Thank You And Happy Veteran's Day!
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Tuesday, November 04, 2008
We have to accept it, sort of
For all practical purposes Barack Obama has won the presidential election. I am now waiting for a great golden light of understanding and hope to wash over me from above.
Here it comes.
Never again will we hear from the radical left in our nation, or from other nations, that the USA is a nation of racists. That is a good thing, and may actually be helpful in international relations, as well as silencing a very irritating component of society. I celebrate with gusto the freedom of speech, but most of us can admit that forty years of vitriolic poison spewed by the radical minority can get tiresome.
Freedom of speech is an important right to me, and I respect that right for everyone. Now, with the "Fairness Doctrine" certain to be reinstated, the government will give us a right that we already have. In fact, the government will force that right on privately owned radio stations. That serves those small broadcasting corporations right for thinking that they could own anything.
Dang, that light faded.
Okay, here it comes again.
Brett Hume, of Fox News Channel is talking about how much he believes that Barack Obama is a great guy, and he is speaking from his contacts with him in his professional position as a news anchor. "The Barack Obama we have seen during this campaign," Brett Hume says, in so many words, "is not the same guy we came to think of as a liberal lawmaker."
And Carl Rove is saying that now is a time for America to celebrate, for the same reasons I gave in the second paragraph of this post. We have come a long way from the sixties, and that is definitely a good thing.
I actually feel some hope that President Obama can rise to the challenges the office he is about to take. He is going to have to deal with an empowered Democratic Congress with an agenda that even he--if he is the pragmatist he says he is--will have to reject.
He will face challenges from North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Ecuador, and Pakistan, among other countries, and the way in which he took the election should give us hope that he has the will and courage to stand up against them, and act in the best interests of his country.
I remain somewhat skeptical, because I am not against big government because of something I learned, but because it is part of my very nature. Barack Obama comes into office with the same hope and promise that his predecessor, George Bush, had--to change the way things were done in Washington. But he plans to do so through a bigger government. That, to me, is more of government as usual. I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said, "Any government that is big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take it away."
I don't feel that the current economic crisis is the fault of any political party or person. My Libertarian Soul agrees with Alan Greenspan's sentiments, which imply that it is the lack of any sense of self-preservation by careless and criminal financial executives that caused the problem.
The laws of the land should be enforced. If someone trespasses on the inherent right of others to prosperity, that person should go to jail. Period.
I remain skeptical that the lessons of history can be ignored, and that more taxes and more union involvement will be good for the economy. In the past, such policies have resulted in the loss of jobs and a higher cost of living.
If Barack Obama can make his plan work to the betterment of our economy, then good, but it would only be a temporary fix at best. If it doesn't work, well, there is another Congressional election in two years.
We will survive, and we will overcome hardship. That has been proven by the American Spirit time and time again.
Here it comes.
Never again will we hear from the radical left in our nation, or from other nations, that the USA is a nation of racists. That is a good thing, and may actually be helpful in international relations, as well as silencing a very irritating component of society. I celebrate with gusto the freedom of speech, but most of us can admit that forty years of vitriolic poison spewed by the radical minority can get tiresome.
Freedom of speech is an important right to me, and I respect that right for everyone. Now, with the "Fairness Doctrine" certain to be reinstated, the government will give us a right that we already have. In fact, the government will force that right on privately owned radio stations. That serves those small broadcasting corporations right for thinking that they could own anything.
Dang, that light faded.
Okay, here it comes again.
Brett Hume, of Fox News Channel is talking about how much he believes that Barack Obama is a great guy, and he is speaking from his contacts with him in his professional position as a news anchor. "The Barack Obama we have seen during this campaign," Brett Hume says, in so many words, "is not the same guy we came to think of as a liberal lawmaker."
And Carl Rove is saying that now is a time for America to celebrate, for the same reasons I gave in the second paragraph of this post. We have come a long way from the sixties, and that is definitely a good thing.
I actually feel some hope that President Obama can rise to the challenges the office he is about to take. He is going to have to deal with an empowered Democratic Congress with an agenda that even he--if he is the pragmatist he says he is--will have to reject.
He will face challenges from North Korea, Russia, Venezuela, Iran, Saudi Arabia, China, Ecuador, and Pakistan, among other countries, and the way in which he took the election should give us hope that he has the will and courage to stand up against them, and act in the best interests of his country.
I remain somewhat skeptical, because I am not against big government because of something I learned, but because it is part of my very nature. Barack Obama comes into office with the same hope and promise that his predecessor, George Bush, had--to change the way things were done in Washington. But he plans to do so through a bigger government. That, to me, is more of government as usual. I tend to agree with Thomas Jefferson, who said, "Any government that is big enough to give you everything you need is big enough to take it away."
I don't feel that the current economic crisis is the fault of any political party or person. My Libertarian Soul agrees with Alan Greenspan's sentiments, which imply that it is the lack of any sense of self-preservation by careless and criminal financial executives that caused the problem.
The laws of the land should be enforced. If someone trespasses on the inherent right of others to prosperity, that person should go to jail. Period.
I remain skeptical that the lessons of history can be ignored, and that more taxes and more union involvement will be good for the economy. In the past, such policies have resulted in the loss of jobs and a higher cost of living.
If Barack Obama can make his plan work to the betterment of our economy, then good, but it would only be a temporary fix at best. If it doesn't work, well, there is another Congressional election in two years.
We will survive, and we will overcome hardship. That has been proven by the American Spirit time and time again.
The Greater of Two Evils: My Closing Argument
First of all, my prayers and thoughts go out to Barack Obama, his sister, and their families in sympathy over the loss of their grandmother, Madeline Dunham, who succumbed to cancer earlier today. Be assured that my thoughts and prayers are sincere, for the loss of a family member who meant so much to her family--one to whom Sen. Obama refers as "a hidden hero--" is a terrible loss and very hard to take, especially at a time when one has to focus elsewhere.
I would have loved to use this space on my blog to expound on the virtues of the Libertarian Party, and why Bob Barr should be our next president. Although I feel the current Libertarian leadership misinterprets or misapplies the principle of non initiation of aggression in regards to the state of the world and our national security, every other principle of the Libertarian Party is very close to my heart and my own personal convictions. The "Fair Tax" initiative, the return of constitutional rights to the states and the individual, the removal of Federal Government interference in our daily lives, and an end to prohibition are all issues I care about.
Because I feel that more government is the last thing this country needs I can not, in my heart, believe that an Obama presidency could do anything to help the economy. His economic proposals to tax and are much closer to government as usual than are McCain's economic proposals to cut spending. Obama claims to want to end the influence of special interests, but he has already said he is prepared to give tax incentives to General Electric--a mega-corporation that really doesn't need help from the government to make money--or any other company that develops alternative energy. He knows that it will take at least ten years for these alternative energy sources to develop into a viable replacement for petrofuels and coal, so that means at least ten more years, with his energy program, of sending hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries for our fuel. That's hundreds of billions of dollars that our economy could use.
The resulting energy and economic crises are not what troubles me about an Obama presidency. We have been through worse, during the Ford and Carter years, after 9-11, and after Katrina, and we have survived
When I refer to "the greater of two evils" I am not talking about the man himself. In spite of his association with Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright--both of whom are haters--I don't feel Barack Obama has an evil bone in his body. His ideas are well intentioned. He feels a calling, and genuinely believes that he is the knight in shining armor who can save the world. His failing in his inexperience and in his highly idealogical view of the world and the way things work in reality.
Questions that really bother me about an Obama Presidency:
Why do Code Pink, and Move On both support Barack Obama even though he has assured us that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan, even though ? For the last six years, they have protested against all war. Have these two organizations suddenly become Hawkish?
Why don't visions of hydroelectric dams blocking wild rivers, or solar collector arrays and noisy wind farms on pristine wilderness land alarm the radical ecological activists who support Obama?
During the primary season, Hillary Clinton said, "John McCain brings to the presidential campaign years of experience and bipartisan leadership. All Obama has is a speech he made in 2002."
Does she support Obama, then, only because he is a Democratic candidate?
Why do Obama's supporters, such as Senator Joe Biden and Governor Bill Richardson, keep lowering Obama's limits for the definition of "middle class?"
Rep Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has accused Barack Obama of lacking "political courage," but he supports Obama. Is he admitting to being a typical two-faced politician?
The obvious answer to these questions is disturbing.
All of these people, including Senators John Murtha and Barney Frank, feel that Obama as President will be easily manipulated, due to his inexperience. They want a strong Congress and a weak president, even though the approval rating for Congress is down to 9%. A weak Executive Branch removes a check and balance against Congress.
The reasoning behind the radicals is even more sinister. These are the same people who believe that Condoleeza Rice had a privileged upbringing, even though she grew up in a black middle-class family--her father had to work two jobs to support the family--in a racially segregated Alabama. They are the real racists, no matter how many times they call Republicans and fiscal conservatives racist.
Their hate speech won't stop with an Obama Presidency. They will criticize the President for not pulling troops out of Iraq fast enough or for getting more involved in Afghanistan. They feel he will easily back out after just a little criticism. They will feel empowered--a white semi-majority making the Black man bend to their will. The radicals' idea of "Democracy" is actually rule by mass hysteria. And this is why I can't vote for Obama.
Rule by mass hysteria is what killed Socrates, started the American Civil War, and produced Hitler's rise to power.
And that is the truth.
I would have loved to use this space on my blog to expound on the virtues of the Libertarian Party, and why Bob Barr should be our next president. Although I feel the current Libertarian leadership misinterprets or misapplies the principle of non initiation of aggression in regards to the state of the world and our national security, every other principle of the Libertarian Party is very close to my heart and my own personal convictions. The "Fair Tax" initiative, the return of constitutional rights to the states and the individual, the removal of Federal Government interference in our daily lives, and an end to prohibition are all issues I care about.
Because I feel that more government is the last thing this country needs I can not, in my heart, believe that an Obama presidency could do anything to help the economy. His economic proposals to tax and are much closer to government as usual than are McCain's economic proposals to cut spending. Obama claims to want to end the influence of special interests, but he has already said he is prepared to give tax incentives to General Electric--a mega-corporation that really doesn't need help from the government to make money--or any other company that develops alternative energy. He knows that it will take at least ten years for these alternative energy sources to develop into a viable replacement for petrofuels and coal, so that means at least ten more years, with his energy program, of sending hundreds of billions of dollars to other countries for our fuel. That's hundreds of billions of dollars that our economy could use.
The resulting energy and economic crises are not what troubles me about an Obama presidency. We have been through worse, during the Ford and Carter years, after 9-11, and after Katrina, and we have survived
"I don't feel Barack Obama has an evil bone in his body"
When I refer to "the greater of two evils" I am not talking about the man himself. In spite of his association with Bill Ayers and Reverend Wright--both of whom are haters--I don't feel Barack Obama has an evil bone in his body. His ideas are well intentioned. He feels a calling, and genuinely believes that he is the knight in shining armor who can save the world. His failing in his inexperience and in his highly idealogical view of the world and the way things work in reality.
Questions that really bother me about an Obama Presidency:
Why do Code Pink, and Move On both support Barack Obama even though he has assured us that he would escalate the war in Afghanistan and invade Pakistan, even though ? For the last six years, they have protested against all war. Have these two organizations suddenly become Hawkish?
Why don't visions of hydroelectric dams blocking wild rivers, or solar collector arrays and noisy wind farms on pristine wilderness land alarm the radical ecological activists who support Obama?
During the primary season, Hillary Clinton said, "John McCain brings to the presidential campaign years of experience and bipartisan leadership. All Obama has is a speech he made in 2002."
Does she support Obama, then, only because he is a Democratic candidate?
Why do Obama's supporters, such as Senator Joe Biden and Governor Bill Richardson, keep lowering Obama's limits for the definition of "middle class?"
Rep Jerrold Nadler (D-NY) has accused Barack Obama of lacking "political courage," but he supports Obama. Is he admitting to being a typical two-faced politician?
The obvious answer to these questions is disturbing.
All of these people, including Senators John Murtha and Barney Frank, feel that Obama as President will be easily manipulated, due to his inexperience. They want a strong Congress and a weak president, even though the approval rating for Congress is down to 9%. A weak Executive Branch removes a check and balance against Congress.
The reasoning behind the radicals is even more sinister. These are the same people who believe that Condoleeza Rice had a privileged upbringing, even though she grew up in a black middle-class family--her father had to work two jobs to support the family--in a racially segregated Alabama. They are the real racists, no matter how many times they call Republicans and fiscal conservatives racist.
Their hate speech won't stop with an Obama Presidency. They will criticize the President for not pulling troops out of Iraq fast enough or for getting more involved in Afghanistan. They feel he will easily back out after just a little criticism. They will feel empowered--a white semi-majority making the Black man bend to their will. The radicals' idea of "Democracy" is actually rule by mass hysteria. And this is why I can't vote for Obama.
Rule by mass hysteria is what killed Socrates, started the American Civil War, and produced Hitler's rise to power.
And that is the truth.
Sunday, November 02, 2008
Pavement for the proverbial road
Senator Obama is full of good intentions. By raising taxes on those who make more than a certain amount of money--and that amount has yet to be determined, according to Joe Biden and Bill Richardson, he hopes to "spread the wealth" to encourage more consumer spending and create more jobs. He also hopes to use that tax increase to fund the many social and work programs.
There is nothing in his stated plans to balance the budget. The real lie of his plan is that it is much closer to the present administration's than the "cut spending" plan of the McCain campaign, regardless of the Democratic candidate's claim that McCain's economic plan means "four more years of the Bush policies."
Barney Frank, the Democratic senator from Delaware, and Chairman of the Senate Finance Comittee, has assured us that, with Barack Obama as President, "we (Congress) will spend as much as we need to and not worry about the deficit."
That seems very close to the Busch economic program.
It is questionable as to how Obama's tax plan would help create jobs. Income tax is assessed on gross income, so a business with an annual gross income of $250,000 paying a 39% tax rate would have its available funds reduced to $152,000. That amount would be reduced by another $30000 in FICA and Medicare taxes, Having only $132,000 for payroll, payroll taxes, business expenses, and inventory, how would that allow for job growth? Obama's plan would prevent jobs from being created.
Theoretically, the extra spending power provided by tax cuts to 55% of the working population, and the tax credits to 40% of the working population would help increase the amount of capital to small businesses. But when the government takes money, that money rarely gets back into the economy. The cost of bureaucracy alone takes the majority of the funds, and the rest is spent as subsidies to pharmaceutical, insurance, oil companies, and union contracts. That money rarely translates to more consumerism.
Whether Obama or McCain is our next president, we won't see much change in politics as usual. Government can not fix the economy, it can only make matters worse. It isn't that politicians are trying to bring down the economy--their intentions are well meant. People have come to expect the government to do something, whether it turns out for better or worse. More taxes and more money in the government take away from money that could be given to charities and community programs that can better serve those who need help. We would do better to remember "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
There is nothing in his stated plans to balance the budget. The real lie of his plan is that it is much closer to the present administration's than the "cut spending" plan of the McCain campaign, regardless of the Democratic candidate's claim that McCain's economic plan means "four more years of the Bush policies."
Barney Frank, the Democratic senator from Delaware, and Chairman of the Senate Finance Comittee, has assured us that, with Barack Obama as President, "we (Congress) will spend as much as we need to and not worry about the deficit."
That seems very close to the Busch economic program.
It is questionable as to how Obama's tax plan would help create jobs. Income tax is assessed on gross income, so a business with an annual gross income of $250,000 paying a 39% tax rate would have its available funds reduced to $152,000. That amount would be reduced by another $30000 in FICA and Medicare taxes, Having only $132,000 for payroll, payroll taxes, business expenses, and inventory, how would that allow for job growth? Obama's plan would prevent jobs from being created.
Theoretically, the extra spending power provided by tax cuts to 55% of the working population, and the tax credits to 40% of the working population would help increase the amount of capital to small businesses. But when the government takes money, that money rarely gets back into the economy. The cost of bureaucracy alone takes the majority of the funds, and the rest is spent as subsidies to pharmaceutical, insurance, oil companies, and union contracts. That money rarely translates to more consumerism.
Whether Obama or McCain is our next president, we won't see much change in politics as usual. Government can not fix the economy, it can only make matters worse. It isn't that politicians are trying to bring down the economy--their intentions are well meant. People have come to expect the government to do something, whether it turns out for better or worse. More taxes and more money in the government take away from money that could be given to charities and community programs that can better serve those who need help. We would do better to remember "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions."
Monday, October 27, 2008
I only want to ask....
Karl Marx's idea for his Marxist Utopia was that the people own the producers. "The producers will produce what is needed, and the people who need will get what they need," he wrote.
Senator Barack Obama's plans for redistribution of wealth do not include the People owning the producers, and that is a major difference between his policy and Marx's dream. Senator Obama has stated many times that he is "for" free enterprise, and that his plan will help people and families of middle income move into the role of producers in the free enterprise system.
I just answered the question for the Obama campaign that Vice-Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden refused to answer during an interview with Barbara West, a telejournalist with one of the largest television broadcast stations in Central Florida.
Here are some excerpts from Senator Biden's response to the question, in which Ms. West quoted the Marx passage and asked what is the difference between Marx's plan and Obama's plan:
"Are you serious?"
"Whoever wrote that question doesn't know what they are talking about."
At no point did the candidate try to answer the question. He seemed offended by the question. Instead of explaining why offense was taken, the Obama campaign banned all reporters from that station from any interviews or access to any Obama campaign events.
We may remember that Obama supporters were so offended by a simple question about the candidate's tax plan that was asked by the man now known as "Not Really Joe Not Really A Plumber" by the left wing press and bloggers, that he--an ordinary citizen not connected at that time with the McCain campaign at that time--lost any right to his privacy as his financial and personal records were hacked and attacked.
Are Obama's supporters embarassed by their candidates tax plan? If not, why do they feel offended by questions about it?
I suspect that the only answer I would get to those two questions would be "Are you stupid?"
I suppose the First Ammendment will be one of the early casualties of an Obama presidency.
Senator Barack Obama's plans for redistribution of wealth do not include the People owning the producers, and that is a major difference between his policy and Marx's dream. Senator Obama has stated many times that he is "for" free enterprise, and that his plan will help people and families of middle income move into the role of producers in the free enterprise system.
I just answered the question for the Obama campaign that Vice-Presidential candidate Senator Joe Biden refused to answer during an interview with Barbara West, a telejournalist with one of the largest television broadcast stations in Central Florida.
Here are some excerpts from Senator Biden's response to the question, in which Ms. West quoted the Marx passage and asked what is the difference between Marx's plan and Obama's plan:
"Are you serious?"
"Whoever wrote that question doesn't know what they are talking about."
At no point did the candidate try to answer the question. He seemed offended by the question. Instead of explaining why offense was taken, the Obama campaign banned all reporters from that station from any interviews or access to any Obama campaign events.
We may remember that Obama supporters were so offended by a simple question about the candidate's tax plan that was asked by the man now known as "Not Really Joe Not Really A Plumber" by the left wing press and bloggers, that he--an ordinary citizen not connected at that time with the McCain campaign at that time--lost any right to his privacy as his financial and personal records were hacked and attacked.
Are Obama's supporters embarassed by their candidates tax plan? If not, why do they feel offended by questions about it?
I suspect that the only answer I would get to those two questions would be "Are you stupid?"
I suppose the First Ammendment will be one of the early casualties of an Obama presidency.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
What about me?
I earn less than $8.000 a year, love the music of the Grateful Dead, strongly believe prohibition is a waste of time, lives, and money, believe the IRS should be disbanded, and that Income Tax laws should be repealed. I fear Big Brother/Big Government, socialism, thieves, and con artists. I believe in, and have personally experienced the charity of the community and find that a much better alternative to Federal bureaucracy. I believe the strength of America comes from the individual, and I strongly believe that the Federal Government should be limited to its Constitutional restraints. I know that the economy can run itself much better than the government can. I detest Communists and Fascists. The thought of a Socialist Executive branch supported by a filibuster-proof Socialist Legislative branch literally has me scared to a near catatonic state.
I am sick and tired of pundits and politicians trying to tell me what is right for me.
What would your "tax cut" do for me? At the least, it would pay yet another bureaucrat to tell me I don't exist, at the worst, I would find myself in a Clockwork Orange scenario with my mouth gagged, my eyes propped open, and my head being held immobile, being forced to watch endless footage of long lines of cars at the Starbuck's drive-up while listening to music by the Grateful Dead. That may be an exageration, but only a slight one--individuals have no place in a government run by public hysteria. Re-education would be the only way such a government could see to "help" me.
Look how the mostly Democratic Denver City Government "helped" the homeless just prior to the Democratic Party National Convention in that city this year. The City of Denver provided them with movie theatre tickets, concert tickets, and one way bus tickets to Colorado Springs. In effect, they relocated them. Isn't relocation the same way the Nazi Party "helped" the gypsies in central Europe?
In nearly every municipality there are privately funded charitable organizations that provide food, blankets, coats, medical services, showers and clothing to the homeless. There are organizations such as the Sertoma Clubs, Veterans' Motorcycle Clubs, the American Legion, the VFW, the Knights of Columbus, Goodwill Industries, and the DAV that provide money and services to the community to help the impovershed. These organizations all exist without the aid of taxpayer money, and operate with much more efficiency than that of which any government bureaucracy has ever been capable.
The Civil Rights Ammendment was a necessary addition to the Constitution, but it has been degraded into a basis for stereotyping and racial profiling in the guise of affirmative action and "equal opportunity" programs. Racism should have died out a long time ago, but it is as rampant now as it was fifty years ago. If you don't believe me, think how the Obama supporters would feel if Condoleeza Rice were running for president. The true extent of Left Wing racism and sexism would make its presence known in every hateful and nasty way possible.
The looming period of Socialist Government of Mass Hysteria in the United States will be short-lived as We The People will finally get fed up with politics as usual, and learn what a really bad President can do. The only change we can expect is that corn will be the new Big Oil, and Johnson & Johnson, Pfeiser, and Squib will be the new Exxon and Conoco/Phillips.
The more the government tries to "help" the impoverished, the more poverty it creates, That is a law that has been proven time and time again throughout the past. Jesus Christ said "There will always be..." and that was over 2000 years ago.
I am sick and tired of pundits and politicians trying to tell me what is right for me.
What would your "tax cut" do for me? At the least, it would pay yet another bureaucrat to tell me I don't exist, at the worst, I would find myself in a Clockwork Orange scenario with my mouth gagged, my eyes propped open, and my head being held immobile, being forced to watch endless footage of long lines of cars at the Starbuck's drive-up while listening to music by the Grateful Dead. That may be an exageration, but only a slight one--individuals have no place in a government run by public hysteria. Re-education would be the only way such a government could see to "help" me.
Look how the mostly Democratic Denver City Government "helped" the homeless just prior to the Democratic Party National Convention in that city this year. The City of Denver provided them with movie theatre tickets, concert tickets, and one way bus tickets to Colorado Springs. In effect, they relocated them. Isn't relocation the same way the Nazi Party "helped" the gypsies in central Europe?
In nearly every municipality there are privately funded charitable organizations that provide food, blankets, coats, medical services, showers and clothing to the homeless. There are organizations such as the Sertoma Clubs, Veterans' Motorcycle Clubs, the American Legion, the VFW, the Knights of Columbus, Goodwill Industries, and the DAV that provide money and services to the community to help the impovershed. These organizations all exist without the aid of taxpayer money, and operate with much more efficiency than that of which any government bureaucracy has ever been capable.
The Civil Rights Ammendment was a necessary addition to the Constitution, but it has been degraded into a basis for stereotyping and racial profiling in the guise of affirmative action and "equal opportunity" programs. Racism should have died out a long time ago, but it is as rampant now as it was fifty years ago. If you don't believe me, think how the Obama supporters would feel if Condoleeza Rice were running for president. The true extent of Left Wing racism and sexism would make its presence known in every hateful and nasty way possible.
The looming period of Socialist Government of Mass Hysteria in the United States will be short-lived as We The People will finally get fed up with politics as usual, and learn what a really bad President can do. The only change we can expect is that corn will be the new Big Oil, and Johnson & Johnson, Pfeiser, and Squib will be the new Exxon and Conoco/Phillips.
The more the government tries to "help" the impoverished, the more poverty it creates, That is a law that has been proven time and time again throughout the past. Jesus Christ said "There will always be..." and that was over 2000 years ago.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
Strength
One of the great things about this country is that we are a nation of individuals, each a Nation unto ourself, that can come together as one greater Nation when circumstances call for it. That is our strength--the strength that was unanticipated by those who sought to bring us to our knees on September 11, 2001. Those who planned and carried out the vicious attack on American soil thought they would weaken our resolve to survive as the great Nation of individuals we are. As we remember and mourn those who lost their lives on that day, we should also remember and celebrate the strength we showed as our way of life stopped only for a moment, and we came back stronger, by collectively showing that we could not be brought down even by such a tragic and catastrophic event.
Thursday, September 04, 2008
Real Change
It is not surprising, but it is appalling that it seems that many Americans want the government to make them change their behavior. They complain about the high price of gasoline, and its effect on the economy, but they will cruise around on Friday night until the government tells them they can't.
They don't seem to understand that the reason gas prices are high is because, in spite of the prices, they keep buying gasoline. The best way to lower the price of gasoline, and the cost of living, would be to stop buying it. To complain about the chokehold Big Oil has on the economy, and to continue to buy excessively from Big Oil seems hypocritical.
It is understandable if a vehicle is necessary in one's work, or is necessary transportation to get to work, the grocery store, or even a bit of entertainment, that one would need to buy gasoline. But beyond that, it doesn't seem necessary to wait in line at Starbuck's or McDonalds with the engine running for twenty minutes when it would be cheaper to park the car, turn off the engine, and go inside. It doesn't seem necessary to drive up and down the main drag for half an hour while deciding where to eat or what show to watch, when plans could be made ahead of time.
As a frequent pedestrian, we see this kind of behavior constantly. The kind of behavior that tells us the economy must not be so bad after all, because people seem willing to pay the price no matter how high it gets.
The government can't change at this point. The folks on Capitol Hill know that if they give with one hand they have to take with the other. For instance, they can't outlaw buy only investments in oil futures, because that would upset the union pension plans, and most of our congresspersons depend on union support to stay in office. They know they can't suddenly press ethynol on the economy, because corn is used for many more things than fuel, and if corn were to reach $100 a bushel it would have a much more devestating effect on the economy than $100 a barrel oil.
Change needs to come from the individual. It needs to come from taking responsibility for one's actions, rather than expecting the government to fix things. The best we can expect from Washington DC, no matter who the next president is, is the same dance, different song.
They don't seem to understand that the reason gas prices are high is because, in spite of the prices, they keep buying gasoline. The best way to lower the price of gasoline, and the cost of living, would be to stop buying it. To complain about the chokehold Big Oil has on the economy, and to continue to buy excessively from Big Oil seems hypocritical.
It is understandable if a vehicle is necessary in one's work, or is necessary transportation to get to work, the grocery store, or even a bit of entertainment, that one would need to buy gasoline. But beyond that, it doesn't seem necessary to wait in line at Starbuck's or McDonalds with the engine running for twenty minutes when it would be cheaper to park the car, turn off the engine, and go inside. It doesn't seem necessary to drive up and down the main drag for half an hour while deciding where to eat or what show to watch, when plans could be made ahead of time.
As a frequent pedestrian, we see this kind of behavior constantly. The kind of behavior that tells us the economy must not be so bad after all, because people seem willing to pay the price no matter how high it gets.
The government can't change at this point. The folks on Capitol Hill know that if they give with one hand they have to take with the other. For instance, they can't outlaw buy only investments in oil futures, because that would upset the union pension plans, and most of our congresspersons depend on union support to stay in office. They know they can't suddenly press ethynol on the economy, because corn is used for many more things than fuel, and if corn were to reach $100 a bushel it would have a much more devestating effect on the economy than $100 a barrel oil.
Change needs to come from the individual. It needs to come from taking responsibility for one's actions, rather than expecting the government to fix things. The best we can expect from Washington DC, no matter who the next president is, is the same dance, different song.
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Another Candidate
codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"
WIDTH="384" HEIGHT="304">
WIDTH="384" HEIGHT="304">
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Posting for the heck of it
I haven't abandoned this blog, but I just haven't been excited about anything enough to do justice to what I feel is needed to be said. It isn't that there isn't anything to write about, just that there seems to be too much to write about, and not enough passion about it to finish what has been started. So, just to let folks know that Rev Jim is still alive and well, here is an endorsement, of sorts:
Thursday, February 07, 2008
Could this be the end?
Is this the end of the Conservative branch of the Republican Party? Citing his love for his country and his party, Mitt Romney has "suspended" his candidacy for the nomination for the Republican Party Presidential race. This comes on the heels of declarations by several conservative pundits--most notably Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Anne Coulter, and James Dobson, that they would rather surrender the countries of Iraq and Afghanistan to Islamofascists than support front-runner John McCain. Laura Ingraham also stated that she cannot support McCain, but she stopped short of saying she would rather vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton, as Coulter has said she would.
Now these pundits will be the first to declare that they are not telling people how to vote; that they are merely expressing what they stand for and it is up to their listeners to agree or disagree with them. But we know some of their listeners and we know that some would go along with their political commentary no matter what they say.
Mitt Romney's admission of fear that a conservative-moderate rift within the Republican Party would hand the presidential election to the Democratic candidate is well founded. For those of us who remember the way the economy was during the Carter years, a new Democratic administration that embraces fiscal ideas similar to Carter's spells disaster.
Romney's assertation that he would rather step down than see surrender to the Islamofascists in the Middle and Near East made a strong statement relevent to those of us who are concerned about where we would draw the line of defense, the disasterous effects of a precipitous withdrawal. McCain, as we all know, was advocating a surge and counter-insurgency operations in Iraq long before General Petreaeus came into the picture. We now know that McCain was correct in that the counter-insurgency operations in Iraq have shown a fair amount of success, and promise even more. I have long said that the quickest way out of Iraq is to let the military finish the job, so in this sense I am a McCain supporter, and I applaud Romney in making this a major factor in his decision to step down.
A question that should be asked of the conservative faction is where were they when the time came to vote for Romney in the primary elections and caucuses? The number of voters who have turned out for the Democratic Party nominating process is twice that of those who felt it important enough to vote in the Republican Party process. If it is so important to these conservatives to have a candidate who represents their values, why didn't they get out to support the candidate they felt best represented those ideas? Only those who failed to vote can answer that question, but it seems as though they had already accepted defeat.
Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are still actively campaigning in the race for the nomination, though neither of them is numerically viable at this point in the process. I agree with nearly everything Dr. Paul stands for, except that his ideas on foreign policy are a gross display of his naivete or outright ignorance of consensus reality. Even Hillary Clinton has suggested that she would leave a garrison in Iraq for technical support and military training, and Barack Obama has said that he would shift the majority of military force to Afghanistan and invade the "friendly" country of Pakistan if he felt it necessary. Although their ideas would cost more than any country could afford in the long run, they are still better than Dr Paul's theory that to shut America inside locked doors and ignore the rest of the world would immediately bring peace and prosperity. Still, his stand on Social Security, illegal immigration, supporting the Bush tax cuts, and ending government interference in the economy is worth consideration in building either the Republican or Libertarian party platform. Dr Paul's ideas on the economy would put much more in the pockets of Americans than any plan thought up by the majority of the other candidates from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.
What I really like about Governor Huckabee is his support of the Fair Tax Initiative. The Fair Tax Initiative abolishes the IRS and ends the confiscation of wages and earnings. This is essentially a federal sales tax that is truely voluntary--you only pay taxes on what you buy. Even those in the underground economy created by prohibition would pay taxes as opposed to the current system where their earnings are not reported and thus they do not pay taxes. Not having to pay taxes on your earnings is truly fair, it puts more money in the pockets of the consumer and encourages economic growth. McCain has indicated that he might be interested in the initiative.
Both Huckabee and Paul believe in the ability of the free market to come up with energy alternatives to replace petrofuels, while McCain stands for government controls to artificially influence the market toward alternative energy. McCain is known for stubbornly sticking to what he believes, but hopefully this is one issue he feels he should concede to the conservatives.
In fact, if Huckabee and Paul stay in the running long enough, their ideas would be given enough attention that they could become part of the Republican Party platform after the national convention. Then the Republicans could have a platform that could appeal to the conservatives and a candidate who would appeal to the moderates and independents, whose votes are always important in the general elections.
Personally, if I feel, come November, that John McCain has a chance of winning the presidential election, I will likely vote for him. However, if it seems that the Republicans are willing to hand the office of the President to the Democratic Party, I will, with clear conscience, vote Libertarian.I am certain that many independent voters will feel the same way, at least those who are genuinely concerned about the economy and the long term effects of a large scale growth of government as promised by the Democratic candidates. The whole idea of the Demopublican nominating system is to present the most electable candidate. The Republican party should understand this and follow the lead of Romney, if they are, in fact, concerned about their principles. Otherwise, in four years, the electorate will be so fed up with Demopublican politics, neither Republican nor Democratic candidates will have a base on which to ensure electability.
Now these pundits will be the first to declare that they are not telling people how to vote; that they are merely expressing what they stand for and it is up to their listeners to agree or disagree with them. But we know some of their listeners and we know that some would go along with their political commentary no matter what they say.
Mitt Romney's admission of fear that a conservative-moderate rift within the Republican Party would hand the presidential election to the Democratic candidate is well founded. For those of us who remember the way the economy was during the Carter years, a new Democratic administration that embraces fiscal ideas similar to Carter's spells disaster.
Romney's assertation that he would rather step down than see surrender to the Islamofascists in the Middle and Near East made a strong statement relevent to those of us who are concerned about where we would draw the line of defense, the disasterous effects of a precipitous withdrawal. McCain, as we all know, was advocating a surge and counter-insurgency operations in Iraq long before General Petreaeus came into the picture. We now know that McCain was correct in that the counter-insurgency operations in Iraq have shown a fair amount of success, and promise even more. I have long said that the quickest way out of Iraq is to let the military finish the job, so in this sense I am a McCain supporter, and I applaud Romney in making this a major factor in his decision to step down.
A question that should be asked of the conservative faction is where were they when the time came to vote for Romney in the primary elections and caucuses? The number of voters who have turned out for the Democratic Party nominating process is twice that of those who felt it important enough to vote in the Republican Party process. If it is so important to these conservatives to have a candidate who represents their values, why didn't they get out to support the candidate they felt best represented those ideas? Only those who failed to vote can answer that question, but it seems as though they had already accepted defeat.
Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee are still actively campaigning in the race for the nomination, though neither of them is numerically viable at this point in the process. I agree with nearly everything Dr. Paul stands for, except that his ideas on foreign policy are a gross display of his naivete or outright ignorance of consensus reality. Even Hillary Clinton has suggested that she would leave a garrison in Iraq for technical support and military training, and Barack Obama has said that he would shift the majority of military force to Afghanistan and invade the "friendly" country of Pakistan if he felt it necessary. Although their ideas would cost more than any country could afford in the long run, they are still better than Dr Paul's theory that to shut America inside locked doors and ignore the rest of the world would immediately bring peace and prosperity. Still, his stand on Social Security, illegal immigration, supporting the Bush tax cuts, and ending government interference in the economy is worth consideration in building either the Republican or Libertarian party platform. Dr Paul's ideas on the economy would put much more in the pockets of Americans than any plan thought up by the majority of the other candidates from both the Democratic and Republican Parties.
What I really like about Governor Huckabee is his support of the Fair Tax Initiative. The Fair Tax Initiative abolishes the IRS and ends the confiscation of wages and earnings. This is essentially a federal sales tax that is truely voluntary--you only pay taxes on what you buy. Even those in the underground economy created by prohibition would pay taxes as opposed to the current system where their earnings are not reported and thus they do not pay taxes. Not having to pay taxes on your earnings is truly fair, it puts more money in the pockets of the consumer and encourages economic growth. McCain has indicated that he might be interested in the initiative.
Both Huckabee and Paul believe in the ability of the free market to come up with energy alternatives to replace petrofuels, while McCain stands for government controls to artificially influence the market toward alternative energy. McCain is known for stubbornly sticking to what he believes, but hopefully this is one issue he feels he should concede to the conservatives.
In fact, if Huckabee and Paul stay in the running long enough, their ideas would be given enough attention that they could become part of the Republican Party platform after the national convention. Then the Republicans could have a platform that could appeal to the conservatives and a candidate who would appeal to the moderates and independents, whose votes are always important in the general elections.
Personally, if I feel, come November, that John McCain has a chance of winning the presidential election, I will likely vote for him. However, if it seems that the Republicans are willing to hand the office of the President to the Democratic Party, I will, with clear conscience, vote Libertarian.I am certain that many independent voters will feel the same way, at least those who are genuinely concerned about the economy and the long term effects of a large scale growth of government as promised by the Democratic candidates. The whole idea of the Demopublican nominating system is to present the most electable candidate. The Republican party should understand this and follow the lead of Romney, if they are, in fact, concerned about their principles. Otherwise, in four years, the electorate will be so fed up with Demopublican politics, neither Republican nor Democratic candidates will have a base on which to ensure electability.
Sunday, February 03, 2008
Another half-hearted attempt to explain myself
A commenter on this blog expressed curiosity of how I could reconcile being "Christ-oriented" with being a Phenominological Panthiest. It's actually easy for me to answer that. I believe in Christ as a philosophy, rather than as a religion, taking "religion" in the modern sense of organization and control. It is the teachings of Christ about the nature of the Spirit and mankind's relationship to God, that constitute my conviction, rather than the system of mandates and opinion set forth by "religion."
If you remove all the scriptures that make the foundation of Lucrecius of Antioch's church, and leave the scriptures that contain the teachings and the history of Jesus Christ (And why not? Lucrecius himself edited out many Gospels he felt weren't pertinent to his vision of the church), as Thomas Jefferson did for his own use, you have a concise record of Christ's answers to questions of the nature and relationship of God and Man, one that would cross reference well with the Tao tse Ching, and the teachings of the Buddha.
Jesus Christ teaches us that we simultaneously exist in three major realms, The Soul (The Father), the Holy Ghost (The Spirit), and the Son (The Material Body). He teaches us that what we do in one realm effects the other realms. He teaches us that we are capable of the same miracles that he performed, if we had Faith "but the size of a mustard seed."
And, He demonstrated "Salvation" by being crucified and returning to the material realm. It is with His Wisdom and Knowledge that we are made aware of our own immortality and of our true nature; that is, as Children of God, and as being in the Image of God.
In my personal reality, I believe that each individual exists in his or her own reality. If one believes in the tenets of modern religion or the edicts and dogma of a church, that is the real world in which that person exists. If a person believes that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, that is the reality of that person's world. If a person believes that God and Science are one and the same, that is yet another reality.
I hope I have satisfied your curiousity.
If you remove all the scriptures that make the foundation of Lucrecius of Antioch's church, and leave the scriptures that contain the teachings and the history of Jesus Christ (And why not? Lucrecius himself edited out many Gospels he felt weren't pertinent to his vision of the church), as Thomas Jefferson did for his own use, you have a concise record of Christ's answers to questions of the nature and relationship of God and Man, one that would cross reference well with the Tao tse Ching, and the teachings of the Buddha.
Jesus Christ teaches us that we simultaneously exist in three major realms, The Soul (The Father), the Holy Ghost (The Spirit), and the Son (The Material Body). He teaches us that what we do in one realm effects the other realms. He teaches us that we are capable of the same miracles that he performed, if we had Faith "but the size of a mustard seed."
And, He demonstrated "Salvation" by being crucified and returning to the material realm. It is with His Wisdom and Knowledge that we are made aware of our own immortality and of our true nature; that is, as Children of God, and as being in the Image of God.
In my personal reality, I believe that each individual exists in his or her own reality. If one believes in the tenets of modern religion or the edicts and dogma of a church, that is the real world in which that person exists. If a person believes that the Earth is only 5,000 years old, that is the reality of that person's world. If a person believes that God and Science are one and the same, that is yet another reality.
I hope I have satisfied your curiousity.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
The Oligarchy of the United States of America
Our country has trapped itself in a rut. For too long it has accepted a two party system as politics as usual, and politics as usual has achieved little but to create problems in the name of politics.
Politicians have a way of perceiving a problem and presenting it to the public, to make them believe there is a problem. They then explain how they would solve the problem they created, usually by throwing money at it. This creates the additional problem of how to obtain the money with which to throw at the problem. That means more taxes, fees, or laws which enable the government which these politicians control to confiscate property that it may sell for more revenue. No government at any level will ever have enough money to keep itself growing in power and influence.
This is politics as usual under the two party system. Both parties have one thing in common--the belief that government should be operated from the top down, and that the general public and those who conduct commerce, should be controlled by that government. Both the Democratic and Republican parties believe that the Federal Government exists for the good of the people, and that the government will decide what is good for the people.
This has created an oligarchy--a government of the many ruled by the few. This is a far cry from the intent of the Constitution, that set up a Republic in which individual rights were not to be governed by laws that were outside the constitutionally established rights of the government. The Rule of Law, as applied by the Constitution meant that the weak would be protected from the strong, and that the individual right to person and property would be protected from trespass by others. The role of the Federal Government was basically to solve disputes in commerce between the states, and to protect the sovereignty of the United States and of each individual state. State law had precedence over Federal law, as the smaller government of the state was more able to meet the needs of its people. This was because each state was divided into representative districts, representing communities or small groups of small communities, comprised of individuals who would elect the person they felt would best represent them in the state assembly or legislature.
Each state's assembly or legislature would elect two senators to the Senate House of Congress of the United States, while Representatives to the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States--the number of which depend on the population of the state, determining the number of federal districts--were elected by the voters in each district.
The President was elected by the voters in each state. Electors, also numbered according to population, would cast the actual ballot for the winner of the election in each state. This was done to offset a popular national vote that would give no voice to the states smaller in population.
This was by no means a "democracy" where each person gets one vote in all matters. Democracy's tend to destroy themselves, because there is no rule of law to protect the minorities, or to provide the system of checks and balances of a republic.
That is the basic idea of what we have for a government in the United States, but the major parties, the Democratic and the Republican, have hijacked this system to the point where they decide who the candidates for the Senate, the House, and the Presidency should be. They decide what issues are important to the voter, and what issues their party will represent, which usually has little relationship to what the voter thinks is important.
As we have seen in the current Congress, the members of each party represent the beliefs of their party rather than the beliefs of the individuals who elected them. That is to say, even if a representative drafts a bill that would benefit those who elected that person to office, and the person is a member of one party, the members of the other party would automatically strive to block it because it is contrary to the position of their party.
If one party thinks that commerce is important to the strength of the Republic, and the well being of the people, the other party will automatically oppose commerce. A very good illustration of this could be seen in a recent Democratic party debate, where one presidential nomination candidate criticised another candidate for being associated with Wal-Mart, thus identifying her as being in league with the opposing Republican Party. Why is this a bad thing? Don't the Democratic Party politicians believe in helping the poor? Hasn't Wal-Mart given hundreds of thousands of jobs to people who lived where there were no jobs for them? Hasn't Wal-Mart made goods available to people who could normally not afford those goods?
But that is wrong, according to the Democrats, because it is an individual corporation that is helping the poor, and the Democratic candidates should be against individual corporations because the Republicans support individual corporations. The Democratic candidates believe that helping the poor is a role that the Federal Government should be involved in.
The major parties have created two large voting blocks in which there is no gray area, only black and white. They strive to represent us by controlling how we behave in everything from what we eat to who we sleep with. Each block has it's own ideas of how and where to exert this control, but the bottom line is that they represent those ideas. We are being ruled by a few elitists who call themselves politicians, but they represent the political party to which they belong, not the views of those who elected them. If the voter doesn't agree with those views, they will tell the voter what they think he or she needs to know. The political parties can't control what we do unless they control what we think, so they make sure they tell us what to think. Whatever happened to the Republic?
It has been replaced by the Oligarchy,
Politicians have a way of perceiving a problem and presenting it to the public, to make them believe there is a problem. They then explain how they would solve the problem they created, usually by throwing money at it. This creates the additional problem of how to obtain the money with which to throw at the problem. That means more taxes, fees, or laws which enable the government which these politicians control to confiscate property that it may sell for more revenue. No government at any level will ever have enough money to keep itself growing in power and influence.
This is politics as usual under the two party system. Both parties have one thing in common--the belief that government should be operated from the top down, and that the general public and those who conduct commerce, should be controlled by that government. Both the Democratic and Republican parties believe that the Federal Government exists for the good of the people, and that the government will decide what is good for the people.
This has created an oligarchy--a government of the many ruled by the few. This is a far cry from the intent of the Constitution, that set up a Republic in which individual rights were not to be governed by laws that were outside the constitutionally established rights of the government. The Rule of Law, as applied by the Constitution meant that the weak would be protected from the strong, and that the individual right to person and property would be protected from trespass by others. The role of the Federal Government was basically to solve disputes in commerce between the states, and to protect the sovereignty of the United States and of each individual state. State law had precedence over Federal law, as the smaller government of the state was more able to meet the needs of its people. This was because each state was divided into representative districts, representing communities or small groups of small communities, comprised of individuals who would elect the person they felt would best represent them in the state assembly or legislature.
Each state's assembly or legislature would elect two senators to the Senate House of Congress of the United States, while Representatives to the House of Representatives of the Congress of the United States--the number of which depend on the population of the state, determining the number of federal districts--were elected by the voters in each district.
The President was elected by the voters in each state. Electors, also numbered according to population, would cast the actual ballot for the winner of the election in each state. This was done to offset a popular national vote that would give no voice to the states smaller in population.
This was by no means a "democracy" where each person gets one vote in all matters. Democracy's tend to destroy themselves, because there is no rule of law to protect the minorities, or to provide the system of checks and balances of a republic.
That is the basic idea of what we have for a government in the United States, but the major parties, the Democratic and the Republican, have hijacked this system to the point where they decide who the candidates for the Senate, the House, and the Presidency should be. They decide what issues are important to the voter, and what issues their party will represent, which usually has little relationship to what the voter thinks is important.
As we have seen in the current Congress, the members of each party represent the beliefs of their party rather than the beliefs of the individuals who elected them. That is to say, even if a representative drafts a bill that would benefit those who elected that person to office, and the person is a member of one party, the members of the other party would automatically strive to block it because it is contrary to the position of their party.
If one party thinks that commerce is important to the strength of the Republic, and the well being of the people, the other party will automatically oppose commerce. A very good illustration of this could be seen in a recent Democratic party debate, where one presidential nomination candidate criticised another candidate for being associated with Wal-Mart, thus identifying her as being in league with the opposing Republican Party. Why is this a bad thing? Don't the Democratic Party politicians believe in helping the poor? Hasn't Wal-Mart given hundreds of thousands of jobs to people who lived where there were no jobs for them? Hasn't Wal-Mart made goods available to people who could normally not afford those goods?
But that is wrong, according to the Democrats, because it is an individual corporation that is helping the poor, and the Democratic candidates should be against individual corporations because the Republicans support individual corporations. The Democratic candidates believe that helping the poor is a role that the Federal Government should be involved in.
The major parties have created two large voting blocks in which there is no gray area, only black and white. They strive to represent us by controlling how we behave in everything from what we eat to who we sleep with. Each block has it's own ideas of how and where to exert this control, but the bottom line is that they represent those ideas. We are being ruled by a few elitists who call themselves politicians, but they represent the political party to which they belong, not the views of those who elected them. If the voter doesn't agree with those views, they will tell the voter what they think he or she needs to know. The political parties can't control what we do unless they control what we think, so they make sure they tell us what to think. Whatever happened to the Republic?
It has been replaced by the Oligarchy,
Friday, January 04, 2008
Issues come to front at Iowa Caucus
One time underdog Mike Huckabee, and relative newcomer Barak Obama won their respective party's nomination for President in Iowa. What does this mean? Not much, and certainly not as much weight the news services put on it. The winning candidates may get more finance for their campaigns because of their victories, but in the overall view, Iowa doesn't represent the nation's views on the issues. In fact, the result of the caucus isn't even representative of how Iowa voters feel, as only 20% of Iowa voters participate in the caucuses.
Personally I don't care about the outcome in Iowa. I have little interest in any of the candidates running in either party. The best that can be said about them is that they are very good at talking around the issues. Surely they all have plans, but they refuse to explain how they can implement these plans as President, if, indeed, they find themselves in office.
According to the wonderful humor and satire site, The Onion the real issue is:
Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
If the video doesn't appear, please click here
Personally I don't care about the outcome in Iowa. I have little interest in any of the candidates running in either party. The best that can be said about them is that they are very good at talking around the issues. Surely they all have plans, but they refuse to explain how they can implement these plans as President, if, indeed, they find themselves in office.
According to the wonderful humor and satire site, The Onion the real issue is:
Poll: Bullshit Is Most Important Issue For 2008 Voters
If the video doesn't appear, please click here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
