Michael Moore likes to dress in raggedy clothes and pretend he is like everyone else. He is an every man and he is out there in the fight against the establishment. To Moore, capitalism is bad and the people deserve more through wealth redistribution. But Moore has another side. He likes to make money and he does not like it when someone else gets his money.

Moere is suing the people who handled his production of Fahrenheit 9/11 for $2.9 MILLION that he says they kept instead of giving to him. It is his money and he wants it.

Let me be clear, if the money is his he is entitled to it and he should get it.

But why is he all up in arms about this? He made $19 MILLION off the movie. Isn’t that enough for him to live on? How much more does he actually need?

After all, this is the guy who made a movie about corporate America and how terrible it is that the Wall Street executives make lots and lots of money. Moore is not happy that the Wall Street tycoons get millions of dollars in salaries and millions more in bonuses. He believes that they are not entitled to that money even though it is theirs.

Why is he entitled to what he has earned when he thinks others should not be granted the same consideration?

Moore is a hypocrite and he is a closet capitalist. He likes to pretend that he is looking out for you but he is looking out for himself.

He is entitled to all that he earns and I will never dispute that no matter what I think of him.

But so is everyone else no matter what Moore thinks of them…

Cave Canem!
Never surrender, never submit.

The Obama regime has filed a lawsuit against the state of Arizona declaring that its immigration law is unconstitutional. The suit claims that under the supremacy clause of the Constitution, the federal government is responsible for immigration and the states cannot have their own immigration policies.

The Arizona law mirrors the federal law but the Justice Department claims the Arizona law will cause problems for people who do not follow federal law:

The legal action represents a thorough denunciation by the government of Arizona’s action, declaring that the law will “cause the detention and harassment of authorized visitors, immigrants and citizens who do not have or carry identification documents” while altogether ignoring “humanitarian concerns” and harming diplomatic relations. Yahoo News

Federal law already requires non citizens to carry their documents so how could any of them be harassed by the Arizona law?

The federal government is responsible for immigration and it is failing miserably. Obama refuses to secure the border until he gets immigration reform and while he dithers, people cross the border. His idea of security is to post signs telling Americans that it is not safe to travel in parts of Arizona because of illegals. This is not leadership.

If the feds have the Constitutional authority for immigration what is to stop a state from determining if you are in the state illegally? States should have the right to arrest people if they are in the state illegally. It would just so happen that the people are in the country illegally but Arizona is not trying to capture people in the country illegally, just those in the state illegally.

Why is it that Arizona is under attack from illegals and from our federal government? If the government was doing its job then the Arizona law would be unnecessary. Instead, American citizens are under siege from criminals, drug traffickers, and other illegals who drain us of our resources.

As for the concern over diplomatic relations, who cares? Mexico encourages its people to come here illegally and helps them do it and there is little concern from them when Americans are attacked or murdered at the hands of the illegals. That country certainly has no regard for our laws and no concern for diplomatic relations.

Good fences make good neighbors and we can solve most of the issue by putting up a wall that keeps them OUT.

Obama refuses to do his job because he wants immigration reform before he secures the border. He is concerned that closing the border will take pressure off the immigration reform issue. We have played this game before. Each time this country has granted amnesty it came with a promise of securing the border. Each time we ended up with more illegals waiting for the next amnesty program and an unsecured border.

NO immigration reform until we close the border.

And Arizona should keep right on going regardless of what the feds do. It is their state and they have a right to preserve their sovereignty.

Never surrender, never submit.

I ran across a story at one of the other sites I peruse, and was – well, I can’t truly say I was surprised, because I know how hypocritical liberals work- rather, I was unpleasantly reminded that even when the liberal is technically a Texan, he can still be a moron. The Texan I speak of is Don Henley, who still has a place on Caddo Lake, in East Texas, but has spent wayyyyy too much time in California, schmoozing with the People Of One Opinion. He has, in the opinion of a sixth generation Texan, lost the right to call himself a Texan. He is just too whiny- it’s embarrassing us here.

Most of Mr. Henley’s music is OK to listen to, a couple of his tracks are even enjoyable, but like most people connected to entertainment  in the Cereal State (Nuts, flakes, and the occasional fruit), he is more important to his ego than he is to real life. 

A man by the name of Chuck Devore, a Republican, used the tune of the “Boys Of Summer”, a 1984 song (an oldie but moldy) written by Don Henley and Mike Campbell, whoever HE is. Mr. Devore used his own lyrics to parody the song, and as a tool in his bid to run against Sen. Barbara Boxer. Parody is, as I understand it, a protected form of Free Speech (see: Weird Al Yankovic), but Donnie Boy doesn’t like it when a conservative uses a parody of HIS song in a campaign against a liberal.

Now I could be wrong, and the laws may have changed, but I thought that a copyright existed for 20 years, and then the song was in the public domain. I  also thought I had heard that the Supreme Court had heard a case similar, actually involving a rapper, where another song was used, and was deemed to be lawful. Mr. Henley should be grateful that someone somewhere thinks that any tune of his would be good enough for a political ad- this is heady stuff, Donnie- you could use the exposure. I guess that may be why he is suing Mr. Devore, he needs the ego boost. 

Mr. Henley writes a good song occasionally, but doesn’t seem to listen to what he writes, a common problem among liberals, it seems.
In one song, aptly named “Get Over It”, he writes, in part,

“Complain about the present and blame it on the past,
I’d like to find your inner child and kick its little ass-

Get over it
Get over it
All this bitchin’ and moanin’ and pitchin’ a fit
Get over it
Get over it

It’s gotta stop sometime, so why don’t you quit
Get over it, get over it.”

Words to live by, Donnie- get over it.

The vote in Nevada is an interesting thing because back in March of last year it was agreed upon that the casinos would be used to caucus for candidates. The Nevada Democratic Party agreed to this as did all the players involved including the teacher’s unions. The Culinary Worker’s Union endorsed B. Hussein Obama and its 60,000 members are the ones who work in those casinos. Two days after the endorsement, groups that agreed to the casino caucus sites filed a lawsuit to reverse this process. I know in my heart that if the union had endorsed Clinton this would not be an issue. It is important to note that the Clinton campaign did not file the suit but in this interview, it is obvious that Bill Clinton agrees with it.

Notice that Bill says that the votes will count 5 times more than other votes. This is a lie. It is not unusual for caucus sites to weight the votes to encourage candidates to visit outlying areas that would otherwise be ignored. Bill makes it sound as if this was just discovered and that it is a travesty of justice. Notice the typical Clinton style of turning it around and asking accusatory questions. “So you believe it is fair to…” The fact is, every participant last March, as the report states, knew exactly what was involved in this process and how the votes would be weighted. It is obvious that Hillary expected to pick up the endorsement of the Culinary Union.

It is also noteworthy that Clinton discusses whether it is fair for people to get to caucus at a work site. He wants to know how many others are able to take off to caucus. Well, the teacher’s unions in each state get to caucus because the schools are usually closed because many of them are polling places. In this case, the caucus is on a Saturday so the biggest group of people who will actually be working are the members of the union that happened to endorse Clinton’s main opponent.

Bill Clinton leaves no question that he (and by extension, the campaign) supports the lawsuit and that he wants the unions workers to be disenfranchised. If the union had endorsed Clinton and Obama backers had filed the lawsuit the Clintons would be