Visit Counter

Monday, November 29, 2010

Missouri has no illegal aliens

On a tip from

Ed Kilbane
Senior National Correspondent


Missouri 's approach to the problem of illegal immigration appears to be more advanced, 
sophisticated, strict and effective than anything to date in Arizona.

Do the loonies in San Francisco, or the White House, appreciate what Missouri has done? 

When are our fearless President and his dynamic Attorney General going to take action to
require Missouri start accepting illegal immigrants once again?

So, why doesn't Missouri receive attention?

Answer: There are no Mexican illegals in Missouri to demonstrate.

The "Show Me" state has once again shown us how it should be done.

There needs to be more publicity and exposure regarding what Missouri
has done.

Let's pass it around.

By the way, to draw a comparison this is the LAPD ten most wanted list:

Let me know how many non-Hispanics you find!

In 2007, Missouri placed on the ballot a proposed constitutional amendment designating English as the official language of Missouri.

In November, 2008, nearly 90% voting in favor! Thus English became the official language for ALL governmental activity in Missouri.

No individual has the right to demand government services in a language
OTHER than English.

In 2008 a measure was passed that required the Missouri Highway Patrol and other law enforcement officials to verify the immigration status of any person arrested, and inform federal authorities if the person is found to be in Missouri illegally. Missouri law enforcement offices receive specific training with respect to enforcement of federal immigration laws.

In Missouri, illegal immigrants do NOT have access to taxpayers benefits such as food stamps and health care through Missouri HealthNET.

In 2009 a measure was passed that ensures Missouri 's public institutions of higher education do NOT award financial aid to individuals who are illegally in the United States.

In Missouri all post-secondary institutions of higher education to annually certify to the Missouri Dept. of Higher Education that they have NOT knowingly awarded financial aid to students who are unlawfully present in the United States.

So while Arizona has made national news for its new law, it is important to remember, Missouri has been far more proactive in addressing this horrific problem.

Missouri has made it clear that illegal immigrants are NOT welcome in the state and they will certainly NOT receive public benefits at the expense of Missouri taxpayers.


(If  you voted for Obama that would be...all 57 states.)

Here is the link to confirm: Be sure to read the readers comments too. 


Wednesday, November 24, 2010

You can add Nevada and Arizona to the list

You can add Nevada and Arizona to the list

The elephant in the room is the Bush tax cuts. Business in general can't plan for the future (e.g. hiring, expanding) because nobody knows what the taxes are going to be, let alone Obamacare. So what does this lame duck Congress do instead?

1.  They're going to try to shove the Dream Act ( backdoor amnesty) down our throats.

2.  Revisit don't ask don't tell.

3.  Extend unemployment benefits that have been extended about 5 times already.

Why is this stupidity going on?

Thanks to the brain dead morons in Nevada we still have this fool to contend with.

Speaking of morons.

California borders Nevada. Nevada borders Arizona. Moronitis must be a communicable disease.

Former "Minuteman" does an about face on the Dream Act.

SEN. JOHN MCCAIN 202-224-2235; 480-897-6289: Staff says he “hasn’t made a public statement” and “hasn’t made up his mind.” He talked a tough border security game to get re-elected, while promising illegal alien activists he would “resolve their issues.” 
(Refresh your memories here.)

This is how he  “resolves their issues.” 


Monday, November 22, 2010

Top Bush Aide Calls for Attorney General Holder’s Resignation

In his Washington Post column Gerson analyzes the prosecution of Ahmed Ghailani:
Under Holder's influence, American detainee policy is a botched, hypocritical, politicized mess.
The case of embassy bomber Ahmed Ghailani – the only Guantanamo Bay detainee the Obama administration has brought to trial in the United States – was intended to increase public faith in civilian prosecutions. But a terrorist hugging his lawyers in victory can't be considered a confidence builder.
Days before the Ghailani verdict, the White House admitted that Mohammed, because of massive, public resistance, would not be seeing the inside of a Manhattan courtroom anytime soon. "Gitmo," one official told The Washington Post, "is going to remain open for the foreseeable future."
Where do these developments leave Holder, for whom failure is not only an option but a habit? A recent profile by Wil Hylton in GQ magazine attempts to put his tenure in the best possible light – the lonely, naive man of principle undone by politics. But the portrait is unintentionally devastating. Holder clearly views the war on terrorism as a distraction. "The biggest surprise I've had in this job," he told Hylton, "is how much time the national security issues take."

Not an actor portrayal. Actual endorsement by Janet.

The rest of Gerson's column is worth reading. I like it's bipartisan conclusion:
Obama seems to be realizing – gradually, reluctantly – that applying the rules of war in the midst of a war does not destroy the credibility of the rule of law or encourage terrorist recruitment. But his public inability to admit this shift seems to be leading to the worst of possible outcomes.
In all likelihood, Mohammed won't be tried in a civilian court. But Obama's progressive allies would revolt against a military tribunal for the killer of Wall Street Journal correspondent Daniel Pearl and the mastermind of Sept. 11. So Mohammed is left in legal limbo. This, in its own way, does seem at odds with the rule of law – a prisoner condemned to detention without trial because a president cannot admit he was wrong.
How does Obama back down and accept a tribunal? He could begin by appointing an attorney general who understands the requirements of national security. Some on the left believe Holder should resign out of principle. Some on the right believe he should leave because he is out of his depth. Such bipartisanship should not go to waste.


Friday, November 19, 2010

What happened to draining the swamp?

House Ethics Committee Recommends Censure for Rangel

OK. Pelosi said she was going to drain the swamp. Rid congress of corruption. That is, unless a democrat clogs up the drain. 

Read the paragraph highlighted in red. Is the IRS going to "censure" him too?

WASHINGTON -- The House ethics committee's chief counsel has recommended that Rep. Charles Rangel be censured in connection with a finding that he engaged in improper financial and fundraising conduct.

Chief counsel Blake Chisman called for this punishment despite the New York Democrat's plea to his colleagues for "a drop of fairness and mercy."

This coming from a guy with a closet full of $3,000 suits

If Chisam's recommendation is carried out, this would be the most serious punishment, short of expulsion, which is highly unlikely. Chisam and Rangel argued their positions Thursday in a public hearing on sanctions held by the ethics committee.

The censuring of a lawmaker does not carry any particular limitation on powers or privileges afforded to a member of Congress. There are no specific rules governing what happens to a member who has been censured.

What's the point then?

This has been going on for two years, millions spent on  investigating the allegations, appearances before ethics committees, and at the end of the day the result is..."Bad Charlie...see ya monday morning?" If this is how government is run why bother loading Maxine into the breech? Absolve her of her sins now and save the taxpayers millions. 

Furthermore I don't know what Rangel is whining about. Forget about censure. He should be in jail. If he doesn't retire or die  he'll be a lock the next election. Kind of sad when you think about it. That is... how stupid the people must be in his district.

In the past, however, the party conferences and caucuses have decided to discipline their own based on the decision to censure a member.

Rangel spoke calmly without notes as he faced the committee. He repeatedly denied he was corrupt or crooked, sparking a clash with Rep. Michael McCaul, R-Texas.

McCaul questioned whether Rangel's conduct was, in fact, corrupt.

He noted that Rangel targeted donors for a college center named after him, people who had legislative issues that Rangel could influence in the Ways and Means Committee.

Rangel, McCaul added, didn't pay taxes on his Dominican Republic villa for 17 years.

"Failure to pay taxes for 17 years. What is that?" McCaul asked. He noted that former Rep. James Traficant, who was expelled after a felony conviction, didn't pay taxes for just two years.

Rangel argued, "City College (of New York) came to me to use my name. I was not trying to criminally hide anything from the IRS and Congress."

He said he didn't know the landlord of his New York apartment building placed him on a special handling list, when Rangel set up a campaign office in a subsidized unit designated for residential use.

Before Chisam commenced his remarks, Rep. Jo Bonner, R-Ala., told committee colleagues that Rangel need only "look in the mirror to know who to blame" for his predicament.

The scene 3 months from now.


Thursday, November 18, 2010

Ahmed Ghailani

The first Guantanamo Bay detainee to be tried in federal criminal court was found not guilty on all but one of the 285 counts he faced for his role in the 1998 East Africa embassy bombings.

285 counts and found guilty on only one! That's almost mathematically impossible.

Before going any further according to the transcript of a closed-door hearing in March 2007,  Ghailani admitted delivering explosives used to blow up the US embassy in Tanzania in 1998.

 So what we have here is this. Timothy McVeigh gets the death penalty. And considering the magnitude of the crimes, this scumbag practically skates? 

Ghailani was acquitted on 284 charges including one murder count for each of the 224 people he killed. So out of the remaining 61 charges they can only find him guilty on one!!!

He was found guilty on the charge of conspiracy to destroy government buildings. What? The people inside the buildings don't count? The difinition of conspiarcy is: an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons. So if you are guilty of conspiring to blow up the buildings, how is it possible to be found not guilty for the resulting death of 224 people inside the buildings?

(Talk about spin)

The U.S. Justice Department responded to the verdict in a written statement, saying, "We respect the jury's verdict and are pleased that Ahmed Ghailani now faces a minimum of 20 years in prison and a potential life sentence for his role in the embassy bombings."

(Are you kidding me... drug dealers get more time then this)

Being fair does not equate with being stupid.
As a terrorist he does not have the rights afforded an American citizen.
This is the end result of trying them in a civilian court. If we weren't already, we certainly are now, the laughingstock around the world.
"The Messiah and Stedman" didn't see this coming? The TV commentators are saying this is a slap in the face and a failure for the Obama administration. I'm not so sure. Maybe this was the outcome they sought all along.

I have rocks in my back yard smarter then these prosecutors. These guys make Marcia Clark look like Perry Mason. Stupidity must trickle down from the top. Which is no surprise when you consider who the head of the DOJ is.


Wednesday, November 17, 2010

Rangel found guilty on 11 ethics charges

Now what?

The ethics committee will meet Thursday to consider punishment for Rangel. It will come down to three possibilities and a unlikely fourth. A formal reprimand, censure, or expulsion. Of course he could retire. Would this not be a utter waste of time for all concerned if the only punishment doled out is a slap on the wrist... e.g., formal reprimand or censure? That boils down to (Gee whiz... you shouldn't have done that Charlie. See you Monday morning.)

If this was you or I we would be in jail. Just ask Wesley Snipes. I'm expecting Rangel to go into his usual long dissertation about what a fine war hero he was followed by his years of service (theft) and finally expounding on how his constitutional rights were violated because he had no time to hire legal representation. (Like it's only been two years.)
At the last hearing he said he was going to represent himself.  How does that saying go...a lawyer who represents himself has a fool for a client.

 The common consensus is he's going to get a slap on the wrist. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they will give him the option to retire if not he will be expelled even though it will take two-thirds of the House vote and we're in the lame duck secession. Democrats want to drain the swamp. This is their chance. Put your money where your mouth is. Anything else is just a waste of time.

Oh the way should he somehow remain a Congressman I wouldn't be to concerned about the prospect of his re-election. He could video tape himself murdering someone on his front porch and still get elected.


Monday, November 15, 2010

The Never Ending Saga Of Charles Rangel

There has been a cloud (I was going to say black cloud but that may be deemed racist) hanging over Charlie Rangel's head for quite some time. Approximately 2 years ago Rangel was brought up on House ethics charges.  One charge quite possibly could have been dismissed as an "error in judgement". But there are whopping 13 ethics violation charges not counting the new addition below. 

List of charges The Hemingway Report: Difference Between Charlie Rangel and Al Capone

So how did this sit with those brilliant, voting, constituents in his district? In the last election, just a couple a weeks ago, he garnered 81% of the vote for his twenty first term in office!

Charlie Rangel's predecessor was Adam Clayton Powell. No stranger to scandals himself. So it begs the question. If you were a black politician, representing a black district, how would it be possible to not get re-elected?

Answer: Die midterm.

Rangel Used PAC Money for Legal Defense

New York Rep. Charles Rangel, whose ethics trial starts tomorrow, appears to have improperly used political-action committee money to pay for his defense, The New York Post reported Sunday.

Rangel tapped his National Leadership PAC for $293,000 to pay his main legal-defense team this year. He took another $100,000 from the PAC in 2009 to pay lawyer Lanny Davis. Two legal experts told The Post such spending is against House rules. "It's a breach of congressional ethics," one campaign-finance lawyer said. 

Washington, D.C., political lawyer Cleta Mitchell said there is "no authority for a member to use leadership PAC funds as a slush fund to pay for personal or official expenses." Leadership PACs are typically used by politicians to donate money to other candidates. 

But Rangel seems to have run afoul of House ethics rules. Lawmakers are generally allowed to use campaign cash to pay their lawyers, but this is limited to money in their personal campaign committee and they must ask permission first, the campaign-finance lawyer said. "The only campaign funds that a member may use to pay for congressional expenses are funds of his or her principal campaign committee -- not the funds of a leadership PAC or a multicandidate committee," according to the House Ethics Manual. 

Legal fees tied to a campaign, election or performance of official duties are considered congressional expenses. "Accepting money or payment for legal expenses from any other source, including a PAC, would be a gift and is barred by the House rules," the lawyer said. The Ethics Committee had no comment. 

Rangel's office refused to comment on the PAC money. On top of the $393,000 in PAC funds, records show Rangel yanked $1.4 million from his campaign coffers in 2009 and 2010 to pay the firm Zuckerman Spaeder, his main legal-defense team, and $100,000 in 2009 to pay Davis' firm. 

He also spent $147,577 for Washington, D.C., lawyer John Kern and $174,303 for Watkins, Meegan, Drury & Co., a firm that offers forensic accounting and legal services. 

An eight-member ethics subcommittee of four Democrats and four Republicans will convene at 9 a.m. to hear the 13 charges. They include failure to disclose and pay taxes on his vacation home in the Dominican Republic; his use of a rent-regulated Harlem apartment as a campaign office; and using congressional stationery to raise money for the Rangel Center at City College.


Saturday, November 13, 2010

Now that the dust has settled the election results explained in fine detail


Friday, November 12, 2010

Assimilation or Colonization

Merkle the Chancellor of Germany has seen the light.

When will the rest of the world learn?


Muslim protesters during a British Armistice Day celebration. (Phot: The Scottish Sun)
While America celebrates Veterans Day on Thursday, Britons across the pond are wrapping up a similar celebration called Armistice Day. Both honor the brave men and women fighting (and who have fought) in the armed services. That didn't matter to a group of Muslim protesters on Thursday, however, who interrupted services in London with chants of "British soldiers burn in hell" and banners saying "Islam will dominate" and "Our dead are in paradise, your dead are in hell."

The group of about 30 people, according to the Scottish Sun, is called Muslims Against Crusades. And while they screamed their hate, they were met by 50 counter protesters from the English Defence League:

"I'm disgusted," one mother whose son was killed in Afghanistan told the Sun.

"There are people like myself that at 11am today were remembering the lives of our children, and then there are some people doing something so hurtful as that. I think it's atrocious."

"We're talking about individuals who have died for their country," she added.
Future suicide bombers preaching the basic principle of Islam. The solution to everything... death.

Muslim protesters hold a sign during a British Armistice Day celebration. (Photo: The Scottish Sun)
The Sun reports that three members of the Muslim protest group were arrested — two for alleged public order offences and one over claims he assaulted a police officer — while one intervening officer was taken to the hospital with a head injury.

"My son went to Iraq with the Marines fighting for Muslims to get rid of a tyrant so they could have some freedom," said a father whose son was also killed.


Thursday, November 11, 2010

Hoyer zings Pelosi at the celebration bash


Wednesday, November 10, 2010

The old face made new again?

In 2009 Time magazine felt confident enough to put a G.O.P. elephant on its cover with the headline “Endangered Species.”

(2010 Midterm)
 I guess you could say it was a little misleading

The American electorate spoke out loudly against the Democratic agenda since Obama ascended onto the presidency almost two years ago. The 2010 midterm election; and out and out bloodbath for Democrats. Plucked from the House like feathers on a chicken. 64 seats lost in the House not to mention substantial gains in the Senate. The most crushing defeat in 72 years! Now that the dust has settled what is it we are left with?

Personally, I thought Pelosi would step aside after such a humiliating defeat. It would be the prudent thing to do. Then again, sensible and the name Pelosi, never really went together.

This is an example of how delusional she is. (Kind of reminds me of the coming demise of Hitler in the bunker) During the final hours, she told reporters election night before the polls closed that “We’re on pace to maintain the majority in the House of Representatives.” Really? What poll was she watching? Even the liberal networks saw the avalanche coming! Was she trying to put a positive spin on it; or suffering from delusions of grandeur? I suspect the latter.

In a post-election interview with ABC News’ Diane Sawyer, Pelosi, said she had “no regrets” about the way she had governed.

No regrets?

"No regrets because we believe we did the right thing and worked very hard in our campaigns to convey that to the American people," she said.

I thought she was going to break out in a rendition of My Way...

And may I say not in a shy way....
Oh no, oh no, not me
I did it my way

She said she would eventually "start thinking about what I'll do next, but it's never been about me." 

(Someone get her a doctor!)

That was then and this is now.

"I am running for Dem leader," Pelosi, Calif., said in a post on her Twitter account. She said her decision was in part "driven by the urgency of creating jobs" and protecting this year's health-care and Wall Street overhauls.

"Our work is far from finished," Pelosi said in a letter to colleagues. "As a result of Tuesday's election, the role of Democrats in the 112th Congress will change, but our commitment to serving the American people will not. We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back."

The Republican response.

"The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting a different result," said Ken Spain, spokesman for the National Republican Congressional Committee. "Of course, if House Democrats are willing to sacrifice more of their members in 2012 for the glory of Nancy Pelosi, we are happy to oblige them."

So what are we left with?

How does the old adage go? Same S--- Different Day. Assuming she is elected minority leader through secret ballot we've got essentially the same face for the Democratic party. Obama, Biden, Pelosi, and Reid. Oh..I almost forgot Frank who should be serving time in jail instead of Congress. So what was good for Republicans in 2010 will be even better in 2012. What I can't understand is. How does this compute for Democrats as... righting the ship? This is the strategy by which they hope to re-group to deliver a better yield in 2012?

The final capper.

On FOX News Sunday Mara Liasson (who works for NPR) had the audacity to compare Nancy Pelosi to Winston Churchill. I about fell out of my chair. I thought Britt Hume was going into cardiac arrest. He quickly pointed correctly that Churchill led his country to a great victory and then was defeated in the subsequent election whereas Pelosi led her party to historic losses. Hey Juan, why didn't NPR fire her for expressing a controversial personal opinion? I guess the image of NPR remains intact.


Saturday, November 6, 2010

I guess losing more then 60 seats wasn't enough

Pelosi will seek to stay as House Dem leader

(The wicked witch of the left decides to stay)

WASHINGTON — Despite widespread complaints about massive losses that will put Democrats in the minority, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday she will try to stay on as leader of her party in the House.

The decision exposed a rift between Pelosi's liberal allies and the dwindling number of moderate Democrats, who feel besieged and eager for substantive and symbolic changes in direction after Tuesday's Republican rout. It also is likely to trigger leadership battles farther down the ladder.

Pelosi, the nation's first female speaker, said many colleagues urged her to seek the post of minority leader in the new Congress that convenes in January. That will be the Democrats' top post, because Republicans, who grabbed more than 60 Democratic-held seats Tuesday, will elect the next speaker. It will be John Boehner of Ohio, who will swap titles with Pelosi if she succeeds in her bid.

"We have no intention of allowing our great achievements to be rolled back," Pelosi, 70, said in a letter to her colleagues.

Allies said Pelosi would not make the bid unless she felt she had the votes. Some cautioned, however, that House members vote by secret ballot when electing the leaders of their respective parties at the start of each new Congress. Pelosi's caucus is more heavily liberal now that many moderate Democrats lost on Tuesday, but even some Pelosi admirers are distressed by the magnitude of the losses.

Several moderates, and even some longtime Pelosi supporters, had openly criticized her in their re-election campaigns, and had urged her to step aside. Pelosi's Friday announcement caught some off guard.

Rep. John Yarmuth, D-Ky., had told a Louisville TV station on Thursday, "as good a leader as she has been, I don't think she's the right leader to take us forward."

He reversed field Friday after she announced her intentions, and after a senior Pelosi ally, Rep. George Miller of California, called him.

Pelosi "has proven time and time again that she is able to build consensus in a caucus comprised of members from all across the ideological spectrum," Yarmuth said.

Other House Democrats held their ground.

Rep. Joe Donnelly, D-Ind., said he was "disappointed that Speaker Pelosi is going to seek the position of Minority Leader." North Carolina Rep. Larry Kissell's office said he hopes Pelosi "will change her mind and step aside."

Reps. Dan Boren of Oklahoma and Mike Ross of Arkansas also said they opposed Pelosi.

They were among the many House Democrats whom Republicans criticized for their loyalty to the California liberal, who was a forceful though generally well-liked speaker. During her four years as Speaker, Pelosi used all her political muscle to enact contentious measures such as President Barack Obama's health care overhaul.

Republicans were giddy in learning the news.

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele, in a meeting with reporters, put his hands over his head and applauded. "My breath is taken away by that announcement," he said, grinning.

In a statement, White House spokesman Bill Burton said the president appreciates the work of Pelosi and the Democratic leadership team "who have been great partners in moving the country forward" and he looks forward to working with them.

Pelosi's announcement set off a likely battle for the No. 2 Democratic leadership job, now held by Majority Leader Steny Hoyer of Maryland. The party's third-ranking leader, House Whip Jim Clyburn of South Carolina, said he will try to keep the job, which will become the second in command when Democrats become the minority.

If Clyburn — the House's highest-ranking African-American — prevails, Hoyer would be forced out of the leadership ranks for the first time in many years.

Hoyer said he would make a decision after consulting with lawmakers, adding, "I have received an outpouring of support from Democratic colleagues who have told me that I should remain in our party's leadership."

Hoyer is more centrist than Pelosi, and the two have long had a cordial but somewhat wary relationship.

Pelosi's bid presumably will keep her atop the Democratic caucus, which will number about 190 members next year. But it would mark a big drop from being speaker, which carries tremendous power to influence legislation and is second only to the vice president in the line of presidential succession.

Among those defending her was Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., D-Ill. "We're in a political storm," he said, "but we don't need to adopt an 'any leader in a storm' mentality."

Several Democratic lawmakers in conservative districts had vowed to oppose Pelosi as speaker, but some of them lost their re-election bids all the same.

One survivor, Rep. Heath Shuler of North Carolina, had said he might challenge Pelosi because the party needs a more moderate leader. Shuler noted that he lost his job as Washington Redskins quarterback in 1997 after the team performed poorly.

As the magnitude of Tuesday's election losses sunk in, even some longtime supporters of Pelosi said she needed to step aside as the party leader.

"I voted for everything she asked me to vote for," said Rep. Albio Sires, D-N.J. "You know, sometimes in this business it's difficult to know when to move on."

"With all the losses that we had with governors and all the redistricting that's going to be done, we don't need the target," Sires said, referring to the once-a-decade House redistricting process about to begin nationwide.

If Pelosi remains as the Democrats' House leader, it's possible the party will absorb historic election losses without making significant leadership changes. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., will keep his post.

Pelosi's decision also may enable Republicans to keep demonizing her as an emblem of Democratic liberalism, as they did in so many campaigns this fall.


Associated Press writers Philip Elliott, Andrew Taylor, David Espo, Ben Evans, Henry C. Jackson, Julie Pace and Stephen Ohlemacher contributed to this report.


Friday, November 5, 2010

Fall on the sword Nancy...Just like you told Congress

   Come January Pelosi is no longer 

the Speaker of the House.

What could be better?

Rumor: Pelosi may quit Congress altogether

Speculation is running wild inside the Washington Beltway that dethroned Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi may leave Congress altogether.

She tells ABC's Diane Sawyer that "I'll have a conversation with my caucus, I'll have a conversation with my family, and pray over it, and decide how to go forward."

"Today is not the day for that decision," said Pelosi, but she did not flat out say she was staying in Congress.

There's even speculation that she may not be around for the next Congress and instead step down before the new Congress is sworn in next January.

Pelosi has served 12 terms in Congress. If she steps down, it'll be the first time in a long time that California has seen what would likely be a Democratic free-for-all in her district.


Thursday, November 4, 2010

My July 7th 2010 email

Date: July 7, 2010 12:44:44 PM EDT
Subject: What planet is this guy.....

Now I know we are a lock in November!

'I think we're going to do a great deal better than anyone gives us credit for,' Biden said of Democrats' chances in the 2010 elections.



Tuesday, November 2, 2010

Finally my day as arrived

I will savor today like a fine surf and turf at Ruth's Chris Steakhouse with a bottle of Montepulciano d'Abruzzo.

A vote today against a Democrat, is a vote cast against Obama.

You need only to ask yourself one question.  How are we better off now then during the Bush administration?

Name me one positive step Obama has taken to contribute to the success of this country?

Look at him…he hasn't got a clue.