Matthew Perry recently slammed moderate TV personality Bill O'Reilly for failing to be humble in the presence of President Barack Obama.
I'm actually glad the former Friends star said this, because at least he's mature enough to admit he's a submissive man. Were Mr. Perry to enter a room in which President Obama stood, I'm quite certain the actor would immediately bow down to the Commander in Chief just as Mr. Obama bows to dictators whose power he craves.
Why can't all you liberals admit you submit?
When Mrs. Obama tells you what to eat, admit you put down your fork and abide. "Those fries are too fatty!" she insists. Admit you respond, "You're right First Lady, my waistline cannot afford another French fried potato drenched in salt. Please tell me what I can consume or else I'll starve to death screaming, 'Why won't she tell me what to put in my mouth!'."
Admit you hate making decisions that impact your own life.
Admit you're so ignorant regarding money matters that you deem anyone suggesting you personally handle the investing of your salary "evil".
We conservatives understand there will be differences of opinion, but we strenuously object to liberals fibbing for the express purpose of convincing the ignorant masses that they're not trying to control the entire population.
You often hear President Obama and Vice President Biden claim to be proponents of freedom, yet, for the first time in her history, citizens of the United States will soon be forced to purchase a product.
They can't have it both ways.
If everyone in America was a conservative, would ObamaCare be required, or would the country be full of individuals with either insurance or the financial means to pay for their treatment in full?
The Republican National Convention is wall-to-wall folks with ability to fend for themselves. The Democrat National Convention is full of whiners who cry out, "Pass legislation that allows me to scratch health care from my list of complicated issues with which I must concern myself. Though I am able bodied, please make it possible for me live the life of a helpless invalid. Seriously, how about a bill that mandates the mailman actually place Netflix rental's in my DVD player."
Why can't you liberals just admit you want to be average in every way? You want to spend a maximum of eight hours per weekday at work, then go home and watch mindless television until it's beddy-bye time. This is all you want out of life and freedom makes it impossible for you to proceed through such a vapid existence without worry. With liberty, you still have to pay for retirement and your own healthcare. "Take away everyone's freedom to prosper so I have comfort in knowing my laziness will never land me in the poor house."
If that means you're told what to eat and how many jumping jacks to perform nightly, you'll happily defile your face with the official White House wheat germ after working out with intensity typically displayed by the Reverend Jeremiah Wright after he's dreamed up yet another way America has kept him down.
Just admit it, that's all I ask. Admit your ballot was cast for Barack Obama on November 4, 2008 so you could turn off your brain come January 20, 2009. You voted for him so future visits to the doctor wouldn't include the removing of your insurance card, driver's license and co-pay from your wallet and then presenting these items to the nurse/receptionist. You voted for Mr. Obama so you could walk into the office of any doctor and say, "ObamaCare".
Admit you attempt to shame people into believing this big bad world is too complex for conservatism. "Championing freedom and limited government isn't sufficient; we need complex solutions to complex problems," you say, hoping to force individuals to cheerfully give up their freedom for fear they'll otherwise be labeled stupid.
You liberals probably think your attempts at helping the masses are heroic, but how often do Herculean motion picture protagonists shout, "I will put down my weapons and wait for an elected official to get me out of this seemingly unsolvable circumstance!"
Collective Bargaining is a Four Letter Word
A lot of Wisconsin teachers are protesting against their governor because he wishes to take away the right of their union to collectively bargain.
An end to collective bargaining doesn't mean the state can pull people off the street and say, "You will teach the first grade for $10,000 a year or face up to thirty-years in a gulag."
No more collective bargaining means a potential educator will walk in, receive an offer for his or her services, and then decide if they will accept said offer or find employment at a private institution. It's how most of us negotiate our salary and benefits. Despite right-to-work states like Florida and Texas prospering through these difficult financial times, this is yet another way Democrats claim to "save" the ignorant masses. They're saying, "If we leave you alone to work out a deal for yourself, you'll end up with a $50 gift card from Wal-Mart as a health plan."
Teacher unions have stooped to comparing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to Hitler. I remember Adolf Hitler slaughtering millions of Jewish people, not telling them they must negotiate their contracts individually, which Jewish people would have almost assuredly preferred. In other words, had they the option of being shipped to Auschwitz or negotiating their employment contracts individually, the latter would have been selected by the same margin Saddam Hussein won presidential elections.
The left-wing media has of course failed to mention the fact that Wisconsin teachers make great money. You'd do a spit take if informed how much they annually earn including salary and benefits. If their pay was pittance, 60 Minutes would profile three kindergarten teachers who are so poor they're forced to live together in a one-bedroom apartment with no indoor plumbing. The trio exists exclusively on noodles and dry cereal. Though Wisconsin winters are harsh, only one jacket between them do they have with which to keep warm.
Wisconsin teachers are like a child who demands their $75,000-a-year parents set his or her allowance at $80,000 annually. When the child is told there is literally not enough money, and including the house, car and utility payments, the child must sacrifice a small percentage of their weekly income, the youngster throws a conniption fit. This is understandable because you can't always reason with people whose brains haven't fully developed. It's a shame fiscally responsible politicians are unable to reason with adults charged with teaching the youth of America.
Why are American children testing so low in comparison to the rest of the world? Is it because they lazily play video games 24/7, or is it because their teachers aren't able to grasp the simple concept that employers can't dish out more money than they take in? No wonder we have a generation believing they're owed the moon and the stars; their teachers tell them, "The owners of the company that eventually employs you will undoubtedly posses a bottomless piggy-bank. If they don't pay you at least six figures, it's strictly because the CEO needs the funds to greedily attach an additional game room to his fifth vacation home."
An end to collective bargaining doesn't mean the state can pull people off the street and say, "You will teach the first grade for $10,000 a year or face up to thirty-years in a gulag."
No more collective bargaining means a potential educator will walk in, receive an offer for his or her services, and then decide if they will accept said offer or find employment at a private institution. It's how most of us negotiate our salary and benefits. Despite right-to-work states like Florida and Texas prospering through these difficult financial times, this is yet another way Democrats claim to "save" the ignorant masses. They're saying, "If we leave you alone to work out a deal for yourself, you'll end up with a $50 gift card from Wal-Mart as a health plan."
Teacher unions have stooped to comparing Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker to Hitler. I remember Adolf Hitler slaughtering millions of Jewish people, not telling them they must negotiate their contracts individually, which Jewish people would have almost assuredly preferred. In other words, had they the option of being shipped to Auschwitz or negotiating their employment contracts individually, the latter would have been selected by the same margin Saddam Hussein won presidential elections.
The left-wing media has of course failed to mention the fact that Wisconsin teachers make great money. You'd do a spit take if informed how much they annually earn including salary and benefits. If their pay was pittance, 60 Minutes would profile three kindergarten teachers who are so poor they're forced to live together in a one-bedroom apartment with no indoor plumbing. The trio exists exclusively on noodles and dry cereal. Though Wisconsin winters are harsh, only one jacket between them do they have with which to keep warm.
Wisconsin teachers are like a child who demands their $75,000-a-year parents set his or her allowance at $80,000 annually. When the child is told there is literally not enough money, and including the house, car and utility payments, the child must sacrifice a small percentage of their weekly income, the youngster throws a conniption fit. This is understandable because you can't always reason with people whose brains haven't fully developed. It's a shame fiscally responsible politicians are unable to reason with adults charged with teaching the youth of America.
Why are American children testing so low in comparison to the rest of the world? Is it because they lazily play video games 24/7, or is it because their teachers aren't able to grasp the simple concept that employers can't dish out more money than they take in? No wonder we have a generation believing they're owed the moon and the stars; their teachers tell them, "The owners of the company that eventually employs you will undoubtedly posses a bottomless piggy-bank. If they don't pay you at least six figures, it's strictly because the CEO needs the funds to greedily attach an additional game room to his fifth vacation home."
Why Do Liberals Want One Bad Guy Ruling Each Nation, yet Oppose One Great Nation Ruling the World?
Liberals are big admirers of Mao. Oliver Stone receives as much fan mail from aspiring directors as he sends to the palace of Fidel Castro. Sean Penn acts like a kid on Christmas Eve as he waits for his flight to Venezuela to take off. The actor has called for the imprisonment of American journalists who refer to Hugo Chavez as a dictator.
It doesn't matter how many citizens these monsters murder, liberals have no shortage of admiration for brutal thugs who rule with fists of iron.
While working for President Obama, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn named Mao Zedong one of her favorite political philosophers.
Liberals love single immoral leaders, yet are adamant American lawmakers have little ability to protect the very citizens that voted them into office. "We must militarily even the playing field," they say.
Rulers with no qualms about murdering thousands of their innocent subjects are elevated by today's liberals. These left-wing "defenders of the common man" insist America, the most prosperous, noble and generous nation in the history of civilization should chunk our protective weapons in the ocean so we don't have an unfair advantage over countries whose constitutions may as well include the words, "Kill all the Christians and Jews."
According to liberals, many U.S. leaders are to blame for the massive casualties suffered by the U.S. on 9/11 because our policies led to the justified outrage of the Muslim terrorists.
Yet evil dictators who literally order the murder of their own subjects are never referred to as "killers" by the left.
To liberals, demanding your troops brutally execute political adversaries does not make a murderer, yet instructing your troops to protect citizens around the world is equivalent to slaughtering innocent men, women and children.
Liberals often speak about a socialist utopia, but only if every country in the world begins living in accordance with the U.S. Constitution can a worldly utopia exist. Instead, the United States is abandoning the aforementioned sacred document and we're living in a world where protecting the innocent is labeled murder and brutal murder is deemed necessary to further social justice.
It doesn't matter how many citizens these monsters murder, liberals have no shortage of admiration for brutal thugs who rule with fists of iron.
While working for President Obama, former White House Communications Director Anita Dunn named Mao Zedong one of her favorite political philosophers.
Liberals love single immoral leaders, yet are adamant American lawmakers have little ability to protect the very citizens that voted them into office. "We must militarily even the playing field," they say.
Rulers with no qualms about murdering thousands of their innocent subjects are elevated by today's liberals. These left-wing "defenders of the common man" insist America, the most prosperous, noble and generous nation in the history of civilization should chunk our protective weapons in the ocean so we don't have an unfair advantage over countries whose constitutions may as well include the words, "Kill all the Christians and Jews."
According to liberals, many U.S. leaders are to blame for the massive casualties suffered by the U.S. on 9/11 because our policies led to the justified outrage of the Muslim terrorists.
Yet evil dictators who literally order the murder of their own subjects are never referred to as "killers" by the left.
To liberals, demanding your troops brutally execute political adversaries does not make a murderer, yet instructing your troops to protect citizens around the world is equivalent to slaughtering innocent men, women and children.
Liberals often speak about a socialist utopia, but only if every country in the world begins living in accordance with the U.S. Constitution can a worldly utopia exist. Instead, the United States is abandoning the aforementioned sacred document and we're living in a world where protecting the innocent is labeled murder and brutal murder is deemed necessary to further social justice.
Al Gore Could Actually Do Good
Perhaps there was a time I felt pity for people who bought into the whole man-made global warming hoax. Warnings the earth was near destruction spewed from the mouth of every member of the traditional media.
But I no longer feel a tinge of sympathy for people afraid their actions are causing the end of the world. There is simply too much information available if you're worried the earth is doomed and you are partially responsible. We now have proof that scientists, who for years insisted man is causing global warming, manipulated data and suppressed dissent. It's gotten so bad for Al Gore and his ilk that they now say with a straight face, "Whatever is falling from the sky outside your window, whatever the current temperature, whatever the five-day forecast; it's all due to man-made global warming."
Now that it's clear Al Gore is a complete fraud, I wonder why liberals don't admonish the former Vice President for failing to use his celebrity to help people they typically champion.
Conning average Americans out of their money to fill his overflowing pockets equals food out of the mouths of hungry children. Think of the good Mr. Gore could have accomplished if he'd spent the last 10-plus years raising money for the underprivileged instead of misleading folks into believing they need to purchase certain products or else the earth will explode.
He's similar to individuals who spend their life scamming and spamming. They run sophisticated operations, yet choose not to use their inherent intelligent to run legitimate businesses. IQ wise, Al Gore is a smart guy. Were he a noble man, he would use his fame to help the downtrodden instead of profiting from middle class American men and women whose trust he gained as a politician.
I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, and he's undoubtedly made a fortune since leaving office, but at least he teamed up with George H.W. Bush to raise money for charity.
Is Mr. Gore's chicanery a result of bitterness over not being elected President? Did he say, "Since I won't reside in the White House for at least four years, I'm going to take everyone's money on false pretenses and use it to buy a plethora of bigger homes! To prove how pathetic the American people are, I'm going to exclusively travel on private aircraft and use a thousand times more energy annually to power my dwellings than the average resident uses in his or her lifetime! To put it in a way even the dolts I rip off could easily understand: I'm going to convince everyone to turn off 80% of their lights while I increase the number I switch on tenfold."?
I don't know how many crimes Mr. Gore has committed, but I seriously doubt he would face prosecution if he came clean, especially if he spent much of the money he's nefariously obtained on meals to occupy plates that would otherwise remain empty.
But I no longer feel a tinge of sympathy for people afraid their actions are causing the end of the world. There is simply too much information available if you're worried the earth is doomed and you are partially responsible. We now have proof that scientists, who for years insisted man is causing global warming, manipulated data and suppressed dissent. It's gotten so bad for Al Gore and his ilk that they now say with a straight face, "Whatever is falling from the sky outside your window, whatever the current temperature, whatever the five-day forecast; it's all due to man-made global warming."
Now that it's clear Al Gore is a complete fraud, I wonder why liberals don't admonish the former Vice President for failing to use his celebrity to help people they typically champion.
Conning average Americans out of their money to fill his overflowing pockets equals food out of the mouths of hungry children. Think of the good Mr. Gore could have accomplished if he'd spent the last 10-plus years raising money for the underprivileged instead of misleading folks into believing they need to purchase certain products or else the earth will explode.
He's similar to individuals who spend their life scamming and spamming. They run sophisticated operations, yet choose not to use their inherent intelligent to run legitimate businesses. IQ wise, Al Gore is a smart guy. Were he a noble man, he would use his fame to help the downtrodden instead of profiting from middle class American men and women whose trust he gained as a politician.
I'm no fan of Bill Clinton, and he's undoubtedly made a fortune since leaving office, but at least he teamed up with George H.W. Bush to raise money for charity.
Is Mr. Gore's chicanery a result of bitterness over not being elected President? Did he say, "Since I won't reside in the White House for at least four years, I'm going to take everyone's money on false pretenses and use it to buy a plethora of bigger homes! To prove how pathetic the American people are, I'm going to exclusively travel on private aircraft and use a thousand times more energy annually to power my dwellings than the average resident uses in his or her lifetime! To put it in a way even the dolts I rip off could easily understand: I'm going to convince everyone to turn off 80% of their lights while I increase the number I switch on tenfold."?
I don't know how many crimes Mr. Gore has committed, but I seriously doubt he would face prosecution if he came clean, especially if he spent much of the money he's nefariously obtained on meals to occupy plates that would otherwise remain empty.
Live Like You Work Hard
A vote for a Democrat is a vote for you. You're telling the four-year-old eating a delicious ice cream cone, "Screw your chocolate covered face. I'm leaving you a mountain of debt because I want all I can get while I can get it. I don't care about your future financial well being and I certainly don't care if America is taken over by China, causing you to spend your entire adult life earning four cents per day assembling smart phones for elites. My only goal is making sure enough Democrats remain in power to provide me all the handouts I need to live like I work hard."
A few years ago I could see a politically ignorant individual voting Democrat because he or she truly believed every politician with a D beside their name was truly looking out for the downtrodden.
Today, however, a vote for any Democrat is clearly just another way of saying, "Don't take away my entitlements; take away any hope those soccer playing first graders have of living comfortably. They should only be allowed to eat after I spend my life gorging on government provided sustenance."
Despite the fact that America is at the breaking point; that today's child will begin adulthood well behind the starting line, Democrats, and those supporting them, still won't man up. They refuse to say, "We're adults and our refusal to act our age is ruining the future for children across this once great country. It's one thing to claim that reaching into the pocket of a rich man is noble, but even we can't spin the inherent evilness behind stealing from children. We're one step away from literally taking candy from a baby."
If a family of five for years has consumed fifteen pieces of chicken per meal, three pieces per member, and then one day find they're unable to afford a single piece more than ten, would it be socially just for the parents to increase their chicken consumption while reducing the poultry intake of their own children? "Times are tough; therefore the chicken ratio must change. Your mother and I will now eat four pieces each and you lads can split the remaining two," is it okay for the patriarch to say?
Evil conservatives are of the mindset that adults should make sacrifices that benefit the youth of America.
Liberals, on the other hand, demand endless gut expansion regardless of the tiny empty bellies their gluttony leaves behind.
A few years ago I could see a politically ignorant individual voting Democrat because he or she truly believed every politician with a D beside their name was truly looking out for the downtrodden.
Today, however, a vote for any Democrat is clearly just another way of saying, "Don't take away my entitlements; take away any hope those soccer playing first graders have of living comfortably. They should only be allowed to eat after I spend my life gorging on government provided sustenance."
Despite the fact that America is at the breaking point; that today's child will begin adulthood well behind the starting line, Democrats, and those supporting them, still won't man up. They refuse to say, "We're adults and our refusal to act our age is ruining the future for children across this once great country. It's one thing to claim that reaching into the pocket of a rich man is noble, but even we can't spin the inherent evilness behind stealing from children. We're one step away from literally taking candy from a baby."
If a family of five for years has consumed fifteen pieces of chicken per meal, three pieces per member, and then one day find they're unable to afford a single piece more than ten, would it be socially just for the parents to increase their chicken consumption while reducing the poultry intake of their own children? "Times are tough; therefore the chicken ratio must change. Your mother and I will now eat four pieces each and you lads can split the remaining two," is it okay for the patriarch to say?
Evil conservatives are of the mindset that adults should make sacrifices that benefit the youth of America.
Liberals, on the other hand, demand endless gut expansion regardless of the tiny empty bellies their gluttony leaves behind.
No Boundaries is the New Talent
Normally I don't pay attention to Hollywood trash, but, because I write a column, have decided to call out a couple celebrities who've made a name for themselves by, "telling it like it is."
Kathy Griffin and Chelsea Handler are famous for their ability to say what everyone else won't. These two "women" do this because they weren't properly raised.
Children can now legitimately respond to, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," with "Okay, but I'll never make millions of dollars in the entertainment industry."
Calling Sarah Palin's children degrading names normally reserved for grown streetwalkers is somehow considered talent in 2011.
I've actually heard seemingly reasonable people say, "That Chelsea Handler has no inhibitions, a quality I greatly admire."
Such a statement begs the question, "What happened to the days in which people with an uncanny ability to generate laughter based on wit and originality were popular figures, while people who regularly spewed jaw-dropping vulgarity were shunned by decent Americans?"
I miss those days; not because I'm a traditional man, but because I enjoy turning on the television and laughing at clever material.
Perhaps I, as a conservative, am too critical of filth. Perhaps, if people like me shrug our shoulders when vulgarity is uttered then those impossible to offend will realize their "ooooooooo's," "ahhhhhhhh's" and uncomfortable laughs aren't reactions to talented performers working their magic, rather reactions to dime-a-dozen hacks uttering words common decency prevents others from letting flow from their lips.
It's similar to a girl bringing home a complete jerk to meet mommy and daddy. As long as the authority figures have a huge problem with the bad-boy beau, the girl finds the relationship exhilarating and wild, but, once the parents apathetically say, "Do what you want," the daughter realizes her romantic interest lacks even a single worthy quality.
Therefore, on behalf of all traditional Americans, I say to those who equate uninhibited vulgarity with brilliant showmanship: "Do what you want."
Kathy Griffin and Chelsea Handler are famous for their ability to say what everyone else won't. These two "women" do this because they weren't properly raised.
Children can now legitimately respond to, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," with "Okay, but I'll never make millions of dollars in the entertainment industry."
Calling Sarah Palin's children degrading names normally reserved for grown streetwalkers is somehow considered talent in 2011.
I've actually heard seemingly reasonable people say, "That Chelsea Handler has no inhibitions, a quality I greatly admire."
Such a statement begs the question, "What happened to the days in which people with an uncanny ability to generate laughter based on wit and originality were popular figures, while people who regularly spewed jaw-dropping vulgarity were shunned by decent Americans?"
I miss those days; not because I'm a traditional man, but because I enjoy turning on the television and laughing at clever material.
Perhaps I, as a conservative, am too critical of filth. Perhaps, if people like me shrug our shoulders when vulgarity is uttered then those impossible to offend will realize their "ooooooooo's," "ahhhhhhhh's" and uncomfortable laughs aren't reactions to talented performers working their magic, rather reactions to dime-a-dozen hacks uttering words common decency prevents others from letting flow from their lips.
It's similar to a girl bringing home a complete jerk to meet mommy and daddy. As long as the authority figures have a huge problem with the bad-boy beau, the girl finds the relationship exhilarating and wild, but, once the parents apathetically say, "Do what you want," the daughter realizes her romantic interest lacks even a single worthy quality.
Therefore, on behalf of all traditional Americans, I say to those who equate uninhibited vulgarity with brilliant showmanship: "Do what you want."
The Party of "We Will Not Let You Molest This Land"
If there are more Republicans than Democrats in the House beginning in January 2013... if a member of the GOP resides at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue... if that same party controls the Senate, will Nancy Pelosi vote with her adversaries in the Grand Old Party because the American people will have clearly spoken, or will she vote "no" on everything they propose? Will Harry Reid tell his constituents, "In accordance with the desire of my fellow citizens, I will vote for massive tax cuts for the likes of Rush Limbaugh."?
If Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi vote against Republican proposals, will the media claim they lead the "Party of No" or will a euphemism be created to make uncooperative Democrats appear noble in the fight against oppressive authority? "The Party of Helping the Downtrodden Survive a Hitler-esque regime" and, "The Party of We Will Not Let You Molest This Land," both come to mind.
Throughout the first two years of the Obama Presidency we constantly heard liberals say, "How can they expect America to prosper if Republicans vote no on every single poor person-helping, job-creating, earth-saving bill we propose?"
Translated, that of course means, "I'm exploiting the Republicans bad habit of voting in accordance with values they hold dear for the express purpose of making Joe Six-pack think they're Gordon Gekko types who have contempt for any American earning an income of less than seven figures."
If the media is non-partisan they will admonish any Democrat who doesn't vote with the Republican majority just as they've been scolding the GOP.
If former Speaker Pelosi is a fair-minded lady, she will put her own view of right and wrong aside and vote with her political adversaries without fail. After all, she slammed Republicans for their failure to accept her agenda as their own.
However, I have a strong feeling that, if the GOP controls Washington beginning in January of 2013, every criticism of Republicans from January 2009 to January 2011 will not apply to the Democrat minority.
It will be interesting to see everything change 180 degrees.
Voting against the majority will go from treasonous to noble.
Criticism of the 2013 Republican president will come from courageous individuals, whereas questioning the constitutionality of the unconstitutional ObamaCare bill is clearly racist.
I bet all of you can, within one second, tell me which president occupied the White House when Hillary Clinton said, "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!'"
The more things change the more things change...
If Mr. Reid and Ms. Pelosi vote against Republican proposals, will the media claim they lead the "Party of No" or will a euphemism be created to make uncooperative Democrats appear noble in the fight against oppressive authority? "The Party of Helping the Downtrodden Survive a Hitler-esque regime" and, "The Party of We Will Not Let You Molest This Land," both come to mind.
Throughout the first two years of the Obama Presidency we constantly heard liberals say, "How can they expect America to prosper if Republicans vote no on every single poor person-helping, job-creating, earth-saving bill we propose?"
Translated, that of course means, "I'm exploiting the Republicans bad habit of voting in accordance with values they hold dear for the express purpose of making Joe Six-pack think they're Gordon Gekko types who have contempt for any American earning an income of less than seven figures."
If the media is non-partisan they will admonish any Democrat who doesn't vote with the Republican majority just as they've been scolding the GOP.
If former Speaker Pelosi is a fair-minded lady, she will put her own view of right and wrong aside and vote with her political adversaries without fail. After all, she slammed Republicans for their failure to accept her agenda as their own.
However, I have a strong feeling that, if the GOP controls Washington beginning in January of 2013, every criticism of Republicans from January 2009 to January 2011 will not apply to the Democrat minority.
It will be interesting to see everything change 180 degrees.
Voting against the majority will go from treasonous to noble.
Criticism of the 2013 Republican president will come from courageous individuals, whereas questioning the constitutionality of the unconstitutional ObamaCare bill is clearly racist.
I bet all of you can, within one second, tell me which president occupied the White House when Hillary Clinton said, "I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you're not patriotic, and we should stand up and say, 'We are Americans and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!'"
The more things change the more things change...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)