Listen, bitches. I'm SO tired of hearing your rants about Chick-Fil-A. T-I-R-E-D. If you don't like the Christian values of Mr. Cathy, then don't patronize and eat their damned chicken and waffle fries. WE GET IT ALREADY. Or, better yet, boycott the bible or have religion banned since Mr. Cathy's values is based on his biblical beliefs.
I'm providing all of you (my fellow gays & lesbians and supporters) that have a Chick-Fil-A agenda with a complete list of companies in order for you to ADD to your own personal campaigns. And, I'm gonna come over and check your cupboards and receipts to make sure you're not patronizing, shopping, or purchasing entertainment or services from these organizations. After all, what's right is right. Right?.
Here you go: A-1 Self Storage Company, AutoZone Inc, CBRL Group Inc./Cracker Barrel, Chick-Fil-A, Cinemark, Century, CinéArts, Cinedome, Dish Network, Dominos Pizza, ExxonMobile, Gold's Gym, Golfland Entertainment, Insure One, Meijer, Outside Pride, Request Foods (supplier to Campbell Soup), Salvation Army, Urban Outfitters, Target, Walmart, and BestBuy.
Oh, and don't forget about Pottery Barn and West Elm, each part of Williams-Sonoma, Bed Bath & Beyond, Tyson Foods, and News Corp.
Shit! I almost left out Babies R Us, Boy Scouts, Celestial Seasonings, Dole, Humana, John Deere, Keebler, Kellogg, Purina, Radio Shack, Sam's Club and Toys R Us. *WHEW*
Oh, and J.C. Penny, Amazon. . . . . . see folks the list continues.
If you're going to have an agenda, then be consistent in your ideals and beliefs. No exceptions. Start your boycotts NOW!
As for me, I like my gawd damned Kellogg's Frosted Flakes.
And, lest we forgot the MOTHER OF ALL BOYCOTTS that need to be considered: Barack H. Obama. Obama has been in his anti-gay cocoon for decades, and like a ray of light from the heavens above, he has EVOLVED. He has finally transformed into a beautiful gay-marriage butterfly. In fact, I won’t even pass judgment on his evolution. We are all entitled to change our minds, our ideals, have a change of heart, or be up for re-election and parade around on his gay-marriage flip-flop. I'm not buying it for one second.
What I would like to do, however, is point out the fact that Barack Obama has NOT BEEN some gay crusader for the better part of his political career, in fact, up until his EVOLUTION, he's never been in favor of gay & lesbian equality, just ask Reverend Jeremiah Wright.
It doesn’t matter if you’re gay or straight, Rep or Dem, the economy stinks. And instead of dealing with the $16 trillion dollars of debt we’ve found ourselves in, we find it necessary to focus on chicken and waffle fries at Chick-Fil-A. Sadly enough, the federal budget, unemployment and entitlement reform keeps getting pushed aside when we as a community focus on this ONE MINISCULE company in the whole scheme of what's happening in our economy.
And, yes, EQUALITY is important, basic human rights are important, but folks, Chick-Fil-A is owned by a Christian family with Christian values - they do not make the decisions for your local, state, and federal laws.
Remind me, are we still boycotting Target or what? IDIOTS.
Saturday, July 28, 2012
Friday, July 27, 2012
Obama Should Be Okay With Eating At Chick-Fil-A
Why Obama should be okay with eating at Chick-fil-A:
Devout Christian Owner “Didn’t Build That” Enterprise
Although President Obama’s current claim to support gay marriage puts him at odds with Chick-fil-A President Dan T. Cathy, a devout Christian who supports the traditional definition of marriage, the Democrat shouldn’t have any problem enjoying a chicken dinner at one of Mr. Cathy’s franchises. After all, the socially conservative entrepreneur didn’t build that enterprise. Somebody else made that happen.
Monday, November 21, 2011
Scrutiny Biases
I appreciate Herman Cain’s charisma, his Reaganesque style and his ability to articulate the small government and personal freedom message. I, do, however, have several concerns about Mr. Cain and do not back him for the White House nor do I have any enthusiasm for the candidate.
In many ways, I see his appeal on the right in the 2012 circuit as similar to Barack Obama’s appeal to the left in 2008 cycle. Both are charismatic men, running as outsiders to the political establishment.
Only Cain has made clear his commitment to conservative principles in his campaign while Obama obscured his advocacy of big-government notions in his. And Cain has a record of accomplishment in the private sector — with the concomitant executive experience. Oh, and the media has scrutinized the Cain's record with a fine-toothed comb while paying little, if any, attention to Obama’s.
In many ways, I see his appeal on the right in the 2012 circuit as similar to Barack Obama’s appeal to the left in 2008 cycle. Both are charismatic men, running as outsiders to the political establishment.
Only Cain has made clear his commitment to conservative principles in his campaign while Obama obscured his advocacy of big-government notions in his. And Cain has a record of accomplishment in the private sector — with the concomitant executive experience. Oh, and the media has scrutinized the Cain's record with a fine-toothed comb while paying little, if any, attention to Obama’s.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
The UN Made Me Do It
Obama's war, perhaps?
I am appalled that our president, Mr. Barack H. Obama of the United States of America could launch our country into a conflict without a formal declaration of war by Congress. Or, much less barely ANY discussion by the House or Senate.
Something I learned in my History class: Only Congress has the authority “to declare war.” Or, unless you're President Obama, one can wage war almost whenever he feels like it, or at least whenever he can cobble together some "broad coalition," as Obama put it. Let's just face the facts, my friends, we have a runaway Executive Branch when it comes to our current administration, and Obama appears naïve in the extreme on this one.
Let's talke about Mr. Obama's naïvete for just a sec: Is it naïve to expect U.S. involvement in this war to be over in “days, not weeks," as Mr. Obama seems to think? Is it naïve to expect that he can carry this out without using ground troops? Is it naïve to wage war that is not in response to a direct threat to the U.S. national security? Is it naïve to expect millions of Libyans to cheer as their own country is being attacked by Western powers? Is it naïve to expect civilian casualties not to mount as a result of his actions, which he said were designed “to protect Libyan civilians.” And, finally, is it naïve to expect the world to go along with the ruse that this is not a U.S.-led act of aggression? *ahem* "YES."
Finally, Obama’s stated reasons for this war, which he refuses to call by its proper name, are hypocritical and incoherent. President Obama has now pushed the United States to a place where we are now engaged in three wars simultaneously.
Obama's war? The UN's war? I believe, what we will hear from President Obama is, "The UN made me do it."
I am appalled that our president, Mr. Barack H. Obama of the United States of America could launch our country into a conflict without a formal declaration of war by Congress. Or, much less barely ANY discussion by the House or Senate.
Something I learned in my History class: Only Congress has the authority “to declare war.” Or, unless you're President Obama, one can wage war almost whenever he feels like it, or at least whenever he can cobble together some "broad coalition," as Obama put it. Let's just face the facts, my friends, we have a runaway Executive Branch when it comes to our current administration, and Obama appears naïve in the extreme on this one.
Let's talke about Mr. Obama's naïvete for just a sec: Is it naïve to expect U.S. involvement in this war to be over in “days, not weeks," as Mr. Obama seems to think? Is it naïve to expect that he can carry this out without using ground troops? Is it naïve to wage war that is not in response to a direct threat to the U.S. national security? Is it naïve to expect millions of Libyans to cheer as their own country is being attacked by Western powers? Is it naïve to expect civilian casualties not to mount as a result of his actions, which he said were designed “to protect Libyan civilians.” And, finally, is it naïve to expect the world to go along with the ruse that this is not a U.S.-led act of aggression? *ahem* "YES."
Finally, Obama’s stated reasons for this war, which he refuses to call by its proper name, are hypocritical and incoherent. President Obama has now pushed the United States to a place where we are now engaged in three wars simultaneously.
Obama's war? The UN's war? I believe, what we will hear from President Obama is, "The UN made me do it."
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Oh, Oprah, Shut The Hell Up!
Oprah Windbag is at it AGAIN! She called on President Obama's critics on Friday to show "a certain level of respect.”
Oprah Mouth says, "I feel that everybody has a learning curve, and I feel that the reason why I was willing to step out for him was because I believed in his integrity and I believed in his heart." Also, she said the presidency is a position that “holds a sense of authority and governance over us all,”
Learning curve? Integrity? Heart? Obama holds a sense of authority? C'mon, Oprah Big Mouth, what planet do you live on?
I seem to have missed her calls for "respect" for any other administration. You were conveniently silent for eight years while President Bush was being bashed. Similarly, you have not called for any calm in regards to the attacks on Sarah Palin, who is *actually* the most influential woman in politics today, believe it or not, a little nutty, but, influential, nonetheless.
Who do you think you are? You sold this most worthless, useless piece of human debris to all the brain dead that follow you, with bated breath. I agree that Presidents deserve a certain respect; however, most liberals consider any displayed difference of opinion to be disrepectful, or even worse, claim it is racist! *gasps*
Since you, Oprah Of The United States, are so willing to allow President Obama to "learn on the job" and ask us to allow time for the "learning curve," I wonder if you'd give that same advice to us if Sarah Palin was the president? I hear *crickets chirping* because it would be a completely different story. Listen, Oprah, we don't have time for ON THE JOB TRAINING for Mr. Obama!
Oprah Monster can WANT respect for Mr. Obama all she wants. But! Just as acceptance is based on agreement, respect is something a person earns. Respect is not something Oprah, or anyone else, can impose on a nation or a people.
Oprah, let me tell you a little something about WHY Obama is disrespected. Obama has lost the respect of the Amercian people because of his outrageous policies, destructive government programs, and foreign policy plans which are so ineffective. The nation and the world recognizes how ineffective, at best, and destructive, at worst, this man actually is. Obama is way over his head in competence and effectiveness. Almost none of his programs and policies have resulted in healing the nation, improving the economy, and making any place safer in the world.
It has become clear to one and all that he is lacking in the skills and abilities necessary to be President of the United States.
Oh, and one last thing, Ms. Hoity Toity Media Queen, I'm not interested in your opinions. You didn't support Obama because of his heart, you supported him because you are the same color. PERIOD. If you were choosing someone to lead your organization and couldn't see the color of his skin, would you hire the person with the 1-1/2 page resume with very little relevant experience, or the person with the ten page resume who served their country in the military and had decades of political experience? That's what I thought, you nut job.
Good Luck, Oprah. Keep on wishing you can wave a magic wand and make gold out of hay! You have certainly confirmed to the ENTIRE WORLD that we elected a bed wetter who still has his training wheels on his Huffy bike. Fantastic.
Oprah Mouth says, "I feel that everybody has a learning curve, and I feel that the reason why I was willing to step out for him was because I believed in his integrity and I believed in his heart." Also, she said the presidency is a position that “holds a sense of authority and governance over us all,”
Learning curve? Integrity? Heart? Obama holds a sense of authority? C'mon, Oprah Big Mouth, what planet do you live on?
I seem to have missed her calls for "respect" for any other administration. You were conveniently silent for eight years while President Bush was being bashed. Similarly, you have not called for any calm in regards to the attacks on Sarah Palin, who is *actually* the most influential woman in politics today, believe it or not, a little nutty, but, influential, nonetheless.
Who do you think you are? You sold this most worthless, useless piece of human debris to all the brain dead that follow you, with bated breath. I agree that Presidents deserve a certain respect; however, most liberals consider any displayed difference of opinion to be disrepectful, or even worse, claim it is racist! *gasps*
Since you, Oprah Of The United States, are so willing to allow President Obama to "learn on the job" and ask us to allow time for the "learning curve," I wonder if you'd give that same advice to us if Sarah Palin was the president? I hear *crickets chirping* because it would be a completely different story. Listen, Oprah, we don't have time for ON THE JOB TRAINING for Mr. Obama!
Oprah Monster can WANT respect for Mr. Obama all she wants. But! Just as acceptance is based on agreement, respect is something a person earns. Respect is not something Oprah, or anyone else, can impose on a nation or a people.
Oprah, let me tell you a little something about WHY Obama is disrespected. Obama has lost the respect of the Amercian people because of his outrageous policies, destructive government programs, and foreign policy plans which are so ineffective. The nation and the world recognizes how ineffective, at best, and destructive, at worst, this man actually is. Obama is way over his head in competence and effectiveness. Almost none of his programs and policies have resulted in healing the nation, improving the economy, and making any place safer in the world.
It has become clear to one and all that he is lacking in the skills and abilities necessary to be President of the United States.
Oh, and one last thing, Ms. Hoity Toity Media Queen, I'm not interested in your opinions. You didn't support Obama because of his heart, you supported him because you are the same color. PERIOD. If you were choosing someone to lead your organization and couldn't see the color of his skin, would you hire the person with the 1-1/2 page resume with very little relevant experience, or the person with the ten page resume who served their country in the military and had decades of political experience? That's what I thought, you nut job.
Good Luck, Oprah. Keep on wishing you can wave a magic wand and make gold out of hay! You have certainly confirmed to the ENTIRE WORLD that we elected a bed wetter who still has his training wheels on his Huffy bike. Fantastic.
Tuesday, May 25, 2010
I Am Mexican. I Support Arizona SB1070
Immigration has never made the forefront of American politics, and I'm glad, finally, that Arizona has taken step 1 in a resolution to address an issue that has been their "pink elephant in the room" for decades. Is it me, or can there be a fear of foreigners to strike without warning or detection, and, I'm not talking [just] Mexicans here, I'm talking every foreigner out there, residing in the United States, illegally, or, better yet, on expired school and work visas. Only a few months ago, immigration was a back-burner issue and I'm glad to see this issue being addressed.
Now, thank gawd, we have the restrictive Arizona law giving police broad power to detain illegal immigrants. Senate Bill 1070 has put illegal immigration on the agenda in the California and Texas elections and prompted showdowns in statehouses on immigration bills from Massachusetts to Idaho. The Arizona bill does have its public support, but is opposed by a majority of Latinos. My hand raises in support, and I'm a *ahem* latino. Is there anything wrong with federal reform, essentially pushing President Barack Obama to step up to the plate? Dem. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid placed immigration reform on the Senate agenda. Reid, who opposes the Arizona bill, is trailing in his bid for re-election and seeking Latino support. Go figure. Most of us are offspring of immigrants. With the exception of the pure-blooded Indians, we are all immigrants, or descendants of immigrants, including even those who came over on the Mayflower. Right??!!
There is a persistent dualism in American attitudes toward immigration. On the one hand we celebrate diversity and recognize that the nation owes its shape and concentrations of population "less to the logic of geography than to the movements of great streams of newcomers who together created the country." On the other, we worry that the United States will attract more foreigners than it can comfortably absorb, or should I say, AFFORD.
Immigrants had less to do with their legality than with the race, ethnicity or religion of the newcomers. Are we, as Americans, that concerned about a threat to American culture and values? I welcome diversity and the melting pot of Irish, Italian, Polish, Chinese and Japanese (and others not mentioned in my vast list) immigrants that make up our free world.
Growing up in southern California, part of our curriculum was none other than California History. In California, there was a huge upset and agitation against Chinese workers who had been brought in to complete the transcontinental railroad but were perceived as taking jobs from whites. Congress passed a Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Later, California farmers were similarly alarmed by competition from Japanese immigrants. So, get this, a restrictive 1924 federal bill contained a clause that virtually excluded Japanese immigrants. Japan was incensed; the exclusionary clause signaled a long downturn in U.S. - Japan relations that eventually culminated in war. War not being a "direct result" of this clause, but, an issue nonetheless.
But every outburst of anti-immigrant fervor also produced a political backlash, even on occasion, most notably the once-powerful Ku Klux Klan, fear of foreigners and Catholics combined with virulent hatred of blacks.
Will there be a broader political backlash? Could go either way.
But, and this is a big BUT, the White House wants no part of an immigration fight in a midterm election year. It's hard to fault the president for ducking this divisive battle. And, isn't this typical for his stance on most issues?
SB 1070 may be unconstitutional. In any case, the measure is such a mess that the Arizona Legislature changed it after it was signed into law, replacing the requirement that police could inquire into immigration status during any "lawful contact" to a more precise standard that police could do so only if they are stopping or arresting someone for other reasons. Still, it's understandable that Arizona felt the need to act. ARIZONA NEEDED TO ACT FOLKS! Illegal immigration is down nationally, but has increased in Arizona, in part because a federal crackdown at border crossings in Texas and California funneled the flow of illegal immigrants into other states. No one realizes that kidnapping and gang violence are on the rise in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and it is not surprising that there is public support for restrictive legislation.
The Arizona bill, however, does nothing to address the most pressing issues of illegal immigration: securing the border and finding a just solution for immigrants who have lived here for many years and are contributing to American society. I get that, I stand for that. Indeed, these solutions are beyond the reach of any state.
If SB 1070 forces the president and Congress to consider genuine immigration reform, it will have done us all a big favor.
Now, thank gawd, we have the restrictive Arizona law giving police broad power to detain illegal immigrants. Senate Bill 1070 has put illegal immigration on the agenda in the California and Texas elections and prompted showdowns in statehouses on immigration bills from Massachusetts to Idaho. The Arizona bill does have its public support, but is opposed by a majority of Latinos. My hand raises in support, and I'm a *ahem* latino. Is there anything wrong with federal reform, essentially pushing President Barack Obama to step up to the plate? Dem. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid placed immigration reform on the Senate agenda. Reid, who opposes the Arizona bill, is trailing in his bid for re-election and seeking Latino support. Go figure. Most of us are offspring of immigrants. With the exception of the pure-blooded Indians, we are all immigrants, or descendants of immigrants, including even those who came over on the Mayflower. Right??!!
There is a persistent dualism in American attitudes toward immigration. On the one hand we celebrate diversity and recognize that the nation owes its shape and concentrations of population "less to the logic of geography than to the movements of great streams of newcomers who together created the country." On the other, we worry that the United States will attract more foreigners than it can comfortably absorb, or should I say, AFFORD.
Immigrants had less to do with their legality than with the race, ethnicity or religion of the newcomers. Are we, as Americans, that concerned about a threat to American culture and values? I welcome diversity and the melting pot of Irish, Italian, Polish, Chinese and Japanese (and others not mentioned in my vast list) immigrants that make up our free world.
Growing up in southern California, part of our curriculum was none other than California History. In California, there was a huge upset and agitation against Chinese workers who had been brought in to complete the transcontinental railroad but were perceived as taking jobs from whites. Congress passed a Chinese Exclusion Act in 1882. Later, California farmers were similarly alarmed by competition from Japanese immigrants. So, get this, a restrictive 1924 federal bill contained a clause that virtually excluded Japanese immigrants. Japan was incensed; the exclusionary clause signaled a long downturn in U.S. - Japan relations that eventually culminated in war. War not being a "direct result" of this clause, but, an issue nonetheless.
But every outburst of anti-immigrant fervor also produced a political backlash, even on occasion, most notably the once-powerful Ku Klux Klan, fear of foreigners and Catholics combined with virulent hatred of blacks.
Will there be a broader political backlash? Could go either way.
But, and this is a big BUT, the White House wants no part of an immigration fight in a midterm election year. It's hard to fault the president for ducking this divisive battle. And, isn't this typical for his stance on most issues?
SB 1070 may be unconstitutional. In any case, the measure is such a mess that the Arizona Legislature changed it after it was signed into law, replacing the requirement that police could inquire into immigration status during any "lawful contact" to a more precise standard that police could do so only if they are stopping or arresting someone for other reasons. Still, it's understandable that Arizona felt the need to act. ARIZONA NEEDED TO ACT FOLKS! Illegal immigration is down nationally, but has increased in Arizona, in part because a federal crackdown at border crossings in Texas and California funneled the flow of illegal immigrants into other states. No one realizes that kidnapping and gang violence are on the rise in the Phoenix metropolitan area, and it is not surprising that there is public support for restrictive legislation.
The Arizona bill, however, does nothing to address the most pressing issues of illegal immigration: securing the border and finding a just solution for immigrants who have lived here for many years and are contributing to American society. I get that, I stand for that. Indeed, these solutions are beyond the reach of any state.
If SB 1070 forces the president and Congress to consider genuine immigration reform, it will have done us all a big favor.
Monday, May 17, 2010
Why The Reluctance To State The Obvious Truth?
If you want to watch someone squirm, take a look at the two-minute videotape of Attorney General Eric Holder dodging Republican Rep. Lamar Smith's question of whether "radical Islam" motivated the Times Square bomber. It's pretty darn funny!
AG Eric Holder, who last year called America "a nation of cowards" for refusing to talk frankly about race, didn't want to say what is plain to everyone else, that Faisal Shahzad, back from five months in Waziristan, launched his terror attack because of his Islamist beliefs. And, this is TRUE, Shahzad's Islamic beliefs has motivated his terrorism against America.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, questioned about the bomber's motives, said he might have been acting out of opposition to the health care bill. Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein said he might have become unhinged by the foreclosure of his Connecticut home. We just don't know the real reason Shahzad hates America, but, if you ask me, I can lend my theory and opinion on this matter: Radical Islamic Beliefs.
Okay, okay, you may disagree with me, fine. Then, what's your thoughts? Why the reluctance to state the obvious truth, that we are under attack from terrorists motivated by a radical form of Islam?
My theory is that these well-intentioned folk see the American people as a Howling Mob. They think that if Americans find out that Islamists are attacking us, they will go out and slaughter innocent Muslims. They think that Americans are incapable of understanding the simple truth that while most terrorists are Islamists, the large majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
Of course, the evidence is that Americans are quite capable of holding these two ideas in their heads. Even after Sept. 11, there were only a miniscule number of attacks on Muslims, and many more Americans went over to their Muslim neighbors and offered to help if they had any trouble - - because THAT is how we Americans are. They didn't even need to hear the almost instant assurances from Rudy Giuliani and George W. Bush that all Muslims were not terrorists to bake a cake and bring it over.
It should go without saying that it's ridiculous to believe, as many liberals do, that just about everyone west of Manhattan and east of Hollywood likes to go around wearing white sheets. On a novel issue like gays in the military, many Americans have been moving away from Clinton's 1990s position and toward Kagan's, even while they move away from her views on other issues like abortion.
As it became obvious that the Democrats' health care bills and the Obama big government programs were opposed by most Americans, some liberals resorted to a variant of the Howling Mob theory: Americans were against these programs because they didn't like having a black president. REALLY? This, despite the fact that Obama was elected by the largest percentage margin in the last 20 years.
When you see a smart man like Eric Holder saying stupid things, you know something else is going on. You're seeing a high official who regards most of us as cowards, who believes the truth could make us a Howling Mob. Does Barack Obama feel the same way?
Probably. . . . . .
AG Eric Holder, who last year called America "a nation of cowards" for refusing to talk frankly about race, didn't want to say what is plain to everyone else, that Faisal Shahzad, back from five months in Waziristan, launched his terror attack because of his Islamist beliefs. And, this is TRUE, Shahzad's Islamic beliefs has motivated his terrorism against America.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, questioned about the bomber's motives, said he might have been acting out of opposition to the health care bill. Washington Post blogger Ezra Klein said he might have become unhinged by the foreclosure of his Connecticut home. We just don't know the real reason Shahzad hates America, but, if you ask me, I can lend my theory and opinion on this matter: Radical Islamic Beliefs.
Okay, okay, you may disagree with me, fine. Then, what's your thoughts? Why the reluctance to state the obvious truth, that we are under attack from terrorists motivated by a radical form of Islam?
My theory is that these well-intentioned folk see the American people as a Howling Mob. They think that if Americans find out that Islamists are attacking us, they will go out and slaughter innocent Muslims. They think that Americans are incapable of understanding the simple truth that while most terrorists are Islamists, the large majority of Muslims are not terrorists.
Of course, the evidence is that Americans are quite capable of holding these two ideas in their heads. Even after Sept. 11, there were only a miniscule number of attacks on Muslims, and many more Americans went over to their Muslim neighbors and offered to help if they had any trouble - - because THAT is how we Americans are. They didn't even need to hear the almost instant assurances from Rudy Giuliani and George W. Bush that all Muslims were not terrorists to bake a cake and bring it over.
It should go without saying that it's ridiculous to believe, as many liberals do, that just about everyone west of Manhattan and east of Hollywood likes to go around wearing white sheets. On a novel issue like gays in the military, many Americans have been moving away from Clinton's 1990s position and toward Kagan's, even while they move away from her views on other issues like abortion.
As it became obvious that the Democrats' health care bills and the Obama big government programs were opposed by most Americans, some liberals resorted to a variant of the Howling Mob theory: Americans were against these programs because they didn't like having a black president. REALLY? This, despite the fact that Obama was elected by the largest percentage margin in the last 20 years.
When you see a smart man like Eric Holder saying stupid things, you know something else is going on. You're seeing a high official who regards most of us as cowards, who believes the truth could make us a Howling Mob. Does Barack Obama feel the same way?
Probably. . . . . .
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
