Thursday, September 20, 2012
Friday, July 4, 2008
The Source of Liberty
So, I was thinking of the 4th of July, the Declaration of Independence, fireworks, democracy and celebrating liberty. I found myself wondering how many people understand the source of their freedoms. Does government grant them? Does the constitution? In a word, no; Government doesn’t grant rights, rather it tends to diminish our rights with each law it passes. The constitution was never intended to grant rights, only to acknowledge some of them and to limit government from denial of them. That is only as good as the peoples’ attentiveness to the lawmaking process. Government will never default to observance of the constitution on its own, the people need to constantly be watchful and keep government in its place. It is up to us to restrain the government from acting out of turn. In other words, we, the people are the government.
The founding fathers clearly intended to create an environment in which people would be free to live as God had intended and to have a minimal government operating in the background to ensure that end. Not quite how it’s working these days. Even amongst those who acknowledge Liberty as having been granted by God, there exists a certain capitulation born of apathy toward government when those same “God given rights” are infringed upon. This phenomenon was more aptly phrased in the declaration of independence; “all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” This is especially prevalent in younger people that are new to being away from their parents and self sufficient, but that’s another whole topic.
As important as the question of who gives us our rights, is why. If the government allows us our freedoms, then why does it? You can be assured many congressmen have given that a lot of consideration. Might they be calculating how to rescind those rights? Judging from history, we must conclude, some are and not just government either. Many very wealthy and otherwise influential people are dabbling in their own version of the way and degree to which we should be governed.
What is the function of freedom then? Anyone could say it’s good to be free but, do we need to be free? We could sacrifice some of our liberties for security, right? There’s a lot to consider there. Indeed there is some room for argument. Therein we find the left wing front of the assault on liberty. Much of the erosion of our freedom comes under the heading of ‘sacrifices for the greater good’. The U.S. Constitution says “(to) promote the general welfare”; not “enforce the general welfare”.
The confusion about liberty, specifically, who has what rights and when, begins when God is taken out of the equation.
Liberty and Rights are given by God for a purpose. Liberty is a part of God’s plan and as such, would be of great interest to Satan and others who would seek power for themselves.
Jesus said “no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). So, we need but to choose to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior in order to be saved. Neither Satan, nor anyone else, can take that away from us but we have the right not to choose that path. I somehow feel that will be one right that will never be denied us by any government. Since Satan hasn’t the power to force us to choose death, how then can we be made to choose the obviously losing side of the battle? The answer to that seems simple in hindsight, of course, through lies and trickery.
So much is said about freedom with regard to America’s leading role in democracy in the world. I’m reminded of how America’s promotion of liberty is misrepresented; it is sometimes viewed as a solely political endeavor and at times even a simple jingoistic ideal. It seems to me that America is glorified for freedom as though it is itself, the prize. That liberty, for its own sake is worth fighting and dying over. To some that may be the case but as I’ve stated, liberties are God given and our choice to accept Jesus as our savior means that we must strive to do as our Lord instructs. No earthly punishment is so terrible or reward so tempting as to make them worth rejecting that. Satan has many tools to use against us but they are all designed to cause us to choose failure. Remember the old adage “failing to plan is planning to fail”? Well, the same applies here too. Failing to choose (to accept Jesus) is choosing to fail. We need to know we can choose Jesus and we need to make sure everyone else knows they can too. We cannot allow any government, cult, radicalized religion or tempting offer to make our decisions for us.
The United States of America always stood for liberty and could be counted on to help those who needed refuge from tyranny. This is why America can be proud and this is why we send our boys to the far reaches of the world to fight and die in defense of freedom. Let’s not forget that liberty, given by God to all mankind is none the less, a deeply personal gift. So this freedom, this liberty is for our salvation. This choice is for our soul. Each time we choose could be our last. This needs to be our next choice and our last choice. Whether we choose to join the military to defend freedom with force, to vote out a rogue senator or simply to be faithful to our wives and children, the real choice is within each of us. Is our liberty for our next pleasure or for God’s glory? We need but to choose.
Do we choose to accept Jesus or….
The founding fathers clearly intended to create an environment in which people would be free to live as God had intended and to have a minimal government operating in the background to ensure that end. Not quite how it’s working these days. Even amongst those who acknowledge Liberty as having been granted by God, there exists a certain capitulation born of apathy toward government when those same “God given rights” are infringed upon. This phenomenon was more aptly phrased in the declaration of independence; “all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.” This is especially prevalent in younger people that are new to being away from their parents and self sufficient, but that’s another whole topic.
As important as the question of who gives us our rights, is why. If the government allows us our freedoms, then why does it? You can be assured many congressmen have given that a lot of consideration. Might they be calculating how to rescind those rights? Judging from history, we must conclude, some are and not just government either. Many very wealthy and otherwise influential people are dabbling in their own version of the way and degree to which we should be governed.
What is the function of freedom then? Anyone could say it’s good to be free but, do we need to be free? We could sacrifice some of our liberties for security, right? There’s a lot to consider there. Indeed there is some room for argument. Therein we find the left wing front of the assault on liberty. Much of the erosion of our freedom comes under the heading of ‘sacrifices for the greater good’. The U.S. Constitution says “(to) promote the general welfare”; not “enforce the general welfare”.
The confusion about liberty, specifically, who has what rights and when, begins when God is taken out of the equation.
Liberty and Rights are given by God for a purpose. Liberty is a part of God’s plan and as such, would be of great interest to Satan and others who would seek power for themselves.
Jesus said “no one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). So, we need but to choose to accept Jesus as our Lord and Savior in order to be saved. Neither Satan, nor anyone else, can take that away from us but we have the right not to choose that path. I somehow feel that will be one right that will never be denied us by any government. Since Satan hasn’t the power to force us to choose death, how then can we be made to choose the obviously losing side of the battle? The answer to that seems simple in hindsight, of course, through lies and trickery.
So much is said about freedom with regard to America’s leading role in democracy in the world. I’m reminded of how America’s promotion of liberty is misrepresented; it is sometimes viewed as a solely political endeavor and at times even a simple jingoistic ideal. It seems to me that America is glorified for freedom as though it is itself, the prize. That liberty, for its own sake is worth fighting and dying over. To some that may be the case but as I’ve stated, liberties are God given and our choice to accept Jesus as our savior means that we must strive to do as our Lord instructs. No earthly punishment is so terrible or reward so tempting as to make them worth rejecting that. Satan has many tools to use against us but they are all designed to cause us to choose failure. Remember the old adage “failing to plan is planning to fail”? Well, the same applies here too. Failing to choose (to accept Jesus) is choosing to fail. We need to know we can choose Jesus and we need to make sure everyone else knows they can too. We cannot allow any government, cult, radicalized religion or tempting offer to make our decisions for us.
The United States of America always stood for liberty and could be counted on to help those who needed refuge from tyranny. This is why America can be proud and this is why we send our boys to the far reaches of the world to fight and die in defense of freedom. Let’s not forget that liberty, given by God to all mankind is none the less, a deeply personal gift. So this freedom, this liberty is for our salvation. This choice is for our soul. Each time we choose could be our last. This needs to be our next choice and our last choice. Whether we choose to join the military to defend freedom with force, to vote out a rogue senator or simply to be faithful to our wives and children, the real choice is within each of us. Is our liberty for our next pleasure or for God’s glory? We need but to choose.
Do we choose to accept Jesus or….
Saturday, June 30, 2007
What's Happening?
WWII 1942-1945-----------------Iraq War 2003-2007
407,316 lost to war--------------3,578 lost to war
2,165 lost to abortion-----------1,747,880 lost to abortion
more lost to combat-------------more lost to abortions
per week than--------------------than all major wars
total abortions-------------------ever fought.
during the whole war-----------By the U.S.
Priority, I think, is a missing element in the thought process of many who support abortion using “pro-choice” as their argument.
None consider the choice of the baby on death row. Arguments of when the life of a “fetus” begins ring hollow when one admits that viable life begins at conception. In 1973 the laws were changed allowing choice based on a perceived need for health and safety of the potential mother. Strangely enough, the most common reason offered by those same women are social in nature. Many of those women become repeat clients, so what of safety and good health? of course it is simply a way to give the masses the wonderful opiate of uninhibited sex, but who'd say that out loud?
Just the use of the Latin word “fetus” is an attempt to distance any emotional ties from the act. The word translates affectionately to “little one”, so much for distance.
So back to my to my question, What’s Happening?
Why did the so called “liberal left” push this deadly agenda? Why do the practitioners of this sanctioned infanticide kickback to the politicians for their support?
As any hedonist can attest, it certainly makes a neat form of birth control.
To many, killing a person is apparently less distasteful than abstinence.
Do the millions of abortion clients and practitioners represent the moral majority of this country? I hope not. Apparently they do, however represent a large part of the democrat voting base which does not, in my opinion absolve the legislative body from doing what’s right.
Hmm..there’s a thought.
Perhaps one could make the case that it would be so much cheaper not to engage in war at all, save on ammunition, armor, fuel, etc. I mean, just imagine how peaceful this world would be if we'd Just get them before they were born rather than waiting until they could fight back. Well maybe not, even Marx realized that you can't move too fast when advocating socialist dogma for fear of pushing the people to revolt. You have to sneak any changes into the collective conciousness in the manner described in George Orwells "Animal Farm".
So, can righteousness in a minority prevail? I think that’s a good question to put to Senator John Kerry. He's had 35 years to think about it, But I'm afraid I already know his answer. Ah well, Gods will is going to prevail afterall.
407,316 lost to war--------------3,578 lost to war
2,165 lost to abortion-----------1,747,880 lost to abortion
more lost to combat-------------more lost to abortions
per week than--------------------than all major wars
total abortions-------------------ever fought.
during the whole war-----------By the U.S.
Priority, I think, is a missing element in the thought process of many who support abortion using “pro-choice” as their argument.
None consider the choice of the baby on death row. Arguments of when the life of a “fetus” begins ring hollow when one admits that viable life begins at conception. In 1973 the laws were changed allowing choice based on a perceived need for health and safety of the potential mother. Strangely enough, the most common reason offered by those same women are social in nature. Many of those women become repeat clients, so what of safety and good health? of course it is simply a way to give the masses the wonderful opiate of uninhibited sex, but who'd say that out loud?
Just the use of the Latin word “fetus” is an attempt to distance any emotional ties from the act. The word translates affectionately to “little one”, so much for distance.
So back to my to my question, What’s Happening?
Why did the so called “liberal left” push this deadly agenda? Why do the practitioners of this sanctioned infanticide kickback to the politicians for their support?
As any hedonist can attest, it certainly makes a neat form of birth control.
To many, killing a person is apparently less distasteful than abstinence.
Do the millions of abortion clients and practitioners represent the moral majority of this country? I hope not. Apparently they do, however represent a large part of the democrat voting base which does not, in my opinion absolve the legislative body from doing what’s right.
Hmm..there’s a thought.
Perhaps one could make the case that it would be so much cheaper not to engage in war at all, save on ammunition, armor, fuel, etc. I mean, just imagine how peaceful this world would be if we'd Just get them before they were born rather than waiting until they could fight back. Well maybe not, even Marx realized that you can't move too fast when advocating socialist dogma for fear of pushing the people to revolt. You have to sneak any changes into the collective conciousness in the manner described in George Orwells "Animal Farm".
So, can righteousness in a minority prevail? I think that’s a good question to put to Senator John Kerry. He's had 35 years to think about it, But I'm afraid I already know his answer. Ah well, Gods will is going to prevail afterall.
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Fred for Prez!
You know, I find it a sad commentary on the democrat strategy, although it does seem to be very successful, that in order to progress their agenda they simply ignore any and all arguments against their ideas and act as if they've won the debate without opposition. As an example, the old "republican culture of corruption" slam that pelosi made public. Did anyone really feel that only republicans are capable of corruption? not likely, but here again the notion is peddled as if it were just so! My sense to this kind of politics is: If you can't even appear as if trying to be honest, what do you have to offer for my vote? I suggest the answer to that is nothing. So once again I respond, just for fun, to Tom McMahon and his culture of deception as he has felt the need to attempt the twisting of reality again:
Dear dav,
Remember the Republican culture of corruption? The revolving door of Republican politicians moving in and out of top political offices and Washington D.C. lobbying firms?
That's Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson.
For years, acting wasn't the Law & Order star's profession -- it was a hobby. In the real world, Thompson has made a fortune in a decades-long career as a Washington lobbyist.
And just this month, as part of his role as the ultimate Washington insider, Thompson offered to host yet another fundraising event for Scooter Libby's legal defense fund. Thompson has been vocal in his support of Libby, saying that he would "absolutely" pardon him.
As he runs for president, he'll try his hardest to hide the truth from the American people. And we need to stop him.
Support our efforts to get the truth out about Fred Thompson
Here's what the USA Today had to say about Lobbyist Thompson:
Although the folksy-sounding Tennessean recently told USA TODAY that he would run an outsider, just as he did while campaigning as a "country lawyer" in a red pickup during his 1994 U.S. Senate race, his résumé is that of a longtime Washington operative who has crossed ideological lines to represent corporate and foreign clients.
In his most recent stint in Washington, Thompson worked for a London company lobbying Congress to limit liability claims for asbestos-related illnesses. Over the past three years he's made $760,000 fighting for the interests of his corporate clients.
Now Fred Thompson wants the American people to believe he's the next Ronald Reagan -- a Washington outsider with Hollywood charisma and conservative appeal. But Thompson just plays the role of straight-shooting outsider on TV. In reality, he's as inside as you can get.
He's trying to get to the White House on slick lines and good acting. Help us stop him
As Fred Thompson tries to go from Washington's K Street to Pennsylvania Avenue, the stakes of his candidacy couldn't be higher. In an interview just last week, for example, he claimed that the Roe v. Wade decision "was fabricated out of whole cloth," and that it was the worst court ruling in the past 40 years.
We need to make sure that in 2008, Fred Thompson goes back to doing his acting on Law & Order -- not in the White House.
While the Democratic presidential candidates hit the campaign trail, we'll be hitting the Republicans. It's our job to tell the American people the facts about opponents like Fred Thompson and to hold them accountable.
We can't finish that job without you. I hope you'll join us.
Sincerely,
Tom McMahon
DNC Executive Director
Now, just to put this in proper context, I felt more than a wee bit vindictive when I wrote this. I ask your forgiveness for my weakness and offer this as it was sent to the DNC.
To:
tom mcnugget and the rest of you socialist soros followers,
Fantastic advertising campaign! Well, except for the obvious and sad continuation of the pelosi lies about the so called “culture of corruption” (need I name names? Ie: William Jefferson) but I digress. All the talking points you’ve raised were just the ticket. Fred Thomson is an actor like President Reagan. This was handy for the purpose of public speaking in which President Reagan excelled and mr. Thompson seems to as well. President bush could have used it. As to Scooter Libby’s defense fund? Thanks for raising that issue, do you know where I should send my check? Of course you do. As far as pardoning Mr. Libby..hm..well he’s not guilty of any crime, so that’s a tough one for me, I guess I'd say charges should be brought for those who committed those false accusations with no regard for their effects on national security. The real question will be: does Libby forgive you for what you’ve done to him and his family for the sake of furthering the destruction of this nation? Oh yes, I’m keeping track. I think those who participated should be indicted on charges of traitor ism. The evidence is recorded
In reference to the quoted USA Today article, stating Freds ‘crossing of ideological lines’ that could be troubling if other presidents like Clinton, both bushes and Reagan hadn't done the same. In fact most presidents have made attempts to meet needs across party lines, with some notable exceptions like Carter. Wasn’t that a great thing he did for our national security? You know, the dismantling of our military, all the appeasement talks with Iran, etc. great job, lefty.
Fred using slick lines and good acting? Well that puts him one up on john Edwards, since Edwards needs acting lessons. Fred’s two up on Edwards if you count the fact that freds hair is his own.
I really like his position on roe v. wade. It was if fact the single most noted amongst a long line of absolutely terrible rulings.
Let’s not forget the invasion reform bill. This is typical democrat policy. Rather than deal with a difficult problem by using those gray cells god gave you, you’d sooner forget about it and just declare that the laws which were broken by 20% of an alien population are hereby not laws any more and just forgive them of it. If you had half a brain you’d realize the true ramifications of this folly. The voting base you morons desire is going to bite you like a rattlesnake, even for all the pandering you do. The problem is I’m going to get bitten too. When I do, I will most certainly hold you accountable.
Yes, Fred Thompson is my man. Knowing your view has helped solidify my position, so I offer a hearty THANK YOU! It’s good to know that there is someone like Fred Thompson out there.
Dear dav,
Remember the Republican culture of corruption? The revolving door of Republican politicians moving in and out of top political offices and Washington D.C. lobbying firms?
That's Republican presidential candidate Fred Thompson.
For years, acting wasn't the Law & Order star's profession -- it was a hobby. In the real world, Thompson has made a fortune in a decades-long career as a Washington lobbyist.
And just this month, as part of his role as the ultimate Washington insider, Thompson offered to host yet another fundraising event for Scooter Libby's legal defense fund. Thompson has been vocal in his support of Libby, saying that he would "absolutely" pardon him.
As he runs for president, he'll try his hardest to hide the truth from the American people. And we need to stop him.
Support our efforts to get the truth out about Fred Thompson
Here's what the USA Today had to say about Lobbyist Thompson:
Although the folksy-sounding Tennessean recently told USA TODAY that he would run an outsider, just as he did while campaigning as a "country lawyer" in a red pickup during his 1994 U.S. Senate race, his résumé is that of a longtime Washington operative who has crossed ideological lines to represent corporate and foreign clients.
In his most recent stint in Washington, Thompson worked for a London company lobbying Congress to limit liability claims for asbestos-related illnesses. Over the past three years he's made $760,000 fighting for the interests of his corporate clients.
Now Fred Thompson wants the American people to believe he's the next Ronald Reagan -- a Washington outsider with Hollywood charisma and conservative appeal. But Thompson just plays the role of straight-shooting outsider on TV. In reality, he's as inside as you can get.
He's trying to get to the White House on slick lines and good acting. Help us stop him
As Fred Thompson tries to go from Washington's K Street to Pennsylvania Avenue, the stakes of his candidacy couldn't be higher. In an interview just last week, for example, he claimed that the Roe v. Wade decision "was fabricated out of whole cloth," and that it was the worst court ruling in the past 40 years.
We need to make sure that in 2008, Fred Thompson goes back to doing his acting on Law & Order -- not in the White House.
While the Democratic presidential candidates hit the campaign trail, we'll be hitting the Republicans. It's our job to tell the American people the facts about opponents like Fred Thompson and to hold them accountable.
We can't finish that job without you. I hope you'll join us.
Sincerely,
Tom McMahon
DNC Executive Director
Now, just to put this in proper context, I felt more than a wee bit vindictive when I wrote this. I ask your forgiveness for my weakness and offer this as it was sent to the DNC.
To:
tom mcnugget and the rest of you socialist soros followers,
Fantastic advertising campaign! Well, except for the obvious and sad continuation of the pelosi lies about the so called “culture of corruption” (need I name names? Ie: William Jefferson) but I digress. All the talking points you’ve raised were just the ticket. Fred Thomson is an actor like President Reagan. This was handy for the purpose of public speaking in which President Reagan excelled and mr. Thompson seems to as well. President bush could have used it. As to Scooter Libby’s defense fund? Thanks for raising that issue, do you know where I should send my check? Of course you do. As far as pardoning Mr. Libby..hm..well he’s not guilty of any crime, so that’s a tough one for me, I guess I'd say charges should be brought for those who committed those false accusations with no regard for their effects on national security. The real question will be: does Libby forgive you for what you’ve done to him and his family for the sake of furthering the destruction of this nation? Oh yes, I’m keeping track. I think those who participated should be indicted on charges of traitor ism. The evidence is recorded
In reference to the quoted USA Today article, stating Freds ‘crossing of ideological lines’ that could be troubling if other presidents like Clinton, both bushes and Reagan hadn't done the same. In fact most presidents have made attempts to meet needs across party lines, with some notable exceptions like Carter. Wasn’t that a great thing he did for our national security? You know, the dismantling of our military, all the appeasement talks with Iran, etc. great job, lefty.
Fred using slick lines and good acting? Well that puts him one up on john Edwards, since Edwards needs acting lessons. Fred’s two up on Edwards if you count the fact that freds hair is his own.
I really like his position on roe v. wade. It was if fact the single most noted amongst a long line of absolutely terrible rulings.
Let’s not forget the invasion reform bill. This is typical democrat policy. Rather than deal with a difficult problem by using those gray cells god gave you, you’d sooner forget about it and just declare that the laws which were broken by 20% of an alien population are hereby not laws any more and just forgive them of it. If you had half a brain you’d realize the true ramifications of this folly. The voting base you morons desire is going to bite you like a rattlesnake, even for all the pandering you do. The problem is I’m going to get bitten too. When I do, I will most certainly hold you accountable.
Yes, Fred Thompson is my man. Knowing your view has helped solidify my position, so I offer a hearty THANK YOU! It’s good to know that there is someone like Fred Thompson out there.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
I've let my friend down
Although he was not friendly and was certainly a liability, I feel that I let him down. Rufus got progressively aggressive and bit anyone that got close enough. his bites were severe and extreme. I am at a loss as to anything I should have done to help him, but it's too late now.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
Rep. W. Jefferson's Thoughtlessness
Democrat Representative from Louisiana. Not only the spokesman of his district, but the face of his family, his loved ones. Innocent until proven guilty. As a man so voluntarily imbued with the responsiblity of his position in congress, one might think he'd have an idea about when it's appropriate to speak and when not to. Then again, if he were guilty of even part of the charges in the indictment, he might fool one.
He declared his absolute innocence of the charges at the same time admitting keeping the bribe money he was caught with. The 94 page indictment containing the 16 charges included racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money laundering and obstruction of justice says a lot about that.
Wait a minute...obstruction of justice? That sounds familiar. Wasn't that one of the charges scooter libby recieved 2 years in prison for? The justice Mr. Libby was alleged to be obstructing was regarding the reference to an agent made legally by Richard Armitage. So, in review, we have no crime committed, the prosecutor being aware of this fact including who actually "outed Ms. Plame" decides to press ahead with a probe to cause Scooter Libby to be found guilty of perjury.
What I don't understand is why the double standard demonstrated here is so tolerated by the conservatives. Scooter Libby says "I'm not sure" and that's perjury; Jefferson say's "I'm innocent of taking the bribe money I took" so he thinks he's good to go? And where is his family in his thinking? Oh, his wife was standing with him, good for her, I guess. Maybe I'm being vindictive but it seems to me to be a bit of a fascade, a cheap usage of the notion of family values.
I hope there is a bible in his cell.
He declared his absolute innocence of the charges at the same time admitting keeping the bribe money he was caught with. The 94 page indictment containing the 16 charges included racketeering, soliciting bribes, wire fraud, money laundering and obstruction of justice says a lot about that.
Wait a minute...obstruction of justice? That sounds familiar. Wasn't that one of the charges scooter libby recieved 2 years in prison for? The justice Mr. Libby was alleged to be obstructing was regarding the reference to an agent made legally by Richard Armitage. So, in review, we have no crime committed, the prosecutor being aware of this fact including who actually "outed Ms. Plame" decides to press ahead with a probe to cause Scooter Libby to be found guilty of perjury.
What I don't understand is why the double standard demonstrated here is so tolerated by the conservatives. Scooter Libby says "I'm not sure" and that's perjury; Jefferson say's "I'm innocent of taking the bribe money I took" so he thinks he's good to go? And where is his family in his thinking? Oh, his wife was standing with him, good for her, I guess. Maybe I'm being vindictive but it seems to me to be a bit of a fascade, a cheap usage of the notion of family values.
I hope there is a bible in his cell.
Sunday, May 20, 2007
The Members of The DNC Must Have An I.Q. of 70 Or Less
Another day, another message from the D.N.C. asking me to compose a letter to the
President. This time they expect me to rake the President over the coals for his policies regarding the war in Iraq. Needless to say, I disagree with the DNC position of failure and retreat. I did however comply with their request to use the provided form to send a message to the President. Although it was not likely to be the type of language which our infamous "George Soros lackey" Mr. McMahon would aprove. This is what I chose to say to the President:
Dear Mr. President, This automaton named Tom McMahon wants me to bad mouth your administration just because George Soros says so. Instead I'll speak my own heart, thank you very much! The drivle that oozes into my email is absolutely amazing. The DNC sends me the junk that states that 60% of the national guard equipment from greensburg, kansas, having gone to Iraq, is the reason a town whose population that was less than 1800 at the time of the disaster cannot recover. Can we legislate some logic somehow? I mean, the dumb@$$ that thought this up should be made to taste bat urine for a living. Listen, my only beefs with you would be
A.) that you are pandering to the mexicans at our expense, and
B.) that the republican party is not being more vociferous and aggressively attacking the morons on the left! Other than that I wholeheartedly support your efforts and have implicit trust in your intent to better this great nation and the world as a whole. My prayers are with you and your family everyday.
Thank you, David Vigliotti
President. This time they expect me to rake the President over the coals for his policies regarding the war in Iraq. Needless to say, I disagree with the DNC position of failure and retreat. I did however comply with their request to use the provided form to send a message to the President. Although it was not likely to be the type of language which our infamous "George Soros lackey" Mr. McMahon would aprove. This is what I chose to say to the President:
Dear Mr. President, This automaton named Tom McMahon wants me to bad mouth your administration just because George Soros says so. Instead I'll speak my own heart, thank you very much! The drivle that oozes into my email is absolutely amazing. The DNC sends me the junk that states that 60% of the national guard equipment from greensburg, kansas, having gone to Iraq, is the reason a town whose population that was less than 1800 at the time of the disaster cannot recover. Can we legislate some logic somehow? I mean, the dumb@$$ that thought this up should be made to taste bat urine for a living. Listen, my only beefs with you would be
A.) that you are pandering to the mexicans at our expense, and
B.) that the republican party is not being more vociferous and aggressively attacking the morons on the left! Other than that I wholeheartedly support your efforts and have implicit trust in your intent to better this great nation and the world as a whole. My prayers are with you and your family everyday.
Thank you, David Vigliotti
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)