The Maverick Conservative

4:31:17 PM EDT

This was the exchange between myself and a leftist on the AOL board inuder the Pat Tillman story referred to in the previous entry.  It is not very important, and does not say much that is important.  But I found the exchange amusing.  So here it is:

"skip 3366 I'am returning to you the Dick Cheney blow up doll, it seems to suit you better lol and your an idiot if you think its ok for the military to cover deaths and report back lies to the country. Mabe I'm a Kook but your a neo-facist. BTW how is that trailer park in Arkansas treating ya? Any Cliinton sightings? And that post was just to get under"

And I am returning to you the Rosie O'Donnell blow up doll. It really was a turn off sesuxally, and so IRRATIONAL. I expect that you will have long, interesting conversations with it. You can supply both sides of the dialogue and it will sound just like Rosie. I am sure it will excite YOU sexually (whether you are a man or a woman).

Written by skip3366 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

1:06:12 PM EDT

Pat Tillman's mother has written a book.  Pat Tillman, of course, is the soldier who gave up a carerr in the NFL to to to Afghanistan.  He died from friendly fire in Afghanistan, after the military first allowed a story of heroic death under enemy fire to be spread.  It has never been shown that the five week delay in correcting this caused any real damage to anyone (the facts were always the facts, and it is hard to see how the family is significantly better off for the "friendly fire" facts to come out immediately, rather than five weeks later, although their anger at being initially misinformed is understandable).

The despicable AP, and AOL are publicizing today, predictably, the (minor?) part of the book that alleges that the true facts of Pat Tillman's death have still not come out.

If Mrs. Tillman were going to write a book, I would have preferred one concentrating on the type of MAN Pat Tillman was (for all I know, MAYBE that is the major part of the bok, since the despicable AP would pick out the other part--no matter how minor it was in the whole book).

Mrs. Tillman's OPINIONS on her son's death are pretty much worthless. She has no more factual information than anyone else. She DOES have more information thaan almost anyone else on the type of MAN her son was.

We know, of coure, what sells books. It is sensational "charges" that sell books, and that is too bad.

This, of course, is not a matter of "believing Mrs. Tillman". Mrs. Tillman has no more FACTUAL INFORMATIION than is available to you or I. She was not there. Her OPINION really has no more weight than yours or mine (and considerably less weight than that of an expert investigator).

People wantint to BELIEVE (the worst about the military and our governmen, without facts, merely exhibit their own agenda--nothing else.

Written by skip3366 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

12:08:21 PM EDT

One of my themes lately has been to lament that I do not really believe in the God of Sodom and Gomorrah (since I am an agnostic, even though I proably agree with the "reiligious right" POLITICALLY more than most people who believe in God). 

I believe I first said that in connection with the Yale art student whose senior art project was to artificially inseminate herself as often as possible over six months or so, in combinatin with taking abortion inducing pills, in order to make a "statement".  Statement made:  "I am a monster."  I could have mentioned it before, but that Yale story (from the Yale campus newspaper) really made me regret that I did not believe in a God that might be preparing another Sodom and Gomorrah "intervention".

It has gotten worse since.  Yesterday's Sodom and Gomorrah story was about a Memphis high school dance, on school property (O'Reilly showed VIDEO last night, which is a Sodom and Gomorrah moment in itself, for ratings).   The video showed students at the dance exposing themselves and otherwise engaging in the kind of exhibitionism and sexual conduct you would expect from a "Girls Gone Wild" video about spring break sexual hijinks.  Plus, the video showed teachers and administrators fromt eh high school apparetnly ignoreing the blatant conduct.  On O'Reilly, the superintendant of schools lamented that a "teaching moment" had been missed.  In case you don't understand, the school officials and teachers at the dance did NOTHING to protest the blatant sexual exhibitionism. 

Question:  Was Sodom and Gomorrah one of God's "teaching moments"?   Of course it was..  Is it time for another such "teaching moment"?  If I were a God that hat thought it was worthwhile before, I would certainly think so.  It really is too bad I don't believe in that God.  The case for that kind of "teaching moment" is getting awfully compelling.  Remember the recent entry about the SECOND GRADER who wanted to go to a Colorado school as a GIRL (he is actually a boy), and the school has evidently accommodated him.  From politicians to students to women teachers invoved with students to schools, we seem to have lost all moral moorings.

Written by skip3366 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

11:49:47 AM EDT

John McCain may yet be President of the United States, because Democrats are bound and determind to nominate Barack Obama.

The latest example is Hamas (that Islamic extremist/terrorist organization now running the PLO).   John McCain, after pretty much ignoring Barack Obama's more direct and substantial association with far left haters like Reverend Wright and William Ayers, has mad a point of saying that Hamas SUPPORTS Barack Obama, but would never support John McCain.  McCain's implication was not that Obama was "associated" with Hamas, but that Hamas saw Obama as more favorable to the interests of terrorists than they saw McCain (been true of terrorists like Al Qaeda for some time, as illustrated by the Democratic "talking poinsts" on their tapes).  This is actually a legtimatate argument, but NOT very effective.  Who says Hamas is better at evaluating our candidates than the voters here?  It is pretty much a stretch as a reason to vote for someone. 

Enter McCain's best friend, Barack Obama.  Previously, one of his main foreign policy "advisors" had been forced to resign for saying things overseas which conflicted with what Obama was saying about his foreign policy/  Tjere was also the flap about Obama advisors allegedly telling the Canadians not to worry about attacks on NAFTA, because that was just election year politics by Obama (presumably appealing to those "small town" voters irrationally taking out their frustrations by blaming trade, as Obama said in those infamous San Francisco remarkds).

Now it comes out that an Obama "advisor" has been TALKING to Hamas.  Considering that Obama himself has suggested that we talk to terrorists, including those running Iran, this seems a logical move by an Obama advisor.  But LOOK at how much credibility it suddently gives McCain.  No longer is McCain's assertion a stretch.  Obama has now directly associated himself with Hamas.  Sure, Obama has FIRED this advisor, but can terrorists be blamed for believing that Obama will be better for them than McCain?

If Obama did not exist, John McCain would have t invent him.

Written by skip3366 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

11:34:30 AM EDT

This blog has repeatedly shown that leftists do NOT believe in free speech.  One of the recent examples was the threat by Colorado State University to withdraw support for hurrican forecaster William Gray--seemingly to PUNISH him for his HERESY on "lglobal warmng".  Gray has ridiculed the attempt to connect "global warmng" and hurricanes, and seems to be pretty much a skeptic of "global warming" HYPE.

This is not really a matter of opinion (leftist suppression of free speech when it conflicts with their agenda).   It is a long established fact, and not just with regard to "global warmng".

Part of yesterday's news was the SUSPENSION by the University of Toledo of an African-American professor for a newspaper op-ed piece on the absurdity of equating homosexual conduct with the struggle for racial civil rights in this country.  Did this African-American use any racial slurs? 

Nope.  that was Boyce Watkins at Syracuse, who calls Juan Williams (a black man) the "eternal happy Negro", and uses racial hate language only slightly less virulent than Reverend Wright.  Syracuse, however, and leftists generally, refuse to even CRITICIZE Boyce Watkins, who is using his position at Syracuse to promote racial hate (no surprise that Watkins supports Barack Obama).   Watkins has even accused Juan Williams (an National Public Radio reporter who has committed the crime of being a regular on Fox News) of not being a "real" African-American, because he was born in Panama.  Of course, by this standard (as some leftists said about Barack Obama before he officially became the "black candidate"), Barack Obama is not a true AMERICAN "African-American", since he is NOT a descendant of slaves, since his father was actually born in modern Afirca (plus having a white mother). 

Syracuse will not even CRITICIZE Watkins for racial slurs and racial hate speech, and he even appears on some cable TV networks (like CNN).   In contrast, the leftists at the University of Toledo SUSPENDED an African-American for daring to SUBSTANTIVELY (no slurs) challenge leftist ortodoxy on homosexual CONDUCT.

What was the crime of this African-American woman?  Her "crime" really was only contradicting leftist orthodoxy.  She pointed out that African-Americans have no choice at all in their skin color, and that people can identify that SURFACE characteristic immediately.   Can you identify, on sight, who is hoomosexual and who is not?  Remember Rock Hudson, and other Hollywood homosexuals?

This entire equating of "homosexual civil rights" with the fight against racial discrimination was a POLITICAL gambit to push the homosexual rights agenda.  As this African-American correctly said, it is absurd to suggest that the issues of "homosexual rights" and racial "civil rights" have any real similarites.  Homosexual conduct is CONDUCT.  No one HAS to engage in homosexual conduct.  Even if you are "born that way" (which is NOT true of all people who engage in homosexual conduct, although it may be a strong factor in many), you CAN choose to remain celibate.   "Kinsey", of course, presented the idea that we are ALL "born" with the potential for BOTH heterosexual and homosexual CONDUCT, although we may be born with tendencies more toward one end opf the line or the other (a relatively well accepted idea, although homosexual advocates ignore it when it suits their purposes). 

The lady has the BETTER of this argument.  What she said is objectively CORRECT.  Homosexual CONDUCT cannto be equated with a surface PHENOTYPE like skin color.  These are two totally separate things.  Homosexual conduct is more accurately equated (moraly) with non-marital sex or other sexual conduct.  It is CONDUCT.  You can't LOOK at a person and say he or she is homosexual, UNLESS they advertise it by CONDUCT (such as dress, cosmetics or exaggerated manner--with even those not being defninitive). 

Say the lady was wrong, however (a hard assumption, since she is clearly right).  Why is this not free speech?  Why is it "hate speech" to suggest that the advocacy of homosexual "rights" and racial "civil rights" cannot be equated?  Even if that were not the truth, it is the very kind of argument that free speech is all about--except to leftists.  To leftists, "free speech" that disagree with their orothodoxy is BAD, and needs to be suppresssed.

What is the most controversial thing that this African-American woman said?  Well, she said that a lot of homosexuals have been "cured" (I don't know that she actually used that word).  In other words, she cited groups that are attempting to help homosexuals turn "straight", and cited statistics and examples of SUCCESS at people turning away from the homosexual lifestyle.  If Kinsey was right, why should that not happen?  But this is a "hot wire" kind of assertion to homosexual activists.  The idea that people have a CHOICE in their homosexual conduct is anatema to these people, because it totally undercuts their "civil rights" argument (not strong in the first place). 

But is it "hate speech" to suggest that homsexuals have a choic in their CONDUCT?  I don't see it.  It is certainly not as much hate speech as the kinds of things that Boyce Watkins says.  You can disagree with it.  But the indea that a university professor should not be allowed to SAY that is, well FASCIST.  It is a driect attack on free speech.  This professor was saying this on her own, and not even in an academic setting.  Consider how much "academic" freedom is worth if a professor is not allowed to even CONSIDER the idea in the university setting (this professor's article appearing in a NEWSPAPER, and not as spokesperson for the university).  If a university "study" could NEVER conclude that homosexual conduct can be UNLEARNED, or CHANGED, then university studies on the whole subject have no value, do they?

As I have said before, it is NOT "science" to set out to bolster a POLITICAL position.  It is PROPAGANDA.  Most universities today are nothing more than sources of leftist propaganda. 

Againa, however, assume that it is absolutely false that homosexuals (bisexuals?) can change their conduct.  Does this mean that a univeristy has a "right" to try to SUPPRESS free speech by one of its professors challenging that political orthodoxy?  I remind you again of Johh Stuart Mill's "On Liberity"--the subject of my philosophy term pater at New Mexico State University some 40 years ago.

Mill's assertion, which leftists do NOT believe because they do NOT believe in "liberty", is that: 

"If every person but one believes something to be true, the majority is no more justified in imposing their views on the one than the one is justified in imposing his views on the majority."    (not quite a direct quote, but a very fair expression of Mill's assertion)

If you believe that leftists agree with John Stuart Mill (at least the extreme leftists gaining more and more control in academia, the media and the Democratic Party), then you have not been paying attention.  It is an objecive fact that they do not.

Written by skip3366 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

10:32:19 AM EDT

What is "excusive"?  Well, the same thing is "exclusive" that is true of any "projection" of electon results not based on actual votes (which includes ALL present "projections" by "news" orgainizations).

Yes, this headline is meant to RIDICULUE "projections" of election results based on "exit polls" (dirty little secret:  polls going into the election, and expectation of the result also go into a QUICK projection). 

COULD "networkds" "call" an electon like the primary in West Virninia relatviely early (like by noon, or earlier).  Sure they could.  We KNOW who is going to win West Virginia (although the exact MARGIN matters some, and the exit polls have been notoriously BAD on that this election).   Obama has conceded the state in advance.

As this blog has told you, polls are evil things.  That includes exit polls.  I would favor a Constitutional Amendment to abolish them.  Remember, the ONLY thing stopping a day long analysis of exit polls,a nd who is WINNING (or has "won") is VOLUNTARY restraint on the part of "news" organizations.  WHY does this "voluntary" restraint exist?  It exist becaue everyone recognizes the EVIL of turning election day into a battle of polls.  BUT, we are truning entire ELECTIONS into a battle of polls--which she to constitute an ever increasing part of the "news" coverage.  WE can stop that insanity without a Constitutional Amendment.  We can simply LIE to pollsters, or refuse to cooperate. 

Think how nice it would be not to have any idea whether Barck Obama or John McCain is ahead in, for example, California going into election day.  Think of having to wait for actual VOTES to know who is "winning".  Think of how "news" organizations will be totally exposed for the frauds they are if they don't have POLLS to talk aoubt (that alone should convince you not to cooperate with pollsters).  There is nothing that would be better for elections in this country, and for political discourse, than to ELIMINATE POLLS, including exit polls.  And the PEOPLE have it in their power to do that. 

POWER TO THE PEOPLE:  ELIMINATE POLLS.  The non-news media has no RIGHT to know what you THINK.

Written by skip3366 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

9:50:21 AM EDT

A story this morning is about "lawmakers" wanting to suspend shipments/purchases of oil for the strategic oil reserve.  The question is why we have not ALREADY done this at least a year ago--one of those examples of how the Federal Government simply acts too slowly and is incapable of correcting mistakes (continued purchases at this high a level being a clear mistake), which is a lesson letists/central planning advocates simply never learn.

This particular one is a "no brainer", and I have said so for some time in my AOL blog, "The Maverick Conservative".  It makes absolutely NO sense to continue to purchase oil for the stratetgic reserve at astronomical prices.  President Bush (as he has on so many things) has been TGONE DEAF on this issue.

My brother is co-owner of a trucking company, and has been LIVID for two years about this.  Now you con consider this a minor thing n the overall cost of oil and fuel, but it is a STUPID minior thing.  Congress has continued to EXPAND ethanol requirements (another "no brainer" to STOP), and has continued the stragegic oil purchases, directly in the face of rising oil AND food prices.  You just can't get any more stupid, and that alone should probably get them ALL voted out of office.

My brother (no leftist) now conisders President Bush the WORST President we have EVER had (a vast overstatement, in my view, as my brother sort of admits when he is not frothing at the mouth over the President's stupidity on oil and fuel--AND abut the environmentalist, "global warming" fanatics that are DIRECTLY increasing the cost of trucking with "environmental regulation).  And Iraq has nothing to do with it.

Then there is Anwar.  If DEMOCRATS (like Obama, Clinton, and McCain--oops!  A sort of Republicans snuck in here) and leftist environmentalists had not blocked drilling in Anwar, offshore, and generally in 2/3's of the areas where more oil could be developed (including the most promising), fuel prices would not be nearly so high. 

If Bill Clinton had not VETOED Anwar drilling in 1994, and Democrats blocked it ever since, we would NOW have 1 million additonal DOMESTIC barrels of oil a day (MUCH more than the rather samll amount involved in the daily purchase average for the strategic oil reserve).    Then there is the environmental/Democratic STONEWALLING of nuclear power, and the utterly insane pust for ever more ethanol MANDATES(increasing not only FUEL costs, but the cost of FOOD). 

"Lawmakers" have helped put us in this mess, and the "tears" of leftist environmentalist and Democrat politicians are CROCODILE TEARS.   Republicans, of course, are known for being too cold to shed tears; they have been merely STUPID.

Written by skip3366 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

5:03:08 PM EDT

"Autism" has become a vehicle by which leftist kooks are attempting to USE the anguish of parents to take on the pharmeceutical industry, and even the entire U.S.A. (REverend Wright style) with irrational, paranoid fantasies (see previous two entries).  At some point, these kooks even merge with the anti-flouride type koks (the far left and far right CAN merge at the extremes, but it is ONLY the far left that now gets ACADEMIC, "educated" support).  Following is the lead paragraph of the actual story of a single, civil trial proceeding in Oregon (note how the first paragraph begins with the FACT that there is not EVIDENCE of any connection between vaccines and autism, and then proceeds directly into the fantasy world of leftist hype, which constituted much of the rest of the story, describing an Oregon civil suit heading for trial). 

"The Institute of Medicine said in 2004 there was no credible evidence to show that vaccines containing the preservative thimerosal led to autism in children. But thousands of families have a different take based on personal experience."

If you doubt that the autism "movement" is being hijacked by extreme leftists, and other kooks, consider the comments below (which appeared under this AOL/AP story), and my responses to the kooks:

"The US Center for Desase Control has samples of every bateria or virus used and discovered. The CDC refused to relaease samples of the Polio Vaccine used by the Belgium Government in the Congo back in the 1950 so scientists could clear up their susspicions of AIDs origin. CDC and FDA know the cause of Autism."

Who let Reverend Wright loose to post on this board? Does Barack Obama KNOW that he has escaped confinement?

Seriously, thisis the kind of KOOKISM that this whole autism "movement" both feeds, and feeds upon. It is actually EVIL stuff, without real evidence. See the first pargarph of this story, and you will realize that there is NO evidence that vaccines caused autism.

You want more:

"Many of these redesigned vaccines are DNA derrived and manufactured. These vaccines were originally derrived from animal proteins which are more expensive to manufacture. DNA reasearch is equivalent to pulling control rods out of nuclear power plants to record what happens as was done at Three Mile Island and Cherynoble."

The above leftist kook even dragged in Three Mile Island!!!!!!!

Q.E.D.  Leftist kooks out there are out of control.  And here they have been joined by anti-vaccine nuts and the tin foil hat crowd.  We will be lucky if the REAL stury of autims is not set back a hundred years.  I assure you that the above quoted kooks are NOT taken "out of context".  You had people on AOL questioning everything from the polio vaccine to antidepressants and pesticides (or other chemicals).  You even have the usual AOL opinion "poll", as if OPINION matters when there is NO EVIDENCE.  If you have an opinion, without any evience, it just shows you are STUPID.  I have given the example before of taking an opinion poll on whether 2 plus 2 equals 5. 

Here is my reaction to the actual AP/AOL story (disgraceful in its own way), quoting the key paragraph describing the lawsuit in question:

 

"Two 10-year-old boys from Portland, Ore., will serve as test cases to determine whether many of the children and their families should be compensated.."

Is the above true? Nope. ONE civil case does NOT "determine" whether others will be compensated. After appeals, the MOST this case can do is establish a rule in Oregon that such cases will not be dismissed out of hand (as I am confident they wuld be under present rules on scientific evidence in Texas).

See first paragraph of the AP story (quoted near the beginning of this entry). There is NO scientific evidence that vaccines have caused autims. Anecdotal "evidence" and OPINION does NOT substitute for scientific evidence--at least not in either medical science or Texas jurisprudence.

I have (correctly) included the idea that there is any real EVIDENCE that vaccines have caused autism as kooky in my "you are a kook ii:" series in my AOL blog, "The Maverick Conservative".

 

Written by skip3366 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 2 comments: Show Recent | Add your own

1:56:49 PM EDT

Read the previous entry.

Although it was not the main point of the previous entry, it is true that our schools are quickly becoming a breeding ground for leftist loons, because those appear to be the people now in control in many of our schools (from elementary schoools to higher educaton). 

As recent entries have shown, we are now conducting a dangerous experiment with our chldren as a society.  Part of that dangerous experiment is the way we are teacing our children leftist fantasies in the schools.

Written by skip3366 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own

1:52:11 PM EDT

In the Vietnam war era, the most radical, violent opponents of the war were UNIVERSITY STUDENTS and FACULTY.  This includes, as has been documented, the violent bombers in the Weather Underground (that violent group to which William Ayers belonged), and the violent criminals of the Symbionese Liberation Army (which brought white students together with black thugs in Berkeley, California--all coordinated initially by a University of California Berkeley professor).

You will remember that the communism of Karl Marx was supposed to result from the revolt of the workers.  Instead, it primarily arose from INTELLECTUALS, who have been the primary "consituency" of the far left ever since.

It is NOT the "workers" in the U.S.A. who are the force behind the present loony left--the left of left wing blogs and MoveOn.org.  It is INTELLECTUALS, or psuedo-intellectuals, and the primary breeding ground is on college campuses--including the FACULTY (Willima Ayers is now a college professor).  It is these people who are willing to believe that President Bush was beh;ind 9/11, and that Reverend Wright is CORRECT to look upon the U.S.A. as the major force for evil in the world.  These are the people who are so enthusiastically supporting Barack Obama, as Obama recongnized when he condescendingly put down small town Democrats clinging to their religion and their guns. 

Working class Democrats, of course, never condoned the violence of the nati-war students and intellectuals of the Vietnam era (whether the working class Democrats liked the war or not).  These are people who love their country.  These are the Democrats who oppose illegal immigration, and generally believe in old style American values.  These are the Democrats now supporting Hillary Clinton (for lack of any other place to go in the Democratic Party, which is more and more becomeing the party of the loony left).

Contrast this with CONSERVATIVES.  Leftists seem to get MORE loony, the more education they have (not all of them, of course, but you can't argue with the fact that most of the really extreme left are EDUCATED people).  In contrast, the most loony conservatives (yours truly excepted, and I am not violent) are generally the LESS educated.   Those paramilitary militia people, or those hanging nooses, are generally NOT educated.  The really loony right is rarely coposed of college students and faculty. For example, it was maninly "lower class" whites--especially in modern times--who have been attracted to the Ku Klux Klan.  You don't generally think of the Klan as being a group recruiting on college campuses. 

WHY is this so?  WHY were Marx and Lenin more intellectuals than workers?  WHY do most of the truly radical left appear to be "intellectual" types?  WHY have the really vioent, anti-war types teneded to be unviersity students and faculty?  WHY has this also been true of most of the other groups who DEMONSTRATE these days?  (It is a long tie since the violent union/labor conflicts). 

My own explanation:  The far left is not rational, but it appeals to the type of irrationality to which "intellectuals" are prone.  In contrast, truly irrational people of the far right are irratonal in a more animalistic, unthinking way (the stereotype of "Deliverance" and the foaming at the mouth bigot).  You have some far right, educated loons attracted to the eugenics kind of irrationality of Hitler's "master race", but that has pretty much faded in modern times.

Does this mean that conservatism has gotten MORE ratonal as society has progress, while leftism has gotten LESS ratioinal?  I think so.  This is at least partly because leftist irrationality is NOT defused by education and communication, while the really vriulent irrationality of the loony right IS defused by education and communication. 

Whether you agree with this last paragraph or not, it is inarguable that the far left seems to be more a crature of advanced "education" than defused by it.  Advanced education seems to do nothing but throw leftists further into a fantasy world into which reality does not intrude--sometimes a violent fantasy world where violence is support of a "higher cause" is acceptable. 

Conservatives just don't live in that kind of intellectual fantasy world.  Oh, you can argue that conservatives have their own fantasies, but you have to admit that "higher" education does not seem to enhance or exaggerate them. 

You doubt me on the intellectual fantasies of letists (you should have learned NOT to doubt me by now)?  One of the stories last week was an "invasion" of one of the primary state buildings of Hawaii (which also happened to be the last royal palace from the time that Hawaii was under the control of a local royal family, before it became a territory of the United States).  I have previously mentioned in this blog that my younger daughter, Kyla, graduated from the University of Hawaii.  I have also previously mentioned that one of her professors (a woman ENGLISH progessor, I believe) brought in a spokesperson for this "liberation" movement in Hawaii trying to "restore" Hawaii to the native people of Hawaii, with the old "government".  This idea was presented to my daugher's class WITH APPROVAL.  Yes, there are any number of intellectuals in Hawaii that want to see Hwaii an independent country again.  You can't be any far gone into the world of leftist loon fantasy than that!!!!

This is why Barack Obama truly worries me.  Whether he is quite this loony himself, I think that Obama is the candidate of these loons.  Further, I hink theses leftists lost to their own fantasy world are presently running the Democratic Party, to a large degree.  If Obama wins, I think they will be fully in control.  That scares me. 

You

Written by skip3366 Permalink | Blog about this entry |  Add to del.icio.us |  digg this This entry has 0 comments: Add your own