“Clearly, he’s been corrupted by the ring of power.”

Thank you, McCain. You have given me the opportunity I was waiting for. I’m getting tired of talking about Obama and I was thinking that I blog about him way too much. I was hoping someone else in DC would step forward and give me an excuse to blog about them for a bit.

I already gave McCain a jab in my last entry about the “TeaParty Hobbits” comment. Didn’t pay it too much attention because as irritating as it was, I mostly laughed it off. Failed Presidential Candidate who didn’t get elected because he was too liberal to be a conservative and he goes off on true conservatives. Cute. Kinda funny (if it wasn’t so sad).

But then it starts to get irksome when he gives an unapology and goes off on a constituent during a town hall meeting. He unapologizes like Hillary, goes off on people during a town hall meeting like the liberals did and seems to be as classy as Emperor Obama.

Well, not that I like the alternative, but Thank Gawd he wasn't elected. Otherwise, we may have ended up in the same boat without all of the sleeping dragons waking up.

Why is having a balanced budget amendment wrong? I don't care if you think it's impractical. It's NECESSARY. You and the liberals act like you are allergic to balancing a budget. We're spending money so fast that poor George Washington on the dollar bill breaks the sound barrier as he slips through your fingers. WE NEED A BLOODY SPEED LIMIT TO SLOW YOUR SPENDING DOWN! Call us all the names you want; doesn't change the fact that we need to stop spending NOW.

"McCain said conservatives' insistence that an increase in the debt ceiling be accompanied by a balanced budget amendment was "worse than foolish" because it couldn't get through the Senate."

And what's wrong with that? (Besides agreeing to a debt ceiling increase. It should not have been moved an inch, IMHO.)

He says that the debt ceiling is going to be raised one way or another. It will if you give up before you even try! You are supposed to fight for us - you are supposed to curb the spending, "conservative"!

But I digress. Just remember, McCain, some of those "Tea Party Hobbits" were the reason you got as far as you did in the election. Some of them are even probably why you have the job that you have now. And remember that the liberals pull as many punches as they do because you are too busy wrapped up in fantasy tales and calling other people names. The hobbits were the heroes of that story, you know... So thanks for the compliment, even though I know you didn't intend it that way. And give up the ring, Gollum, it's only causing you to be more two-faced than usual. Unfortunately, we're stuck with you on this journey. Here's hoping you don't betray us down the line or try to push us into the fires of Mordor.

Politically Incorrect Monday

In honor of the debt fiasco...



Although I DO have to hand it to him that he wasn't this sarcastic today during his presser. He got in one zinger about "big government" and again said that the wealthy would have to contribute more (as expected). Didn't take responsibility either... but ya know... can't have your cake and eat it too.

And the line about how the U.S. will "always have AAA credit" no matter what anyone says - CRAP. Just like saying it doesn't matter if it hit an iceburg and sank, the Titanic will always be an unsinkable ship.

The US loses it's AAA rating; Libs blame the Tea Party

Leave it to the libs to smoke me out of hiding. Just couldn't take it anymore. All of their (and granted to be fair, the Republicans too) actions have gotten me so smoking mad lately that it was either find some medication to lower my boiling blood pressure or blog. I've still been around, posting a random thought or snarky remark here and there on Facebook, such as:

"NEWS ALERT: Apparently with the loss of the AAA rating comes a new definition of racism. You are now a racist if you don't want to spend money that you don't have."

Which, have no fear, I will get into a bit later. Apart from that, I have been busy off fear-conquering and becoming a pilot (which only adds to my irkdom with all of the FAA shutdown mess and The Chosen One's "corporate jet owners" foolishness).

Okay, a few random thoughts to get out before I launch into my rant. I'm sure I've said all of this before, so I won't waste a whole entry on it again, but the monetary-challenged moochers still haven't gotten some of these things through their pretty little heads yet:

1) The secret to being rich is to work hard, save as much as you can, and don't spend what you don't have. A budget can't hurt either. And yes, it's really as simple as that. There's no magic money tree and no bag of leprechaun coins is going to fall into your lap out of the sky. Likewise, there's no evil conspiracy by those who are rich to prevent you from doing well for yourself. And yes, life isn't fair, but life is also what you make it.

2) No, you cannot have my money. I don't care if you think you deserve it more than I do. Nobody deserves my money more than I do, except maybe the people/animals/causes that I choose to give it to. And yes, I am selfish. To quote Hank Reardon from Atlas Shrugged, "What part of 'MINE' don't you understand?'. (Side note: Yes, I read it. Saw the movie too. Poke fun at my reading skills/intelligence all you want, libs. I know differently and don't care. You are making fun of people who read a 1000+ book (AND endured Galt's speech, nonetheless). Who are you to make fun of someone else's reading skills?) Btw, you are just going to make me hang onto my money harder if you go whining to the gov't to take my money away from me.

3) To Obama and his cronies: In what math class were you taught that a person who earns $250k is a "millionaire" or "billionaire"? And to your followers who call me a "millionaire", thanks for the compliment, but in what world does 5 figures equal a million dollars?

4) One day you grow up and realize that social classes are not determined by how much you earn. Social classes are a mindset and nothing more. Think and act like you were middle class or upper class and you will be there. Ditto with lower class, which is why some of them will never leave - they don't want to leave. But terms like "upper class", "middle class" and "the underprivileged" (libs would never, ever say "lower class") are just there to build up the war between the classes. The TRUE classes are the Producers, the Looters and the Moochers. And like the other three, these also have nothing to do with what you earn, but a mindset.

Okay, I think that covers everything. So the US has lost it's AAA rating. And as much as the libs are foaming at the mouth to blame the Tea Party...and blame them some more...and a little more. In fact, when I saw the spike in "Blame the Tea Party" rhetoric last week, I compared them to being like roaches when someone turns on the light. I joke, but their juvenile reaction is absolutely, positively shameful. I expect more out of grown adults, especially those representing us in government (as well as so-called "journalists"). Shame on you. You can't take responsibility for your own actions and you turn around and blame others. You spend money like a teenage girl with her parents' credit card, can't keep track of the money you have and dare to ask for more when you aren't even responsible for the money you have! "Oh, but the millionaires and billionaires won't miss it. They've got a couple of hundred thousand just sitting around collecting dust; they don't need it. It's their patriotic duty to pay their fair share". You sit around, doing God knows what, because we know for sure you aren't reading any pesky bills or anything since you don't have time for that. You run your mouth on TV, and avoid town hall meetings so you don't have to own up to what you are doing (or not doing). Some of you are yammering on about how islands are going to 'capsize', or making kindergarten presentations about how the republicans want you to "die quickly". You are supposed to represent us and work for us. And when people - average, everyday people- get sick & tired of the whole reality-show-worthy circus call you out and ask you to do what you've been sent to Washington to do, you have the nerve to call them terrorists and every other violence-inciting word out there. These are people in your districts and in your states. These are people you represent. These are the people you work for. And you still have a job! Even if I could get away with that at my job, I'd like to think that I've got more class to ever stoop that low. You have the gaul to call us names, to treat us as less than human, to ignore us and turn your backs on us, yet you think you are entitled to our money? Think again.

Forget for a minute that you have NO right to someone else's money. Why don't you clean up your act and stop spending billions on cloud watching museums and put that money to good use. Maybe people would be more willing to let their hard-earned dollars go if you were responsible with their money. Enough filling the pockets of illegal aliens or welfare bums. Enough posting signs everywhere that these roads were paid for by the "Reinvestment and Recovery Act". There's a few million that wasn't necessary.

Obama, quit demonizing corporate jet owners (that by the way, YOU gave the tax break to in the first place), while you are zipping around in Air Force One, like it was your corporate jet. Stay at home, save some gas and we're got our Air Force One tax break right there. And I think that's great that you've got a couple hundred thousand dollars just sitting around that you don't need. Please be my guest to donate that to the government. Nothing's stopping you. But don't force me at the point of a gun to give up my money that you deem "dispensable income". Stop the "you must give up your fair share so some poor kids can go to college". I am not responsible to send someone else's kids to college, no matter how poor they may be. If they want to go badly enough, there are scholarships and loans, or maybe the parents should be making sacrifices for their kids. It's not being mean or selfish. It's how the rest of us got through college. They can do it too. It builds character and makes them work harder in the end.

I highly suspect that we would have lost our AAA credit rating, even if we let the libs have their way. By the way, for the financially-challenged liberals (redundant, maybe?), raising the debt ceiling to pay off the debts we already have is like taking out another credit card to pay off our already increasing debts. Doesn't work that way. And frankly, I'm still appalled at the agreement they managed to reach and am not happy for the so-called "conservatives" (yeah, that goes for you, McCain. Loved the "Lord of the Rings" analogy, but please stop watching movies and do your job) who voted for it. We shouldn't have raised the debt ceiling AT ALL. Again, not to be mean, but because we can't afford to do so. Why is it so hard to understand that we cannot afford to spend money that we do not have?  (By the way, preventing people from spending money you don't have makes you a racist.) The way to reduce our debts is to stop spending, not by taxing more (or perhaps by taxing the bottom 50% who pay no taxes... Fair Tax?)

Just keep in mind that once you open the Pandora's Box to allow the government to tax the "rich" more, then you have allowed them to also take as much as they want from you. You may not be "rich", but the government's definitions are not what we think of as traditional definitions. And one day, the "rich" will run out of money and guess whose door the government will be knocking on? Yours. I guarantee it.

There, I think my blood pressure has returned to normal. For now. Obugger's good at raising it by flapping his gums, saying the same thing over and over and over, interrupting my radio programs. I'll try not to stay away so long next time (and honestly had no idea so much time had gone by since my last post!). In the meantime, you can catch me on Facebook or one of my other blogs.

The Arizona Shooting Blame Game

The shooting in Arizona yesterday was tragic and my heart goes out to all the innocent victims and their families. No one should ever use violence to express their anger over politics, or anything for that matter.

Now what upsets me about this whole incident is the fact that the media and the liberals are using it to promote their agenda. Who cares what political party he belongs to? How in the world does that have anything to do with the issue at hand? He's a nutjob. Period. And innocent people were killed or injured because of this nutjob's actions. We need to take the attention off of him and give it to the victims of this tragedy, who deserve it. Squabbling about if he's a Tea Party member or liberal and blaming other people for his actions is a slap in the face to those that suffered from this and are still suffering.

Unfortunately, people are going to use this incident and the victims to push their Anti-gun laws or "The Tea Party is full of violent nutjobs" myth. They will blame innocent people, like Sarah Palin/Glenn Beck, for "inciting violence". I fear they will use this situation and others like it to build momentum into silencing the Glenn Beck's, Sarah Palin's or the Tea Party. I really fear for my country.

We already have people that refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. Now we have people assigning responsibility to others for someone else's actions. Sad, sad times. Yes, it was unfortunate Salin Palin had cross hairs over Congresswoman Giffords picture/district/state whatever, but to call for her head over it is just insane. (Btw, thank you for the classy act, Senator Alexander)


My heart just breaks when I read statements like this:

"When asked if she had any enemies, Giffords' father reportedly wept. "'Yeah,'" he told The New York Post. "'The whole Tea Party.'"


I may disagree with some of her politics, but I don't consider her an "enemy". My prayers go out to Congresswoman Giffords and her family. May she have a speedy recovery.

So wait... just which one is President again??

Last week, Obama held a press conference, asked Bill Clinton to help him out and then ditched him at the podium to go to a party.

Sounds like some sort of bad sitcom. I heard this and I swear I started channeling Pelosi - "Are you serious?? Are YOU serious??". He never ceases to shock me. I know he has no class and I know he isn't even remotely prepared to handle the job of the Presidency, but he just lowers that bar on an almost daily basis.

And what's even more flabbergasting is the number of liberal talking-heads that think the move was genius. Can you imagine the reaction they would have had if Bush had held a press conference with his Dad and turned things over to him to go to a golf game or whatever. They'd be calling for his head.

So I get that Obama has both sides mad at him and he freaks out because he can't handle it, so he figures they will listen to Clinton and drags him into the mix. This is a bad move. People from both sides are going to be mad at you - it's just apart of the job. But what's also apart of the job is taking the lead, communicating with people and trying to compromise. It's apart of being a leader - you take the good with the bad. If everyone's mad at you, you do your best to smooth things out and most likely, they will respect you for having the guts to do so. But Obama chose another path and dragged Clinton into it. They stand at that podium and it reminds me of a 3rd grade group presentation, where you have to stand up in front of the room with your friends for support because you are scared. So they appease the press for a little bit because Obama says he's turning things over to Clinton because he has a party to go to and his wife is waiting. Things go from bad to worse.

I can't believe the number of things he does that I'd get fired for if I did them at my job. My boss would never stop screaming (after she got over the shock first) if I plunked someone down in my office and told them to take over things because I was late for a party. But that wouldn't happen, because I have more tact than that.

I'm sure he has a very active social life with parties and golf games and guzzling the gas by traveling on Air Force One, but his job should be his main priority. And press conferences are apart of that job. Parties can wait and people will understand. Don't place someone else to stand in for you, especially behind the Presidential Seal. Clinton is no longer President (although he was quite thrilled or appeared to be enjoying it - maybe because this action proves Hilary right that Obama can't handle the job) and should not be placed in that position.

This type of action IS NOT the mark of a leader. It's classless and tactless. It shows that this job is not a priority for him and emphasises his arrogance in that he believes his personal life is more important than his professional life.



"But...uh...you are in good hands." Disgraceful.

A little hard work never killed anyone (except maybe a few liberals...)

 One of my fellow teachers announced today that she has decided to be a Republican because "how easy would life be to go around believing all you need is hard work to succeed"?

 And how did she get where she is - luck? I know that I'm where I am today by my own merit and effort. And I realize some luck comes into play, but it's mostly 99% hard work and 1% luck. Sometimes you even make your own luck. Sometimes you are only in the "right place, right time" because you placed yourself there in the first place.

I have worked hard for everything I have. And yes, I'll be the first to admit that sometimes positive things in my life have fallen right into my lap, but have ultimately occurred because my hard work had placed me in the right place/right time for those "lucky" things to happen to me. I don't really believe in the type of luck brought to you by fairies in the night.

People tell me how "lucky" I was to have saved up money to pay for my surgery back in April. Luck had nothing to do with that. I saved that money and worked hard to do so.

And any successful person is the same way - talk show hosts, business owners, bloggers, athletes, singers...  They put everything into their work and stay completely focused on it. And they make their own luck. (And don't complain if they don't have any)

If you aren't where you want to be in life, then most likely that's because of you and your choices in life. Not luck (or lack thereof).

Insanity at the Restore the Sanity Rally

Seems Jon Stewart/Stephen Colbert had their "political" rally today. No one can tell if it was legit or a joke (probably more of a joke, considering it involved those two).

But some have used it as a rallying cry against Tea Partiers. "Take THAT, Tea Baggers!", "It's soo refreshing that they can ACTAULLY spell and have teeth!!" and other colorful phrases have popped up on my Facebook Friends' Feed. Someone posted pictures of people at the rally with signs that read:

And to all of them, I'd like to say that no one has proposed eliminating taxes all together. I know taxes are part of being an adult, cheeky guy on the left, but when 50% of the people don't pay taxes and the top income earners are paying over 60% of the taxes, we have a problem. Especially when the jobs aren't coming from that bottom 50%. Tax the upper income earners (the business owners) more and they'll pass it down to their customers. They'll also be able to hire less, creating less jobs.

And I don't care if Obama claims that he'll only tax those making over $150,000. Guess what happens when he doesn't have enough money for his schemes and there are no "rich" people left? He'll go after those making less than $150,000. And no, this isn't a scare tactic. I've said it before and I'll say it again - open that door and allow the government to take money from one person and you have allowed them to take from EVERYONE. Don't you get it? It doesn't matter if you make $150,000 or $25,000 - there's always going to be someone who needs your money more than you do, according to the government and they are going to take it from you.

On that note, what is mine is mine and no one is going to take it from me. Call me selfish, call me whatever names you want. I agree with the quote from the character Hank Reardon from Atlas Shrugged: "Because it's MINE. Do you understand the word?". It's none of the government's business if I earn $10,000 or $100,000. And they have no right to take more money from me just because I "can afford it" just because I have a savings account or 401K., I donate to whom I want when I want and the government isn't going to force me to donate my money to the homeless over a cause that I deem important. Whether I want to spend all my money on gumballs or store it all in the bank is my business (as long as I don't ask others to bail me out). Ask me to help you out and I probably will. Force me against my will to help someone that will not help themselves and I'll get an iron grip on that money. I think I've earned the right to be selfish with my money - what part of mine don't you understand?

Besides, I'm willing to bet that those three pictured don't pay taxes in the first place.

Is the Media Adding Gasoline to the Anti-Muslim/Anti-immigrant "Fire"?

So nice to see so many stories in the media on and after 09/11 about how anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant we are as a nation.

Caught two such articles on MSN.com this morning:

"Muslims face growing bias in the workplace"    and    "Americans' suspicions frustrate Muslims"

and it made me wonder if the media is to blame for perpetuating this myth that America is an anti-Muslim/ anti-immigrant nation?

Now I don't doubt some bias and discrimination happens to them, but somehow I don't think it occurs as wide-scale as they would like us to believe. So this "anti-Muslim" attitude the media attributes to the opponents of the Ground Zero Mosque and the one yahoo down in Florida with a 50 member church. Can you REALLY use those two examples to charge the United States as a whole with an anti-Muslim sentiment? NO!

First, the Mosque at Ground Zero - I don't care if people wanted to build a Mc Donald's there; I'd still be offended and think it didn't belong. The only things that should be built there are the two towers again and a memorial for the victims. Nothing else. No nightclubs, no churches, no restaurants - NOTHING ELSE.

And secondly, the creepy mustached dude from Florida, threatening to burn the Quran - the media created that freak show. All the needed to do was ignore his nonsense and it would have gone away, but they had to give him attention and give it to him again, so his story blew up on the national stage. There was no reason for that to get that far. The media blew it up more than they needed to because they hoped to link him with Tea Partiers.

As for the media claiming "anti-immigrant feelings are on the rise" - the majority of us ARE immigrants ourselves, children of immigrants or (great) grandchildren of immigrants. Doubtful we'd be anti-ourselves or anti-family. I have yet to hear someone say "I don't like immigrants. They all need to go home and don't belong here". Now I know A LOT Of us immigrants, children of immigrants and (great) grandchildren of immigrants are anti - ILLEGAL immigration. We're not mad at the fact they are immigrants - we're mad at the fact that they chose to ignore rules that the rest of us had to follow and are getting rewarded for it. That's all. Nothing to do with race, culture, home country origin or mother tongue. It's like if I stood in line for 8 hours to get into a concert and someone cut in the front of the line. Not only did they let him in, but gave him a front row seat and a free drink. And then on top of everything, I was called names for objecting to his 5-star treatment when I bought an expensive ticket for my last-row seat and paid $10 for a sip of soda. I don't care if he's white, black, tan, orange or a woman - that's not going to change the reason why I'm mad.

Now I may be blinded by my whiteness (as my liberal friends like to say), but personally, I don't see ANY anti-Muslim or anti-immigrant sentiments, aside from what I see on the news. Again, I don't doubt it happens - as it does to ALL of us at one point or another. I just feel that the media blows it out of proportion, as they do with all things, like with "racism". It's unfortunate that for awhile now, perhaps even before I was born,  the news doesn't report the news, but chooses to perpetuate their own news.And it's sad they use those people to further their own agenda. It's even sadder that those people don't even realize it.

The media, like the Obama Administration, is working hard to pit us against one another. It's harder to hold them accountable if we're all distracted with squabbling over petty things like children and unfortunately, it's working. The media knows how to play us well and we're falling for it.

Doggone It!

Well, we complain about Obowma being too dependant on TelePromtors, but then when he goes off-script, we hear gems like this: "They talk about me like a dog".



I think he's been hanging around his loose cannon VP friend too long. Sorry, Barry, you are wrong - I LIKE dogs. They are loyal, a good judge of character and protect those they love - can't say that about you or your cronies. Now I do talk about you like a snake, but if the snake skin fits... All I see those liberals doing is slithering through Washington, hiding under rocks when we are looking for them, barring their fangs and spewing venom.

I like what the Republican Strategist said in this article: "The president thinks he's been treated like a dog by Republicans and Congress. He should probably stop treating them like a fire hydrant".

But I have a problem with his "scripted words" as well - "Building our economy on a new foundation" just rings of communism to me. Tearing down our old economy, saying it doesn't work and using it as an excuse to shove a whole new structure in there. Any economist will tell you that you can't "strengthen the middle class" by destroying the upper class. And "taking on some powerful interests" - gotta love his code words. He never comes out and says it directly, but everyone knows who he's talking about. He indicates those "powerful interests" aren't happy with him just because they've been in power for a long time and they don't want him challenging them. "They aren't always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That's not in my prepared remarks, it's just - but it's true". Gawd, is every "speech" going to be about how he's getting picked on??  I'd almost rather he DID play golf all the time... I'm sick of his whining. And you don't have no right to regulate Wall Street. "They aren't happy about it, but it was the right thing to do" - isn't that what he said about Obamacare? And did he really say "ending tax payer bailouts for Bush... er... for Wall Street once and for all"?

By the way, it was less than a week ago that Obama said he wanted to renew the Bush Tax Cuts, but it seems that wasn't exactly true....

Just Some Thoughts...

So all of this fuss about Obama's "true" religion is a complete waste of time. I don't care if the man worships the moldy piece of cheese in his fridge. However, I DO care if he lies about it and uses his stance to punish those who are lactose-intolerant. And I don't care about his personal views about the Ground Zero Mosque; he has no right to butt in about it. By backing it, or at least expressing support of it, he only further polarizes the issue.

And I don't care just how many times the President chooses to go on vacation, unless he uses our tax dollars to do so. Better for him to go off to Camp David or something than bowing to foreign leaders and embarrassing us in other countries. I know the man is an utter disaster, but we have to pick out battles.

Chris Matthews said what???

Guess Chris Matthews isn't getting "tingles up his leg" anymore from the President...  'Bout time this was said by a member of the "Professional Left". But he's right... and I can't believe I'm saying that about Chris Matthews - it seems wrong somehow. I seriously thought I must have fallen over and died to hear those words coming out of his mouth.(And for the record, I kinda felt the same way with the "thrill up the leg" comment... although a different kind of disbelief for that one)

But Obama seriously has a problem with those TelePromptors. It's beyond an addiction now. Does he REALLY use those to talk to people in his office? C'mon now... that CAN'T be true.... If a right-wing talk show host said that, I'd think he was joking. And at least the President put the TelePromptor in front of him, so his head didn't bounce side to side, like he was watching a tennis match this time...

So Chris Matthews, way to go, buddy! I first clicked on the video out of morbid curiosity, but I was floored by those comments. I seriously hit the "replay" button 5 more times after watching it the first time. Wish I could have heard those comments from the other people on the show. Wow... just wow...

Obama's Two Speeches

Gotta love Boortz calling Obama a "narcissistic boob". Much cuter than "arrogant SOB".

Anyways, so Obama gave two speeches in the last couple of days - one on the economy and one on Iraq.

First the one on Iraq:
Great, so he's announcing he's pulling the troops out of Iraq. Dumb move to a) announce it out loud where enemies might hear and take advantage and b) walk away before the job was finished. But we've known he's intended to do this for awhile and both dumb move related arguments have been hashed and rehashed.

But my problem is what else he said in his speech. He indicated that now we can concentrate on the economy, rather than the war:

"To strengthen our middle class, we must give all our children the education they deserve and all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy. We must jump-start industries that create jobs and end our dependence on foreign oil.”

Now that scares me. "We MUST GIVE all our children the education they deserve"??? That's a HUGE red flag for me. Not only because he's sounding like FDR, but that phrase makes me think of Universal Healthcare for schools. I don't think he's talking just public elementary, middle and high schools here. But we knew that all along, didn't we? Yes, let's give education to everyone and lower the accomplishment of those that earned it.

And ditto with the other part of that sentence: "We must give... all our workers the skills that they need to compete in a global economy". Since when have you ever been given a skill? All of my skills I either learned or earned. Given, my ass. But the big thing to read in that sentence is: UNIONS. It's the only way they can distribute skills to the workers and keep a tight leash on them. Think about it - if the government "gives" you a skill, then they can tell you where to work, how long and for how much. Don't give away your freedom so easily - go out and build your own skills. And btw, "global economy" doesn't sit well with me either. I hear that and I think Globalization. I think something like the Euro, only combining currency from Canada, Mexico and the United States.

But again, nothing new.

His last line sent chills through me and echoed of Atlas Shrugged:

"We must unleash the innovation that allows new products to roll off our assembly lines and nurture the ideas that spring from our entrepreneurs."

Which assembly lines? Government Motors?  Won't have much innovation if you keep taking it from the inventors and entrepreneurs and distributing their wealth.

Second speech on the economy:

Okay, well first things first... I wonder what was up with him tapping the mike asking if the reporters could hear him - TWICE in the first minute of the speech. I heard no sound problem at my end. As one person in the comments asked, "Did he get lost?".

"It took a decade to dig the hole we are in". Ha... sounds like a not-so-subtle paraphrasing of "I inherited this mess". Not that he's exactly wrong on that (unfortunately). It's probably taken many decades to dig the hole we are in - probably before I was born, in fact. But that doesn't change the fact that Obama just dug a little faster than everyone else.

(And on a totally insensitive, immature and unrelated note - I'm glad he actually has notecards to read off this time, but can he pick either notecards OR telepromptors? I mean, every 3 seconds, his head is bobbing side to side or looking down. Right side, look down, left side, look down... Geez, I'm getting kind of sea sick over here, not to mention distracted and I'm not a minute and a half into the speech yet... )

Ok..."That's why my administration has pushed forward to repair the damage done to the middle class over the last decade".  So....#1 just rehashing the same line as before... yeah, yeah...we've heard it before and #2 Doesn't the "last decade" INCLUDE your administration? Just sayin'...

Whoa, whoa... wait. Did he just say "EXTENDING the middle class tax cuts"??? But I thought that's what got us into this mess in the first place... I thought they only helped the "wealthy"?? Does anyone else remember Reid and other democrats whining about that not  too long ago??

"Congress' 1st job should be making it easier for small business to grow and hire"??? Didn't ya burn the bridge on that one when you passed Obamacare? And when you passed the Wall Street Reform? And when you tax people (read: small business owners) earning more than $250,000? And what you attempted to do with the Card Check bill?

"Unfortunately, this bill {referring to the jobs bill} has been languishing in the Senate for months, held up by a partisan minority that won't even allow it to go to a vote"

Hmm, wonder who he could be talking about here?? Can't imagine... Some evil group of people that don't want small businesses to expand or want to allow them to cut capital gains taxes for them, which they might not pay anyways... "That makes no sense", he says. Those meanie Republicans don't want us spending money we don't have. "This bill is fully paid for." Oh yeah? Like the Obamacare bill and all of the others? Paid for by what? Money from your stash?? "It will not add to the deficit". I hear that and think of a good title for a kid's book - 'It will not add to the deficit' and other lies my government told me. Is this man even capable of telling the truth??

OMG! I LOVE this one:
"There is no reason to block it besides pure partisan politics"
Really now? No other reason? Just like there's no other reason to disagree with Obama besides racism. Nice logic. No pork that you guys stuffed in there to discover just how painful a fire ant's bite is or why a fly is attracted to trash. WSJ claims that this "paid for" jobs bill will cost $80 billion. How has $80 billion just lying around somewhere? And I guess we should be asking where he got it, too. Who knows what other goodies are hiding inside?

He says small businesses don't have time for political games (then stop playing them, Mr. President). And even went on to say that he saw a story that small businesses were putting a hold on hiring and expanding, just to wait for this bill to go through. Um... wrong bill. I'd wager that they are putting hiring and expanding on hold due to another bill... Obamacare.

"Holding this bill hostage" hahaha wow... strong language. Wait, I think I'm beginning to understand - I think someone mixed up these speeches. The first one, supposedly about Iraq, was really about the economy and this second one, supposedly about the economy, was about demonizing and attacking people against his agenda. Almost sounds like a campaign speech for his jobs bill.

"It's got to get done"... "A full scale attack". Oops, sounds like they are going to ram it through again... Geez, I love politics and everything, but I am SO sick of hearing this windbag speak. Same speech each time, just modifies it a little. You'd almost think he didn't need the telepromptors anymore. After all, I think the rest of us have gotten his speech patterns down:

"Remember, this mess was here when I got here. We're going to have to break a few eggs to bake a cake, so we need to spend to get out of this mess. But don't worry, it's all been paid for. Those that tell you otherwise are just trying to make my job as President harder by blocking my bills for no other reason except to be mean. I don't play these type of games, but they are forcing me to. It's never my fault; always someone else's. So I don't know why these people are blaming me - they SHOULD be thanking me! We just need to work together to get things done, but don't expect me to work with you. I'm the President - you should be working with ME. After all, it's all about me and my accomplishments, not yours or the United States'. Thank you."

Maybe I should go into Presidental speech writing... haha

Obama and Arizona's Immigration Law

H/t to Gateway Pundit

“What we can’t do is demagogue the issue. And what we can’t do is allow a patchwork of 50 different states or cities or localities, where anyone who wants to make a name for themselves suddenly say I’m gonna be anti-immigrant and I’m gonna see if we can solve the problem ourselves.”

First of all, Obama, the States were originally set up to govern themselves. Federal government came secondary to state government, but you should know that since you are a Constitutional Scholar, right?

Secondly, you arrogant SOB, it's about protecting ourselves not "trying to make a name for ourselves" that this Arizona law was passed. No one is "Anti-immigrant" just because they want people to come into this country LEGALLY.

I personally laugh heartily whenever a liberal calls me "anti-immigrant". Oh yeah? My mom's an immigrant, as was my Grandmother and Aunt on her side. As was her grandparents and uncles on her father's side. And guess what? They all came in LEGALLY. I think the world of immigrants that come to this country legally and work hard. It's not fair to people like them to wait for citizenship for 7-8 years, while others sneak in the country illegally and get freebies. Heck, it's not fair to us that were born here.

And P.S., Obama, we the states will continue to pass our own laws to do jobs that you refuse to do. One by one, we will pass laws to knock out illegal immigration if we have to and one by one, we will pass laws to pull the plug on your Obamacare.We WILL solve the problems as long as you turn a blind eye to them. Do the job you were elected to do and we wouldn't have to pass laws like this.

The Mosque at Ground Zero

This issue has rubbed me the wrong way since it first came up and now today, a panel has approved for it to be built, apparently against popular opinion.

Personally, I agree with the opposition - it's an insult to all Americans, especially those that lost their lives in the attack or to family members who lost someone. And this PC gobbledygook about "fostering relations between Americans and Muslims" is pure BS. If they really believed all of that hot air that comes out of their mouths, then they wouldn't feel the need to call people "racist" or "bigot" when they oppose something like this. You know something stinks when someone can only call you names and not defend their position.

Seriously, whenever you raise your voice and ask just why this group wants to build a mosque on Ground Zero, instead of building a memorial or something to those that lost their lives, and what are their reasons for it, they scream "Racism!". Can't even talk with people any more... Ask someone a question to get information and you get called names.

(Wouldn't that be a hoot to turn it around for once and just have a hissy fit when a liberal asks how you are? Scream "racism!" and run away. They'd think you lost your mind...)

Ok, but back to the situation at hand. Seriously - why would they want to build a mosque on Ground Zero? Talk show hosts, like Boortz, claim it's because Muslims build mosques on places they have "conquered". Now I've tried to look that up and can't find it anywhere except on right-wing blogs. Anyone know if there's any truth to that?

I feel the liberals are all in favor for this due to being PC and not wanting to hurt anyone's feelings - nothing more. (Much like the "profiling" in Arizona) It's not about human rights or religious rights. It's the "everybody's equal and we can't keep score during a kids' baseball game because someone's feelings might be hurt" mentality.

Saw a great quote in a WSJ op-ed piece:

"many believe that Ground Zero should be reserved for memorials to the event itself and to its victims. They do not understand why of all possible locations in the city, Cordoba House must be sited so near to there"

Totally agree. Explain to me in a rational, adult manner why this Cordoba House should be built at Ground Zero instead of a memorial and I'll be willing to listen. Help us understand. Call me names as your "explanation" and I'll refuse to listen.

And the op-ed piece continues, with another great point:

"Many New Yorkers and Americans will conclude that the radical interpretation of Cordoba House's purpose is correct. That belief will undermine what you have articulated to be Cordoba House's core mission. Rather than furthering cross-cultural and interfaith understanding, a Cordoba House located near Ground Zero would undermine them. Rather that serving as a bridge between Muslim and non-Muslim peoples, it would function as a divide.”

You claim this center's purpose is to strengthen Muslim and American relations. But it's not helping your cause by ignoring what people want, saying this is the way things are going to be and insulting me because I disagree. That's going to hurt relations, not help them.

Is it just me or is the strategy of the Cordoba House (shoving things through against popular opinion and calling the opposition names) something straight out of the Obama play book? Is this really the way things are going to be from now on in this regime?

Catering to the Lowest Common Denominator: The Slow Reading Movement

When I was in school, I remember how much emphasis the teachers placed on speed reading. We were constantly being timed or using tips and tricks to improve our reading times. I'm an avid (and 'rabid') reader - there is nothing I enjoy more than to curl up with a good book, so my reading speed is naturally fast just due to practice. I never liked how teachers were so fixed on speed-reading. I think one should read at a pace that is comfortable to them. Granted, when it comes to second language learning, I can see how you would want to increase your reading speed in order to become more fluent (or at least sound that way). That also just requires practice of reading over and over and over again. No tips, no tricks, no timers - just practice. And I really disagree that speed readers are more intelligent than other readers. If anything, I think that speed readers attained their speed through practice of reading books, magazines, newspapers and/or whatever they could get their hands on and therefore introduced themselves to new ideas. THAT is what adds to a person's intelligence; the speed reading is just a side effect and not really related at all.

As much as I disliked teachers preaching about speed reading, I was horrified to learn this week about the Slow Reading movement. (Wish I was kidding) Seems society and teachers have done a 180 and now believe the way to go is Slow Reading. Apparently the premise is that we are so focused on doing things fast, that we miss the important things in life. And I don't disagree with that. There is a time and place to stop and smell the roses, but in the real world, if you do that all the time, you will be left behind. For instance, for dinner choices - home cooked is a much better option than fast food (and tastier/healthier too). But taking your time on a project for work, not such a good idea.

And the same for this "slow reading" stuff - sure, slow down for technical books, non-fiction science, computer books what have you. They are very dense with information should be read at a slower pace than a fiction novel. But to snail read through a light-hearted fiction novella is rubbish.

In the Seattle Times, the executive humanities editor at Havard says there's a world-wide reading crisis (I agree there) and thinks there should be a "revolution in reading". Yes, encourage people to read more. Don't encourage them to read slowly.


For the most part, I think this whole slow reading nonsense is nothing more than pandering to the lowest level so they don't get their feelings hurt. It's some sort of extension of "everyone's a winner/let's make everyone feel good" rubbish that they are spreading through schools now. Or the "Did I read the bill? I'm a Senator - I don't have time for that" attitude in Congress. I don't care if the students read fast or slow, just as long as they read, but don't you dare make a person feel bad about being a speed reader.

In the Newsweek article, there were some gems of quotes:

"But mostly the “movement” is just a bunch of authors, schoolteachers, and college professors who think that just maybe we’re all reading too much too fast and that instead we should think more highly of those who take their time with a book or an article."

So yes... now reading 50+ books in a year is no longer an accomplishment. And pretty soon, they'll be telling us to think highly of people who don't read books at all. We all just need to slow down, enjoy ourselves and melt all of those fast-moving neurons while we watch American Idol. I'm being sarcastic (mostly) and I get what they are saying about taking your time and not treating reading like a race, but the article goes on...

"Instead, Newkirk says, schools should encourage old-fashioned exercises such as reading aloud and memorization. He says that when he uses these exercises in his college-level classes, his students thank him and tell him that it helps them concentrate, unlike the surfing they do online."

'Reading aloud' in college? Are you kidding me? I had a professor who did that and I was bored to tears. College kids know how to read already (I hope)! Helps them concentrate, my foot.

Then an author of a book about slow reading  (does that seem odd to anyone else? An author promoting slow reading...? Yeah, encourage people to read less and slower and they won't be buying as many of your books... Or maybe he only has the one book and he doesn't care. I don't know...), John Miedema says:

"Slow reading is about bringing more of the person to bear on the book."

Huh? What kind of BS is that? What does that even mean exactly - relating more to the book by reading slower? Sounds pretentious to me...

And then the author admits there isn't any scientific backing to his idea.

"When you bring more of the person to bear on the book -or maybe more of the book to bear on a person in a sense - you develop a more intimate and rich relationship with the information that builds richer memories and richer intelligence."

Believe me, I have a relationship with my books and the information in them. I collect books like some women collect shoes. They overflow my bookshelf, camp out on my bedside table and accompany me to work. And the ones I have, I usually read multiple times. I have rich, fond memories of books I read when I first started to read and many, many more since then. Don't tell me that I don't properly enjoy books because I'm a speed reader. I may read fast, but I comprehend what I read too. It's comfortable to me - slow reading is not and it is distracting. And to claim that it builds a "richer intelligence" after you admitted that there's no scientific evidence to support your idea is poppycock. Reading alone builds intelligence; don't try and promote your idea with silly claims that have no basis.

The author of the article concludes that he's going to start "slow reading" and the worst thing he can think of happening from doing so, "is racking up a few overdue fines at the library". And this after admitting that he placed "in the middle of the pack" in a speed reading test. Sounds like speed reading envy to me.

And another load of BS related to reading: "Liberals Read More Books than Conservatives". Is that why books by conservative authors are always in the top of reading lists (Amazon, New York Times Bestseller)? Or how about books that recommended by Glenn Beck are on back-order by Amazon for months? And why did a certain 50-year-old, 1000+ page book (Atlas Shrugged) suddenly jump to the top of reading lists, sell-out in bookstores around the country and cause libraries to order more copies? Yeah, no liberal I know read any of those... Publications like Newsweek and liberal newspapers are going bankrupt due to lack of readership... Hmmm... just who reads more than whom?

Financial Reform and Scott Brown

I was disappointed to hear Scott Brown sided with them on this financial reform. Just goes to show that not only to we need to vote out the lazy "you-don't-actually-expect-us-to-read-the-bill-do-you?" and "let's spend more to get out of debt" types, but we need REAL conservatives. Those that will cut spending or cut back on government. Granted, Scott Brown may have been better than the alternative, but we need to stop voting for the lesser of two evils. We need to get some people in Washington that actually want to represent us first ahead of their career.

Back to the financial reform - no doubt we need it, but government isn't the way to do it. They have no business regulating Wall Street, no matter how harmless it may seem. This bill was co-authored by Barney Frank and Chris Dodd. If those two names don't send up alarm bells, I'm not sure what will. Those two are always up to something and it's never pretty. This Pelosi/Reid/Obama/Frank/Dodd crowd is only after one thing and it's not hope, change or helping anyone out. It's usually about power and how they can it away from us. And with swine like Frank & Dodd crafting a bill, you can almost be sure it'll come with a nice heaping side of pork.

Pork like this little tidbit, which I have no idea of how it pertains to "financial reform":

"Section 342 of the bill calls for an "Office of Minority and Women Inclusion" to be established in each of 29 federal bureaus and offices."

Seems like it calls for a sort of affirmative action for jobs? It even goes further:

"The regulations appear to go beyond ensuring that discrimination in hiring decisions does not occur. Instead, it requires assurance of "fair inclusion." Furchtgott-Roth says it will pressure companies to find and hire minorities even if one hasn't applied for a specific job."

"FIND minorities even if one hasn't applied for a specific job"??? WTF? So 30 qualified people apply for a job and it just so happens that none of the are classified as a minority. So that means the company will turn away all of the candidates that applied, leave the job open and go out to find a random minority, just to fill a spot?

And even though as a woman, I'm apparently included into this whole deal, but I want a job that I'm qualified for - not because I was the first woman the hiring manager ran into at the supermarket. How insulting is that?! And what the hell does this have to do with financial reform?

Oh I get it now - this affirmative action rule isn't for all companies, it's just for federal offices and other financial-related companies that do business with them. That includes:

"29 federal agencies and all financial institutions, investment banking firms, mortgage banking firms, asset management firms, brokers, dealers, financial services entities, underwriters, accountants, investment consultants, and providers of legal services who do business with them."

And let's not forget those firms' sub-contractors as well - "including office-cleaning crews, paper-shredding vendors, office-party catering firms -- if they wish to do business with the government."

Well, okay, so I stand corrected. That's kind-of sort-of financially related in a Seven Degrees of Separation sort-of way... No idea of how that's supposed to help the financial institutions, other than making them go bankrupt. But if you think about it, I guess it could be considered "reform", although it's certainly not the good kind...

I know I don't want to do business with a company who hires based on race or gender, rather than based on qualifications. Certainly don't want someone handling my money like that. Shameful that the government is forcing them to and probably only so they can keep saying how many jobs they've "created or saved".

If the NAACP wants to stop racism, they should focus their attention at this bill, instead of wasting their time making up stuff about the Tea Parties.

So Sue Me

So the Federal Government actually sued Arizona today. I honestly thought it was an empty threat - I didn't think they'd actually do it. Their stupidity never ceases to astound me.

This lawsuit reminds me of the type when people sue McDonalds for making them fat. The United States just sued itself for enforcing a law that it refuses to uphold. Confused yet? Yeah, me too. I never saw this episode of The Twilight Zone before. We must have really hit our head hard when we fell down that rabbit hole. Geez... is there going to be a day where I don't wake up with a confused face, saying "WTF? Is there something in the water up in Washington? How are they competent enough to dress themselves in the morning"?

Oh, but the best part about this lawsuit is that the government didn't sue because of discrimination or racism or profiling like they were all screaming about earlier. Oh no, they are suing Arizona because their immigration law, according to the New York Post, "usurps federal authority". Excuse me, what? Did I really hear that correctly? You are kidding, right?

So the Federal government won't do the job it's supposed to do by protecting our borders and you know, actually making illegal immigration illegal.So Arizona steps up and passes a redundant law and the US sues them for "usurping federal authority"? It sounds like the script to a really bad movie. Heck, that wouldn't even be believable in a movie script...  It just blows my mind. I'm at a loss for words.

I do like this:

"State Sen. Russell Pearce, the principal sponsor of the bill co-sponsored by dozens of fellow Republican legislators, denounced the lawsuit as "absolute insult to the rule of law" as well as to Arizona and its residents."

Thank you, thank you, thank you, State Sen. Russell Pearce. And let me add, it's an insult to the residents of the rest of the US too. (At least, the ones of us that HAVEN'T lost our minds).

This lawsuit makes the federal government sound like a bunch of spoiled, whiny kids - "You took away my authority, so I'm gonna sue you". And who is going to pay the legal fees? Us, the Taxpayers, no doubt. Great, more money that we can't afford to spend. I personally think the lawyers and people in the government who are behind this lawsuit should pay out of pocket. No donations, no taxes, no gifts. You want to waste our time and money by suing yourself, go ahead. But do it on your own time and with your own money. I hope the judge in this case is wise enough to throw it out.


And have I mentioned how much I love Gov. Brewer? I wish Sonny, the Governor of GA, was more like her. I wish more Governors were like her. Look at this quote from her that I found on CNN.com:

""Today's filing is nothing more than a massive waste of taxpayer funds," Brewer said in a statement. "These funds could be better used against the violent Mexican cartels than the people of Arizona.""

Another 'Thank you, thank you, thank you'! Another person in government who actually gets it! Good for her!

And you just gotta love this! More language from the brief:

"[its] mandatory enforcement scheme will conflict with and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities and objectives."

"Will conflict with and undermine the federal government's careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities"??? What "careful balance of immigration enforcement priorities"??? The Federal Government has NO immigration enforcement priorities (except maybe amnesty...and yeah I can see the Arizona law being in conflict with that 'careful balance'). What a load of crap. Hope those lawyers and politicians are wearing knee-high boots to wade through that.

And B.S. Alert:

"The law also has 'the potential of violating the rights of innocent American citizens and legal residents, making them subject to possible stops or questioning because of what they look like or how they sound.'"

Obviously the lawyers suing Arizona haven't read the law either.

Wow, for being speechless about this, I could certainly go all night. We can be puzzled by this and scratch our heads at it. We can get angry and get frustrated at the government for this. We can joke about it and poke fun at the government, but the bottom line is that things like this are currently and will ultimately tear our nation apart. I'm afraid at what consequences this holds  for us. It seems laughably absurd for the United States to sue itself, but it's no laughing matter that we are headed down the road to separation.

And on a final note - those lawyers and politicians who think that this Arizona law is unconstitutional... Read Article IV- The States, Section 4:

"Section 4 - Republican government


The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence."


So wouldn't you say failure (and refusal) of the Federal Government to protect one of its states against invasion and violence is unconstitutional? Maybe it'd be time better spent to sue itself for breech of contract. That's a lawsuit I can get behind.

For further blog reading:

http://legalinsurrection.blogspot.com/2010/07/feds-sue-arizona-complaint-here.html
http://selfevidenttruths-euripides.blogspot.com/2010/07/feds-file-suit-to-stop-arizona.html
http://gatewaypundit.firstthings.com/2010/07/obama-administration-sues-arizona/

Politically Incorrect Monday

RT @talkmaster

Happy 4th of July!

In remembrance of the celebration of our independence and in-between all of the hot dogs and fireworks, I sat back and reflected on what this country means to me, and lamented on the direction it is heading.

Everyone is celebrating today, but are they really celebrating independence? Do the people who want health care for everyone really honor independence? How about the people who think the government should take over and nationalize everything - do they respect independence? And the people who want to 'fundamentally transform' this country - do they really want independence? I think a big group of people out there, waving their flags and watching fireworks doesn't really know the meaning of the word and that's sad.

Here's a refresher from http://www.dictionary.com/:

"in·de·pend·ence   /ˌɪndɪˈpɛndəns/ Show Spelled[in-di-pen-duhns]

–noun


1. Also, independency. the state or quality of being independent.

2. freedom from the control, influence, support, aid, or the like, of others."

And unfortunately, a third definition, which is sadly (and ironically) listed as archaic:

"3. Archaic Sufficient income for comfortable self-support; a competence."


Some of us were lucky enough to be born here. Others of us worked hard enough to come here legally and adopt this country as their own. No matter how we got here, we are living in the best country on Earth. If you want something and are willing to work hard enough to get it, you can. The land of opportunity. The land of dreams.


Our ancestors and the Founding Fathers believed in this country so much that they risked their lives for it. If you haven't watched the HBO mini-series about John Adams, you need to watch it. It gives an insight of not only John Adams, but other Founding Fathers and the birth of our country. The king wrote a letter saying they were committing treason by wanting independence from England and they would be killed as traitors. They looked at one another and agreed to do it anyway, fully knowing what the consequences of their actions might be. That spirit is rare these days.

They passed down this great country to us and entrusted us to guard it, just as they did. Perhaps with not the same life-and-death situation, but definitely with the same spirit. But we relaxed and put too much displaced trust into the government. We fell to sleep at the wheel. We have not be vigilant as we needed. The situation we are now in did not happen overnight. If we look back in history, we can see shadows of this nightmare forming back with FDR and the New Deal, and perhaps even before then. Our country has been 'fundamentally transforming' for a long time and just recently we became aware.

I believe we can save our country. It's the place I and so many others call home. It's the place where my ancestors gave up everything to move to so they and their descendants could have a chance at a better life. I'm not giving up yet. It's our turn to stand up for our country now. As Herman Cain says, "We are the Defending Fathers".

We've been doing a great job with the letter writing to our representatives, the Tea Parties, writing blogs, writing to the editors of newspapers, and tax protests. But we need to do more. More letter writing, more Tea Parties, more people writing blogs, more writing to the editors of newspapers, more tax protests. Form constitution study groups, talk with your friends (especially the more liberal leaning ones).

This I believe is one of the biggest problems we are facing. It's not that we're not loud enough or not doing enough - it's that not everyone is listening. The media and the liberal politicians have turned off the liberal voters so much that they aren't listening to our message.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand."  - Abraham Lincoln

As long as we are divided and fighting about little things or calling each other names, we will never save this country. The liberal politicians know that and they are using it to their advantage. They are egging them on and trying to drive us apart. Now I know, there are those that you will never convince no matter how much you try, but even if you talk to 5 of your liberal friends and get one to listen, then that's a start.

I heard a good quote on Beck's radio program this week, which is very scary yet very true: "Socialism happens one teacher at a time". We can turn that around, however, and save this country - one person at a time. Talk to everyone you can. Not in a confrontational manner or an angry one. Just in a calm, rational way, using just the facts. Or dare one of your lifelong liberal friends to a town hall meeting or Tea Party - no one can resist a challenge.

"Not racist. Not Violent. No longer silent."

Enough of the "us vs. them". Enough of the labels. No matter what we believe, we are all still Americans. No matter who we are or where we came from or what color our skin is. We are all Americans.

And yes, there will be some who honestly believe that our country is heading in the right direction right now. They believe that the United States is too powerful and it's time to give someone else a turn. They value countries like Cuba or Venezuela over our own and believe we should be more like them. Those are the people we will never convince and for them, here is a quote from Samuel Adams:

"If ye love wealth greater than liberty, the tranquility of servitude greater than the animating contest for freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you; May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen."

In other words, we won't hold it against you if you love it so much that you want to move to Venezuela or Europe. But we WILL take it personally if you try to change our country and take it away from us. This is the United States of America and we will do our best to keep it the way the Founders intended.

Shameless Plug

Fan me on Facebook!