Tuesday, May 10, 2016

What's Wrong With Our Political World

I’ve had this blog kicking around in my head for a few days, but this article in the NY Times pushed me to actually write it. I totally agree with the writer, even though he’s a liberal. See what I did there? I tried to discount that he could have a good opinion because of his politics. While a certain level of this is totally appropriate and should be taken into account, we’ve come to a place in our politics where we are completely shutting down opinions and positions and arguments we don’t like. It is important to understand another person’s perspective from which their positions are coming, but we’ve gotten to the point of completely ignoring the contributions people we disagree with can make to a discussion.

                Yes, this has always gone on to some extent, and I’ll get back to that later.

We have spent the last seven years having reporters and commentators explain away opposition to our president as racism, nothing more. Reporters do it with “some have opined that the opposition to this bill is steeped in racism” (who is some? What a convenient out). Conservatives have been wailing about Obama’s Marxist tendencies, as if that means nothing that comes out of his mouth is worth involving in the debate. We can’t have a civil discussion about voter ID and point out that minority voting participation has risen in every state that has implemented it because the people we’re trying to discuss it with are shouting “Racist! Bigot! You want to suppress minorities!” We can’t even discuss female bathroom safety without bringing into question the hearts and intents of the people involved. A recent discussion about it I was part of went straight to “evil Christians”.

                As the writer of the article I linked above points out, in many research studies it’s been shown that the liberals at these colleges dismiss the opinions of conservatives and Christians immediately, and label us uninformed, idiotic, bigoted, racist, etc. I have liberals in my own family that, despite me being a conservative myself, have an image of conservatives being racist, rich, white people with their foot on the neck of their workers. And I know conservatives who have come to see liberals as just chomping at the bit to open up gulags and throw all climate change deniers and Christians into them.

                While we look at each other like this, closing our minds to other opinions by reducing the value of the speaker to zero, we make our heads and our worlds echo chambers. But what we really need is sounding boards, open discussion, finding middle ground. We can’t have reasonable conversations about the issues of the day when liberals are told by voices on their side that conservatives want to stone gays, and conservatives are told that liberals want to post speech police on their pulpits to arrest people for their religious beliefs. Nor can we have either side threatening to do that to silence the opposition. The very basis of freedom of speech, a fundamental right for us to come to consensus solutions to issues, is everybody gets their say and the majority work it out. Both sides need to be careful about silencing, by force or ignoring, opposing views because the pendulum swings both ways.

                I firmly believe the vast majority of Americans, no matter their political stripes, are good hearted in that they want America to be safe, they want the needy fed and clothed, they don’t want people dying in the streets because they can’t get medical care anywhere. The current political climate has jaded a lot of people, for sure. It’s made people who no longer see those who truly need welfare, for all the people who are just leeching. But it’s also made people who ONLY see those who need help, not all the people who could work and take care of themselves but out of a sense of entitlement or laziness take from those who need it. Americans, though, at their heart, are a charitable, caring people who just have different opinions on how to solve the problems we need to solve. Heck, we even disagree on whether some things are problems. I realize that even in writing this it’s impossible for me to hide my own political stripes as well.

                However, I’m trying to do better at not dismissing opposing viewpoints. I took a few months off of political debates and posting stuff online and I saw all of this when I stepped back. It was shocking to realize the level of hatred laced rhetoric people direct at their opposition. I will concede there are evil people, some of them are politicians and some of them are rich. But most politicians and rich people are as good hearted and well intentioned as the vast majority of Americans and want the best for their constituents, whether they be voters or employees.

                There has always been an undercurrent of dehumanizing and discounting the opposition, but there used to be adults in the room. Social media is an unregulated cesspool in most cases where people can fling stuff around. Perhaps because of social media, however, the traditional media and politicians have stopped being those adults in the room that they’re supposed to be. I remember when Paul Ryan proposed some Medicaid reforms, to save it, and the national news played only one Democrat response: that Paul Ryan wanted to push grandma off a cliff. Conservative politicians have fed the (so far) lie that Obama plans to use his AmeriCorps rebirth to stage a coup and never leave office. I stopped watching national news after that Paul Ryan incident because they never bothered to actually review the elements of the proposal, the issues each was meant to address, and get serious Democrats to offer substantive arguments against each point. It was the last straw for me.

                I’ve heard more from the conservative side on this for the last 20 years, so I have lots more examples I could make of Democrats and liberals than Republicans and conservatives, but that’s not what this about. This is a plea to begin pushing back against people who say we should just close our ears because somebody is liberal, conservative, Marxist, whatever. When a college campus says a speaker can’t come on campus because they are conservative and their views are “controversial”, alumni and the community need to push back. The media needs to question the suppressing of speech, not the hearts and minds of the protestors or the speaker, because that’s the issue.

                Can we all please take a step back and start focusing on the issues, give every voice a legitimate opportunity and start coming to a consensus again? Can we all please drop our stereotypes of our political “opponents” and consider what their proposals can do? And most of all, can we have an open mind that there’s a good chance we could learn something? When you believe the people who disagree with you are nefarious, it makes it impossible to consider what they are saying very well could be the truth . . .

Wednesday, November 7, 2012

An Open Letter

An open letter to Obama voters, especially those celebrating big time today:

Let me recap what you voted for, and it’s all true.

17 of Obamacare’s 21 new taxes, most of which are intentionally, with premeditation, scheduled to take effect Jan 1, 2013, will hit the middle class. They will all impact job creation, as the other four are pretty big hits to business.

As a result of Obamacare rules that are set to take effect, many employers will have to reduce their staff to part time to avoid large fees and increases. To mitigate rules like that already in effect, HHS has issued over 1,000 waivers to companies like McDonald’s, a company that provided a health care option to even their part time staff, but under Obamacare could no longer do it without the waiver unless they provided them with full on, very expensive plans.

As of 2014, no matter how healthy you are, you will no longer be able to purchase a health insurance plan tailored for you. Catastrophic only plans won’t be legal any more. You will have to buy the “Cadillac” plan, or pay the IRS a fine. That “Cadillac” plan, regardless of your religious objections, will cover birth control, abortion drugs, and sterilization procedures, as well as whatever HHS decides to add to the mandate between now and then.

All this so that 9 million Americans not eligible for Medicaid can get healthcare paid for by the taxpayers. And that estimate doesn’t include all the people who will lose their employer provided healthcare because of the increase in premiums. There are MANY other things ANYBODY will object to in Obamacare, but they were pushed out past the election and you'll start discovering them soon.

By 2014 another trillion dollars will be added to our nation’s debt, which already exceeds our annual GDP by 2 trillion dollars. Every child under 18 now owes $218,000 in debt to China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Dubai, United Arab Emirates, many other countries, and Americans that hold America’s bonds. By 2016 our federal deficit will top $20 Trillion.

We will either be about to financially collapse or already be there. All the welfare programs, Social Security, Medicare, etc. will be unsustainable and millions will lose those benefits.

You may think we can just print more money, but that doesn’t work. We’ve already tripled the amount of money in the federal reserve and banks have been wise enough not to get that out into circulation, but the devaluation of our currency is already there. Germany tried to print their way out in the 1920s, and inflation destroyed their economy and led to the rise of the National Socialist Party (Nazis for short) on the shoulders of a charismatic leader. Zimbabwe tried it too. In both countries it took wheelbarrows full of their currency to buy a loaf of bread. Germany recently asked to audit the gold in the Federal Reserve so they can take the gold they have with us back to Germany, before it's worthless.

You may think we can stimulate our way out. Hoover passed a massive stimulus bill after the 1929 stock market crash, but we still went into the depression. FDR pushed through seven more stimulus bills in his first 6 years in office and the depression continued, and deepened. It got so bad that even his treasury secretary said that the stimuli had just made the depression worse and prolonged it. FDR still pushed through an eighth bill. It took the building of industries and loss of labor of WWII to get us out of the depression.

Japan had their “lost decade” of the 90s because they tried eight stimulus bills to get them out of the 1992 recession. Growth was stagnant and even with their technology industry, they didn’t share in the internet boom.

Ending the “tax cuts for the wealthiest” isn’t going to fix the deficit either. That step will bring in, at most, $80 BILLION a year, versus a $1 TRILLION a year deficit. That $80 Billion will be taken out of the economy, a portion of it wasted (won’t quibble on percentages, but some ALWAYS IS) and then spent on people who won’t work.

You reelected a president who let four Americans die in Benghazi and went to bed to rest up for a campaign party in Las Vegas. Numerous leaked documents and brave people who were there confirm that they asked for help, told DC it was a terrorist attack, and were told to stand down and die. Six disobedient SEALs saved the surviving 30 consulate staff, only to have two of them die while painting mortars now aimed at their safe house. They would have only painted those targets, because it exposed their location, if they thought they could depend on air support from the drones or C-130 Spectres. We had Delta force an hour away in Italy. I don’t care who gave the order, he is the CiC, it’s his call.

If not for all the people who have given up looking and left the labor force, our unemployment rate this month would be 10.6%. With tax increases on the job producers coming, this is only going to get worse. The new regulations in Obamacare will compound that. Unemployment is going to increase, thousands of employers have already indicated that.

Do you think he’s fixed the banking world? Why would he? His biggest donors are Goldmann Sachs, Bank of America, etc. Dodd-Frank imposes so many new regulations (only half of them took 4500 pages) that only big banks can survive. Already dozens of small banks have closed and it is nearly impossible now to start a new one. Big banks will get bigger because they can absorb the little ones AND the manpower required to comply with Dodd-Frank. However, nothing in Dodd-Frank stops them from making risky loans or investments, because they are still protected by “too big to fail” rules.

Obama has submitted four budgets. Not one has been passed. The last three went down 99-0 in the Senate. Other than those budgets, Harry Reid has blocked EVERY OTHER BUDGET from coming to a vote. Don’t try to claim GOP obstructionism, because it only takes 51 votes for budgets, they can’t be filibustered. The GOP House has submitted several budgets a year for consideration in the senate, and the GOP in the Senate has proposed budgets, but in defiance of the law, Reid has blocked, through procedure, any of those even coming up for discussion.

So we’ve been operating under continuing resolutions. Since CBO added the stimulus to the baseline, that means we’ve spent the stimulus every year. We’ve increased annual government spending 40% under Obama, yet GDP has been steadily falling off, and unemployment has been gradually increasing. It’s only stayed around 8% because of people leaving the work force.

Obama’s EPA has already forced the closure of around 100 of 450 coal electric plants in the US. Coal provides 42% of America’s electricity. By next summer another 200 plants will have to shut down. Electricity prices will skyrocket, which Obama promised his policies would do in a speech in 2007. He’s shut down energy production on federal lands and is trying to stop private drilling growth. Gas and electricity prices are about to go through the roof. The rich will absorb it by spending less, hiring less and investing less. How will the poor and middle class survive it? Energy costs cascade through transportation and production costs and affect EVERYTHING we buy, from food to iPhones. It will make manufacturing in America even more expensive and force more things overseas. It will increase the cost of food for EVERYBODY! Even ignoring the money printing inflation coming, these energy crushing moves alone will accelerate inflation to economy and people crushing levels.

We are headed back to double digit unemployment even BLS can’t hide. GM, according to experts, is two years from being bankrupt again, as the rescue did NOTHING to resolve their underlying issues. That is what Romney talked about in the editorial the NYT editors put that horrible headline on. He argued that GM should be shepherded through a normal bankruptcy process that let them shed the structural weaknesses that led to them being in trouble to begin with. Instead, this administration just threw cash at them, closed dealerships and pretended everything is rainbows and sunshine. Ohio voters that voted for him for “saving Detroit” are in for a big shock very soon.

Did you vote for him because Romney would “take away birth control”? That would be insane. He would have ended taxpayer funding for it and the mandate that insurance plans cover it. Most insurance plans cover it already, and even without insurance, it runs about $9 a month at Walmart, and a box of 12 condoms is around $6. He would not, could not thanks to a Supreme Court decision, ban contraceptives; he could only force people to take responsibility for their own sexual choices.

Did you vote for him because of equal pay rules? Did you know Obama pays his female staff about 78% of what he pays his men? Did you know the equal pay laws have been on the books since the 70s and all that Lily Ledbetter law did was increase the statute of limitations? Romney would not have repealed that and commit political suicide. What Romney would have done is help the millions of unemployed women since Obama took office find a job to begin with.

Did you vote to continue the 2.1 million abortions every year? Do you care that 30 million women aren’t alive today because they were aborted, usually as a form of birth control? The Supreme Court has ruled on that too, and despite challenges to Roe v. Wade every year by states, abortion is still legal, safe and common. Anything Congress passed and Romney signed would have been tossed out. So what’s left? Ending taxpayer funding of abortion. Since the majority of the country is now opposed to abortion, except in cases of rape, incest and life of the mother, it seems reasonable not to have the taxpayers pay for killing babies.

Did you vote out of your faith in God for the party that in three votes insisted on keeping God out of the Democratic platform, but it was put back in anyways? That’s right, the convention floor was clearly against it, but the party leaders put the language back in. Why was it taken out?
Did you vote for him for gay marriage? He told an interviewer during the campaign that he wouldn't do anything about gay marriage in his next term. He told Russia, through Medvedev, that after his next election he'd have more flexbility to negotiate with them and to pass that on to Putin. Russia is one of the most repressive nations when it comes to gay rights, after the Muslim countries, on the planet. Their current unrest is blamed on their suppression of "gay propaganda." Obama has also welcomed the head of The Muslim Brotherhood to the White House, an organization that not only has called for the extermination of Jews, but also the institution of Sharia law, which stones gays! He proudly helped The Muslim Brotherhood take control of Egypt.

Please comment. Please tell me why you voted for four more years of suffering by the middle class. Four more years of rising insurance premiums, increased taxes on the middle class, rising food and gas prices.

At best we will be in a depression in 2016. At worst we’ll be in outright civil war. There’s nothing to indicate, from Obama or Reid, that anything is going to change in 2013 from what he’s done already.

So please, tell me why you voted for this man.

Tuesday, July 17, 2012

A Level Playing Field

I haven’t put thoughts to computer on here in quite a while, a shame. I’ve had a lot to say at times, just never felt the urge to put it on the blog. However, Obama has done it this time.

He’s truly inspired me to sit down and destroy something he said last Friday. Real Clear Politics has the video and text. Here’s the part that has conservatives and Twitchy and small business owners steamed (emphasis mine):
“[L]ook, if you’ve been successful, you didn’t get there on your own. You didn’t get there on your own. I’m always struck by people who think, well, it must be because I was just so smart. There are a lot of smart people out there. It must be because I worked harder than everybody else. Let me tell you something — there are a whole bunch of hardworking people out there. (Applause.)  
If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life. Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we have that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invested in roads and bridges. If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”
Somebody else made that happen? Question for our President who has never owned a business or met a payroll: How did government get the money to do the things he mentions? Is it manufactured from thin air? No, businesses grew up and hired people and with the passage of the 16th Amendment to the US Constitution started collecting taxes on those people. Up until the 1900s roads were built by businesses. Toll roads were built and run by private companies. Most of the railroad infrastructure in this country was built by private entities.

I understand the argument some could make, that business makes use of “public” facilities and services to succeed. But business also provides the VAST majority of the money used to create those facilities. The poor person paying only one dollar for that bus ride is having that ride subsidized by the middle class and wealthy who pay taxes, since almost all mass-transit systems are money losers without subsidies.

Other than the circular nature of the argument, that business uses public facilities but business pays the lion’s share of taxes to pay for those public facilities that they then use . . ., there is another problem with it: the playing field is level. Regardless of how much help the government provides or how much regulation headwind they put in the way, everybody SHOULD face the same obstacles as everybody else to starting a business. They don’t because of crony capitalism, like the green energy cronies Obama’s been wasting our money on. The government also too often picks winners and losers. I digress, all that is for another posting.

Many argue that liberals as left as Obama and the people around him believe that all money people earn, 100% of it, belongs to “society” or government and the government generously lets you keep some of it.

It ignores that most people who make “rich” level of money, whatever the moving target is, did work harder, get more schooling, and prove themselves to make themselves worth that much to a company. Are there a few that got there with nepotism or unethical behavior? Absolutely, there are bad bananas in every bunch, but that doesn’t diminish the fact that people distinguish themselves and make more money through their own hard work. A truly free country recognizes that whatever a person earns, by what they do to distinguish themselves, is THEIRS, not the government’s. If you can’t go out and take out a second mortgage, burn your life savings and put in 80, 90 or more hours a week building a business and expect to keep most of the fruits of that labor, why do it?

The government’s job is to make sure it’s a level playing field and get out of the way. The government should be enforcing contract law and create recourse for a company killing or injuring people through its behavior. That’s it.

He uses the example of teachers. Let me use school to illustrate the level playing field and unequal levels of success argument. Suppose there are ten kids who travel start in the same elementary school and stay together through high school. They have the same curriculum, access to the same classes once they are elective, and the same opportunity to study. At graduation two of the kids are valedictorians, but only one of those two took honors and AP classes. The AP student is going Ivy league, the other valedictorian is going “second tier.” Five of the others did average, C’s and B’s, and are going to community or public colleges. Three more didn’t focus, didn’t work hard and will be working minimum wage jobs for the foreseeable future.

Did the top two students “not get their on their own”? Did “somebody else make it happen”? No, obviously they worked harder, studied harder, were probably smarter and made choices about which classes to take. Like a business owner, they made the extra effort. Bill Gates and his friends purchased DOS from DRI and stuck it to Apple and IBM, but they started with just that $50,000. Hewlett-Packard started with two guys in their garage. Oil companies started with some back breaking work and luck.

What Obama is saying is that the people who worked hard, made the right choices in school, and took advantage of the opportunities in front of them should pay more to provide welfare to the people who didn’t. I believe we should take care of those who CAN’T take care of themselves, through private charity, not government. Obama believes that you shouldn’t even have to try to find work if you're on welfare.

The tax changes Obama is proposing, increasing the highest rates from 35% to 39.5%, on top of the increase in investment taxes from Obamacare in 2013, would increase the tax burden by 10% for the investors and job creators. It would increase government revenue, at most assuming the rich didn’t find other ways to protect their income, by $82.9 Billion dollars a year, 0.5% of the current annual deficit. Yet we have zero White House proposals to reduce the cost of Medicare, get Social Security under control, or to respond to the GAO report that over 120 government functions are redundant. Obama’s budgets have all gone down almost unanimously, including Democrat votes, but they ALL kept spending at current levels and deficits right where they are.
According to the Tax Foundation in an October 2011 report, “The top 5 percent earned 31.7 percent of the nation’s adjusted gross income, but paid approximately 58.7 percent of federal individual income taxes.” In short, most taxes for non-retirement social spending – the same social spending liberals are so keen on expanding – are being paid by those people liberals also say don’t pay enough in taxes – the top five percent, whose income was a relatively modest $154,643,000 in 2009, according to the Tax Foundation.
He shouldn’t be demonizing the rich for political gain. He should be thanking them for providing the money for that infrastructure . . . and all of our social programs.

The Declaration of Independence proclaims "pursuit of happiness," not happiness. Our country should provide equal opportunity, not try to force equal results.

Monday, October 25, 2010

Campaign Funding Shenanigans

Great piece over at Red State this morning. I particularly like this line:

But conspicuously absent from Sargent’s list are the largest unions, led by unions of public employees whose taxpayer-funded salaries are funneled into compulsory union dues and then passed on to the people who set those taxpayer-funded salaries
Corporations, trying to protect their incomes so they can keep their employees, grow, etc., are somehow evil, but unions using what amounts to taxpayer dollars to fund campaigns is OK. And the Wa-Po writer makes it sound like Democrats are oh-so-poor.

Give me a break.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Demonizing the Rich


Watch the video first.

I'm sick and tired of the rich being demonized. Are there bad ones, like Maddoff and Soros? Absolutely, but they both supported Democrats.

There are three possible reasons you would want to demonize the rich:

1) You are too ignorant of the role they play in job creation, investment, etc to not just repeat this old, tired mantra of the left.

2) You envy them.

3) You think only government should provide jobs (you're a Communist).

Let me just say that on point 3, Communism and Socialism don't get rid of rich people. It just leaves the rich people in government to choose who else they want to be rich, which is whomever kisses their, well, you know. The rich people that support socialism and it's even more evil brother know that if they put the people in power, they stand a good shot of staying rich in the proletariat.

And as good as that might sound to any extreme lefties reading this, 18,000 people died in the Inquisition, over 200,000,000 died to communist regimes in the 20th century.

Rich people are good for several reasons.

First, it is why so many people came to this country in the first place - to have a chance to enter the free market, work hard and become rich. There are so many first and second generation Americans who came here and made it.

Second, it is what Americans aspire to become. The American dream is all about working hard, looking for a market, creating an invention, innovating, etc to become wealthy and be able to take care of others. The man in the video I linked above is a perfect example. He may make a million dollars in a year but he puts most of it right back into the development of the next chair design so he can keep paying his people and growing his business.

Third, without the rich there is no private employment, at least as the left defines the rich. Their arbitrary number is a couple making $250,000, which can sometimes drop to $150,000. 250K is a teacher and firefighter barely making middle class in New York, or a well to do small business owner in a small town in Ohio. As quoted in the video, two-thirds of the people who fall in the Democrat's definition of "rich" are small business owners like the man featured in it.

Fourth, without the very rich there is no investment. Innovation and invention don't get funded without them, except with government strings. An entrepreneur in the private marketplace can find somebody that will help him get started and he or she can shop for the right match. If that same person has to go to the government, it's red tape, favoritism, and cookie-cutter rules. It's often more work to go to the government than it's worth, as the filing fees, permits, bureaucratic entanglements and other issues can cost more than the payoff.

Finally, the rich in America, because of our Judeo-Christian ethos, give more than in any other country, and they are joined by most of America. We give more to charity, per capita, than any other country in the world. The rich start foundations, charities, and all sorts of other benefit programs. They give to schools and communities in quantities that change lives and cities. Bill and Melinda Gates are the wealthiest couple in the world, and Microsoft made more millionaires than any company before or since. Yet they will die with almost all of their fortune donated to helping people in a variety of causes. Does that really sound evil to you?

If you're on the right and still having problems figuring out the left on all this, let me tell you something a family member once told me. The discussion was about charitable giving and work by corporations. I pointed to the Ronald McDonald Houses. This lefty family member told me that McDonald's should not be deciding how to do charity, that those extra dollars belong to the citizens of America and should go to the government to decide how to spend it and who to help.

It doesn't matter to the left how much of that money is wasted by bureaucracy! It doesn't matter that EVERY government program is filled with waste, fraud, abuse and lobbyists funneling the money their way! It doesn't matter that when McDonald's wants to build one of their houses for families of sick children to stay in, their only condition is that it be close to a childrens' hospital.

What matters to the left is to give as much power to the government as possible. They may not all understand it this way, but that is the ultimate result. Nancy Pelosi, who could fly in one of her rich husband's many private jets, insists on taxpayer funded Gulfstream 5s to be ready at her beck and call for her jaunts home. That is how she sees taxpayers - funding her proletariat lifestyle when her husband can already do it. The more people dependant on the state and not being held accountable by their local charity to do something for themselves, the more elections the left can win.

You can see this in places like Great Britain, where the National Health Service is crushing the British government in debt, so they continue to cut programs, and medicine and other things, while banning happy hour and restricting what people can eat. Yet, nobody who would repeal or even reform the system can get elected because so many are dependent and vote to keep it going.

Social Security and Medicare face a $50 Trillion dollar liability in 2016, unfunded, yet Democrats demonize Republicans for trying to privatize some of the contributions for PEOPLE UNDER 50 to frighten a voting block to vote Democratic. They haven't proposed any new reforms except more taxes on the people who create jobs and invest in our entrepreneurs so they can create jobs.

The massive health care bill eventually drives private insurance out of the market, forcing everybody onto a government dole. It will take more taxes to pay for it, as it will increase the deficit. Medicare is 11 times more expensive now than lawmakers said it would ever be. But all the people "served" by these programs become the frightened sheep of the democratic party, until they end up rioting like they are in Greece and now France at those benefits being cut when there simply is no more money.

The left needs to demonize the rich so they can get people to go along with taxing them into moving out of the country or not being rich any more. The left needs the money to pay for the programs to take control of your lives. The USDA recently decided that food stamps could not be used to buy potatoes any more. It is not hard to extrapolate that when health care is out of money and out of rich to tax, we will be told what we can eat or drink or smoke or whatever if we want to continue having health care.

I've never, ever worked for anybody that wasn't rich, or a corporation that wasn't started and invested in by rich people. And having worked in government, I'd rather work for a rich person. At least that way I can pick my boss, and not work for controlling people picked by the dependent class to hire their servants . . .

Saturday, October 2, 2010

How Liberals Really Think

Listen to what this CONGRESSWOMAN thinks about people who, oh my goodness, love the constitution.

Oh the horror! The document that even tainted by progressivism has created the most successful and wealthy nation on earth is  . . .

Well, listen to her words.