YOU DON'T HAVE TO LIVE IN WISCONSIN...

You don't have to live in Wisconsin to appreciate the financial and physical dangers of forced union membership, which is what Wisconsinites are faced with today - and what the entire nation may be faced with tomorrow.

American labor unions outlived their usefulness decades ago. The original intent of organized labor was good, even though their objectives in those "formative years" were achieved primarily through violence. Employers weren't, as a general rule, paying workers a decent living wage. Some companies did provide "company housing" (substandard), and a company-owned version of a general store which carried basic necessities. But, both were provided at a premium price. By the time the company extracted the employees "rent", and items charged at the store each week, the worker's take-home pay was approximately the equivalent of one of today's dollars.

Today, labor unions function primarily through leveraged "negotiations" - using the implied threat of a production-ending strike to achieve their goals. A strike is essentially a variation on your basic blackmail scheme - "If you don't give us what we want, we will ruin you (financially) by shutting down your business until we get what we want."

In the most recent skirmish in the battle over the right to work in Wisconsin, a Dane County Circuit Court judge ruled in favor of the unions, saying the state legislature violated the state's

open meeting law. Apparently the unions own some judges in Wisconsin. The media are reporting the Wisconsin law as an "anti-union" law, when the proper way to look at it is as a pro-worker law.

The United States Declaration of Independence proclaims "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Nowhere in the Declaration is forced union membership mentioned! Nor is the payment of union dues by non-union workers, which is another desire of the union bosses! True liberty includes the liberty to perform labor under conditions to which the individual freely agrees - not under conditions of coercion by way of threats or acts of violence.

The man you made President of The United States - Barack Obama - during his campaign in 2008, made promises to the big unions that he must keep - or risk losing their support in the 2012 election. Among those promises was the unionization of all government workers, and the implied elimination of those unnecessary right to work laws... which the unions find to be bothersome.

How do the unions benefit their members? Not nearly so well as they benefit the union leadership. Granted, the members are making a "living wage" (and then some), but their wages are paltry compared to the salaries of their bosses. As an example, let's look at just the upper upper-echelon (the top ten officers) of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU - which is also the world's largest union):

Officers and Employees

• Average Total Compensation: $62,170.21

• Total Employees: 1,030

• Employees Making more than $75,000: 321

Top Ten Highest Paid Leaders

Name	Title	Total Compensation
Andrew Stern	International President	$306,388.00
David Regan	Executive Vice President	$265,488.00
Dennis Rivera	Vice President	$265,216.00
Anna Burger	International Sec-Treas	$252,724.00
Eliseo Medina	Executive Vice President	$242,286.00
Mary Kay Henry	Executive Vice President	$231,348.00
Gerald Hudson	Executive Vice President	$230,671.00
Thomas Woodruff	Executive Vice President	$218,723.00
Scott Courtney	Organizing Dir	$204,750.00
Kirk Adams	Executive Board Member	$197,939.00

The total compensation of the top ten SEIU officers costs the membership: $2,415,533 per annum

BUT... they have 1,031 employees whose average salary is $62,170.21p/a and that works out to a dues-paying membership cost of $64,035,316p/a just for the big shots. And 32% - almost 1/3 - of those officials make in excess of $75,000 per annum. The total compensation package of the "International President" of the SEIU is 65% (plus what he can steal from the membership) of that of the US President ($469,000 - plus what he can steal from the taxpayers)!

Since the big brouhaha over restricting union organization efforts in Wisconsin began, several months ago, and WI Governor Walker's attempt to keep Wisconsin a right to work state, there have been these developments...

"We will hunt you down . . . slit your throats . . . drink your blood. I will have your decapitated head on a pike in the Madison town square." Those are the words of a union militant aimed directly at a Wisconsin state legislator for daring to vote to restrict Big Labor's forced dues control over Wisconsin state workers.

There were literally dozens of similar death threats, along with acts of vandalism leveled against Wisconsin state legislators and Governor Scott Walker for not toeing the union boss line.

After reporting a timesheet-padding scheme, one of the whistle blowers was beaten so severely by union thugs he suffered two herniated discs and had to undergo knee surgery.

Another whistle blower found a dead rat in his locker, along with a note which said he would, "be taken care of." And another stated he was told: "If I continue to complain about their finances, they would have me killed."

Union bosses consider themselves to be above the law because -- they are -- thanks to the Supreme Court's infamous 1973 Emmons decision, granting union bosses immunity from prosecution for acts of violence and vandalism they orchestrate in the so-called "pursuit of legitimate union objectives." How stupid was that? Essentially it says that union bosses can instruct their minions to go forth and commit mayhem and murder so long as it is in pursuit of legitimate union objectives, and that the bosses themselves cannot be prosecuted for the directed actions of their subordinates.

Organized labor - on an interstate scale - has been with us since 1866, when the "National Labor Union" was formed. But, organized labor had little impact upon society-at-large until 1914, and the passage of the Clayton Anti-trust Act, which limited the use of injunctions in labor disputes and provided that picketing and other union activities are not illegal conspiracies or trusts.

In the mid-to-late 1800's secondary education and literacy among the working class were much less common than today. Perhaps there was a genuine need for organizing the workers back then. Maybe they were just too dumb to form their own independent groups to insure fairness in the workplace. But, in my mind anyway, 150 years later those conditions no longer exist. By comparison today's worker is highly educated, more aware of what constitutes fair working conditions and compensation, and what options are available to him/her should he feel the entity for which he toils is being less than equitable.

Forcing workers to either join a union, or pay dues to a union which one does not belong, makes about as much sense as going to the supermarket and being charged for all the groceries you didn't want!

Thomas Jefferson, the great American statesman, once said, "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance." We ALL need to be more vigilant in our observations of the processes of the government... before its unabated appetites allow it to completely consume our beloved Republic.

I'm Gil, (and you're not - be thankful!) and I approve this blog. I am an equal opportunity cynic and iconoclast.

AMERICA - WE ARE THE MOST LITIGIOUS SOCIETY IN THE WORLD!

AND THEREFORE, THE LEAST INCLINED TO ACCEPT PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY! The following is a BIG part of the problem...

From today's news - "SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) – A lawsuit that seeks to stop McDonald's from selling Happy Meals must be dismissed because parents can always prohibit their children from eating them, the hamburger giant said in a court filing.

The lawsuit claims McDonald's unfairly uses toys to lure children into its restaurants. The plaintiff, Monet Parham, a Sacramento, Calif. mother of two, claims the company's advertising violates California consumer protection laws."

The article goes on to mention names and Mickey D's position on the lawsuit (if I was on the jury hearing the case, this woman wouldn't stand a chance, and I would never change my position). Here's how I see it...

If you don't want the kids to hassle you for the Happy Meal, don't take the little bastards to McDonald's! Take them somewhere else for lunch or dinner. Or, here's a really unique idea - fix their meals at home! DON'T blame the seller if you buy something for your kids that you don't want your children to have. But, I suppose that suing somebody else for your personal inability to parent your kids, is better than being forced to admit that you can't accept your parental responsibilities and simply say, "No. You can't have that because it's not good for you. It may taste good, but it's not good for the rest of your body."

Then the situation is compounded by courts that will actually hear such ridiculous cases... which simply encourages more idiots to file suit to protect their self-image. It seems that most people would prefer to pin the blame on somebody else - especially if that somebody else has a very "deep pocket" - rather than exhibit self-discipline in matters of child rearing. And, they will do so every time, rather than examine their own fragile ego for flaws.

The legal profession has been guilty of "looking out for their own" for centuries. Judges today are the end-product of practicing lawyers, and they are keeping other lawyers cash flow positive with every lawsuit heard, no matter how groundless it may be. That explains why baseless lawsuits, that 50 years ago would have been dismissed as "frivolous" and a waste of the court's time, are allowed to go forward today. Inasmuch as 90% of our law makers are lawyers, that explains why our laws have become so complicated that the common man can no longer understand his rights, and why common sense has been effectively banned from our court system. The lawmakers feather their own nest, and the nests of their legal brethren, by insuring that Joe Average cannot understand the laws that govern his daily behavior. Should Joe find himself afoul of the law, he is defenseless without the expensive services of an attorney.

Citizens today will be greatly disappointed if they go to court expecting justice. With all the technicalities now built into the system, the main purpose of which is to protect legal practitioners, justice is an extremely rare commodity. What the plaintiff or defendant will get is a king-size helping of law, which is frequently lacking even a side order of "justice". To correct that we need panels of at least three judges, two of whom have common sense and have never practiced "law". It would then be incumbent upon the trained judge to convince the majority which party should be the victor in any case - civil or criminal.

But, that's just how I view systemic stupidity in our country. Stupidity, along with corruption, is rampant in all branches of our government... from municipal government to the federal government, what we have is the best government money can buy. We should all have that kind of money... or perhaps, less expensive lawyers.

Citizens of Utah... WAKE THE HELL UP!!

Have you bought motor oil at Wal-Mart lately? Have you been asked to bend over at the register, while the cashier scanned your Quaker State, Havoline, or Mobil oil purchase? Or, perhaps you were bent over by the cashier without noticing it? Look at your receipt! Here's the deal...

Title 40 (40-6-14) of the Utah Code establishes a "Fee on oil and gas", and it reads:

"(1) (a) There is levied a fee as provided in Subsection (1)(b) for oil and gas:

(i) produced; and
(ii) (A) saved;
(B) sold; or
(C) transported from the field in Utah where the oil or gas is produced.

(b) The fee imposed under this Subsection (1) is equal to the product of:

(i) .002; and

(ii) the value of the oil or gas determined in accordance with Section 59-5-103.1."

(2) (a) The State Tax Commission shall administer the collection of the fee, including any penalties and interest.
(b) The money collected shall be deposited in the Oil and Gas Conservation Account created in Section 40-6-14.5.
(c) Time periods for the State Tax Commission to allow a refund or assess the fee shall be determined in accordance with Section 59-5-114.
(3) (a) Each person having an ownership interest in oil or gas at the time of production shall be liable for a proportionate share of the fee equivalent to that person's ownership interest.

So, what does all that crap mean? It means that there is a "fee" imposed upon "Each person having an ownership interest in oil or gas at the time of production" equal to 2/10 of a penny. (Section 59-5-103.1 is simply the statutory authority establishing the Utah State sales tax, and explains how much and for what goods and service sales tax will be chaged.)

Nowhere in the statute does it charge this "fee" to the retail seller, nor does it allow the retail seller to pass the fee along to the end user. Further, according to the statute, the "fee" is only placed upon oil and gas that is produced; and saved; sold; or transported from the field in Utah where the oil or gas is produced. However, Wal-Mart (and possibly other retail sellers of oil in Utah) charges a 4¢ ($0.04) "oil use fee" on one quart of motor oil. If the sales unit is a U.S. quart, then the fee charged by Wal-Mart is 20 times what the State of Utah authorized. This raises four questions in my mind:

1. Was that quart of Quaker State motor oil produced; and saved, sold or transported from the field in Utah where the oil was produced?

2. Under what statutory authority does Wal-Mart collect the "oil use fee" from the end user (purchaser) when the fee is imposed upon - and supposedly paid by - the oil producer?

3. Why hasn't the State either (a) stopped this practice of passing the fee along to the customer, or (b) amended the Utah Code, Title 40, to permit the practice of passing the fee along to the customer, but at no more than the prescribed rate of .002 per unit.

4. Who's bending us over further, Wal-Mart with its illegal practice, or the State of Utah for permitting it to continue?

It's not just a few pennies we're talking about here. Well, okay, it is just a few pennies for each of us individually, but Wal-Mart is probably raking in several thousands of dollars per day in illicit profits. And, they're doing it 4¢ at a time in their Utah stores!

And, the State of Utah can call it a "fee" all they want... it's just another TAX... in fees clothing! Somebody has apparently determined that we have too much disposable-by-choice income left after paying bills and all the other taxes with which we've been burdened by your government...

I'm Gil (and you're not), and I approved this blog!

EVERY AMERICAN SHOULD SEE THIS VIDEO!

A representative of the peaceful and loving religion of Islam makes a humanitarian suggestion to help the USA reduce its population. I cannot attest to the integrity of the Arabic-English translation, but I have no reason to doubt it.

These are the demons with which Obama wants us to engage in open and honest discourse. Can you spell preemptive strike?

Political Plums Being Harvested Already - Leon Panetta To Head CIA ... Was Sean Penn Unavailable?

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to lead the CIA, which has been widely criticized for harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects..."

I don't know who to feel the most sorry for - Obama for his stupid choice for CIA Director; Panetta for being so far out of his element; or the American people ... for having to suffer a fool in either office! Kiefer Sutherland, based on his "experience" as Agent Jack Bauer in the TV show 24, probably knows more about the internal operations of the CIA than does Leon Panetta. Panetta is best known as President Bill "Zipper" Clinton's Chief of Staff, and as a budget expert who tamed deficits in the Clinton White House. I'm confused ... how do either of these positions - or anything else in Panetta's résumé - qualify him him to oversee the largest single intelligence function of the United States Government?

So far, it appears that not only do we get a President with no proven qualifications, now he has shown himself to be foolish enough to surround himself with equally unqualified cabinet members. Or, does his Cabinet provide a buffer zone of deniability, selected by careful design to insulate Obama from policy failures? Is there more treachery afoot than meets the eye?

Obama's first really big mistake will be to turn his back on Israel. I could be wrong ... but I'm NOT!

Monsanto Chemical: Buys Government, Scares Press, and Sells Out Public!

Where is the hue and cry from all the government agencies that "protect" us, or from the so-called independent press, that supposedly is "looking out" for us.  Monsanto (previously Monsanto Chemical) - the folks that brought us the unforgettable Agent Orange, among others - like the relatively innocuous Roundup weed killer.  However, what happens when you start manipulating the market to eliminate the competition?  How do they do that?

First you start by genetically modifying produce - like corn, soybeans, or wheat - to make them resistant to Roundup and similar products.  Next you back-engineer one of your other products - like fertilizer - to include Roundup in it.  Something like Monsanto's "Asgrow Roundup Ready" or "Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans."  From the Monsanto website: "This is a new proprietary seed treatment from Monsanto which will be commercialized in conjunction with the launch of Asgrow Roundup Ready 2 Yield Soybeans."  Monsanto offers "Simple, flexible and dependable weed control you expect from the Roundup Ready system.", and "Powerful genetic trait combinations created through our advanced breeding process deliver higher yield potential than other brands."  Yes, ladies and gentlemen, what we're talking about is Frankenfood!  And it's not just soybeans ... Monsanto has genetically modified corn, wheat, and God only knows what else to resist Roundup.  Can you see where this is going?  Modify the seeds to resist a weed poison, then include the poison in either the pod or the fertilizer, to kill those pesky weeds.  So far, so good!

But, there's an unanswered question here too - How does the Roundup not get absorbed into the produce it's protecting from weeds?  It doesn't!  We are unknowingly and trustingly ingesting toxic materials with almost every item we are being sold as food!  Have you eaten a nice steak, or enjoyed a good hamburger recently?  If so, then you should familiarize yourself with the acronym BGH - Bovine Growth Hormone.  Have you wondered why your 10 year old daughter is sprouting breasts already?  There's your answer - BGH!  Monsanto's Bovine somatotropin (abbreviated bST and BST) is also called bovine growth hormone, or BGH.  BST can be produced synthetically, using recombinant DNA technology. The resulting product is called recombinant bovine somatotropin (rBST), recombinant bovine growth hormone (rBGH), or artificial growth hormone. It is administered to the cow by injection and used to increase milk production. Currently Monsanto is the only company that markets recombinant bovine somatotropin, under the trade name Posilac.  According to Monsanto, approximately one-third of dairy cattle in the U.S. are treated with Posilac; approximately 8,000 dairy producers use the product. It is now the top-selling dairy cattle pharmaceutical product in the U.S.  Use of the recombinant supplement has been controversial. While it is used in the United States (though not without reaction), it is banned in Canada, parts of the European Union, Australia and New Zealand.  Is there a reason for this ban?  Are they perhaps more concerned with the welfare of their citizens, than our government is for OUR personal well-being?

Monsanto's lawyers scared Fox television affiliate, WTVT/Fox-13 in Tampa, Florida so badly, the station manager fired two staff members who had done an investigative reporting piece after they refused to modify the story to appease Monsanto.

Monsanto is running roughshod over our citizenry in their (thus-far successful) attempt to bribe, intimidate, threaten and otherwise leverage those who would question the negative human health factors of Monsanto-produced  Frankenfoods.  Our complacency as a nation will be our undoing.  I could be wrong ... but, I'm NOT!

DO YOU SUFFER FROM POLITICAL BURN OUT?

Well, I do. As you may have noticed, I am not a fan of Barack NObama. I do not belong to the mindless masses that have deified NObama ... nor do I belong to the legions of well-meaning do-gooders who incorrectly believe that NObama is the answer to the questions that have not been asked of him - or answered by him! NObama is totally devoid of substance - period. End of discussion. He is a 'dream weaver' ... he plays to the emotions of the audience that he is addressing today. What do I like least about NObama? It's a tossup ... it's like asking what one likes least about a root canal. Maybe I should make a list -

1. His apparent lack of serious commitment to the culture and traditions of this country ... the country which he hopes to lead.

2. His racism. "What? A black racist! How can that be?", you ask yourself. You may be surprised to discover that racism is not the sole domain of the well-known Red-Necked WASP. NObama has demonsrated his racism by his own words and actions. He has denied the half of him that is white at every opportunity. He "resented" his white Mother, and refers to his maternal Grandmother - the woman who raised him - as "a typical white person".

After that it becomes a goulash of reasons: poor judgment, as evidenced by those he keeps close and calls friend or mentor; lack of governmental executive experience at any level; no military education or experience whatsoever (and people think he is qualified to be Commander-In-Chief of our military?); a strong affinity toward Islam - the same Islam that is sending terrorists around the world - "I will stand with the Muslims should the political winds shift in an ugly direction." Barack Obama; etc.

NObama cannot ever deny being a Muslim - he was, and it is public knowledge. The problem is compounded by this ... "there is no dispute among either ancient or modern Moslem scholars that under Islamic law, a murtadd, 'one who turns his back on Islam,' an apostate, must be put to death. Irtidad, apostasy, is committing treason against God, and traitors deserve to be killed." That would certainly create a problem for his achievement of longevity ...

Then there's John McCain ... whose main problem seems to be his longevity. McCain is ... mature ... and probably approaching his "Best if used by:" date. Perhaps he has passed that date already. But, at least McCain has proven his devotion to our country, our culture, and our traditions. Maybe these aren't the highest recommendations to become President, but they beat none, hands down.

I'm not a big fan of McCain, but I see a terrible future for America and Americans under a NObama administration. It really hurts the country when we are forced to choose between for the marginally qualified or the unqualified. Maybe one of the 3rd Party candidates would have been a better offering to our citizens. Sadly, our citizenry lacked the good sense to ignore the offerings of both the Democratic and Republican Party. We will, therefore, always have a "settle-for" Presidency. Russian roulette, anyone?

Whatever Happened To Common Sense?

Whatever happened to our ability to judiciously apply something called 'common sense' in the USA? It appears that more and more we see less and less of it! Take our penchant for suing people/corporations and other entities. We have become the most litigious (sue happy) society the world has ever known. Right now, I can almost hear you thinking, "Yeah ... why is that?" Like all other things that simply are, it is because we permitted it to be, and we continue to do so right up to whatever day you're reading this! Our legal system is overwhelmed by the demands of morons and their money-hungry, ambulance-chasing shyster lawyers. One would think that there would be a point at which our courts would say, "No, you have no case - thank you so much for bothering us - but you may not bring suit against anybody for that." Case in point ... the little old lady who sued McDonald's, and won a $7 million judgment against them, because she chose to place a container of hot coffee between her legs (no fault of McDonald's), the coffee spilled (again, through no fault of McDonald's), burning what was probably a little-used part of her anatomy and causing her great discomfort. Yeah, I know it's old news, but it is THE prime example of this posting's title, so let's follow the steps here:

1. The old bat willfully and of her own volition, drove her automobile into a McDonald's Drive-Thru lane.
2. Upon reaching the speaker box, she probably said in a loud, clear voice (or maybe in a cracking, enfeebled voice) "Coffee."
3. When people order "coffee" at a restaurant - even a "fast food" restaurant (a designation which prompts some people to question validity of either word) it is normally served in a cup, at a temperature required to produce said beverage. The only exception to this would be if the patron said, "iced coffee."
4. When we order "coffee" we do not expect to get coffee beans or an empty container which at one time may have held coffee. Nor do we expect to get a handful or pocketful of coffee. What we have foolishly come to expect, is that the coffee will be presented to us HOT and in a vessel of some kind. Where we choose to place this vessel of HOT liquid is entirely up to us. The restaurant does not try to influence us in this decision by having suggestions printed on the cup, like "TRY BALANCING THIS CUP ON YOUR HEAD AS YOU DRIVE AWAY!" or "HOT COFFEE PLACED BETWEEN YOUR THIGHS ON A COLD DAY FEELS GREAT!"

At precisely what point in time were we absolved of suffering the consequences of our own bad choices? Am I the only one that didn't get the memo? When did it become somebody else's responsibility to pay for our individual stupidity? What the judge should have said to the old lady's attorney is, "You have no case, you moron! Where did you get your law degree, Lawyers-r-Us? What Bar did you pass? Clancy's, after you left Lawyers-r-Us? It took me 15 minutes to read your crap complaint, do you know what that cost the people of this state? You'll know when you get the bill for my time. If you ever show up here with a nuisance lawsuit like this again, I'll hold you in contempt of court and stick you in jail!"

But, instead, many courts are hearing more nuisance cases each week, and finding in favor of the plaintiff! Could it be that it's a matter of the legal profession taking care of it's own? Insuring a substantial income for even the least qualified of their brethren? This is the same reason our laws have become so complicated that the average person can no longer understand them. They used to be pretty straight-forward: "You don't do this or you go to jail." Now there are at least 11 excuses, 15 exceptions, and 47 acceptable explanations that allow the criminal to avoid going to prison. But, sadly, there are no such compensations for the victim.

We are "a nation of laws". There is no requirement for justice in our legal system any more. The law rarely takes justice into consideration these days. If you should ever have to go to court, and you go expecting justice, don't be surprised when you don't get it. Law is generally the only item on their menu ...

Change For Change Sake

My primary concern is that our citizens will elect a person who really doesn't seem to care for the country as the 'head caretaker' should. Every time we hold a national election history is made. But this election is unusually significant, in that the Democrats presented voters with the first opportunity to select either a female or a ... what ... not white, not black ... I suppose the most accurate way to describe Obama would be "a man of color" as their candidate for the highest office in the land. Okay, fine. They have proven that we are neither conclusively sexist or racist in our selection of candidates - that it is possible for a woman, or a non-white/non-black, to come to the forefront of politics in our country. Unfortunately, in making that point, they have also proven that people vote with their emotions rather than their brains.

Change is the only constant in our world. But, to put our country in jeopardy simply to initiate a change is totally irresponsible. Not all changes are good, nor are all changes bad. But, when you have serious pre-election indicators that Candidate "X" would not be a strong supporter of our culture and our Constitution, voting for such a person is (at least in the moral sense) an act of treason! If the security, integrity, and prosperity of the American citizen is not foremost in the mind and heart of the candidate, then that candidate should be summarily dismissed as a viable prospect for the office of President of the United States of America. People should not feel compelled to vote for anybody just because the election of that person would be a "first." Prior to 1992 we hadn't had a President who was elected based on charisma alone, and who looted the White House upon departure. Until 2000 we hadn't had a mentally insufficient President, but we have since had firsts in both those categories.

Some day this country will have a non-white or female President, but we must not feel obligated to elect the first one offered by any political party! Condoleeza Rice would probably make an excellent President - she has Cabinet-level government experience, she's brilliant, and she's both female and black! But, she did not run for President. Who did? A woman who could not control her own husband (yet thought she could control an entire government), and a non-white male who apparently thinks there are 60 United States (and shows no outward signs of affection, or even respect for our great nation). And where did those additional 10 states come from ... Afghanistan, Indonesia, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Libya, Oman, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Syria perhaps?!?

Obama is an inspiring orator ... much of the time. Like ALL politicians, he panders to the audience he faces, saying the words they want to hear, even though those words may be diametrically opposed to what he said in the last speech he made. Repeat after me - "silver-tongued Devil" - it's more than just a phrase, it's a statement about character! We don't know exactly what he does stand for, because he usually votes "Present" in the Senate ... which is the same as not voting at all! But, we can be fairly certain of what he doesn't stand for - honesty and integrity in government, and security and prosperity for Americans. When you go to the polls this November, VOTE FOR AMERICA!!

I'm Gil, and I approve this blog!

Obama Will Dismantle Our Military - Goodbye USA

The Democrat who desires to be our next President, Barak HUSSEIN Obama, has promised to reduce our military defense capability, to something roughly equivalent to that of Jamaica. The only thing he hasn't said is to whom he plans to surrender our country.
For details click -->> http://msunderestimated.com/2008/03/01/obamas-plans-for-our-military-video/

How unbelievably stupid are we Americans, that this man could ever even be considered for our country's highest office, much less nominated, by one of the two larger political parties?? Does the phrase "sleeper cell" not come to mind? Would the last one to leave please close the doors and turn off the lights ...