Conservative Musings

Our goal is to have intelligent discussion of the topics of the day. We realize everyone has their opinion and they should be allowed to express it in a discussion forum without calling each other names. We learn from discussion and not from name calling or argument.We use cookies to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners. See details

Monday, March 26, 2012

Obama Re-Election Plan--It Is A Guaranteed Win

If you wanted to win a contested election or prevent an election from occurring what would you do if you were President Obama? You would create havoc in the streets, civil disobedience, fires, terrorism, bombings and the like. Is Trayvon Martin just the first can of gas being thrown on the fire?

Whether you believe Trayvon was innocent or guilty, it does not really matter at this point because the press and others have made him appear as pure as the driven snow. Only lately have we seen some commentators digging up other information including a recent picture which is significantly different than the "angelic" one we have all seen. Any loss of life is terrible and to have a 17 year old cut down is a tragedy to all. However, we should wait until the facts are all before we start hollering for justice for either party.

The bigger picture here is the one sided picture we are seeing. Every day in Detroit and other larger cities, absolutely innocent children (sometimes sleeping in their beds) are shot and some are killed by gang bangers who shoot up homes. Where are the protesters? Where is Reverend Sharpton and other "hustlers of hate"?

They are absent as this is generally black on black crime and that is not sexy. However, Trayvon was killed by a "white" hispanic, that is news. I find this selective anger to be very hypocritical.

However, there is a bigger reason for the media blindness to the facts. It fits into the upcoming strategy of getting more and more and larger and larger crowds into the streets. In the upcoming months, we will see more and more of these type of actions as preparation for the "grand tamale" which we will see in October. Their first job is to get people angry with other people. Trayvon is only the first such action.

Each event will become more violent as angry crowds, who have not recovered from the last incitement, will be pushed even further by these hustlers of hate. The peaceful protests will devolve into riots as these purveyors of hate pump up the crowd. Once the population is sufficiently torn apart, the "grand tamale" will be launched. What will this look like?

As things get more tense throughout the summer, Hezbollah and Al Qaeda operatives in this country (see the following post regarding the Homeland Security's analysis), will be activated to start bombings, killings and terror. It will be blamed on Conservatives, Whites, the Wealthy and Tea Party members with the targets being minorities. Things will get so bad that the National Guard will be dispatched to cities around the country to "protect" certain groups from the attackers.

The irony will be the President and his minions will be targeting those who supported him nearly unanimously. They are dupes in this very dangerous game.

Obama will take this opportunity to either postpone the election or cancel it all together due to the fear that most citizens are feeling. We can hear him say "How can we have an election when we cannot protect our citizens going to the polling stations." "Once this has passed, I promise, we will have elections" and somehow, it never gets better and we never have elections. By default Obama will continue on as President and later will declare himself President for Life.

OK, by now you are saying to yourself, "Tom has lost it" and maybe you are right! We pray that we are wrong. However, with the rush to judgment in the Trayvon case, the thousands of marchers in cities around the country, the unchecked southern border, the Administration suits against states who want to control immigration, reports of thousands of illegal middle east immigrants and a President who wants to "fundamentally change" America, can we be far off? We really hope that we are wrong.

Tell us what you think?

Conservative Tom

'Hundreds' of 'Soldiers of Hezbollah' Inside the U.S., Says Homeland Security Chairman

By Edwin Mora

March 23, 2012

Members of Hezbollah parade on Hezbollah Martyrs Day in 2011 outside of Beirut, Lebanon. (AP Photo/Bilal Hussein)

(CNSNews.com) – At a Wednesday hearing, House Homeland Security Chairman Pete King (R.-N.Y.) said that "at a minimum" there are hundreds of "soldiers of Hezbollah" inside the United States.

"Now, how many Iranian and Hezbollah terrorists are here already?" said King. "The highly-disciplined soldiers of Hezbollah are trained to lie low for years, or for decades. Those who have gone up against this enemy for our government estimate the number to be at a minimum--at a minimum--in the hundreds."

At the same hearing, the former chief of operations for the Drug Enforcement Administration testified that Mexican drug cartels are in "very close contact" with Hezbollah, Hamas and al Qaeda. He then pointed to what he called the possibility of a "nightmare scenario" in which Hezbollah and the Iranian al Quds force "focus on our Southwest border and use that as perhaps a springboard in attacking our country."

“When most people think of, you know, [the] drugs-terror nexus, they immediately think of Latin America,” Michael Braun, who retired from the DEA in 2008, told the committee on Wednesday.

“But let me be perfectly clear," he said. "As Europe’s demand for cocaine continues to grow and as the Mexican and Colombian cartels, including the FARC, have sent their operatives into West Africa and North Africa to establish the transshipment infrastructure needed to move tons of those drugs, these bad guys are now routinely coming in very close contact with the likes of Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda who are vying for the same money, the same turf, and the same dollars.”

Hezbollah, Hamas, al-Qaeda and FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia) all have been officially designated by the U.S. government as foreign terrorist organizations.

“If anyone thinks for a moment that Hezbollah and the [Iranian] Quds Force, the masters at leveraging and exploiting existing illicit infrastructures globally, are not going to focus on our Southwest border and use that as perhaps a springboard in attacking our country, then they just don’t understand how the real underworld works.”

Homeland Security Chairman Peter T. King (R-N.Y.) told the hearing, "we know" that Hezbollah "is in America," and that the Iranian-sponsored group "has been trained to lie low for years."

"Since 9/11, America's counter-terror officials have focused on finding al Qaeda operatives inside America, as weill as homegrown radicalized Islamist extremists ready to perpetrate violence against our people," King said.

"Now, as Iran moves closer to nuclear wepaons, and there is increasing concern over war between Iran and Israel, we must also focus on Iran's secret operatives and their No. 1 terrorist proxy force, Hezbollah, which we know is in America," King said.

"That's right. We know Hezbollah operatives are here," King emphasized. "The question is whether these Hezbollah operatives have the capacity to carry out attacks on the homeland, and how quickly they can become fully operational."

"More than 20 federal investigation since 9/11 identified by the majority's investigative staff offer a chilling view of Iranian and Hezbollah's operations inside the United States," said King.

King pointed to the possibility that Iranian backed terrorist could strike the United States from inside the United States.

"So will Iran launch terror strikes inside our homeland if it feels threatened?" King asked. "In light of last year's bomb plot, in light of the 20 Hezbollah cases prosecuted since 9/11, and in light of Hezbollah attacks overseas, we have a duty to prepare for the worst."

This possibility, he said, was underscored by the fact that there are already hundreds of Iranian and Hezbollah terrorist inside the U.S.

King said that Iranian officials at the U.N. have already been removed from the country after they were discovered photographing the rail systems in New York City.

"Also, there are 55 Iranian diplomats at its U.N. mission in New York, and another 29 Iranian officials here at its interest section in D.C., according to the Obama Administration; many of whom, it must be presumed, are intelligence officers," said King.

"Several of their comrades of these U.N.-mission types in New York were removed from the U.N. mission and sent back to Iran after the NYPD caught them photographing the city's rail systems in the years since 9/11," said King.

"Intelligence officials and leaders have told us that Hezbollah is the group most capable of flipping its nationwide network of criminal fund-raising cells into an operational terror force, capable of great violence on orders from its leaders in Iran or Lebanon," said King.

Last fall, U.S. law enforcement foiled an Iranian plot to assassinate the Saudi ambassador to the U.S. by blowing up a Washington, D.C., restaurant. The plot involved a naturalized U.S. citizen originally from Iran who had been a member of Iran’s Quds Force, an Iranian Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps component.

The Iranian suspect tried to hire a DEA informant who was posing as a member of a violent Mexican drug cartel.

In its latest budget justification submitted to Congress, the DEA highlighted the thwarted plot to murder the Saudi ambassador as an example of the established nexus between terrorism and drug trafficking organizations.

James Clapper, the Director of National Intelligence, told lawmakers last month that Iran is “now more willing to conduct an attack in the United States.”

Historically, the State Department has dismissed Hezbollah’s presence in Latin America as being solely focused on fundraising and not operational.

“In the Western hemisphere, Hezbollah has tapped into Muslim communities to raise funds … we do note, however, that we have no credible information to indicate that Hezbollah has an operational presence in Latin America,” Daniel Benjamin, the State Department’s coordinator for counterterrorism, told lawmakers in June 2010

Guide To The Supreme Court Hearings on ObamaCare

If you are like we are, our understanding of the ObamaCare hearings in front of the Supreme Court is very limited. So as a public service, we are posting an article we ran across which seems to lay out the "Playbill" for this momentous case. We hope it is helpful.

Conservative Tom

Two years after its enactment, ObamaCare remains unpopular, unaffordable and unworkable. ObamaCare: Up for grabs at Supreme Court

by Tom Miller

03/26/2012

7
Comments

This week, three days of oral argument before the Supreme Court should confirm that it’s also unconstitutional.
Shortly after President Obama signed the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act into law on March 23, 2010, state government officials, private organizations and various individuals filed a number of lawsuits challenging the new law. Lower federal courts issued conflicting rulings. One overturned the entire law. Three other courts invalidated only parts of it. Five federal courts upheld the law as a whole. Other courts dismissed the challenges for technical reasons that did not reach the merits.
Now it’s up to the nine justices of the Supreme Court to reach a final decision, most likely to be announced in late June. They will have the final word, for now, on whether ObamaCare is unconstitutional. The court ruling will affect our fundamental freedom and shape the future role of government. But even then, the political battle beyond the courts will continue: To repeal ObamaCare through legislative means if necessary and to replace it with better health policy in any case.
Here’s what’s ahead at the Supreme Court:
The oral argument will proceed in stages. The first issue on Monday morning, March 26, is whether or not the court has jurisdiction to decide the case at this time. One lower court concluded that a relatively obscure 19th Century law called the “Anti-Injunction Act” (AIA) applied to the case, because the penalty for violating ObamaCare’s individual mandate was collected like a “tax.” Therefore it could not be challenged in court until the mandate comes into effect several years from now (in January 2014) and an uninsured plaintiff is required to pay it. However, all other federal courts reviewing this issue over the last two years have concluded that the mandate penalty passed by Congress was not the type of tax covered by the AIA. Even the attorneys for the Obama Administration conceded the point in several earlier legal briefs. The Supreme Court’s job here is a matter of carefully interpreting on its own the legislative history of the new healthcare law and other provisions in the Internal Revenue Code. It should conclude that the constitutional challenge to ObamaCare can go forward.
The heart of the case–the individual mandate to purchase government-approved health insurance–is to come up for oral argument on Tuesday morning. The best constitutional argument against it centers on the unprecedented and unbounded nature of this mandate. The new health law provides no limiting principle to how far such federal power to compel people to enter into commerce and buy products could extend.
The supporters of ObamaCare resorted to constitutionally improper means to achieve their political objectives of expanded coverage and tighter federal control over healthcare. They lacked sufficient support to tax Americans more openly to accomplish their scheme. That would have been constitutionally proper (if not politically viable or economically wise).
Instead, Congress and the President decided to claim that they had the power to do this as a way of regulating “interstate commerce.”
The Supreme Court justices must decide whether the Commerce Clause of the Constitution can be stretched this far. A successful challenge to ObamaCare will have to get past a number of past court decisions that provided broad leeway to the federal government in areas of economic regulation. ObamaCare opponents argue that the decision not to buy health insurance does not constitute commerce and that the individual mandate is neither a necessary nor proper means to execute the constitutional power of Congress to regulate health insurance. The final ruling could ultimately come down to the court’s view of how best to maintain the constitutional structure that balances the roles and responsibilities of the federal government, the states and the people. The fundamental concept of limiting the federal government to its enumerated powers under the Constitution is at stake here. Expect a close call here, with a 5-4 decision to strike the individual mandate at least a 50-50 proposition.
On Wednesday, the Court is scheduled to consider another constitutional challenge to the new health law: That its mandate to the states that they must expand their Medicaid programs to cover more people, or risk losing all federal money for Medicaid, is too “coercive” and therefore unconstitutional. This argument has not succeeded in lower courts up to now.
Congress certainly pushed the limits here in abusing its broad authority to spend money and attach conditions to how states receive the funds. But State officials agreed decades ago to what became a bad bargain in economic and political terms. The court remains unlikely to see this as constitutionally improper.
Finally, the court is to consider on Wednesday how much of the ObamaCare health law can survive if the court finds any of its provisions, such as the individual mandate, unconstitutional. The primary parties to the case have argued for essentially an “all or nothing” approach. Opponents of the individual mandate want the entire law invalidated, while the Obama Administration attorneys contend that only a few related insurance regulations (for guaranteed issue and community rating) cannot function without the individual mandate, so that the rest of the law should be upheld in any case. The court’s past rulings on “severability” of constitutionally improper portions of complex federal legislation have not been fully consistent. But the best approach is to focus on whether Congress would have passed the law in the absence of the constitutionally improper provision. In this case, that would dictate the entire health law should be ruled unconstitutional.
As important as the Supreme Court ruling will be, keep in mind three things: First, this involves constitutional law, not what is better health policy or simply the continuation of political battles by other means. The basis for any final decision will be narrower. Second, Supreme Court rulings often can be surprising, incomplete and disappointing. In this case, four votes to uphold the new health law are more or less guaranteed, and the past opinions of several “conservative” justices in this area of constitutional law are inconsistent and less predictable. Finally, the larger political struggle to repeal ObamaCare and replace it with less intrusive and more effective health reforms will need to continue well beyond whatever Supreme Court decision is announced later this year.

Misconduct?? IRS-Style

Is the quickest way to shut down protest to turn the IRS loose on those who are protesting? That is the question that Tea Party organizations around the country are asking. It seems the "kinder and gentler" tax collector has been asking some very unfriendly questions as it applies to the charitable nature of the Tea Party local organizations.

Could this be the result of Administration demands or just normal snooping? Whichever it is, Mark Levin is asking the Inspector General (IG) of the IRS to dig into it. We doubt it is normal and could easily believe it comes from the White House. If it is found to come from the President's office, will the IG really have the guts to say it comes from there?

The story is below. What are your opinions?

Conservative Tom

Mark Levin Asks IG to Probe Possible IRS Misconduct in Dealing with Tea Party

By Terence P. Jeffrey

March 23, 2012

(CNSNews.com/Penny Starr)

(CNSNews.com) - Landmark Legal Foundation sent a letter on Friday to the Treasury Department’s Inspector General for Tax Administration requesting an investigation to determine whether officials with the Internal Revenue Service have engaged in misconduct in dealing with applications from Tea Party groups seeking tax-exempt status under section 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code.

“Landmark Legal Foundation requests an immediate investigation into possible misconduct by the Internal Revenue Service’s Exempt Organization (EO) Divisoin that calls into question the integrity of federal tax administration and IRS programs,” said the letter signed by Landmark President Mark Levin.

“Recent media reports indicate that the EO Division is using inappropriate and intimidating investigation tactics in the administration of applications for exempt status submitted by organizations associated with the Tea Party movement,” Levin wrote.

As CNSNews.com reported earlier this month, the American Center for Law and Justice, which says it represents nearly 20 Tea Party organizations nationwide, put out a statement on March 7 complaining about what it perceived to be improper treatment of Tea Party groups by the IRS.

"This appears to be a coordinated attempt to intimidate Tea Party organizations by demanding information that is outside the scope of legitimate inquiry and violates the First Amendment," ACLJ Chief Counsel Jay Sekulow said in a statement.

"These organizations have followed the law and applied for tax exempt status for their activities as Americans have done for decades,” Sekulow said. “The problem here is the IRS has gone beyond legitimate inquiries and is demanding that these organizations answer questions that actually violate the First Amendment rights of our clients.”

“This intimidation campaign is as onerous as what the IRS did to the NAACP in the 1950's and is simply unacceptable,” said Sekulow. “We will aggressively defend our clients and are prepared to take the IRS to court if necessary."

In his letter to the inspector general, Landmark’s Levin said that the types of inquiries the IRS was making of Tea Party groups were inappropriate.

“The information demanded in many cases goes far beyond the appropriate level of inquiry regarding the religious, charitable and/or educational activities of a tax exempt entity,” said Levin.

“The inquiries are not relevant to these permitted activities,” Levin wrote. “Inquiries extend to organizational policy positions and priorities, personal and poltiical affiliations, and associations of staff, board members and even family members of staff and board members.”

“Finally,” said Levin, “reports that Tea Party-related organizations are being singled out for the IRS’s intrusive inquries raises serious questions about the propriety of the personnel involved in the evaluation of tax exemption applications.”

Landmark Legal Foundation also asked the inspector general to “determine whether the relevant IRS employees are acting at the direction of politically motivated superiors.”

The Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration provides “independent oversight of IRS activities.

Great American Pride Song

The following link is to a great new song celebrating America, its past glories and its future.

http://www.youtube.com/v/6TPgJSZf5Vw?version=3&autohide=1&autoplay=1

Conservative Tom

Sunday, March 25, 2012

Delusional White House

In my 60 plus years that we have been taking up space on this earth, nothing has been so out of touch as the latest Vice President Biden statement on the Bin Laden killing. He asserted it was the boldest mission in 500 years! Huh? He seems to forget the D Day invasion which was incredibly more complex or the Civil War or the Revolutionary War or the creation of the country itself. What about the Israeli raid on Entebbe? There are so many operations in military history that were far more dangerous, more complex and more skillfully executed than the Bin Laden killing.

As we know, Biden has a way of spouting off and telling us what the White House is really thinking. In other words, the Administration really BELIEVES that this was the greatest raid in modern warfare. That is delusional! If those same words would have been spoken by a Republican, the press would have called in the shrinks and men with white coats who carry those white coats with sleeves that tie behind you!

Conservative Tom

White House Backs Biden's Claim That Killing Bin Laden Was Boldest Mission in ‘500 Years’

By Fred Lucas

March 20, 2012

U.S. Vice President Joe Biden delivers a speech at the presidential house in Tegucigalpa, Honduras, Tuesday, March, 6, 2012. Biden is on a one-day visit to Honduras. (AP Photo/Esteban Felix)

(CNSNews.com) – The White House asserted that Vice President Joe Biden did not misspeak when he said, “you can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan,” referring to President Barack Obama’s decision to kill Osama bin Laden.

During the press briefing Tuesday, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Jay Carney about the Biden comment made Monday at a fundraising event in Morris Township, N.J. “What did he mean by that?”

The question prompted laughter throughout the briefing room, as Carney kept a straight face.

“I think he meant the decision the president made, as you all know and are aware of, was a very difficult one,” Carney said. “It has been reported that the information we had obviously was high quality, but it was not conclusive, that the advice the president was getting from his senior most national security advisors was mixed on what to do, mixed at best. But in the end, he had to make a very big decision.

Obama gave the order to the Navy Seals in early May 2011 to invade the compound in Pakistan where bin Laden, the leader of al Qaeda, lived and kill the terrorist mastermind behind the 9/11 terrorist attack. The Obama reelection campaign, in fundraising and in a recent 17-minute film, has focused heavily on this event.

“I think one of the reasons he felt so confident in making that decision was that he knew the forces he would send in on the bin Laden mission were the absolute best that have ever existed and that they would fulfill their mission with great professionalism and success,” Carney said. “Obviously, it would have been a different story if bin Laden hadn’t been in that compound.”

The same reporter asked – in context of the 500 years remark – “More audacious than D-Day?”

Carney was less adamant in his answer.

“Well, the historical assessment I think I’ll leave to him and others,” Carney said. “But there is no question, this is a very difficult decision that only commanders-in-chief have to make.

“He didn’t misspeak?” the reporter asked.

Carney answered, “No.”

D-Day occurred on June 6, 1944 when 160,000 allied troops landed along a 50-mile stretch of French coastline to fight Nazi Germany forces on the beaches of Normandy. More than 5,000 ships, 13,000 aircraft supported the invasion that allowed the allies to gain a foothold in Normandy by day’s end, according to the U.S. Army website.

Ultimately, 9,000 allied soldiers were killed or wounded, but 100,000 soldiers marched across Europe to defeat German forces because of the invasion.

Biden attended the fundraiser at a private home in New Jersey where the cost for a regular ticket was $1,000, and the VIP reception cost $5,000, according to the White House press pool report. The event was expected to raise $400,000 for the Obama reelection campaign.

During the event, Biden recalled the decision to strike the compound and kill bin Laden.

“You can go back 500 years. You cannot find a more audacious plan,” the vice president told the donors. “Never knowing for certain. We never had more than a 48 percent probability that he was there.”

“Do any one of you have a doubt that if that raid failed that this guy would be a one-term president? Biden continued. “This guy is willing to do the right thing and risk losing.”

Another View Of Obama Daughter In Mexico

We posted our opinion of the wonderful trip that the Dictator's Daughter Malia is taking to Mexico and so when we read the following posting, we agreed with it also. What a wasted opportunity to do something exemplary, instead it is wasted on a trip to a dangerous foreign country. If this is an example of the Obama parenting skills, we can expect all sorts of wonderful news items in the future as the girls show the world how American Teenagers can behave! It will not be pretty, that is if we ever read it in the papers.

By Mychal Massie

I had several people admonish me to go easy on the Obama daughter spending our money in Mexico. They say I’m being unfair and that the children are off limits. Well poop-poopy-du to them. I know most of them mean well, but that said, they are blind to the nature of battle we wage. I’m not here to be nice, I’m here to be truthful, and to share the truth with you as accurately and as forthrightly as I can.

People have no idea what it is like for those of us who dare stand up. We do it because it must be done, and to encourage you to be as willing as we are to speak the truth. Trying to be nice and reasonable as some call for it, is fool’s work. Let me repeat once again: I am on record calling for hands off the Bush twins and calling for hands off Chelsea CLinton – I even called for hands off the Carter brat – the difference is that those parents didn’t use their children as shields to hide behind and effect policy through.

Obama talks about his daughters as if he expects them to be as immoral as Whoopi Goldberg, who is only to happy to tell people the number of abortions she has had. He tells people on the stump that he wants abortion there for his daughters. He speaks of wanting them to have options if they get in trouble, i.e., he wants abortion in event they get pregnant. What father, forget the assignation “decent parent,” speaks publicly of their children in such a way, not to mention speaks about their little girls that way? I would never dream of using my child as a shield for my aberrant policies.

Yes, I am unapologetically critical of the little diva’s trip to Mexico, with an armada of secret service, and 12 of her best friends, at a time that the children of many working families cannot afford to go to a ball game or an all day amusement park. This is as arrogant as his wife spending $50,000 in one trip at an erotic underwear boutique, and her $15,000 per day makeup person.

He and his wife behave like his and her royalness. He tells us what we should do with our money, what we should drive and what temperature we cannot keep our thermostats at, and she tells us what we should eat. All the while they live life large, with private costume parties, attended by Hollywood’s biggest actors and actresses. They have elaborate parties attended by the biggest names in hip-hop and rap music. C. Delores Tucker was a black Democrat, and she opposed such filth until the day she passed away.

Obama is quick to misquote scripture, telling us what we should do for the least of these blah-blah-blah. Why didn’t he send his little diva along with her friends into the ghetto or to under performing schools to work with children? Why didn’t she spend her break working on the environment, since he’s so concerned about it? Christian children and Mormon children spend the breaks serving as missionaries in third world countries – raising the money for the trips themselves. His divas got first hand tutelage from their mother on how to lie, cheat, and steal from the taxpayers, when they were listed as senior advisors on their $10 million African vacation. Nothing like teaching your children how to be liars and arrogant entitlement mongers early.

No, I’m not being nice – but I am being truthful. Niceness had many white people vote for him based on guilt, and now that they are seeing the error of their way, they are called racists. I’m more than willing to show his divas the same respect I showed the children of Carter, Clinton, and Bush, as long as it is called for. But these racialists are showing off and acting uppity in ways no other president would dare.

Are they incapable of understanding just how hard it is for many families? His administration is running commercials that advertise the benefit of food stamps as making you healthy enough to play with your children in a park. That the commercial didn’t advertise the benefits of food stamps as making you healthy enough to get a job, is telling. Oh, that’s right, he’s presided over a climate that has been hostile to job creation.

Millions of people are unemployed with no hope of finding work as summer approaches. Have his royalness and queenie given any thought to what responsible parents are feeling, realizing they won’t be able to take their family on vacation? Or is that they don’t give a damn?

I’ve made no pretense of holding them in the lowest of esteem, and this latest act of shameless entitlement and privilege, sending their diva to Mexico, simply underscores my point. Those in the media and the party apparatchiks may see nothing wrong with her trip, but they do not live in the world of reality that 80 percent of America lives in.

If you want political correctness and phony platitudes, you will have to go to another blog, because you won’t get it here. Unlike congress and politicians, I do speak to ordinary people. I spend time talking with them at the grocery stores and mini-mart gas stations. I become familiar with them and their concerns, and in almost all instances, without them having a clue who I am, or what exactly it is I do for a living. I can tell you, the majority of those people are as upset as I am, and those that aren’t are forced to stop, think, and reconsider, when I explain things in language they understand, pursuant to what it costs them to live.

Instead of making a diva out of his child and talking about her being able to have abortions, he should being teaching her the value of service.