Well, that could very well be the title of this article. But that wouldn’t be nearly as exciting, nor as inflammatory, so it isn’t. Instead, to help sell news and to attempt to divide people more, the article screams, “Man with Explosives” and “Outside Mosque.” That way it sounds really bad and can be used as evidence of hatred towards a protected, special class of people.

In reality, a man had some M-80s. For those who are too young to remember, these are inch and a half-long firecrackers. When they explode, they make a loud noise and flash. About the only way they can really do any serious damage is if you are holding them when they go off. They are just big firecrackers.

And the guy was arrested with some.

Oh, but wait! The guy has “a long history of anti-government activities,” according to the police. In other words, this guy was an enemy of the government, and government wanted him jailed, so they found a reason to jail him.

It is highly unlikely we will ever know why the man was at the Islamic center, as the press and the government isn’t big on telling the truth. But hey, it is Dearborn, Michigan, so I expect he may be charged with violations of Sharia law before this is all over.

Today the Congress attempted to override the Presidential veto of the vastly expanded S-CHIP bill. The President wants the program to continue but he does not want it expanded as greatly as the Democrats do. The plan would allow states to cover children in families of four making $82,000 a year and “children” up to 25 years of age. The Democrats trotted out people who have benefited from the program which made no sense because they are already covered. It is estimated that about 10 million of the people who do not have insurance are eligible for one program or another but have not signed up. We need to get them on board and stop playing these games of expanding government control.

Pete Stark, a Congressman from California, took the floor for his two minutes and he was nothing short of a demented old fool. I have now found someone serving who is as much of a doddering senile old fool as Robert Byrd. This senile man called the President a liar and said that he [the President] sent children to be blown up for his own amusement. Breitbart has the video which includes an admonishment for referring to the President in personal terms (I guess that is bad form). In any event, this demented guy needs to retire and spend his waning days playing with silly putty and collecting sock navel lint.

The Democrats were out in full force touting the children and how everything was for the children. From what I saw of Stark, maybe we need to put some money aside to send old fools like him to the “home.”

Maybe in this guy’s world the President sends kids to be blown up for amusement but God must have allowed this imbecile to be in Congress and on TV for the amusement of the rest of us because this guy is a joke.

It is not a surprise to many thinking people that Hillary Clinton is calculating and will say or do anything to get elected. She has flipped like a fish out of water on the war in Iraq depending upon who she is talking to. It should come as no surprise that Clinton is changing her tact to appease more of the conservative voters because she thinks she has the nomination wrapped up. An anonymous staffer indicated that Clinton has done just that

The former North Carolina senator [John Edwards] noted a recent New York Times story, in which unnamed Clinton backers explained the political reasons behind her Senate vote to label an Iranian military unit as a terrorist group. They said Clinton was switching from “primary mode,” to “general-election mode,” in which she would have to court more conservative voters. Des Moines Register

Now there are allegations that Hillary Clinton listened to illegally obtained recordings of her husband’s political opponents back in 1992 so that she could decide upon a course of action. The recording is reported to have involved another bimbo eruption and Hillary was all over how to put out the fire. If you have ever wondered how they managed to stay ahead of the allegations, this might be the answer.

The argument can be made that Hillary did not actually record the conversations and that she only listened to them. However, she had to know that they were illegally obtained and, as a lawyer, she was obligated to report the infraction of the law. What she did by listening and acting upon the information rather than reporting the illegal activity is no different than if she had looked over the money bags her friends had obtained in an armored car robbery and then used the information about the money robbery to plan armored car safety. She witnessed the breaking of the law and did not report it.

I read the book “Her Way” and I remember the passage that discussed this very thing. I remember thinking at the time that it was interesting that the Clintons would condone such a thing when their legal folks did everything possible to get Linda Tripp for recording her conversations with Monica Lewinsky. It is also curious that a couple of old folks intercepted and taped Newt Gingrich and turned the tape over to Democrat Jim McDermott so it could be used against Republicans. I don’t recall this ever coming to a conclusion.

Hillary must have thought it was OK to listen to her rivals discuss politics but she has been against our country listening in on the conversations of terrorists in order to protect our country. Hillary thinks that terrorists deserve more protection than do her political opponents. This is obviously another instance of do as I say and not as I do.

Here is an interesting video of this being discussed on MSNBC.

The Congress will try to override President Bush’s veto of the expansion of the S-CHIP program this week. I do not believe they have the votes needed to override the veto but the Democrats have spent a lot of effort on this expansion and want to pass this costly legislation. Unfortunately, many of those on the left who support this bill seem to lack an understanding of the system and the people this bill would cover. While they claim it is all for the children, the bill would cover people up to the age of 25 which hardly seems like a child to me though I suppose one could argue we are all someone’s child. It would also expand coverage to include families that make up to $61,000 a year. This is hardly the description of a poor family. Of course, if they did not have to pay 25% of the income in taxes [state, local, federal] they might have even more to spend on health care.

I realize that not all employers provide health care coverage but there are many that do. The left uses the argument (as evidenced in comments at And Rightly So) that it is the greedy health insurance companies that cause all the cost. They act as if somehow the government will reduce the cost by running health care for this expanded group and one person cites the “fact” that there is far less paperwork and overhead with the government. I do not know what planet this person is from but the planet is not named Reality. The government has huge overhead for its socialized medicine programs but the government does not include those costs in the calculations of the cost of the benefits. The salaries and such of health care company administrators and the associated paperwork and other overhead is part of the cost of a plan. In the government, these costs are absorbed by the taxpayer but not calculated into the cost analysis. Anyone who has ever filed income taxes knows that the government is paperwork intensive. There is also a track record that people seem to ignore. The government has never run a program at a cost under run. Every program always costs more than they estimate and every program is run with far less efficiency than in the private sector where cost control affects profits.

The left likes to trumpet how heartless the right is because it is taking away from the children. The Democrats paraded some kid out to talk about how the program benefited their family. Later reports indicated that this family sent its children to private schools and had the money for insurance. I do not know what they have, and it is really none of my business. Those who think it is wrong to attack that message should realize that if you parade anyone out with a message, that message is fair game and if one does not want to be part of the attack, don’t speak up (or at least make sure your message passes scrutiny).

There is this talk about how S-CHIP helps families who just cannot afford insurance, and on the lower poverty levels, I know this is true. However, the idea that people are sitting around fire barrels wondering about health insurance for their kids is just ridiculous. The poor in America would be classified as rich in nearly any other country in the world. In fact, the poor own homes, own cars, own color TVs and have air conditioning Heartland Institute. While the poor certainly do not live like Bill Gates they do not live like Tiny Tim (an allusion to a comment at one of the Liberal sites).

Health care is not a right. I know it is hard for the left to wrap its arms around that but it is a truth. Everyone in America has access to health care (why do you think ILLEGALS can get it) but there is no right that it will be provided free of charge. There are programs to help the truly destitute ans S-CHIP has been one to help poor kids but in its new form it helps people who should be able to afford their own health care. Cell phones, computers, cable TV, expensive cars, and fancy clothes are luxuries. I see children in poor neighborhoods wearing expensive sneakers and clothing that, had the parents bought bargain items, might have paid for health care. Living life is about choices and one of those choices is what you will spend you money on. If a parent spends disposable income for the luxuries then they are taking a decision to neglect buying health insurance. The old adage goes, you must pay yourself first. This is the key to saving and it is the key to health care insurance. After this, then what is left may go to the luxuries. The problem is, people have the priorities wrong. That and they believe that it is a God given right for them to have insurance at the expense of others. As an aside, libs will take away your right to own/carry firearms but demand we provide health care. Only one of those is a right under our Constitution.

If we want to reduce health care costs we need to reform the tort laws. Put an end to the lawsuits that stifle the health care industry and drive up costs. Sure, negligence should be dealt with but most of the suits are insane and cost lots of money. When I was in nursing school we were told that 19 out of every 20 dollars in health care goes to lawsuits. I cannot verify that but it would not surprise me. We also need to stop mandating what insurers must include in a package. States require certain items and this takes away choice. A basic package should have wellness visits and regular check ups as well as emergency care. Then, people can add on what they need. If you are going to have children, you can add the OB-GYN package and if you believe in and might have an abortion then you can add those services. It makes no sense for a 50 year old woman who cannot have children to have to pay for OB-GYN just as it makes no sense to have to pay for substance abuse counseling if you do not drink or use drugs. This is, after all, how we buy our cable TV services, and people seem to do fine with their choices.

We also need to allow groups to band together to get group rates. Civic organizations, clubs, and home owner’s associations could be offered group rates for insurance premiums. Those who do not belong could benefit if the Better Business Bureau or some other organization were included under the group plan and people could sign up.

One thing is for sure, there are problems but they will not be solved by throwing more money at them and by getting the government more involved. The educational system has gotten more money and more government involvement over the years and the only thing it has not gotten is better. Health care is the same.

As for those on the left who still think that the government is the panacea when it comes to health care. Keep in mind that the health care our soldiers get is provided by the government. It is not the military that makes the rules or runs things. We have some of the best medical people around doing truly amazing things. All the problems you read about are with access to care, paperwork problems, and cost.

While you libs are out there pretending to be horrified at the boondoggle that our military members face in health care, keep in mind that the boondoggle is caused by the very people you want running your health care. The government has had a long time to get that right and yet, it just hasn’t happened.

If you want your health care to be run like the VA, then you are on the right track.

There is an Internet report that Liberal Radio Show Host Randi Rhodes of Err Amerika was assaulted and badly beaten while walking her dog near her New York apartment. Rhodes lost several teeth and will be out of work for at least a week. Let me start by saying that I pray she heals and that they catch the scum who did this.

I do want to address the idiots on the left who are, without evidence, accusing the “right wing hate machine” of trying to threaten and intimidate Liberal talk out of fear. Liberal talk accounts for about 10% of the programming on talk radio and Rush Limbaugh has a larger audience than all of Err Amerika’s staff combined. Of course, I do not know who did this or what the motivation was but I am willing to bet that it was not some Conservative looking to attack her. However, I will wait to see who they catch and what they say before I comment on the attacker. Let it suffice to say that, it is more likely that she was the victim of a random act of violence than a deliberate attack. It might have even been one of the poor drug abusers or violent criminals that Liberals like Rhodes want rehabilitated and released from jail.

Of course, in New York people are not allowed to carry guns unless they are police or body guards for important people. However, I will state this right up front so there will be no mistake abut it, open carry permits would not have helped Rhodes. She is a Liberal and does not believe in gun ownership (though many libs want to take that right from us while retaining it for themselves, like Dianne Feinstein). I cannot help but wonder if she will have a change of heart about being able to defend oneself when threatened. If Rhodes had a firearm, perhaps she would not have been beaten. Maybe now she will actually support the Second Amendment rather than oppose it and the unconstitutional assault on it and our citizens.

Regardless of all that though, the idiot who filled in for her was way off base blaming the right for this attack. This is not like saying that the crime of defacing the Vietnam Memorial was probably a liberal because a conservative would most likely not do this kind of thing. This attack on the right is not based in any rational thought. New York is full of criminals and an overwhelming number of the prison population (people who eventually get released) are Democrats. Conservatives are not usually involved in violent crimes. Of course there are some extremists in any group but by and large violent criminals are likely to be liberal and registered (if at all) as Democrat. I am not going to say what ideology the attacker had because I do not know though I know what it is most likely to be. This could prove wrong but we will only find out if and when the attacker is caught. This premature condemnation of the right only shows how ignorant and intolerant the left really is. Besides, we already kick their asses on the air, why physically harm them?

I also wonder if people who make a big deal about blaming Liberals for defacing monuments will go to these Liberal sites and admonish them for making accusations without evidence.

It is amazing that the comments from some on the left point to a right wing attack (though some sane people said that they needed to wait to get details).

Those very liberals were saying that they should cruise to the Free Republic to see if anyone is bragging so I went to see. There are more comments wishing here well and hoping that the attackers are caught than anything else.

To their credit, the folks commenting at Kos (from what I have read) are saying it looks like a random crime and they are not jumping on the right wing attack meme, as of yet. There are a few trying to infuse it, but most are not.

I am still having a problem with this not being reported in all the news outlets. It seems to be confined to a few websites and on the show of the loser who filled in for her. Did she really get attacked (and if so, why no news), Is this a publicity stunt? Did she have an abortion that got botched and she needs to be home a few days and the mugging sounded like a better excuse?

I just don’t know. If she was truly attacked then I pray she is OK. If not, just what is going on?

UPDATE: ooooh snap, it appears as if Randi Rhodes fell down while walking her dog and that is how she was injured. She does not know how it happened (maybe her brain had a bit of chemical alteration) but one thing is clear, if she was not mugged she was not mugged by a conservative right wing hate monger. I wonder how many apologies we will see from the ding dongs on the left. I knew that something was fishy when it was not all over the news. Seems the police heard all this stuff and called to find out why she had not reported it. That is when the truth came out from her lawyer. I wonder why Rhodes did not squash this when it first started?? New York Daily News

There will be a big gala next week to celebrate the 60th birthday of Hillary Rodham Clinton, the next Queen of America and ruler of all her subjects, you know, the little people. This will be a star studded event that might actually bring in between 1 and 2 million dollars for her campaign. Billy Crystal will be the emcee (who ever heard of this for a friggin Senator) and he will, no doubt, be funny with his dated humor. Elvis Costello will be singing but I am not sure who is responsible for bringing the weed and the bongs but my guess is Bill is handling the show girls (literally).

What I am wondering is if Hillary will violate any laws like she did when they threw a big fund raising bash to raise money for her Senate run while honoring her hubby. I do not know if any of you have heard this story but Hillary is on tape committing several felonies with regard to election law. Of course, she lied about having any knowledge of the events but she is on video and it is quite obvious that she was well aware of the events and that she solicited a performance by Cher, a violation of the law.

So has Hillary been involved in planning this event? Has she solicited any donations in violation of the law? I am quite sure she has just as she did the last time. The previous event is tied up in the courts but the prosecutors and judges were appointed by Bubba so they will likely not uphold the law. The video and her association with Hsu all add up to deliberate graft and criminal behavior.

Folks, she thinks she is above the law. Her crimes are documented with letters, video, and news stories. She is guilty as sin, though sin has a different meaning for the Clinton clan.

Rob Reiner, the left wing lunatic from Hollyweird will be throwing her a smaller party the next day where donors with deeper pockets will attend. Reiner played Mike on All in the Family and Archie always called him Meat Head. At least that part of the show was accurate.

Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Stop the ACLU, The Virtuous Republic, Is It Just Me?, Perri Nelson’s Website, , Stix Blog, Right Truth, The Populist, DragonLady’s World, The Amboy Times, Adeline and Hazel, Pirate’s Cove, The Pink Flamingo, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, Church and State, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, AZAMATTEROFACT, The Random Yak, Nanotechnology Today, 123beta, guerrilla radio, The Bullwinkle Blog, Cao’s Blog, Phastidio.net, , The Pet Haven, Conservative Cat, Nuke’s, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, The World According to Carl, and CORSARI D’ITALIA, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.

Immigration is the big issue in the race between Niki Tsongas and Jim Ogonowski in Massachusetts. The special election will take place Tuesday to fill a vacant seat. I wrote previously that a guy named Atkins who made some very low remarks and brought Jim’s deceased brother into the mix. Tsongas has tried to distance herself from Atkins’ remarks but when one considers that his ex-wife is working for the Tsongas campaign, the question must be asked; how sincere is she? One thing is for sure, she follows the John Kerry/Ted Kennedy and (fill in a number of names here) position on immigration. Tsongas believes that ILLEGALS should be allowed unfettered access to this country and she thinks people who oppose ILLEGAL immigration are racists, as trumpeted by her unofficial mouthpiece, Mr. Atkins. I received this from a friend and I thought I would post it here:

I don’t know how much talk radio you listen to however Niki finally showed her true colors without her Washington advisors [sic] at her side. Niki labeled illegal immigrants as “Undocumented workers” or “Family members….or whatever.” [Video] (“Nightside with Dan Rae,” WBZ-Radio, 10/11/07) One of the main issues Ogonowski has been running his campaign on is illegal immigration, and finally Tsongas has created a clear distinction between the two candidates for the voters – she’s just “whatever.” I doubt the voters in Massachusetts will appreciate a valley girl as their legislator. Massachusetts’ voters and the United States Congress does not deserve another candidate who will shy away from real issues like illegal immigration and attempt to redefine these people as “Undocumented workers,” they deserve Jim Ogonowski. She also believes these “Family members” deserve in-state tuition, as she alleges “They came here unintentionally.” [Video] (5th District Congressional Debate, NECN, 10/05/07) Perhaps Tsongas should be running on the same ticket as New York Governor Eliot Spitzer, as she “Supports driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants and ‘path to citizenship’ for illegal immigrants.” (Laura Crimaldi, “5th District Candidates All Fired Up,” The Boston Herald, 10/14/07) Perhaps this is what Tsongas is really like without her suave Washington advisors [sic] – not a pretty image. Ogonowski is a real candidate who is worried about real issues. Merely calling these illegal immigrants “Family members” or “whatever” will not help solve one of this countries greatest domestic policy issues. A vote for Ogonowski is a vote for change and new ideas; whereas a vote for Tsongas is a vote for her calculating Washington DC advisors [sic] – take your pick.

If you are eligible to vote in this Massachusetts district it is up to you to vote for Jim Ogonowski and keep Niki Tsongas out of office. Massachusetts needs a political outsider like they can get by electing Jim. Neither that state nor the country needs people with the views of Niki Tsongas. Keep in mind, Massachusetts has all Democrats running it at the federal level. They have had a long time to get things right and yet they have failed. Jim Ogonowski is a breath of fresh air and will help right that once great state.

There is an election next Tuesday to fill a vacant US Congressional seat in the state of Massachusetts and the Democrats have sunk to a new low, if you can believe they could get lower, by invoking the name of the Republican candidate’s dead brother. Here are the players in this story:

• Jim Ogonowski – Republican candidate for the vacant seat
• Niki Tsongas – Democratic candidate for the vacant seat
• John Ogonowski – Deceased brother of Republican candidate. John was a pilot of an airplane that was hijacked on 9/11 and he was killed when the terrorists who hijacked it, crashed it.
• Peg Ogonowski – Spouse of deceased pilot John
• Chester G. Atkins – Former Congressman who held the contended seat until he was defeated in 1992. Now has a public affairs firm

Jim is running for an open seat in Congress and he is very much against ILLEGAL immigration. He does not believe that ILLEGALS should receive amnesty and he believes that immigrants should have to learn English. His opponent, Niki, has a very opposite view on ILLEGAL immigration, much closer to the Ted Kennedy school which is why we have had two amnesties and now have millions of ILLEGALS here. Interestingly, immigration was the issue that cost Atkins the seat, oh so long ago. Atkins was an advocate for Cambodians coming here and settling in the Merrimack Valley district. John had no problem with the Cambodians because they came here LEGALLY. He allowed them to farm a portion of his property to grow specialty crops, stuff used in the Asian community. Atkins lost because of his support of the Cambodians.

Fast forward to today and Atkins, who supports Niki, is saying that Jim’s dead brother John would side with Tsongas on the immigration issue and that he had a better understanding than Jim does. Jim states that this is ridiculous because the Cambodians came here legally and the immigrants that Jim is against are all the ILLEGAL ones. Like many Americans, Jim does not like the way ILLEGALS come here, use services, get Social Security, take jobs, crowd emergency rooms and speak their native language and expect us to do the same. Jim does not agree with ILLEGAL immigration.

I cannot imagine that the people of this area of Massachusetts would vote for Tsongas and support allowing ILLEGALS free reign. These folks put Atkins out of office for supporting LEGAL immigrants so I find it very hard to imagine that they would support someone who is siding with the ILLEGAL ones. I know this is Massachusetts but even as liberal as they are, they have to be able to see the difference and which candidate supports our laws and which one does not. The problem is that the Liberals always neglect to discuss the ILLEGAL part. They always say that we are against immigrants (just before they call us racists) when none of us are against immigration, we are against ILLEGAL law breakers who sneak in like thieves.

Back to John and Atkins’ claim that John would have supported the ILLEGALS and was better than Jim, who Atkins calls a racist for his views. Just to clear it up, Mexican is not a race, it is a nationality. It is an old trick from the left’s play book to call the race card. No matter what the issue, they will find a way to call a Republican a racist regardless of the circumstances. Let me make this clear for Atkins and any other idiot who was educated in the public school system, Expecting people to obey the law, expecting the government to enforce the law, and refusing to reward those who break the law are not racist acts. If a black man robs a bank and his white neighbor saw it and calls the police and a white cop arrests him, the white guys are not racists. They simply respected the rule of law, something the left finds increasingly difficult. However, invoking the name of a dead man who cannot attest to the veracity of the claims made by Atkins is just wrong. It is also plain wrong to bring up his name and put the family through this.

To her credit, Peg called this politics at its worst and she was right. The Democrats in this situation chose to use a hero from 9/11 to score points with voters. If this is not bad enough, the dead hero is the Republican candidate’s brother. They are trying to convince voters that even Jim’s brother would be on their side. As Jim points out, it is ridiculous. He states that it is ridiculous for the Atkins to make like he would know John better than his family and, as Jim indicates, he would not likely support ILLEGALS especially since many of the 9/11 hijackers were here ILLEGALLY. Peg and Jim both question whether Atkins actually knew John. Neither remember him ever mentioning Atkins and since John is dead it would not be beyond a Democrat to do pretend he knew him just to score political points.

I hope the voters of Massachusetts will see through all of this and will elect Jim Ogonowski and his tough stance on ILLEGAL immigration. I hope that they will not only reject Tsongas for the support of ILLEGALS but also for the lowness to which the Democrats have sunk in this race.

One last thing. Ever notice how when President Bush mentions 9/11 the left goes nuts. They claim he is using scare tactics and is using 9/11 to stir emotions. They tell us that it happened 6 years ago and we need to move on, let it go, blah, blah. Interesting how they will invoke the memory of someone killed on 9/11 if they think it will further their quest for power.

I also think it is worth noting that it is possible that John would support the Democrats. It would not be the first time in history that dead people supported Democrats though usually they show their support by voting for them on election day…

If you live in the 5th District in Massachusetts and you want to honor the memory of John, vote for his brother Jim next Tuesday.

This story is from the AP.

Others:
Blogs for Bush

In an interview Hillary Clinton sat down to tell everyone how she would run the country differently than George W. Bush and how all her plans are the right ones. She wanted to make sure we knew she had the answers to our problems. Like all politicians, she does not recognize that government is the cause of most of our problems. Hillary made two troubling statements. The first was that there are two branches of government. There are three and her failure to recognize the Judicial indicates how much the left has used that branch to get done what it is unable to pass in the Legislative branch. It shows that activist judges have legislated from the bench so frequently that Hillary, an accomplished lawyer, does not recognize it as a different branch:

“It has been a concerted effort by the vice president, with the full acquiescence of the president, to create a much more powerful executive at the expense of both branches of government and of the American people.” [emphasis mine]

If this is not troubling enough, the smartest woman in the world admitted that she did not know that security contractors in Iraq are immune from prosecution (actually they are not) and she dismissed her lack of information on the matter by stating:

Clinton was asked about a statement she made on Tuesday when criticizing the Bush administration’s conduct in Iraq. She said she hadn’t known that Blackwater USA, the military contractor accused of killing more than a dozen Iraqi civilians last month, had immunity from prosecution in Iraq because of an exemption approved soon after the US invasion.

“Maybe I should have known about it; I did not know about it,” she said yesterday. [emphasis mine] boston.com

It might not be troubling to many people but Hillary wants to be President and she sits on the Armed Services Committee. That committee has had several bills sent to it that specifically address the contractor issue. Coincidentally, a recent bill was introduced by he opponent, B. Hussein Obama.

There was also a recent memo from the Secretary of Defense reminding the services that contractors fall under the UCMJ, a change that was implemented in January of 2007. The Military Extraterritorial Jurisdiction Act (MEJA) is referenced in the memo and has been on the books as Public Law 106-523 since November of 2000. Section 552 of PL 109-364 Expanded UCMJ jurisdiction to persons serving with or accompanying the armed forces in the field during contingency operations. This was passed by the Senate and Clinton voted for it.

It is obvious that all these items have been in the open for quite some time and that some of the legislation in question was presented to the Armed Services Committee, a committee that Clinton sits on. It is also obvious that Clinton voted on legislation that, in some part, addressed this. All of this begs the obvious question; Why does she not know about this? In addition to learning this from her official duties, the information has been on TV and radio for quite some time, more so in recent weeks. How can she possibly not know about this? Is she so focused on winning that she has neglected to do her job?

One also has to ask what she means by “Maybe she should have known” when it is obvious that there is no maybe about it. She sits on the committee that looks at this stuff and to which information was given. How can she claim that she knows nothing and dismiss it so casually? Is she ignoring the recently introduced item because Obama is the author? How can she expect to be President when she is unaware of these things?

Democrats like to believe that George Bush ignored the threat of radical Islam and that he misinforms Americans. It is amazing that they fail to hold their anointed to any kind of similar standard. If we accept that Bush is as incompetent as the left portrays him, we must also accept that Hillary is mush more incompetent because she cannot seem to even do her Senate job.

If she cannot handle one seat in the Senate, how will she ever run an entire country?

Nancy Pelosi defended the actions of the Capitol architect who took it upon himself to decide that the word God and any other religious phrases may not be placed on the certificates that accompany Flags ordered by constituents. Nancy Pelosi and the architect are denying people their right to free speech. People have a right to have whatever they want, within the limits of good taste, added to the certificates. In case these people do not know it, the Flag and its accompanying certificate are not free. People order them and PAY for them. Since they are paying for them, they should have a right to get just about whatever they want on them.

The case stems from an Eagle Scout who wanted, “In honor of my grandfather Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country, and family” written on his certificate. When he received it, the word God was not on it. He paid for the Flag and certificate and the PC police at the Capitol decided that the word was inappropriate. Who is this jackass and what power does he have to decide what people have written on certificates that they pay for? Additionally, if he was not going to put what the kid wanted on the certificate, he should have returned the money and the form with an explanation.

Unfortunately, Nancy Pelosi is so anti religion and liberal (but I repeat myself) that she lacks the courage to tell the guy to print what people pay for. How dare this woman decide that this is appropriate and to declare that she does not see the point of the Congressman who was upset about it? I am willing to bet this jackass architect accepts his pay in US dollars that have the words “In God We Trust” imprinted upon them. I am willing to bet Pelosi has no problem accepting the millions of dollars in graft she gets even though those dollars contain the very same words.

I believe that all Americans should stop ordering Flags from the Congress. Just stop completely and let them figure out something else to do with their time. I also think we should refuse to pay our taxes because we would not want to offend any of these jackasses who don’t like to see God’s name in print. These jackasses are only religious when they are running for office ala Hillary and B. Hussein.

Check that idea about not paying taxes. That could be risky given how the federal government sends jack booted marshals to arrest you and harass your friends if you refuse to surrender your money to those who extort it from you. You could fly planes into buildings and Democrats will praise you and demand that you not be tortured but fail to pay your taxes and they send SS storm troopers from the Federal Marshal’s office to beat the money our of you or take you into custody. When the Mafia did that it was called extortion. When the federal government does it, it is called the tax system.

Just ask the Browns and their friends.

Sometimes unrelated trackbacks to: Nuke’s, third world county, DeMediacratic Nation, The Populist, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Stuck On Stupid, Webloggin, Cao’s Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Adeline and Hazel, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.