Filed under: Humor (If one can laugh at such a serious situation)
Filed under: Who Is Obama?
Michelle Malkin’s blog On June 10th, 2008 at 8:37 said:
Quote: Barack Obama is not legally a U.S. Natural-born citizen according to the law on the books at the time of his birth, which falls between “December 24, 1952 to November 13, 1986”. Presidential office requires a natural-born citizen if the child was not born to two U.S. Citizen parents, which of course is what exempts John McCain though he was born in the Panama Canal both his parents were US Citizens in a US Territory. US Law very clearly stipulates: “If only one parent was a U.S. Citizen at the time of your birth, that parent must have resided in the United States for at least ten years, at least five of which had to be after the age of 16.” Barack Obama’s father was not a U.S. Citizen and Obama’s mother was only 18 when Obama was born, which means though she had been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years, (or citizen perhaps because of Hawai’i being a territory) the mother fails the test for being so for at least 5 years **prior to** Barack Obama’s birth, but *after* age 16. It doesn’t matter *after*. In essence, she was not old enough to qualify her son for automatic U.S. Citizenship. At most, there were only 2 years elapsed since his mother turned 16 at the time of Barack Obama’s birth when she was 18 in Hawai’i. His mother would have needed to have been 16+5= 21 years old, at the time of Barack Obama’s birth for him to have been a natural-born citizen. As aforementioned, she was a young college student at the time and was not. Barack Obama was already 3 years old at that time his mother would have needed to have waited to have him as the only U.S. Citizen parent. Obama instead should have been naturalized, but even then, that would still disqualify him from holding the office.
*** Naturalized citizens are ineligible to hold the office of President. ***
Though Barack Obama was sent back to Hawaii at age 10, all the other info does not matter because his mother is the one who needed to have been a U.S. Citizen for 10 years prior to his birth on August 4, 1961, with 5 of those years being after age 16. Further, Obama may have had to have remained in the country for some time to protect any citizenship he would have had, rather than living in Indonesia. Now you can see why Obama’s aides stopped his speech about how we technically have more than 50 states, because it would have led to this discovery. This is very clear cut and a blaring violation of U.S. Election law. I think the Gov. Of California would be very interested in knowing this if Obama were elected President without being a natural-born U.S. Citizen, and it would set precedence. Stay tuned to your TV sets because I suspect some of this information will be leaking through over the next several days.
Filed under: Who Is Obama?
We are witnessing a political phenomenon with Barack Obama of rare magnitude. His speeches have inspired millions and yet most of his followers have no idea of what he stands for except platitudes of “Change” or that he says he will be a “Uniter.” The power of speech from a charismatic person truly can be a powerful thing. Certainly Billy Graham had charisma and both his manner of speech and particularly the content changed millions. On the extreme other hand, the charisma of Adolph Hitler inspired millions and the results were catastrophic. Barack Obama certainly is no Hitler or a Billy Graham, but for many Americans out there feeling just like a surfer who might be ecstatic and euphoric while riding a tidal wave, the real story is what happens when it hits shore.
Just Some of What Defines Barack Obama:
* He voted against banning partial birth abortion.
* He voted no on notifying parents of minors who get out-of-state abortions.
* Supports affirmative action in Colleges and Government.
* In 2001 he questioned harsh penalties for drug dealing.
* Says he will deal with street level drug dealing as minimum wage affair.
* Admitted marijuana and cocaine use in high school and in college.
* His religious convictions are very murky.
* He is willing to meet with Fidel Castro, Hugo Chavez, Kim Jung and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.
* Has said that one of his first goals after being elected would be to have a conference with all Muslim nations.
* Opposed the Patriot Act.
* First bill he signed that was passed was campaign finance reform.
* Voted No on prohibiting law suits against gun manufacturers.
* Supports universal health-care.
* Voted y es on providing habeas cor pus for Guantanamo detainees.
* Supports granting driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants.
* Supports extending welfare to illegal immigrants.
* Voted yes on comprehensive immigration reform.
* Voted yes on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security.
* Wants to make the minimum wage a “living wage.”
* Voted with Democratic Party 96 percent of 251 votes.
* Is a big believer in the separation of church and state.
* Opposed to any efforts to Privatize Social Security and instead supports increasing the amount of tax paid.
* He voted No on repealing the Alternative Minimum Tax
* He voted No on repealing the “Death” Tax
* He wants to raise the Capital Gains Tax.
* Has repeatedly said the surge in Iraq has not succeeded.
* He is ranked as the most liberal Senator in the Senate today and that takes some doing.
If your political choices are consistent with Barack Obama’s and you think that his positions will bring America together or make it a better place, then you will probably enjoy the ride. If you are like most Americans that after examining what he stands for, are truly not in line with his record, it would be prudent to get off the wave or better yet, never get on, before it comes on shore and undermines the very foundations of this great Country. We have limited time to save America or the Supreme Court as we know it. Inaction is action.
Bill Brown, retired member of the Billy Graham team
Filed under: US Politics
U.S. Senator John McCain (R-AZ) addressed the national convention of Christians United for Israel in Washington, DC on Tuesday, July 17th. The remarks as prepared for delivery are below.
“Thank you for the honor of speaking before this gathering, and thank you for the work you do in support of the State of Israel. Your efforts are needed today more than ever, as it is harder to think of a time in recent memory when Israel’s national security has faced so many varied challenges.
“The Jewish state has, of course, experienced tough times before – indeed, they have perhaps been the norm rather than the exception. When one thinks back over the conflicts – 1948, the Six Day War, Yom Kippur, Lebanon, the first Gulf War, two intifadas and Lebanon again – it is clear that Israel has been challenged more, in less time, than any nation on earth. Survival in the face of such trials would be impressive; flourishing would seem out of the question.
“Yet Israel has thrived. I would like to believe that Israel’s success has been aided by America, Israel’s natural partner and ally, and by its supporters here and the world over – several thousand of which are here today. But the tests continue – with Hamas and Hezbollah, in the anti-Semitism so pervasive in the Arab press, in the restive violence in Iraq and elsewhere, and in the vile threats issued routinely by the Iranian president.
“But Israel will survive. Just as it has thrived in the face of armies and terrorists, just as it has prospered in the most dangerous neighborhood on earth, so will it succeed in the face of today’s threats. There will always, always be an Israel.
“And just as there will always be a proud, strong Israel, so too will there always be a close and enduring U.S.-Israel relationship. When it comes to the defense of Israel, we simply cannot compromise. In view of the increased threats to Israeli security, American support for Israel should intensify – to include providing needed military equipment and technology and ensuring that Israel maintains its qualitative military edge. Israel’s enemies are too numerous, its margin of error too small, and our shared interests and values too great for any other position.
“Israel’s strength will be put to the test. The world’s chief state sponsor of international terrorism, Iran, defines itself by hostility to Israel and the United States. It is simply tragic that millennia of proud Persian history have culminated in a government today that cannot be counted among those of the world’s civilized nations. When the president of Iran calls for Israel to be wiped off of the map, or asks for a world without Zionism, or suggests that Israel’s Jewish population return to Europe, or calls the Holocaust a myth, it is clear that we are dealing with an evil man and a very dangerous regime.
“Tehran’s continued pursuit of nuclear weapons clearly poses an unacceptable risk. Protected by a nuclear arsenal, Iran would feel unconstrained to sponsor terrorist attacks against any perceived enemy. Its flouting of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty would render that regime obsolete, and could induce Turkey, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and others to reassess their defense posture. Moderate Gulf states would have to accommodate the new reality, and the world would live, indefinitely, with the possibility that Tehran might pass nuclear materials or weapons to one of its allied terrorist networks. Coupled with its ballistic missile arsenal, an Iranian nuclear capability would pose an immediate and existential threat to the State of Israel.
“UN Security Council action is required to impose progressively tougher political and economic sanctions. Should the Security Council continue to drag its feet, the U.S. must lead a group of like-minded countries in imposing multilateral sanctions outside the UN framework. Iran’s need to import refined gasoline, to cite one example, suggests an important vulnerability. And countries such as China and Malaysia, which have signed deals to develop Iranian gas fields, and Russia, which provides weapons systems to Tehran, should know that Iran will be a critical element in American’s bilateral relations with each nation. In the meantime, the U.S. should immediately investigate whether any of these deals violate the terms of last year’s Iran Freedom Support Act.
“The U.S. should also privatize the sanctions effort by launching a disinvestment campaign. By persuading individuals, pension funds, and financial institutions to divest from companies doing business with Iran, we can isolate and delegitimize a hostile government. We will also, as we did with the South Africa disinvestment campaign, increase the debate inside the country about whether the present course serves the interests of the Iranian people or merely those of a misguided elite. Americans and all proponents of freedom need to reassure the millions of Iranians who aspire to self-determination that we support their longing for freedom and democracy.
“And every option must remain on the table. Military action isn’t our preference. It remains, as it always must, the last option. We have some way to go diplomatically before we need to contemplate other measures. But it is a simple observation of reality that there is only one thing worse than a military solution, and that, my friends, is a nuclear armed Iran. The regime must understand that it cannot win a showdown with the world.
“Similarly, the leadership of Hamas must be isolated. The Palestinian people are ill-served by a terrorist-led government that refuses to recognize Israel’s right to exist, refuses to renounce violence, and refuses to acknowledge prior peace commitments. The United States cannot have normal relations with such a government, one that deliberately targets innocent Israeli civilians in an attempt to terrorize the Jewish population.
“The recent talks between the Israeli government and the government led by President Mahmoud Abbas in the West Bank are encouraging, and the United States should support this effort. We also must ensure that Israel’s people can live in safety until a Palestinian leadership truly committed to peace emerges. No moral nation – neither Israel nor America – can allow terrorists to chart the political course of its people.
“And to speak of terrorism is also to speak of Hezbollah. Israel’s chance for enduring peace with Lebanon resides in a government that has a monopoly on authority within its country. That means no independent militias, no Hezbollah fighters, no weapons and equipment flowing to Hezbollah. Yet neither the Lebanese Army nor the international force there is prepared or willing to take on Hezbollah. So long as that is the case, the current pause is likely to enable Hezbollah to regroup, reconstitute, and rearm. There is one bottom line: to achieve lasting peace, sooner or later, one way or another, Hezbollah must be disarmed.
“Now let me turn briefly to Iraq. We have made a great many mistakes in this war, and both Baghdad and Washington remain divided about how to correct them. The situation in Iraq is very difficult, and the temptation is to wash our hands of a messy situation. To follow this impulse, however, portends catastrophe, for Iraq, Israel, and the United States.
“Because a precipitous American withdrawal risks all-out civil war and the emergence of a failed state in the heart of the Middle East, inviting intervention from Iraq’s neighbors and the potential for region-wide conflict, we must do all in our power to prevail. This means supporting General Petraeus as he leads our troops in counterinsurgency operations designed to clear areas of terrorists and bring security to the population. It also means pressing the Maliki government to make political progress, which has been sorely lacking. The Iraqi government must seize the opportunity that has been provided it by the “surge” in U.S. forces and make bold steps on reconciliation. It will not come around again.
“Preventing Iraq from falling into the hands of terrorists and extremists is only natural for the United States, and springs from the same interests and values that compel our close relationship with the state of Israel. Violent Islamic extremists would have us believe that there is only one acceptable religious practice, and that those who diverge from it are not entitled to life or liberty. They are wrong, very, very wrong.
“If America stands for anything, it stands for the freedom to follow our own minds and hearts, to determine our own relationship with God. I did not realize just how precious this freedom is until it was taken away. As some in this audience may know, I spent several years as a prisoner of war, a time when all my freedoms were rescinded. And yet it was my very faith in a Supreme Being that sustained me and strengthened me while at the hands of my captors.
“Our founders built in this nation an amazing thing – a democracy that guarantees the right of every citizen to worship God in the way that they choose. We must protect that freedom here in our own country by ensuring that judges do not legislate from the bench to remove religion from the public squares of our communities. And we must support its expansion abroad by standing with those whom, because of their religion and their values, come under threat.
“It is evident that I am speaking, once again, of Israel. The bond between America and Israel is not just a strategic one, though that is important. The more profound tie between our two countries is a moral one. We are two democracies whose alliance is forged in our common values. To be proudly pro-American and pro-Israeli is not to hold conflicting loyalties. It is about defending the principles that both countries hold dear. That is why today I stand as I believe so many of you do: a Christian, proudly pro-American and proudly pro-Israel.”
Barack says we need to have a conversation about race in America.? Fair enough. But this time, it has to be a two-way conversation. White America needs to be heard from, not just lectured to. This time, the Silent Majority needs to have its convictions, grievances and demands heard. And among them are these:
First, America has been the best country on earth for black folks. It was here that 600,000 black people, brought from Africa in slave ships, grew into a community of 40 million, were introduced to Christian salvation, and reached the greatest levels of freedom and prosperity blacks have ever known. Wright ought to go down on his knees and thank God he is an American.
Second, no people anywhere has done more to lift up blacks than white Americans. Untold trillions have been spent since the ’60s on welfare, food stamps, rent supplements, Section 8 housing, Pell grants, student loans, legal services, Medicaid, Earned Income Tax Credits and poverty programs designed to bring the African-American community into the mainstream.
Governments, businesses and colleges have engaged in discrimination against white folks — with affirmative action, contract set-asides and quotas — to advance black applicants over white applicants.
Churches, foundations, civic groups, schools and individuals all over America have donated time and money to support soup kitchens, adult education, day care, retirement and nursing homes for blacks.
We hear the grievances. Where is the gratitude??
Barack talks about new ‘ladders of opportunity’ for blacks.
Let him go to Altoona?and Johnstown, and ask the white kids in Catholic schools how many were visited lately by Ivy League recruiters handing out scholarships for ‘deserving’ white kids.?
Is white America really responsible for the fact that the crime and incarceration rates for African-Americans are seven times those of white America? Is it really white America’s fault that illegitimacy in the African-American community has hit 70 percent and the black dropout rate from high schools in some cities has reached 50 percent?
Is that the fault of white America or, first and foremost, a failure of the black community itself?
As for racism, its ugliest manifestation is in interracial crime, and especially interracial crimes of violence. Is Barack Obama aware that while white criminals choose black victims 3 percent of the time, black criminals choose white victims 45 percent of the time?
Is Barack aware that black-on-white rapes are 100 times more common than the reverse, that black-on-white robberies were 139 times as common in the first three years of this decade as the reverse?
We have all heard ad nauseam from the Rev. Al about Tawana Brawley, the Duke rape case and Jena. And all turned out to be hoaxes. But about the epidemic of black assaults on whites that are real, we hear nothing.
Sorry, Barack, some of us have heard it all before, about 40 years and 40 trillion tax dollars ago.
Patrick J. Buchanan
Filed under: Iraq
I don’t know who wrote it but they should have signed it.. Some powerful words. This woman should run for president. Written by a housewife from New Jersey and sounds like it! This is one ticked off lady.
‘Are we fighting a war on terror or aren’t we? Was it or was it not started by Islamic people who brought it to our shores on September 11, 2001? Were people from all over the world, mostly Americans, not brutally murdered that day, in downtown Manhattan , across the Potomac from our nation’s capitol and in a field in Pennsylvania? Did nearly three thousand men, women and children die a horrible, burning or crushing death that day, or didn’t they?
And I’m supposed to care that a copy of the Koran was ‘desecrated’ when an overworked American soldier kicked it or got it wet?… Well, I don’t. I don’t care at all.
I’ll start caring when Osama bin Laden turns himself in and repents for incinerating all those innocent people on 9/11.
I’ll care about the Koran when the fanatics in the Middle East start caring about the Holy Bible, the mere possession of which is a crime in Saudi Arabia
I’ll care when these thugs tell the world they are sorry for hacking off Nick Berg’s head while Berg screamed through his gurgling slashed throat.
I’ll care when the cowardly so-called ‘insurgents’ in Iraq come out and fight like men instead of disrespecting their own religion by hiding in mosques.
I’ll care when the mindless zealots who blow themselves up in search of nirvana care about the innocent children within range of their suicide bombs.
I’ll care when the American media stops pretending that their First Amendment liberties are somehow derived from international law instead of the United States Constitution’s Bill of Rights.
In the meantime, when I hear a story about a brave marine roughing up an Iraqi terrorist to obtain information, know this: I don’t care.
When I see a fuzzy photo of a pile of naked Iraqi prisoners who have been humiliated in what amounts to a college-hazing incident, rest assured: I don’t care.
When I see a wounded terrorist get shot in the head when he is told not to move because he might be booby-trapped, you can take it to the bank: I don’t care.
When I hear that a prisoner, who was issued a Koran and a prayer mat, and fed ‘special’ food that is paid for by my tax dollars, is complaining that his holy book is being ‘mishandled,’ you can absolutely believe in your heart of hearts: I don’t care.
And oh, by the way, I’ve noticed that sometimes it’s spelled ‘Koran’ and other times ‘Quran.’ Well, Jimmy Crack Corn and-you guessed it-I don’t care !!
Filed under: US Politics
07/15/2008 By: Chuck Norris Yes, that Chuck Norris.)
I think it’s time to let Congress feel our election fury this November. As reflected in the latest Rasmussen Reports, “Just 9 percent (of Americans) say Congress is doing a good or excellent job.” It is the first single-digit approval rating for Congress in Rasmussen’s history, and it makes Bush’s 30 percent approval rating seem like a stat to boast. The study went on to explain: “Just 12 percent of voters think Congress has passed any legislation to improve life in this country over the past six months. That number has ranged from 11 percent to 13 percent throughout 2008.”
Even The Associated Press reported last week, in the story “Congress mostly going through the motions for now,” that “some fights of the 110th Congress have lost their oomph in the waning months before the November elections, with both parties content to run out the clock on messy matters.”
If members of Congress are not relevant or improving Americans’ lives, why do we elect and re-elect them into office?!
If you ever have heard the saying “too many cooks in the kitchen,” then you know how I feel about Congress. We have more representatives than we need and even many more than the Constitution requires. What many might not realize is that there is nothing ultimately sacred about the present number of people we have in the House of Representatives. Actually, the proper number of representatives from each state has been debated since our Founders’ time. The Constitution endeavors to assure fairness and equity by requiring each state to have at least one representative, two senators and representation in the Electoral College. (At the other extreme, it states, “The number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand.”) So why not go with the fewest number allowed? It seems to me that in our day, in both House and Senate, fewer representatives by area would be more reasonable and effective than more representatives by population.
The current numbers in the House are stacked in discriminatory ways. For example, California has a large liberal voice with its 53 representatives. How fair is that for smaller, more conservative states that have between one and five representatives in the House? I believe just as we have one governor per state, we should consider reducing Congress to one representative and two senators per state (the minimum the Constitution requires). If one representative works for Alaska, Delaware, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, Vermont and Wyoming, why can’t it work for the rest of the states? Here’s a movie we all can star in: “Honey, I Shrunk the Congress!”
I agree with the rationale of James Madison, a member of the Continental Congress and our fourth president, who advocated keeping the number of representatives within limits: “Nothing can be more fallacious, than to found our political calculations on arithmetical principles. Sixty or seventy men, may be more properly trusted with a given degree of power, than six or seven. But it does not follow, that six or seven hundred would be proportionally a better depositary. And if we carry on the supposition to six or seven thousand, the whole reasoning ought to be reversed.”
If we follow Madison’s advice and have fewer representatives, then they couldn’t put the blame for their incompetence upon other members of Congress. There would be less gridlock. They probably would get more done. Plus financially speaking, reducing Congress would save us at least $200 million, if you consider all their staff, overhead, travel, pension plans and other perks. And if we didn’t like how the few represented us, we would have an easier time correcting their voices or disposing of them. Just a thought.
Bottom line: It is “we the People” who have power over the government, not them over us. They are called to protect our pursuit of life, liberty and happiness, not vice versa. And if they don’t, the Declaration of Independence states, in no uncertain terms, that we are “to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for (our) future Security.” It’s time to replace most members of Congress with “new Guards” who do the following:
— Uphold the Constitution and Bill of Rights.
— Protect Americans’ inalienable rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
— Promote less government.
— Fight for fewer taxes.
— Demand balanced budgets.
— Secure our borders.
— Reduce our national deficit, debts and dependence upon other nations.
Disappointment with modern-day government and the preservation of our Founders’ America is exactly why I’ve just completed my book “Black Belt Patriotism,” which you can pre-order now on Amazon.com. It will be released in September through Regnery Publishing. It is my critique of what is destroying our country and how we can rebuild it and restore the American dream. I wrote the book because, as that famous “Network” line goes, “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore!”
GrassTopsUSA Exclusive Commentary By Don Feder
07-07-08
On June 30, Barack Obama gives a speech in Independence, Missouri proclaiming his “deep and abiding love for this country,” and daring anyone to question his patriotism.
The July 7 issue of “Time” Magazine has a cover story (“The New Patriotism”) asserting, “And no matter how they define patriotism, Americans should tremble before insisting that any fellow citizen lacks it.” If the mainstream media got talking-points from the Democratic National Committee, they could hardly be more on-message.
The “Time” story was written by Richard Stengel, a senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. Taking instruction on patriotism from “Time” and the CFR is like getting lessons in decorum from Madonna or hearing a sobriety lecture by Lindsay Lohan.
Among other fanciful interpretations of electoral history, Stengel writes that Nixon was reelected in 1972 because his cabinet wore American flag lapel pins and McGovern’s entourage did not. Couldn’t have anything to do with the fact that the New Left icon ran on a platform of socialism at home and surrender in Vietnam, could it?
The CFR fellow also thinks Mike Dukakis lost in 1988 because, as governor of Massachusetts, he had refused to sign a bill requiring teachers to lead students in the Pledge of Allegiance. Defending furloughs for rapists and murders apparently had nothing to do with Dukakis’ defeat that year — any more than his freezing like a deer in the headlights when asked if he’d still oppose capital punishment if his wife was raped and murdered.
It’s all about the refusal of noble Democrats to wrap themselves in the flag, while crass, opportunistic Republicans act like George M. Cohan at a 4th of July picnic, according to “Time.”
The essay also informed us, “American patriotism wears two faces: a patriotism of affirmation, which appeals more to conservatives, and a patriotism of dissent, particularly cherished by liberals.”
I don’t know any true patriot who questions the right of Americans to dissent on any issue, whether we agree with them or not.
The left’s patriotism-deficit has less to do with dissent than a very real and ingrained hostility toward America.
Its recitation of our national saga runs from slavery to Wounded Knee, to the wartime internment of Japanese Americans, to segregation to My Lai and Abu Ghraib — excluding everything else. Liberals love America; they just can’t find anything positive to say about it, other than Susan B. Anthony and Rosa Parks.
The article also discloses, “The American who volunteers to fight in Iraq and the American who protests the war both express a truer patriotism than the American who treats it as a distant spectacle with no claim on his talents or conscience.”
This is a truly weird moral equivalency — one which equates the young Marine who loses a limb in a Baghdad bombing with the moron Marxist who claims the Marines are the equivalent of the Waffen S.S. and the Iraq war is really about “blood for oil.”
In trying to rationalize how the left can hate our history and heritage while still claiming the mantle of patriotism, Stengel explains: “For liberals, America is less a common culture than a set of ideals about democracy, equality and the rule of law.” Toward the end of his Independence speech, Obama informed us: “Patriotism is always more than just loyalty to a place on a map or a certain kind of people. Instead, it is loyalty to America’s idea. …”
In other words, the left’s loyalty isn’t to America as it is, but to an ideal America reflected in certain principles. The problem with this proposition is that liberals have betrayed both America and the ideals on which it was founded.
“Democracy”? The left stands for the rule of judges, not representative government. What’s democratic about Obama insisting that the people of California should not have a vote on marriage — that instead the definition should be determined by the one-vote majority of an unelected body?
How do you reconcile “equality before the law” with racial quotas or affirmative action? Martin Luther King believed a man should be judged by the content of his character, not the color of his skin. The left believes in privileges based on race, gender, ethnicity or, increasingly, what it calls sexual orientation.
What could be more American than the freedom to speak one’s mind, especially in a political context?
Liberals will defend to the death your right to agree with them. When it comes to dissent from political correctness, they are censors nonpareil. The left controls higher education more completely than any other aspect of American life. Not only is anti-Americanism rampant on the college campus, so too is a uniformity of opinion enforced with an iron hand.
Campus speech codes are based on the fascist notion that the expression of certain ideas must be punished. A recent example of the academic totalitarian mindset was the firing of an African-American administrator at the University of Toledo for writing a letter to the editor objecting to homosexuals being compared to blacks.
The left believes in a “patriotism of dissent” for itself, and itself alone — not on the college campus, not in front of an abortion clinic (which, thanks to the likes of Ted Kennedy, are insulated from protest by speech-suppression, buffer zones), and definitely not when the opinions expressed are alleged to be offensive to certain minorities. Hate crimes laws are the left’s most daring adventure in censorship.
Before “Time” was gracious enough to explain patriotism to those of us who cling to our guns or religion or anti-(illegal) immigrant sentiment when we feel bitter, Barack Obama put on his own star-spangled extravaganza.
At the Independence rally, standing in front of not one but four American flags, lapel pin firmly in place, hand over heart — all that was missing was John Philip Sousa and the Mormon Tabernacle Choir — Barack Hussein Obama “tried to reassure voters about his patriotism” (in the words of ABC News).
When was the last time a presidential candidate had to reassure voters that he actually liked his country? Do you wonder, then, that the Democrats consider patriotism Obama’s Achilles heel?
Just because he refused to wear an American flag lapel pin last year, just because he wouldn’t hold his hand anywhere near his heart while the National Anthem played, just because Frau Obama suggested that she never had a reason to feel pride in America until her husband’s presidential campaign, just because his minister of 20 years regularly reviled the United States from the pulpit, is that any reason to question Obama’s patriotism? That’s a rhetorical question.
“At certain times over the last 16 months, I have found, for the first time, my patriotism challenged,” Obama disclosed to gasps of astonished outrage from the audience.
But he wasn’t about to take it in a supine position. “I will never question the patriotism of others in this campaign,” the Democrat promised. “And I will not stand idly by when others question mine.” Yeah, like anybody’s going to question the patriotism of the candidate with the crippled arm, the result of six years of torture as a POW.
Obama went further, charging that the “question of who is — or is not — a patriot all too often poisons our political debate” — the flag-waving equivalent of the politics of personal destruction.
You can see why liberals get antsy when the discussion turns to love of country.
Treason permeates the left. Its bastions — Hollywood, academia, the establishment media and the mainline churches — are nests of treason.
In a world where America fights for its survival against a jihadist threat dedicated to ushering in a new Dark Ages — in an era when 3,000 Americans died in the bloodiest attack on the continental U.S., another 4,000 died in Iraq and more than 30,000 were wounded in that conflict — it’s not hard to see why the left is frantic to avoid a candid discussion of patriotism.
Well, permit me to inject a bit of what Obama calls poison into our political debate. Start trembling, Richard Stengel, I’m about to suggest that some of my fellow citizens are lacking in patriotic ardor.
Filmmaker Michael Moore, ayatollah of the anti-American documentary, who compares the Iraqi terrorists to the Minutemen, is less than patriotic. Moore has devoted his career to depicting America as a nation of gun nuts and greedy bastards.
Cindy (Bush-killed-my-son) Sheehan, who claims “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started. This country is not worth dying for,” will never be mistaken for Betsy Ross.
Columbia Professor Nicholas De Genova told a 2003 teach-in: “U.S. flags are the emblem of the invading war machine in Iraq today. … The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military.” De Genova, who also called for “a million Mogadishus” (in reference to the 1993 Somali ambush, where 18 American soldiers died), doesn’t wear a flag lapel pin — unless it’s the flag of Cuba or North Korea.
Ersatz American Indian Ward Churchill, formerly a professor at the University of Colorado, called the Americans who died on 9/11 “little Eichmanns,” and says he doesn’t just want the U.S. out of the Persian Gulf, but “out of North America” and “off the planet.” Sorry, Stengel and Senator, but I gotta go out on a limb here and question this guy’s patriotism — not to mention his sanity.
Speaking of the inhabitants of another planet, in January, the City Council of Berkeley, California (liberalism’s home town) resolved that the Marines weren’t welcome in the city limits, said that the good people of Berkeley should shun Marine Corps recruiters like other “violent influences” and called on anti-war elements like Code Pink to disrupt the work of recruiting offices. Can anyone call this patriotic dissent, with a straight face?
What does any of this have to do with newly minted super-patriot George Lincoln Obama? Look homeward, Hussein.
On May 25, Father Michael Pfleger preached a sermon at Chicago’s Trinity United Church in Christ (Barack’s house of worship for 19 years), in which he earnestly declared, “I also believe that America is the greatest sin against God.” Now, how exactly is calling America a “sin against God” an expression of your love for this country?
Pfleger also believes “America has been raping people of color” throughout our history. Am I wrong, or is rape not a good thing?
Obama and Pfleger have been friends since the late 1980s. Between 1995 and 2001, Pfleger contributed a total of $1,500 to various Obama campaigns. As a Senator, Obama directed $225,000 in grants to Pfleger’s Chicago church, St Sabina. Like Jeremiah Wright, Obama’s pastor for almost 20 years, Pfleger has a crush on Minister Louis Farrakhan. He calls the Nazi of Islam leader “a prophetic voice” and a “mentor.”
But when it comes to hating America, Pfleger can’t hold a candle to the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr., the man Obama formerly described as “like an uncle to me” (the kind of uncle families used to keep locked in the attic).
Wright refers to America as the “U.S. of K.K.K,” says “America is the No. 1 killer in the world,” claims the U.S. government invented the AIDS virus as a “means of genocide against people of color,” and urged parishioners to say “God damn America.”
Of course, Barack O-Baloney would have us believe that he sat in a pew of the Trinity United Church of Christ for two decades and never heard a word of Wright’s acid anti-Americanism. After World War II, there were probably Germans who claimed they never heard Hitler say anything bad about Jews at a Nuremberg rally.
Patriotism is one of those concepts that’s difficult to define in 25 words or less.
But I can tell you what it’s not. It’s not “America has been killing people on this continent since it was started.” It’s not “The only true heroes are those who find ways to defeat the U.S. military.” It’s not “America is the greatest sin against God.” It’s not “America is the No. 1 killer in the world” and “God damn America.”
Given the company Obama has been keeping, I’m surprised Jane Fonda (another profile in the “patriotism of dissent”) didn’t join him at his Independence rally. The Hollywood traitor did endorse the Senator before the Georgia primary.
Coincidentally, in 1972, while Hanoi Jane was posing with a North Vietnamese anti-aircraft battery, John McCain was being tortured in the same city. (Fonda later said returning POWs who told us of torture at communist hands were liars.) Or aren’t we allowed to question her “patriotism” either?
Don Feder is a former Boston Herald writer who is now a political/communications consultant.
Filed under: US Politics
In Six Months, Jindal Has Accomplished More Than Most Do In a Lifetime The first thing to know about Governor Jindal is that he has been in office as governor for just six months. Six months!! And in just six months he’s accomplished more than most elected officials accomplish in a lifetime.
Governor Jindal has built his impressive record of conservative reform through an innovative, aggressive leadership that should be required learning for officials in Washington, D.C.
He didn’t wait for the Democratic controlled Louisiana legislature to come to him. He went to it, calling two historic special sessions before the regular session of the legislature even had a chance to begin.
In the first special session back in March, Governor Jindal began his reform agenda where it had to begin: fixing the culture of corruption and cronyism that has long dominated Louisiana politics and damaged Louisiana’s economy. The ethics reforms won by Governor Jindal catapulted Louisiana from a state with one of the lowest rankings to among the states with the highest ethics standards.
Thanks to Bobby Jindal, today Louisiana ranks as the number one state in financial disclosure requirements of its elected officials. And this new transparency and accountability in government is having real world results. New financial disclosure requirements for public officials that went into effect last week have prompted mass resignations from state boards and commissions.
Said one Louisiana voter: “I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m kinda liking the fact that this is resulting in ‘out with the old and in with the new.’ … A new day Louisiana, a new day!”
In yet another special session of the legislature and the regular session which ended just last week, Governor Jindal has built a spectacularly impressive record of accomplishment for the people of Louisiana.
Here are just a few of the highlights:
Six Major Tax Cuts worth more than $500 million, including eliminating taxes on business and capital investment and the largest personal tax cut in the history of the state – a $300 million reduction in personal income taxes, worth up to $500 for an individual and $1,000 for a family.
Governor Jindal brought about a Transformation of Job Creation and Retraining. He completely eliminated the Department of Labor and passed a guarantee for employers that Louisiana educational institutions will train its workforce to meet their needs, and if they fail, they will retrain workers for free.
He created $10 million in Opportunity Scholarships so 1,500 poor children in New Orleans can escape failing public schools.
Jindal led the passage of The Health Care Consumers Right to Know Act, creating transparency of cost and quality for the first time in Louisiana’s health care system.
Bobby Jindal expanded the number of charter schools in Louisiana from 42 to 100.
He passed legislation cracking down on child molesters and also passed a resolution calling for the creation of involuntary civil commitment of sexually violent predators to keep them confined for treatment after they complete their prison terms.
All this, and Governor Bobby Jindal is just getting started. Just last week he vetoed $9 million dollars in pet projects and pork barrel spending in the legislature’s budget – another area in which this 37-year-old governor is showing the way to Washington.
Not coincidentally, Jindal also announced that for the third time last week, Louisiana’s bond rating had been raised by a major credit rating agency.
The Governor was also in the news because he vetoed a bill that the legislature passed doubling members’ current salary and guaranteeing future pay raises. Jindal had previously said he wouldn’t oppose the pay hike, but he came to the conclusion that it was incompatible with his reform agenda.
His earlier comments, the Governor admits, were a “mistake,” one that he chose to correct by vetoing the bill. And Jindal’s correction has cemented his reputation as a principled conservative reformer.
Here’s how one would-be opponent of Jindal’s put it:
Dear Governor Jindal: I wanted to leave you a quick note that I plan to withdraw my recall petition effective tomorrow (July 03, 2008). I filed the recall petition about an hour before you announced your veto. After researching your record, your goals, and your vision for Louisiana, the only conclusion I could come to is that the world needs more Bobby Jindals.
“The world needs more Bobby Jindals.” I couldn’t agree more.
Filed under: US Politics
Here’s an important pointer for anyone planning on interviewing Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal: Before sitting down with the 36-year-old Republican, clear your schedule all around the time of the interview, because you ask Jindal something, he will always get a detailed answer — and then some.
When we spoke recently, I reminded Jindal of how I last heard him when he was a U.S. House member two years ago, telling a luncheon audience about how people volunteering their services on relief efforts after Hurricane Katrina found they were thwarted by federal regulations. What particularly moved me, I told him, was his story of how a doctor from Pennsylvania was not permitted to treat patients in parts of Louisiana ravaged by the worst natural disaster in American history until he filled out several forms.
“They told him he literally had to mop floors, if you remember, at an airport that he was in where there were people dying.” Jindal told me, “There are thousands of these stories. I talked to a sheriff in an area where they had people with boats that were ready to go in the water and rescue people and they were turned away because they didn’t have proof of registration and insurance, they didn’t bring the right paperwork. The bureaucracy was just awful.”
The 36-year-old governor then proceeded to tell more sad sagas of Americans from other states who were trying to help Louisianans in their worst hour and kept running into a bureaucratic brick wall. Barely stopping for a breath, Jindal vividly contrasted the horror stories of dealing with government bureaucracy in attempts to help Katrina victims to successful relief efforts by non-governmental sources — Wal-Mart, Ford Motor and churches.
“They are so much more responsive, so much more nimble, they can respond so much more quickly than any government bureaucracy you’ll ever see,” said Jindal, who then went into a mini-tirade about how hard it was for local government to get assistance for rebuilding public schools because “instead of giving them that flexibility, [the federal bureaucrats] said we need for you to document every single one of these items that were destroyed.”
That’s the Jindal the picture. In an age of sound bites, Jindal gives you facts, figures, and details. And it works: Four months after becoming the highest-elected Indian American in the nation and the third Republican since Reconstruction to be elected governor of Louisiana, one poll shows the son of Indian immigrants getting high approval ratings from more than 70% of Pelican State voters.
That’s one reason talk of him as John McCain’s running mate is mounting. During a dinner in Indianapolis the night before the May 6 primary, my colleague Jamie Coomarasamy of the BBC observed that Jindal was featured on Page One of the Washington Times that day and had been boomed for Vice President by Bill Kristol of the Weekly Standard in his column in the New York Times one day before.
“I’d say it’s Jindal’s week, isn’t it?” said Coomarasamy, echoing what scores of pundits were saying.
The story of the man who was named Piyush Jindal at birth but later insisted on being called “Bobby” (after the youngest brother on TV’s long-running “The Brady Bunch” series) is becoming as well-known to Republicans as the rise of Barack Obama is to Democrats. A graduate of Brown University and a Rhodes Scholar, the young Jindal was an intern with Rep. Jim McCrery (R.-La.); at 24, head of Louisiana’s state Health and Hospitals Department (which accounts for 40% of the state budget); at 27, He then served as executive director of the National Bipartisan Commission on the Future of Medicare; at 28, president of the University of Louisiana System (with more than 80,000 students), at 30, and assistant secretary of Health and Human Services for planning and evaluation under George W. Bush.
Jindal narrowly missed election as governor of Louisiana in ’03, rebounded the following year to win a New Orleans-area U.S. House seat, and then captured the governorship with ease last year.
Of the first of two special sessions of the state legislature since Jindal became governor, he says “[We] passed several tough ethics laws trying to change [the state’s] practices from before where people profit by being in government. We passed some very strict rules that say elected officials can’t do business with the state. We also passed disclosure from lobbyists, putting all government spending online, getting rid of free football tickets, a cap for meals. We did several things that will restore people’s trust in the government. We’ve seen the studies that Steve Forbes and others have done saying what we could do to create jobs is to attack corruption.”
Of the second special session, Jindal proudly says “we got rid of a bunch of taxes like the ones on new equipment for utilities; we extended the state’s new market tax credit; which encourages renewal in these enterprise zones. It is interesting, at one point, right after the storms, the Democratic mayor of New Orleans came out and said to the federal government, why don’t you make the city a tax-free zone? If you do that, that will do more to stimulate the rebuilding than a whole lot of the money you’ all are sending down here. And nobody at the federal level pursued that idea. I think as conservatives, we have fundamental core beliefs of different policies and the role of government we think are better for people, for their quality of life.”
Meshing traditional conservative ideas such as tax cuts with newer concepts such as tax-free zones is an example of why, aside from his youth and moving life story, Jindal is increasingly talked of for national office.
At a time when even conservatives recoil from talk of abolishing some government agencies such as the Department of Education, Louisiana’s governor talks proudly of how he brought a Fortune 500 executive in to run the state Department of Labor and “in four months he has already proposed getting rid of his department. Why not come up with regional business councils, where the majority of the businesses are actual business owners, instead of the government’s going to the business owners and saying this is what we think you need in terms of training programs, and work force. They’re the customers, put them in charge of it.”
Whenever Jindal talks about shutting down a government agency such as the Department of Labor, he couples it, if he thinks it necessary with an immediate call for a positive alternative. In dismissing his state’s “charity hospitals”, a legacy of Huey Long’s governorship in the 1930s, as old and out-dated (“It doesn’t have the premiums, it doesn’t have the deductibles, it has very modest co-pays.”), Jindal makes a passionate pitch for “private coverage to involve health-savings accounts, purchasing pools, tax credits — and it’s going to involve changing the way that Medicaid and SCHIP operate.”
Like other conservatives in the Republican Governors Association, Gov. Jindal was critical of the $35 billion State Children’s Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) bill passed by the Democratic-controlled Congress and vetoed by President Bush. But, he quickly adds, Republicans must come up with a more private-sector and business-oriented alternative to SCHIP, and to Medicaid as well. Louisiana, which spends more per capita on health-care than surrounding states, provides “a tremendous opportunity for change throughout the state, and it will help our business community, ” says Jindal.
So what does Jindal think of becoming the Republican vice presidential candidate with John McCain? Before posing the question, I noted that former Rep. Bob Livingston (R.-La.) had recently told me he hopes Jindal doesn’t become Vice President because it would put liberal Democratic Lt. Gov. Mitch Landrieu. Brother of Sen. Mary Landrieu, into the governor’s mansion.
“It is very, very flattering,” Jindal says of the Veep talk, “But I’ve got the job that I want. This is an historic opportunity to change our state. We won’t get a chance like this in our lifetimes again. I do not want to turn down something that I have not been offered. I have had several conversations with the senator and we have not talked about the vice-presidency,. I am very, very happy with the job that I have. I’ve got the job that I want. You can tell Bob that I am planning to run for re-election.”
By that election day in 2011, Jindal will be 39 — and still have plenty of time for national politics.
Filed under: Iraq
6:00:00 AM BAGHDAD – The United States is now winning the war that two years ago seemed lost. Limited, sometimes sharp fighting and periodic terrorist bombings in Iraq are likely to continue, possibly for years. But the Iraqi government and the U.S. now are able to shift focus from mainly combat to mainly building the fragile beginnings of peace – a transition that many found almost unthinkable as recently as one year ago.
Despite the occasional bursts of violence, Iraq has reached the point where the insurgents, who once controlled whole cities, no longer have the clout to threaten the viability of the central government.
That does not mean the war has ended or that U.S. troops have no role in Iraq. It means the combat phase finally is ending, years past the time when President Bush optimistically declared it had. The new phase focuses on training the Iraqi army and police, restraining the flow of illicit weaponry from Iran, supporting closer links between Baghdad and local governments, pushing the integration of former insurgents into legitimate government jobs and assisting in rebuilding the economy.
Scattered battles go on, especially against al-Qaida holdouts north of Baghdad. But organized resistance, with the steady drumbeat of bombings, kidnappings, assassinations and ambushes that once rocked the capital daily, has all but ceased.
This amounts to more than a lull in the violence. It reflects a fundamental shift in the outlook for the Sunni minority, which held power under Saddam Hussein. They launched the insurgency five years ago. They now are either sidelined or have switched sides to cooperate with the Americans in return for money and political support.
Gen. David Petraeus, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, told The Associated Press this past week there are early indications that senior leaders of al-Qaida may be considering shifting their main focus from Iraq to the war in Afghanistan.
Ryan Crocker, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq, told the AP on Thursday that the insurgency as a whole has withered to the point where it is no longer a threat to Iraq’s future.
“Very clearly, the insurgency is in no position to overthrow the government or, really, even to challenge it,” Crocker said. “It’s actually almost in no position to try to confront it. By and large, what’s left of the insurgency is just trying to hang on.”
Shiite militias, notably the Mahdi Army of radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, have lost their power bases in Baghdad, Basra and other major cities. An important step was the routing of Shiite extremists in the Sadr City slums of eastern Baghdad this spring _ now a quiet though not fully secure district.
Al-Sadr and top lieutenants are now in Iran. Still talking of a comeback, they are facing major obstacles, including a loss of support among a Shiite population weary of war and no longer as terrified of Sunni extremists as they were two years ago.
Despite the favorable signs, U.S. commanders are leery of proclaiming victory or promising that the calm will last.
The premature declaration by the Bush administration of “Mission Accomplished” in May 2003 convinced commanders that the best public relations strategy is to promise little, and couple all good news with the warning that “security is fragile” and that the improvements, while encouraging, are “not irreversible.”
Iraq still faces a mountain of problems: sectarian rivalries, power struggles within the Sunni and Shiite communities, Kurdish-Arab tensions, corruption. Any one of those could rekindle widespread fighting.
But the underlying dynamics in Iraqi society that blew up the U.S. military’s hopes for an early exit, shortly after the fall of Baghdad in April 2003, have changed in important ways in recent months.
Systematic sectarian killings have all but ended in the capital, in large part because of tight security and a strategy of walling off neighborhoods purged of minorities in 2006.
That has helped establish a sense of normalcy in the streets of the capital. People are expressing a new confidence in their own security forces, which in turn are exhibiting a newfound assertiveness with the insurgency largely in retreat.
Statistics show violence at a four-year low. The monthly American death toll appears to be at its lowest of the war _ four killed in action so far this month as of Friday, compared with 66 in July a year ago. From a daily average of 160 insurgent attacks in July 2007, the average has plummeted to about two dozen a day this month. On Wednesday the nationwide total was 13.
Beyond that, there is something in the air in Iraq this summer.
In Baghdad, parks are filled every weekend with families playing and picnicking with their children. That was unthinkable only a year ago, when the first, barely visible signs of a turnaround emerged.
Now a moment has arrived for the Iraqis to try to take those positive threads and weave them into a lasting stability.
The questions facing both Americans and Iraqis are: What kinds of help will the country need from the U.S. military, and for how long? The questions will take on greater importance as the U.S. presidential election nears, with one candidate pledging a troop withdrawal and the other insisting on staying.
Iraqi authorities have grown dependent on the U.S. military after more than five years of war. While they are aiming for full sovereignty with no foreign troops on their soil, they do not want to rush. In a similar sense, the Americans fear that after losing more than 4,100 troops, the sacrifice could be squandered.
U.S. commanders say a substantial American military presence will be needed beyond 2009. But judging from the security gains that have been sustained over the first half of this year _ as the Pentagon withdrew five Army brigades sent as reinforcements in 2007 _ the remaining troops could be used as peacekeepers more than combatants.
As a measure of the transitioning U.S. role, Maj. Gen. Jeffery Hammond says that when he took command of American forces in the Baghdad area about seven months ago he was spending 80 percent of his time working on combat-related matters and about 20 percent on what the military calls “nonkinetic” issues, such as supporting the development of Iraqi government institutions and humanitarian aid.
Now Hammond estimates those percentage have been almost reversed. For several hours one recent day, for example, Hammond consulted on water projects with a Sunni sheik in the Radwaniyah area of southwest Baghdad, then spent time with an Iraqi physician/entrepreneur in the Dora district of southern Baghdad _ an area, now calm, that in early 2007 was one of the capital’s most violent zones.
“We’re getting close to something that looks like an end to mass violence in Iraq,” says Stephen Biddle, an analyst at the Council of Foreign Relations who has advised Petraeus on war strategy. Biddle is not ready to say it’s over, but he sees the U.S. mission shifting from fighting the insurgents to keeping the peace.
Although Sunni and Shiite extremists are still around, they have surrendered the initiative and have lost the support of many ordinary Iraqis. That can be traced to an altered U.S. approach to countering the insurgency _ a Petraeus-driven move to take more U.S. troops off their big bases and put them in Baghdad neighborhoods where they mixed with ordinary Iraqis and built a new level of trust.
Army Col. Tom James, a brigade commander who is on his third combat tour in Iraq, explains the new calm this way: “We’ve put out the forest fire. Now we’re dealing with pop-up fires.”
It’s not the end of fighting. It looks like the beginning of a perilous peace.
Maj. Gen. Ali Hadi Hussein al-Yaseri, the chief of patrol police in the capital, sees the changes. “Even eight months ago, Baghdad was not today’s Baghdad,” he says.
by Robert Burns and Robert H. Reid (Robert Burns is AP’s chief military reporter, and Robert Reid is AP’s chief of bureau in Baghdad. Reid has covered the war from his post in Iraq since the U.S. invasion in March 2003. Burns, based in Washington, has made 21 reporting trips to Iraq; on his latest during July, Burns spent nearly three weeks in central and northern Iraq, observing military operations and interviewing both U.S. and Iraqi officers.)
Filed under: Humor (If one can laugh at such a serious situation), US Politics
Filed under: Humor (If one can laugh at such a serious situation), US Politics
1. You have to be against capital punishment, but support abortion on demand.
2. You have to believe that businesses create oppression and governments create prosperity.
3. You have to believe that guns in the hands of law-abiding citizens are more of a threat than nuclear weapons technology in the hands of Chinese and North Korean communists.
4. You have to believe that there was no art before federal funding.
5. You have to believe that global temperatures are more affected by soccer moms driving SUVs than by scientifically documented cyclical changes in the earth’s climate.
6. You have to believe that gender roles are artificial, but being homosexual is natural.
7. You have to believe that the AIDS virus is spread by a lack of federal funding.
8. You have to believe that the same teacher who can’t teach fourth graders how to read is somehow qualified to teach those same kids about sex.
9. You have to believe that hunters don’t care about nature, but loony activists who have never been outside of San Francisco do.
10. You have to believe that self-esteem is more important than actually doing something to earn it.
11. You have to believe that Mel Gibson spent $25 million of his own money to make The Passion of the Christ for financial gain only.
12. You have to believe that the NRA is bad because it supports certain parts of the Constitution, while the ACLU is good because it supports certain parts of the Russian (communist) Constitution.
13. You have to believe that taxes are too low, but ATM fees are too high.
14. You have to believe that Margaret Sanger and Gloria Steinem are more important to American history than Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Edison, and Alexander Graham Bell.
15. You have to believe that standardized tests are racist, but racial quotas and set-asides are not.
16. You have to believe that Hillary Clinton is normal and is a very nice person.
17. You have to believe that the only reason socialism hasn’t worked anywhere it’s been tried is because the right people haven’t been in charge.
18. You have to believe that conservatives telling the truth belong in jail, but a liar and a sex offender belonged in the White House.
19. You have to believe that homosexual parades displaying drag, transvestites, and bestiality should be constitutionally protected, and manger scenes at Christmas should be illegal.
20. You have to believe that illegal Democratic Party funding by the Chinese Government is somehow in the best interest to the United States.
21. You have to believe that it’s okay to give federal workers the day off on Christmas Day, but it’s not okay to say “Merry Christmas.”
22. You have to believe that this message is part of a vast right wing conspiracy.
Now Are You Ready to vote?
Filed under: US Politics
Filed under: Humor (If one can laugh at such a serious situation), Who Is Obama?
You Wanted Change. You Now Have It! But At What Cost? 
