

Then Was the Time

2009-11-09T18:06:00.005-05:00

Well, it was the time, but not anymore. The only good thing that came of it was that Republicans are beinning to define themselves again, unitin in the face of this horrendous disaster. Only one Republican House member voted for the bill. Anh "Joseph" Cao, whoever you are: you let America down.

Then was the time. The next "time" will be when the Senate votes for the bill.

But there's another "time" I'm talking about. There's a time I've heard of, but never known I experienced. There was a time when Republicans were Republicans, where America was America and if anyone ever even considered BRINGING UP the proposition of socialism, we'd kick their, um, Democrats' mascots.

I miss when the lives that are fighting for our country were not constantly devalued. I miss when babies were not in the same class as murderers, I miss when America was soundly based on capitalism.

Then was the time.

But we're not completely messed up yet.

It's time for then again. Let's do this thing, America.

Now Is The Time

2009-11-07T19:34:00.004-05:00

This is the day the House votes on the healthcare bill. This is the day America either turns around or continues on the path of destruction. Obama says "Now is the time."

NOW IS THE TIME.

Come on, America. We're rootin' for ya.

Be Very Afraid... Part Three in an October Series

2009-10-27T19:22:00.004-04:00

Be very afraid; the healthcare market will no longer have competition. After dominating the market and putting the other insurance suppliers out of business, the government will know that, as the only option, they can do whatever they want. Well, I guess they've thought that for a long time, but let's not go there.

Obama is very scary. Here are the common Halloween emblems and how he reminds me of them:

Jack-o-lantern: grinning and dangerous.

Witch: constantly whipping up potions and conniving against others (unborn babies, the elderly - I mean, the rationably rationable).

Zombie: this term actually pertains more to his followers.

Black cat: don't let him cross your path. Now, before you say it, "black" has nothing to do with this. He's not black, anyway; he's bi-racial.

Graves: the ultimate outcome of the healthcare plan.

Right now I'm not concerned that the American people don't see him for who he is. Even if we did, he'd just go on doing whatever he wants. I admit I've been tricked by him, though maybe not in the way everyone else has. I thought he was just an ignorant, misguided guy who tries to please everyone and doesn't know what he's talking about. While I admit he doesn't know what he's talking about and he tries to please everyone, when he (and the rest of the Dems) want something done, it's done. They just sneak it in. Notice how the Senate bill does, in fact, have a public insurance option, though it is "unnecessary". He just said that so the right would chill. Well, if the guy who is one of the most liberal presidents ever is trying to please the right (proof that he is, in fact, a liberal, because they never know what they're doing), the left will get mad. And Obama will say, "Well, I didn't really mean it that way." And they'll be soothed by his hypnotic, "inspiring" voice just like everyone else. Speaking of which... those who find him inspiring (and I mean the ones that actually are inspired, not the ones who claim to be inspired but really just like him because he's black (the ones who call me racist)) are probably only hearing how he sounds. For instance, I think it's really lame how all Taylor Swift writes about is how her ex is a jerk, how she wishes she could be with this one guy, how someone else stole her guy, or how she loves this one guy. I mean, come on. Isn't there better stuff to write about? But I like the tunes to some of her songs, so I listen to them, but not the words. Long story short...

It's the same thing with people listening to Hypnobama. They don't know what he's saying, just that he sounds good.

I'm starting to get scared, but I'm not running away. I'm going to fight the crap going on in the Haunted--I mean White--House.

Sorry, that was really corny.

Socialism and Hate Crimes

2009-10-23T07:43:00.006-04:00

Well. Apparently it is being considered that we could give state governments their own slightly unsocialistic freedom to opt out of the public option. It's being considered, I said. Of course, the responses from the Dems include a terrified "Nooooooo!" and a defiant "NEVEEEEEEEERRRRRR!!!!!", which means that, yes, they were pushing for socialism all along. No surprise there.

But now gays are protected under hate crime laws. What happened to freedom of speech? I don't hate gays themselves, I just disapprove of gay marriage. Oops, off to jail with me.

The War on Fox Continues... Iraq, Afghanistan, and the War on Terror Are Forgotten

2009-10-20T19:13:00.006-04:00

Apparently, "Beck" and "Hannity", two opinion shows on Fox, are the reason for the White House's war on the network. Funny thing, those times--5 p.m. and 9 p.m.--are for opinion programs. So it's completely legitimate for opinion programs to be shown in the times set for opinion programs, no? According to Robert Gibbs, no indeed. "That is our opinion" was his response.

Gotta love liberals. They'll be proven wrong and shown the truth, but they'll still come out and say, "So what? I still have to seem right for pride's sake." I don't understand what they hope to accomplish by this. Mr. Bipartisan, Pass-the Healthcare-Bill-without-GOP-Support Barack Obama's administration is attacking Fox News for being a "Republican mouthpiece". The basis for their war on Fox: Fox dares to show opinion shows in times reserved for opinion shows. This is a grave sin punishable by something even worse than listening to Obama lie and grin (they have not discovered such a punishment yet, but the research looks promising). This is treason! This is a horrible new twist for our country. How will we cope with it all?

It sounds like I'm describing terrorism or the stimulus or something, right? Well, no. Above is a look at Fox from a Democrat's perspective, for those of you who didn't realize. Ah, if only it were true that I WAS talking about something worhtwhile from a Dem's perspective. If only they cared enough about America to override their wussiness and fight the real wars. If only they could look past their personal issues and troubles, their poor little hurt feelings, their petty jabbing at Fox, which did nothing more than check facts and air opinion shows in times reserved for opinion shows. If only they could care about America, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the war on terror, healthcare, taxes, unemployment. But no. They got their feelings hurt when Tammy Duckworth was proved wrong, and now they will stop at nothing to act on the petty grudge they insist on holding. This is treason. This is a horrible new twist for our country. How will we cope with it all?

Bias or B.S.?

2009-10-19T16:39:00.004-04:00

The Obama administration is involved in many wars... the wars with Afghanistan, Iraq, my mom's exhaust pipe, and... Fox News?

Yes, folks, the White House has officially waged war on the network that independent studies,including some from the Pew Research Center, prove to be the most balanced. What's weird is, Fox News had such balanced election coverage, and the other networks had such screwed coverage, that their liberalism actual made Fox look biased to the right to some people. But oh, well. They really are the most balanced name in news.

The funny thing is, apparently Fox is a "Republican mouthpiece" and completely biased, but the "offense" that started it all was "fact-checking". They are called biased because they worked toward the truth. In fact, Anita Dunn asserts that fact-checking is "nothing she's ever seen a Sunday show do." Well, we know what networks SHE was watching.

The liberals are attacking Fox for fact-checking and proving them wrong. Oh, the horror! What is the world coming to? That a news network isn't afraid to speak out with facts? How will we bear it?

Anyone who reads this, send a message from me to all the liberals you know: stop being babies and get a life (and while you're at it, a job and a brain would be nice, too).

Proving liberals wrong when they accuse Fox isn't bias. Saying it is... that's B.S.

Broken Records, Breaking Records

2009-10-16T22:11:00.005-04:00

So "broken records" refers to the repeating pattern of lies, flip-flops, etc. that seems to follow Obama wherever he goes. You know the saying, "You sound like a broken record"?

And "breaking records" refers to the federal deficit. It hit a record 1.42 trillion dollars. So, yay! Let's hear it for Barack Obama, the guy who won the Nobel Peace Prize for what he said he'd do, the guy who got elected for what he said he'd do, the guy who says he's doing something for us and somehow we believe everything he's saying. The guy who breaks all the records, makes history, first black President, third sitting US President to win the Nobel Peace Prize, first to win it for nothing, and the one under whom the federal deficit hits a record 1.42 trillion.

Honestly, sometimes I don't understand. I might be beginning to sound like a broken record here. I don't get why people think baby-killing is OK. I don't get how you can be both for and against abortion, gay marriage, and the public option. I don't get it, I don't get it, I don't get it...

At least no one else does, either.

Ominous Visions... Part Two of an October Series

2009-10-14T16:39:00.003-04:00

I seee the fuuuuutuuuuure. Bewaaaare, BEWAAAAAAAAAARE!!!!!!

I have been given a glimpse of the future, my friends. Think on the following prophecy, and I hope you see the truth.

Eight hundred twenty nine
Dollars a billion times
Though budget officials cannot
Claim it saves a dime.

There will be death panels
And it funds abortion
Yet, the plan's opposers
Are accused of distortion.

The public option:
Yes or no?
No one knows.
No one has a clue
What the future holds
Do you?

Based on the ominous prophecy, what do you think?

Or even, based on everything that has happened, what do all the sane people KNOW? I think Congress knows that if they do anything stupid (er), they won't be in Congress for long. But I wonder if they even care. Maybe ruining America is a, like, dying wish or something.

Beware. When the people fear their government, there is tyranny. When the government fears the people, there is liberty. And when the government rationalizes humans, kills babies, and spends $829B to do it... that's just creepy.

For or Against

2009-10-13T14:36:00.006-04:00

So, yet another promise Obama is failing to keep. It was a bad promise for our country anyway, but still. Obama said he would try to allow gays to be openly so in the military. Okay, I'm sorry, but I would feel awkward if I was fighting and camping with a bunch of other guys (or girls) who are openly gay around me.

Obama also says he doesn't support legalizing gay marriage, but he... says he would support a bill legally defining marriage as something other than between a man and a woman. So basically, he says gay marriage shouldn't be legal, but legally, marriage should be able to be more than just male-female. AKA, marriage should be legally defined as either straight or gay. But gay marriage would still be illegal.

Yeah, he confuses me, too. It's just another instance of him trying to please both ends of the political spectrum. The public option must be passed, but it isn't essential. Gay marriage is illegal, but legally, marriage can be gay. The guy doesn't even know what he believes.

Marriage was created for the purposes of love and children both. If someone has a reproductive disability, it was not their own choice to violate the marital sacrament. So they're fine. But gays make a choice. It's okay to be gay because you can't help your feelings, but you can choose how or if to act on them.

Anyway, it turns out that liberals are more pathetic than I thought. I was reading If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans by Ann Coulter, and an unnamed party said it offended them. I told them that there is freedom of speech, end of story. Which, of course, offended them. Go figure.

Another recent occurrence that demonstrates the ridiculosity (is that a word?) of liberals is as follows. I've told you that we had a pep rally for homecoming last week. Some kid wore an Obama mask when he participated in the games. So I booed and said, "If he can wear an Obama mask to school, I should be able to wear an Osama bin Ladin mask to school." One of my friends "reported me" to her mom, who said, "That is just wrong for a thirteen-year-old to compare our President to a mass murderer."

Actually, what's wrong is allowing innocent babies to be--what's the phrase? Oh, yes: mass murdered, 4400 every day. What's wrong is not letting us interrogate mass murderers, and threatening to let mass murderers go free (let's hope that's another promise he doesn't keep).

Speaking of abortion, it's so fun to stump people. They say, "Oh, if I got raped, I wouldn't want to have someone else's baby."

I say, "If I was the baby of a raped woman, I wouldn't want to die." And people usually just stare at me, mouths open. I go on to tell them that medical issues and rape or incest account for only 4% of abortions. So what about the other 96%? What about women who are careless, casual, irresponsible? That's their fault.

And speaking of faults, tell me ONE INSTANCE in which it's the baby's fault the mother got pregnant. That's what I thought.

By the way, did you ever notice how 100% of abortion advocates were not aborted? Interesting.

And even though all of this is true, Obama's socialist healthcare plan will fund abortions. "But it doesn't say it will," insist supporters of the plan, the mass-murdering plan. You're either for or against something. And they are NOT against it. You do the math. They struck down amendments to prohibit abortion funding.

People say, "Obama's not for abortion, just the right to have one." There's no real difference, because both result in an innocent child dead. You're FOR or AGAINST it. It's pretty simple.

On the "for-or-against" note, Obama is either for or against gay marriage. It can't be both legal and illegal at the same time.

IMHO, don't kill babies. Rule of thumb. Second rule: marriage=guy+gal. And rule three: don't trust flip-flopping, lying, cheating, conniving, senior-citizen-and-baby-killing, inflation-causing, dollar-devaluing, terrorist-freeing, self-proclaimed Messiahs.

Peace Doesn't Mean What It Used To

2009-10-07T17:45:00.009-04:00

Obama won the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing. That is very peaceful, I guess. You know the saying, "Rest in PEACE". Dead (peaceable) people don't really do anyhting, do they? I used to think the Nobel Peace Prize was something amazing, a great honor. But now it's meaningless. I mean, they gave it to someone who has been President for nine months. He was nominated at, like, four months. The only things he'd done since then were... promise to do a bunch of things, devalue the dollar, and allow us to fund overseas abortions.

And, hello? He gets about 1.4 million dollars. Like he couldn't print or borrow that if he needed it. Like he deserves to get his hands on money ever again. The Nobel Peace Prize is worthless.

By awarding it to Obama, they have defaced the Nobel Peace Prize. He got the prize for what he said he'd do. Kind of like how he got elected. He got the prize because of nothing. Okay, I'll admit he tried to make peace with terrorists by saying he'll close Gitmo and not letting us interrogate them. I admit he must be somehow at peace with Fidel Castro, since Fidel Castro thinks he is a savior and the rest of America is racist. I admit he must have peace with the Saudi king he bowed to, and the countries he apologized to for America being America. So sure. He's peaceful. He just lets us kill babies. Peace doesn't mean what it used to.

If At First Success Is Obviously Impossible Via the Current Tactic... Try, Try Again?

2009-10-03T14:00:00.003-04:00

So, when Obama receives news of yet more job losses, what does he do? Does he admit that he was completely wrong in every way and that the stimulus was a total waste? No.

He decides to distribute more of the stimulus.

He also insists that his healthcare plan will create jobs. Not so much. Actually, when private insurance companies go out of business, jobs will be lost. Or maybe he means that abortionists will be in greater demand so that will create more jobs. Maybe... maybe he's trying to create extra jobs for illegal immigrants? Or maybe a larger crew will be required to repair and extend the debt clock this time around. Or, or, maybe two totally new professions are in the making: end-of-life counseling and end-of-life causing.

It's really starting to annoy me. I mean, it's like your dad driving in circles and telling you you're not lost. If they actually cared, they'd admit they were wrong and help save America. But they won't, which is just more proof that Dems truly hate America and want us to die (just look at the allies of their savior, Obama (the AAA's): Ayers, ACORN, and Al Queda). The terrorist (s) are closer than you think (is the White House close enough?).

P.S. Did I just call Obama a terrorist? Anyone whose friend is a terrorist, who fights for terrorists' rights, and who sets them free (likely onto American soil), is as good as one of them. You do the math.

One More Lie

2009-10-02T14:19:00.003-04:00

Yes, here we have proof that the claim that the Obama stimulus is "helping the economy" is just one more lie. The unemployment rate is at 9.8%. If you include those who were laid off and settled for a part-time job or just gave up looking for work, the rate is 17%. By the way, that's the highest it's been in 15 years.

Just thought people would want to know that, yes, they've failed (not necessarily on accident--some people just truly hate America) once again. The "economic recovery", if it happens at all, will be only a short-term effect because that's all the government knows how to produce. It won't be real. It's all just another lie.

Just thought you'd like to know.

Or maybe we've known all along...

Attack of the Zombies...Part One of an October Series

2009-10-01T16:18:00.006-04:00

So I've decided to start an October series leading up to a chilling climax on Halloween about the populate-the-cemetery Democratic-liberal healthcare plan. The "rolling in their graves" part refers to the Founding Fathers.

Let's get going. Part One is going to focus on illegal immigrants butting in on our healthcare (though if they want it, they can have it--we'll deport ObamaCare and illegals: a double bonus). Well, I guess they aren't butting in. I guess they're being invited in.

The Dems claim that illegal immigrants won't be covered by the plan. Let's clear something up. Illegal means that what they are doing is unlawful. If we caught all the illegal immigrants, there wouldn't be illegal immigrants. So if we don't know who they are, especially since insurance companies are NOT ALLOWED TO ASK WHETHER THEY'RE HERE LEGALLY, how do we know whether or not we're covering illegals if we don't know if someone's an illegal or not? It's just not possible to insist that you won't cover illegal immigrants. We don't know who all of them are!

I salute Joe Wilson. He realizes this. He realizes that nothing Obama says is backed by proof of substance. Obama wants us to stay in school, but he doesn't know the principle of having a good persuasive essay, informative essay, or speech: you need proof. As I've said before, his arguments are "That's false, untrue, a lie, not true, and invalid." It sounds good, but do you realize that he didn't say WHY it's false, WHY it's untrue, WHY it's a lie, WHY it's not true, or WHY it's invalid? It's just not believable at all.

It would be more believable if he had said the undead were attacking America.

Yes, We Can!

2009-09-30T16:18:00.004-04:00

We did it. Republicans are Republicans (or at least getting there). We struck down both amendments that would add a public option to the Senate bill. Even some Democrats opposed it. And almost all, if not all, of the Republicans opposed both amendments. One amendment was defeated 15 to 8, the other 13 to 10. Things are looking up. To Obama, I have one thing to say about America taking back their country, no matter how well the person holding the country can talk:

Yes we can!

Two Biggest Differences Between God and Obama

2009-09-28T07:29:00.003-04:00

Difference No. 1: The media sure as heck don't worship God.

Difference No. 2: God doesn't think he's Obama.

So anyway, just wanted to get a little laugh in. Here's the deal. Turns out the libs are saying we shouldn't "bar illegal immigrants from paying their way in a government-sponsored exchange". That's like... that's like... it's hard to come up with an analogy to match this one. I mean, illegal immigrants are breaking the law. Okay? These are criminals who aren't even citizens of our country. What we do is we catch them, deport them, and then ask them if they want the United States' (correction: Canada's) health insurance. Which they won't be able to get because they won't be citizens.

If Obama cares about us so much, why are his liberal hordes and himself doing everything in their power (and some things outside their power) to help everyone but us? There are "47 million uninsired Americans" and there are, what, 13, 14 million illegal immigrants? Who will Obama choose? WWOD? What will Obama do?

Freedom of Expression

2009-09-25T19:47:00.004-04:00

As much as I hate to say it, the New Jersey students had every right to make those videos. That's their constitutional right. But we have the same right (scary music). The fact that they made those videos (and obviously were brainwashed) doesn't mean the conservatives are scared. Okay, let me rephrase that. We've been scared for some time now, but we won't back down because of some videos. I mean, liberals might get freaked out by constitutional rights, but the right doesn't.

Alleluia to Obama

2009-09-25T16:32:00.006-04:00

These songs were sung and taped by New Jersey students. Wow. People actually worship Obama. Usually I joke about people worshipping him, but they really do. See for yourself. These are the song lyrics:

Song 1:

Mm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that all must lend a hand
To make this country strong again

Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said we must be fair today
Equal work means equal pay

Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said that we must take a stand
To make sure everyone gets a chance

Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
He said red, yellow, black or white
All are equal in his sight

Mmm, mmm, mm!
Barack Hussein Obama
Yes!
Mmm, mmm, mm
Barack Hussein Obama

I assume they say "Mmm, mmm, mm" because the next step after gay marriage is cannibalism. And how kind of them to mention his middle name to remind us all that, yes, Obama is friends with a terrorist (he's working on befriending more). Everyone must lend a hand, unless you oppose him; if so, shut up. Be fair today? When did killing innocent people become fair? Equal work means equal pay. With the exception of, of course, Congress and Barack Hussein Obama (mmm, mmm, mm). Who decides whose jobs equal others and who gets paid "equally"? If we all get paid equally, do we get to tax the government? No matter what color you are, you're equal in his sight. Unless you're red (red state).

Song 2:

Hello, Mr. President we honor you today!

For all your great accomplishments, we all doth say "hooray!"
Hooray, Mr. President!

You're number one! The first black American to lead this great nation!
Hooray, Mr. President we honor your great plans

To make this country's economy number one again!
Hooray Mr. President, we're really proud of you!

And we stand for all Americans under the great Red, White, and Blue!
So continue ---- Mr. President we know you'll do the trick

So here's a hearty hip-hooray ----
Hip, hip hooray!

Hip, hip hooray!

Hip, hip hooray!

We honor him for all his great accomplishments... That's sort of rude to Obama, don't you think? I mean, if I was going to be honored, I'd want to be honored for something other than something akin to having polka-dotted unicorns eat the Earth (AKA something horrible and impossible). Mr. President, we know you'll trick us all! So here's a hearty hip-hooray...

Which one sounds better, more logical, and more believable: "In God we trust" or "In Obama we trust"? I think God wins by a landslide. Which is why we have him on our dollar bills. Though maybe we should put Obama on them, since he's the one who made (and is making) them worthless.

The Love Train

2009-09-22T19:29:00.003-04:00

I believe I've mentioned this a few times in previous posts. The "Love Train" is a very nice idea. Very nice. Too nice. People can't just be nice to everyone else and expect everyone else to be nice to them. The world does not, sadly, work that way.

Raise your hand if the date 9/11 has any significance in your mind. Ever watch TV? Well, then you know that people hurt one another. Has anyone you knew or someone they knew been murdered? Sure, it's not very significant what party you are (there are liberal Republicans and "Reagan Democrats"), but it does matter where your values lie. People blow up buildings, kill thousands. People kill their own children, for crying out loud. We need to protect America from people who want to destroy it. Here's an example of why you just can't ignore some things (like bombs). I was in gym class the other day, and you know how there's always a couple clowns in a crowd? Well, two such guys kept trying to steal the basketball from my friend and me. We did a pretty good job of keeping it away, but they got it a couple times. Finally my friend said, "I just want to play basketball. Let's ignore them."

I said, "Well, if we ignore them, we won't get to play anyway. They'll just take it. So at least if we try to keep it we get to play."

It's like, "I want to live without fear of terrorist attacks. So I'm going to ignore them!"

You can't put everything on the "Love Train."

The Nuclear Option

2009-09-22T18:38:00.003-04:00

So, as a "last resort" (which was pretty much their plan from the start), Harry Reid says he will use "reconciliation", which basically means that the Dems can pass key parts of the bill with only a simple majority, so they won't need GOP support.

So who cares about America? Especially when we have illegal immigrants to worry about.

Reid says he hopes he doesn't have to go to those lengths. Right. The libs, for once, actually want conservatives to be patriotic so they have an excuse to shove their healthcare bill down our throats. So it's either we agree with the Dems and pass the bill or they leave us in the dust and they pass the bill.

If they cared about America's health, they'd listen to Americans. But we know that. We know they're desperate to push their healthcare agenda no matter the cost. We know they're ruthless lunatics bent on destroying everything America was.

The question is, how does this knowledge help us, and what can we do if (even though most Americans are doubting their plan and we tell them so, and they have been proved wrong countless times) they pass the bill anyway without listening to America and just ignoring the GOP? How can we stop them if they just ignore us?

America, we need to think of something to defeat the nuclear option and the public option so we can have the option of LIVING.

Tax: I Think It Has a Pretty Universal Meaning

2009-09-20T18:13:00.003-04:00

So, George Stephanopoulos asked, "Under this mandate, the government is forcing people to spend money, fining you if you don't. How is that not a tax?"

Seriously. But here's what Obama said (with, of course, a considerable amount of stammering and stuttering that tends to happen when you're caught in a moment of utter stupidity): " No, but -- but, George, you -- you can't just make up that language and decide that that's called a tax increase."

Making up languages? Merriam-Webster is offended. The whole English-speaking population is offended. Well, I guess he still has illegal immigrants as his BFF's. This is the dictionary definition of tax: a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.

So let's see. Okay, a tax is a charge, and a fine is a charge, and requiring someone to pay money is a charge. So whether or not they end up paying for healthcare, they are taxed. Imposed by authority? Yes, the government is imposing it. On persons or property for public purposes... check. Public purposes such as helping their healthcare plan. People such as we, the people. Apparently we're the property of the government. But Obama said, "No. That -- that's not true, George. The -- for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase."

Once again, Obama's fabulous defense: No I'm not, you're lying, that's false, that's ridiculous, that's not true, that's untrue, that's preposterous, that's absolutely not a tax increase. Evidence? What's that mean? Anyone got a dictionary?

Discouraged

2009-09-20T10:43:00.003-04:00

If the CIA investigations continue, some CIA officials insist that some will be discouraged from properly fighting terrorism.

Maybe that's what Obama wants. Our own President fights for... terrorists' rights?

That's discouraging.

Happy Belated Constitution Day

2009-09-18T20:16:00.006-04:00

This is going to have slightly less pessimism than my posts usually do. Or, I hope it will. I kind of lost my optimism somewhere on or after January 20, 2009. Crap, I'm doing it again. This is harder than I thought. Maybe it would be easier if I didn't have so much to be pessimistic about. No, never mind, the world is full of optimism. Today is a new day, Constitution Day was two days ago, and we finally have a President who's on the right track (did I mention I got a pet unicorn?). Okay, never mind. I can't do this. Optimism and denying reality are two very different things.

But seriously, there is something to be optimistic about. Obama confirmed that Wilson's outburst and healthcare criticism in general is not about race, but about--of all things--healthcare. So, Maureen Dowd and all those other liberal I-don't-care-if-it-has-to-do-with-race-he's-black-so-you're-racist fanatics have been dissed by their Almighty Obama. At least he knows that we disagree with him because he's a lunatic and not because of the color of his skin.

And also, I think America is finally starting to REALIZE he's a lunatic, no matter what color he is. So. That's a plus. No more brainwashed citizens. I think we see past the smooth talk. Some of us.

So anyway. Happy Constitution Day two days late. To celebrate, tell your grandparents you love them (you respected your elders in 1787). Tell your children you love them (enough to have had them). If you're a girl tell your husband, if you're a guy tell your wife, "I love you." Tell America you love it by excercising your freedoms and doing something to save it.

And tell the government:

I love America. It's you guys I worry about (and therefore I worry about America, too, I guess).

Ever heard the song "Love Train"? I want to know if that guy's on, like, Valium or something. Are you kidding me? We should try to love everyone, yeah, but sometimes you have to stand up for those you love, for what you believe in. Some people, like the people who killed 3,000 on September 11, 2001, need to be shown a thing or two. It's not hate. It's justice.

Tell America you love it. There's a lot of love going around, it's just directed wrong, like at terrorists, Muslims, illegals, Cuba, and all those people who hate us.

Friends Don't Let Friends Be ACORN, Obama, or Terrorists

2009-09-16T09:52:00.005-04:00

My first thought about Obama is (okay, not my first thought, but I don't swear on this blog): With friends like these... I mean, can't you get better friends than ACORN and terrorists? Not to mention... Nancy Pelosi?!

It was finally decided that we would stop funding ACORN with federal dollars. One argument against cutting off funding was that they "helped the Democratic party".

Yeah, by committing voter fraud.

"It advocates for the poor."

Yeah, well, it also sets up child prostitution houses.

"It supported Obama in his campaign."

...no comment.

And speaking of Obama, what President calls ANYONE a jacka** publicly? Even if he was acting like one. I mean, it's okay to remark privately to your wife or a friend, but especially as President... you just don't do that.

Then again, you just don't murder children, rationalize humans, try to befriend terrorists and spend your way out of debt, or revert to socialism, either.