Blog Chez Jacq'

THE FROG THEORY

If you drop a frog in boiling water he will leap right out. If you
slowly heat the water he will be content until it's too late to get out.
That is exactly how history works. It moves slowly and we never really see any
danger until it's too late.

Remember how suppressed workers were before unions came along? The
unions leveled the playing field. Unfortunately, over a long period of time the
pendulum swung too far. Slowly, businesses and factories closed and jobs left
the country. We were comfortable and didn't see the change coming. We
blamed everyone except ourselves for what happened. We weren't alert to how
slow things change over time.

World War II, and the Korean War, demonstrated how powerful a united
nation could be. Our nation, and our families, were united. The father was the
head of the family and the President was the head of the nation. Both were
highly respected. We were content and happy.

We were good at fighting a hot war but we were unprepared to fight a
cold war with the communists in the 50's. They knew they couldn't change
us but they didn't care. Their philosophy was to wait it out and capture
the minds of our children. They loaded our colleges with many of their
professors and waited. It didn't take long to see the results.

The 60''s ushered in the radicals, drug culture, student
protesters, and the Vietnam War. The aim of the cold war was to divide and
conquer. They divided our families and the nation. The secret to defeating a
polite and respectful people is to scream. The louder and longer you scream the
better your chance of winning. Radicals are masters at this form of attack.
They know if you constantly scream and repeat a lie it will eventually become
the truth.

The media, and Hollywood, hammered us with hate America themes and
stories. Our service men, and women, were jeered, cursed, and spit on. We
lost our first War in history. There was no hero's homecoming for our
fighting men and women.

The Reverend King, who was raised in the old school, peacefully changed
the race issue and united the people. When he died the new breed of leaders
like Jesse Jackson, Lewis Farakon, Al Sharpton, and Rev. Wright put a lid on his
efforts and turned racism into a money-making machine.

Corporations were green-mailed by threats of protests, product
boycotts, or endless lawsuits. Every issue, large or small, became a race
issue. The public recoiled in fear of being called a racist. Their voices were
silenced because one word could cost you a career, get you fired, or get you
sued.

Even politicians buckled under to the pressure. The Florida
legislature issued a formal apology for having slavery 200 years ago. They were
thanked by being asked for compensation. There is no end in sight for this kind
of nonsense. America didn't capture slaves and bring them to America.
Their own people sold them to slave traders from several nations. This
knowledge doesn't stop the screamers. History is what it is and you
can't change it. There have been many tragic events in history. You
acknowledge them and move on.

They divided our nation into two separate Americas. We now have
Americans, and African-Americans, although Africa has nothing to do with being
an American. You can be one or the other but not both. You are what you were
born to be. You do not subordinate our country to any foreign nation. It's
equivalent to flying the African flag above the Stars and Stripes. If you
hyphenate two countries America always comes first.

This election year could be the turning point in our history because
the frog theory has come into play. It's time to step back and look at how
the country has slowly changed since the cold war started. Don't get caught
up in all the hype.

George McGovern was the first Presidential candidate to test the waters
with college students. The Clintons played a big role in his campaign. It was
the worst campaign ever run. He was crushed in the election.

Step two was to infiltrate all the information vehicles such as radio,
newspapers, magazines, TV and movies. They were quite successful at that.
Jimmy Carter was the first President to demonstrate the leadership skills of the
far left. Weak military, high taxes, runaway inflation, 19% mortgage rates, and
plain incompetence ended his career in Washington. Iran, a small country at the
time, took American hostages and kicked sand in our face. By negotiating from
weakness Carter could not get the hostages released.

The big benefit of the Carter years is that they were followed by the
Reagan years. The nation got a clear look at the difference between a weak
nation and a strong nation. Every student should know this difference. When
Ronald Reagan took over the hostages were quickly released, taxes were lowered,
inflation dropped, mortgage rates dropped, and the military was strengthened.
Russia quickly waved the white flag and waited for another Democrat term.

Clinton took over Carter's uncompleted social programs. He
weakened the military and tried to pass large government programs. An Intern
derailed his Presidency. While he was tied up with his personal problems his
lawyers ran the country. He passed up three opportunities to take out Osama Bin
Laden. This eventually cost us the loss of our Twin Towers, thousands of
American lives, and got us involved in a war with Iraq.

By the end of his term the left had captured a large share of the media
and it flexed its muscle in 2000. The hate Bush campaign got off to a roaring
start. The brainwashing theory of repeating the same story over and over again
was launched.

There were endless stories about our evil nation and its President.
Top-secret plans were leaked to the press and printed for the entire world to
see. Hollywood cranked out documentaries about the evil Bush administration and
our evil military. They laid the groundwork for the next election. The ACLU
flooded the courts with lawsuits and the Democrat party became a law firm.
Almost every incumbent, or his or her spouse, is a lawyer.

They now have the perfect candidate because they can squash criticism
by playing the race card. If you don't like Obama, or criticize him, you
are a racist. They can hide his inexperience and background by turning him into
a rock star and singing change and hope. They don't tell us what kind of
change, or how it will be done, only that you should hope for the best. By
keeping the hype going they don't have to put anything of substance on the
table.

The only thing we really know about Obama is that his wife has never
been proud to be an American. They want us to believe that his liberal college
professors, Rev. Pfleger, his ties to radicals Bill Ayer and Lewis Farakon, and
listening to the Rev. Wright's hate talks for 20 years, had no influence on
his thinking. If they didn't, then who did? He wasn't in business and
didn't see fit to serve his country. These people launched his political
career and their organizations received earmarks in return for their campaign
donations and political help. They must have had some influence. Rev.
Wright's church received over $15 million. That's only one small local
church. Think on a national scale.

The change being promoted is a change back to the Carter years. It
started in 2006 when the lawyer party took over. There have been endless
lawsuits and investigations in retaliation for the Clinton years. It keeps the
lawyers busy but does nothing for the economy. The economy has been in a
downward spiral since they took over.

Returning to the Carter years of high taxes, high inflation, and a weak
military is not the change we are looking for. We cannot cower to a bunch of
crazies whose only goal in life is to kill us.

The old sages (over 50) will have to play a big role in this election.
The young people simply don't know what the aged know. The advantage of
aging is the knowledge you accumulated. You know what United States means. You
know what the seldom-heard word respect means. You know how wonderful freedom
and independence is. You know the difference between a strong and a weak
nation; and you know what it takes to keep it strong. You know history because
you have lived it.

Although the old guard is dying off, and getting too tired to fight,
they have to muster one more charge. If they don't, our children, and
grandchildren, will never know the joy and freedom that is the bedrock of our
country. The heat is slowly being turned up and the water is getting hot. The
old frogs better start jumping before it's too late.
________________________________________________________________________-

I don't know who Joe Porter is or if he wrote this letter, but it really
doesn't matter. The content stands on its own.
Dear Friends:

My name is Joe Porter. I live in Champaign, Illinois . I'm 46 years old, a
born-again Christian, a husband, a father, a small business owner, a veteran,
and a homeowner. I don't consider myself to be either conservative or
liberal, and I vote for the person, not Republican or Democrat. I don't
believe there are "two Americas" - but that every person in this
country can be whoever and whatever they want to be if they'll just work to
get there - and nowhere else on earth can they find such opportunities. I
believe our government should help those who are legitimately downtrodden, and
should always put the interests of America first.

The purpose of this message is that I'm concerned about the future of this
great nation. I'm worried that the silent majority of honest, hard-working,
tax-paying people in this country have been passive for too long. Most folks I
know choose not to involve themselves in politics. They go about their daily
lives, paying their bills, raising their kids, and doing what they can to
maintain the good life. They vote and consider doing so to be a sacred trust.
They shake their heads at the political pundits and so-called "news",
thinking that what they hear is always spun by whomever is reporting it. They
can't understand how elected officials can regularly violate the public
trust with pork barrel spending. They don't want government handouts. They
want the government to protect them, not raise their taxes for more government
programs.

We are in the unique position in this country of electing our leaders. It's
a privilege to do so. I've never found a candidate in any election with whom
I agreed on everything. I'll wager that most of us don't even agree with
our families or spouses 100% of the time. So when I step into that voting booth,
I always try to look at the big picture and cast my vote for the man or woman
who is best qualified for the job. I've hired a lot of people in my
lifetime, and essentially that's what an election is - a hiring process. Who
has the credentials? Whom do I want working for me? Whom can I trust to do the
job right?

I'm concerned that a growing number of voters in this country simply
don't get it. They are caught up in a fervor they can't explain, and
calling it "change".

Change what?, I ask.

Well, we're going to change America , they say.

In what way?, I query.

We want someone new and fresh in the White House, they exclaim.

So, someone who's not a politician?, I press.

Uh, well, no, we just want a lot of stuff changed, so we're voting for
Obama, they state.

So the current system, the system of freedom and democracy that has enabled a
man to grow up in this great country, get a fine education, raise incredible
amounts of money and dominate the news and win his party's nomination for
the White House - that system's all wrong?

No, no, that part of the system's okay - we just need a lot of change.

And so it goes. "Change we can believe in." Quite frankly, I
don't believe that vague proclamations of change hold any promise for me. In
recent months, I've been asking virtually everyone I encounter how
they're voting. I live in Illinois, so most folks tell me they're voting
for Barack Obama. But no one can really tell me why - only that he's going
to change a lot of stuff. Change, change, change. I have yet to find one single
person who can tell me distinctly and convincingly why this man is qualified to
be President and Commander-in-Chief of the most powerful nation on earth - other
than the fact that he claims he's going to implement a lot of change.

We've all seen the emails about Obama's genealogy, his upbringing, his
Muslim background, and his church affiliations. Let's ignore this for a
moment. Put it all aside. Then ask yourself, what qualifies this man to be my
president? That he's a brilliant orator and talks about change?

CHANGE WHAT?

Friends, I'll be forthright with you - I believe the American voters who
are supporting Barack Obama don't have a clue what they're doing, as
evidenced by the fact that not one of them - NOT ONE of them I've spoken to
can spell out his qualifications. Not even the most liberal media can explain
why he should be elected. Political experience? Negligible. He has exactly 143
days of Senate Experience!! Foreign relations? Non-existent. Achievements? Name
one. Someone who wants to unite the country? If you haven't read his
wife's thesis from Princeton , look it up on the web. This is who's
lining up to be our next First Lady? The only thing I can glean from Obama's
constant harping about change is that we're in for a lot of new taxes.

For me, the choice is clear. I've looked carefully at the two leading
applicants for the job, and I've made my choice.

Here's a question - where were you five and a half years ago? Around
Christmas, 2002. You've had five or six birthdays in that time. My son has
grown from a sixth grade child to a high school graduate. Five and a half years
is a good chunk of time. About 2,000 days. 2,000 nights of sleep. 6, 000 meals,
give or take.

John McCain spent that amount of time, from 1967 to 1973, in a North Vietnamese
prisoner-of-war camp. When offered early release, he refused it. He considered
this offer to be a public relations stunt by his captors, and insisted that
those held longer than he should be released first. Did you get that part? He
was offered his freedom, and he turned it down. A regimen of beatings and
torture began.

Do you possess such strength of character? Locked in a filthy cell in a foreign
country, would you turn down your own freedom in favor of your fellow man? I
submit that's a quality of character that is rarely found, and for me, this
singular act defines John McCain.

Unlike several presidential candidates in recent years whose military service
is questionable or non-existent, you will not find anyone to denigrate the
integrity and moral courage of this man. A graduate of Annapolis , during his
Naval service he received the Silver Star, Bronze Star, Purple Heart and
Distinguished Flying Cross. His own son is now serving in the Marine Corps in
Iraq . Barack Obama is fond of saying "We honor John McCain's
service...BUT...", which to me is condescending and offensive - because
what I hear is, "Let's forget this man's sacrifice for his country
and his proven leadership abilities, and talk some more about change."

I don't agree with John McCain on everything - but I am utterly convinced
that he is qualified to be our next President, and I trust him to do what's
right. I know in my heart that he has the best interests of our country in mind.
He doesn't simply want to be President - he wants to lead America , and
there's a huge difference. Factually, there is simply no comparison between
the two candidates. A man of questionable background and motives who prattles on
about change can't hold a candle to a man who has devoted his life in public
service to this nation, retiring from the Navy in 1981 and elected to the Senate
in 1982.

Perhaps Obama's supporters are taking a stance between old and new. Maybe
they don't care about McCain's service or his strength of character, or
his unblemished qualifications to be President. Maybe "likeability" is
a higher priority for them than "trust". Being a prisoner of war is
not what qualifies John McCain to be President of the United States of America -
but his demonstrated leadership certainly DOES.

Dear friends, it is time for us to stand. It is time for thinking Americans to
say, "Enough." It is time for people of all parties to stop following
the party line. It is time for anyone who wants to keep America first, who wants
the right man leading their nation, to start a dialogue with all their friends
and neighbors and ask who they're voting for, and why.

There's a lot of evil in this world. That should be readily apparent to all
of us by now. And when faced with that evil as we are now, I want a man who
knows the cost of war on his troops and on his citizens. I want a man who puts
my family's interests before any foreign country.
I want a President who's qualified to lead.

I want my country back, and I'm voting for John McCain.

Labels: constitution, democrats and RINOS, politics

Labels: democrats and RINOS, politics

“Barack Obama likes to portray himself as a centrist politician who wants to unite the country, but occasionally his postpartisan mask slips. That was the case at Saturday night’s Saddleback Church forum, when Mr. Obama chose to demean Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Pastor Rick Warren asked each Presidential candidate which Justices he would not have nominated. Mr. McCain said, ‘with all due respect’ the four most liberal sitting Justices because of his different judicial philosophy. Mr. Obama took a lower road, replying first that ‘that’s a good one,’ and then adding that ‘I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas... I don’t think that he was a strong enough jurist or legal thinker at the time for that elevation. Setting aside the fact that I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution.’ The Democrat added that he also wouldn’t have appointed Antonin Scalia, and perhaps not John Roberts, though he assured the audience that at least they were smart enough for the job. So let’s see. By the time he was nominated, Clarence Thomas had worked in the Missouri Attorney General’s office, served as an Assistant Secretary of Education, run the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and sat for a year on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the nation’s second most prominent court. Since his ‘elevation’ to the High Court in 1991, he has also shown himself to be a principled and scholarly jurist. Meanwhile, as he bids to be America’s Commander in Chief, Mr. Obama isn’t yet four years out of the Illinois state Senate, has never held a hearing of note of his U.S. Senate subcommittee, and had an unremarkable record as both a ‘community organizer’ and law school lecturer. Justice Thomas’s judicial credentials compare favorably to Mr. Obama’s Presidential rèsumè by any measure. And when it comes to rising from difficult circumstances, Justice Thomas’s rural Georgian upbringing makes Mr. Obama’s story look like easy street. Even more troubling is what the Illinois Democrat’s answer betrays about his political habits of mind. Asked a question he didn’t expect at a rare unscripted event, the rookie candidate didn’t merely say he disagreed with Justice Thomas. Instead, he instinctively reverted to the leftwing clichè that the Court’s black conservative isn’t up to the job while his white conservative colleagues are. So much for civility in politics and bringing people together. And no wonder Mr. Obama’s advisers have refused invitations for more such open forums, preferring to keep him in front of a teleprompter, where he won’t let slip what he really believes.” —The Wall Street Journal

Labels: constitution, democrats and RINOS, mendacity

Labels: democrats and RINOS, politics

It is time to say it: the two major parties hold a death grip on the American people. Instead of representing the people, both the Republican and Democrat parties are bought and paid for by special interest groups and multinational corporations. Neither party pays any attention to the U.S. Constitution but both are largely marching in lockstep toward bigger and bigger government. Both Republicans and Democrats eagerly sacrifice what's good for the country for what's good for the party. As they now exist, neither major party deserves the support of patriotic Americans.

Labels: democrats and RINOS, politics

Labels: democrats and RINOS

Bush's stimulus is akin to filling up buckets of water from the deep end of the pool, then spilling them into the shallow end, and expecting the water level to rise.

Labels: democrats and RINOS, economics

I don't think Sen. John McCain would be a good president. He lacks the temperament for it; he has virtually no managerial experience, and the economy is, as George Will put it, "a subject with which McCain is neither conversant, nor eager to become so."

But there is a big difference between being a mediocre president -- as one could argue George W. Bush has been -- and being an awful one. Yet many conservatives talk about Sen. McCain as if he were Satan's first cousin. What Web logger Roger L. Simon calls "McCain Derangement Syndrome" is as irrational and unbecoming as is the Bush Derangement Syndrome that afflicts so many liberals.

Labels: constitution, democrats and RINOS, politics, second amendment

None of the below applies to Ron Paul, of course, the only presidential candidate who is honest, principled, and consistently says what he believes.

The would-be presidents are all spouting "change" now, but of course none of them states exactly what kind of change. It's simply the buzzword of the moment. Vote for me and we'll have change, they assert. Please tell us, then, what kind of change? More freebies for the indolent? More regulation and taxes? Inferior socialist health care for everyone? More government spending, manipulation and money creation? (Perhaps more liberty and a return to the Constitution? Don't make me laugh!)

They are all despicable prevaricators. Certainly there are degrees, and at the top of their parties are Hillary "Schoolmarm Knows Best" Clinton and Rudy "I Was There" Giuliani. The former claims, although her marriage was and is obviously one of convenience, that she was essentially Bill's "prez-partner" when he occupied the White House. If that's true, then is Bill not guilty of some sort of high crime or misdemeanor? I doubt whether many citizens voted for a presidential partnership when they cast their ballots. If Bill wasn't up to the task alone, shouldn't the V.P. have taken over? Or was Hillary truly a trusted advisor, perhaps representing Bill's female constituency? Or is she just a simple liar? These are questions which will never have answers, since the world's sleaziest couple refuses to make public the pertinent records of the Bill Clinton years. (However, we can infer the obvious.)

For his part, Giuliani campaigns on the mere fact that he was mayor of New York during the terrible 9/11 attack. Many say he did a great job, rallying his people. What everyone seems to have forgotten is that his popularity was at its nadir when the tragedy occurred. The attack clearly revived his moribund career, and was simply the best thing that could have happened for him. Furthermore, in my opinion, practically any politician could have done what Giuliani did. After all, how hard is it to broadcast soothing platitudes penned by professional writers, to reassure the citizenry that "we'll get through this," to make lots of public appearances, and to stay up late "working"? Only a cretin would fail to see the opportunity for editorial-proof self-promotion, but only a cad (with a police-protected mistress, no less) would seize that opportunity and use it as a springboard to, and his primary qualification for, the highest office in the land. (Even if he was genuinely sincere during the ordeal, that isn't exactly a major political accomplishment.)

When asked a question, all of them hedge, hem and haw, trying feverishly to concoct a response that won't alienate a single soul, while simultaneously attempting to incorporate the usual something-for-nothing carrots-on-sticks, which amounts to little more than buying votes with empty promises. You can almost see their mental machinations during the debates, as they avoid answering simple yes-or-no questions with convoluted tangential ramblings, which neatly manage to avoid offending anyone and commit to virtually nothing.

When something negative happens to the candidates, their aides-de-camp rush to put a cheery spin on it. Their cadres of writers sit around tables, plotting every word, each calculated to produce a desired effect. When candidates put a proverbial foot in their mouths, they'll soon state something like: "I didn't mean to suggest anything negative about X – only that X is subject to review. If there's a better way, we'll do it." (Perfect: I apologized in a nebulous way, no one can object to a review of something, "better way" equals "I'm always thinking," and "we'll do it" equals action and progress.)

Getting elected president is now all about money (the more TV ads, the better) and strategy. In other words: "buying and conniving." It has nothing to do with genuine ideas, what's good, right, Constitutional or fair. It's about the continued aggrandizement of the presidency, and nothing about Congress making the laws, while the president merely enforces them. It's all about having a new "Fearless Leader" with "vision" (which seldom materializes, except in ugly forms). And it's all repulsive.

January 7, 2008

Andrew S. Fischer [send him mail] is a controller for an investment advisory firm in Pennsylvania.

Copyright © 2008 LewRockwell.com

Labels: constitution, democrats and RINOS, politics

Labels: democrats and RINOS, politics

The Democrats should not have caved in to the president. They should have continued to send him bills with a timeline for withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. So he vetoes them. Eventually the president himself would cut off funds for the troops.

As an alternative, Congress could inform the president that unless he accepts a timetable for withdrawal, Congress will stop funding the war. If the Democrats are sincere in their claimed desire to end the war, this is the way to do it.

The power of the purse rests firmly in the hands of Congress. No matter what the president desires to do, if Congress refuses to fund it, the president is helpless. He cannot spend a dime that Congress has not authorized and appropriated.

The American people should realize this and understand it clearly. The power to end the war in Iraq rests entirely in the hands of Congress. No president can force Congress to authorize and appropriate any money at all, for any purpose.

Thus, a majority in the House and Senate, if they truly desire to end the war, have the power to do so right this very moment. The president can only veto a bill he receives; he cannot veto a bill that doesn't exist. Therefore, Congress can simply ignore his requests for war funding and go about its business as if it had never received any. When the ammunition, petrol and other supplies run out, the president and the Pentagon will have no choice but to withdraw from Iraq.

Democrats, of course, are afraid of being accused of "not supporting the troops." This is a contradiction. You can't end a war and continue to support troops who are fighting it at the same time. The only way to end the war is to pull the plug. Wars cannot be fought without money. Once a president realizes that no more money is coming, he will have no choice but to begin a withdrawal.

The war party in this country, which consists mainly of Republicans but also includes some Democrats, are as fond of slogans as Hitler's Third Reich. One such slogan is that if we pull out of Iraq, the "enemy" will follow us home. That's propaganda and devoid of truth.

Those enemies in Iraq who just want us out of their country will not follow us home. They have no reason to do so. Lord knows they will have enough to do just trying to salvage their country. As for al-Qaeda, it doesn't have to follow us home; it's already here. Al-Qaeda is neither a nation nor an army; it's a movement, and it maneuvers through the Internet. Bush's slogan implies that our forces are tying al-Qaeda's forces down in Iraq. Most of al-Qaeda's people are not even in Iraq.

What the war is doing is assisting al-Qaeda in recruiting individuals. Starting with the first Gulf War and continuing with the sanctions, the United States has visited upon Iraq immense destruction, pain and suffering. The Iraqi people never did anything to deserve that. I seriously doubt the Iraqi people will ever forgive us. If I were an Iraqi, I wouldn't.

The only way to put an end to terrorism is for the United States to begin to undo some of the evil it has done. We have wronged the Iraqi people. We have wronged the Palestinian people. Whenever anyone decides to kill Palestinians, we always side with their killers, as the U.S. does with Israel and now with the Lebanese Army, so busy shelling a Palestinian refugee camp. Where was this Lebanese Army when Israel invaded Lebanon? It was hiding. I don't see how any of the Lebanese Army can stand to look in a mirror.

Labels: democrats and RINOS

This year the "crazies" have emerged early and often. Led by former White House occupant and spouse to the worst President that Americans elected during its two hundred eleven year history, Hillary Clinton is among the most despised women in America, if not the world. But Clinton draws rave reviews by media that are more a propaganda arm of the Democrat Party than they are news organizations. The current crop of American mainstream media is decidedly leftist, feeding on one another and mutually supporting one another's story lines.

It was the media's constant barrage by media leftist thugs such as Walter Cronkite that lead to the US defeat in Vietnam. Similarly today, it is the leftist media in concert with Democrats and misguided RINO members of Congress who are making every effort to achieve a repeat of Vietnam. Until the US media and Democrats decided to abandon Iraq in favor of political expediency, there was no similarity to Vietnam.

Now, the two are indistinguishable in terms of the enemy and American Democrat politicians. If Iraq "looks" like Vietnam, it is because the Democrats and their media cohorts are working overtime to make it that way. What they do not comprehend is that the long-term outcome portends to be vastly different.

US military forces handed the communist a sound defeat during the "Tet offensive." Similarly today, Muslim terrorist extremists are being crushed, but to hear the media, the US is getting its butt kicked. The American media and Democrats in the Congress cried, "uncle" then, just as Democrat Senate leader Reid recently proclaimed, "the war in Iraq is lost," and that's final!

The communists were smashed during Tet, but "Cronkite and Company" and the 5th columnists in Congress, that is, all Democrats, decided that freedom though good for Americans would be bad for the people of South Vietnam. Democrats are at it again, and it isn't to support freedom in Iraq or security in the United States.

Déjà vu, the stage for a bloodbath similar to what took place across South East Asia following Democrat abandonment of South Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos, is being set by contemporary Democrats to take place in the Middle East, if not on US soil.

This writer suggests to Jews, "run for cover" because you are about to get stabbed in the back by American Democrats just as you got stabbed in the back by them during WWII, only this time it will be worse.

Democrat politicians are proving themselves to be the worst form of human life; it is too bad that their mother's did not abort them. But alas, when most of them were born, babies were a "protected species."

Semper Fidelis

Copyright © April 25th, 2007, by Robert L. Pappas. With proper attribution, this essay may be quoted and redistributed.

Labels: democrats and RINOS