Everyone here knows I love McCain. McCain is my hero. I forgive him for all his mistakes. But a girl always has to be looking for what could be her rebound man.
Mitt's my rebound man. Here is what I like about him:
He has been married to the same woman for 38 years and has five perfectly wonderful sons. This may not mean a lot to some of you, but it means something to me.
He's smart. He has business and law degrees from Harvard Business School and Harvard Law School. To say he was successful in life is putting it mildly. He's worth $250 million. Wow. He knows business and that's important. Too many leaders spend their whole lives in politics (see the Clintons) and never understand how regulation and taxes affect businesses.
Here is a story you might not know about Romney. In the summer 1996 a 14-year-old daughter of a Bain partner (his business) went missing in New York City. Mitt shut down Bain for a week (imagine!!!) while Romney and dozens of other employees flew to New York to walk the streets in search of the girl. They set up a command center in a hotel. They didn't find her, but she turned up a week later, safe in New Jersey.
Now that is impressive. Very impressive. It tells me what things matter to him and how much they mean.
Everyone knows about his success with being CEO of the 2002 Olympic Winter Games and that he was governor of Massachusetts. When he became Governor in 2003 he faced a projected $3 billion deficit. By 2006 the State had a $700 million surplus. Impressive again.
Many question his dedication to the social issues since he showed support for abortion rights and gay marriage in the past. He changed his views on both issues. Is it sincere? I can't tell you for sure. But I do know that in 2004, while researching embryonic cell research, he sought information from pro-life scientists to learn more about the issue. He says he had a change of heart, just like so many of us on the pro-life side (myself included) and I believe him. He says he against same sex marriage and I believe him there too.
In case you aren't up on all his views, here is a quick overview.
He's for the death penalty. He is for school choice. He calls for securing our borders. He opposes torture in prisoner interrogations. He advocates elimination the capital gains tax on everyone earning less than $200,000 and eliminating the inheritance tax. He opposes all tax increases. He wants to increase military spending and increase the military. He supports the war.
Is he as perfect as he looks? No. I don't agree with everything, just as I don't with McCain or anyone else running. But he's right on all the important things.
As far as him being a Morman? This is the way I look at it. Christ said you will know a tree by it's fruit. Mitt has led a good life. He seems to love his wife and has wonderful sons. There doesn't seem to be a hint of scandal around him. There won't be any skeletons falling from his closet.
The only concern I have is that he is a rookie at running for President. We all know how powerful this HillaryMachine is. I'm not sure a rookie can fight against it and win.
But this is a man who has won at many levels in his life. Not the least of which is just being a good man. Maybe goodness against a political manipulation machine can win.
We shall see.
Saturday, October 13, 2007
Everyone here knows I love McCain. McCain is my hero. I forgive him for all his mistakes. But a girl always has to be looking for what could be her rebound man.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 7:46 PM
Friday, October 12, 2007
From The Middle East Media Research Institute via Mudville.
"Khudayr Taher, a liberal Iraqi author now living in the U.S., is a regular commentator for the liberal Arab e-journal Elaph. In a series of articles published September 21-25, 2007, he described his transformation from an ardent Shi'ite sectarian in his native Karbala to a liberal devotee of Enlightenment values. Earlier, on September 11, he published "An Apology to America for the Crimes of the Arabs and Muslims," in which he called the U.S. "the prophet of liberty."
"… As an Arab Muslim, I feel shame and disgrace at this crime [9/11] that befell the United States of America, which is considered the best country on the face of the planet in the service it has done to human civilization. It is America that gave humanity [many] inventions: the telephone, the airplane, cinema and television, electric light, the Internet, and thousands of other inventions and scientific and intellectual discoveries…
"And America is the prophet of liberty that has liberated millions of humans from subjugation and slavery. It brought down Nazism, Communism, and the Taliban and Saddam regimes.
"It is certain that the ignorant, the rabble, and the terrorists do not understand … that Allah has blessed the land of America and has graced it with all its resources - mines, oil, agriculture, land, and aquatic fauna… America is an earthly paradise… by the grace of Allah's blessings.
"The foolish and the criminal never manage to see the sunlight and the hidden good that shines out… One needs a clear conscience and a mind free of criminal mob slogans before one can see America's good, shining face…
"Any noble Arab Muslim should be ashamed and should apologize to the American people for this crime [i.e. 9/11]. America deserves great love and recognition for its goodness and grace towards humanity." 
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:37 PM
At least to me.
You have probably heard by now the National Inquirer story about John Edwards having an affair. I haven't posted on it because without proof, it's just too mean. The story isn't what I am interested in. I'm interested in the source. This just smacks of the Clinton machine. No one on the right cares about John Edwards. He isn't going to get the nomination. But the Clintons see him as siphoning off way too many votes in the primaries and Obama looking better because of it.
I'm figuring they haven't found anything juicy on Obama yet.
That's the real story here.
Update: Edwards and the woman are denying everything. But back to what I think the real story is. Remember how I just posted how Hillary will do everything by polls? It just so happens that this poll shows that a third of U.S. women say their vote is influenced by the happiness of the candidate's marriage. Among Democrats, 52% saw Edwards as having the happiest marriage, where only 29% show Hillary as having a happy marriage.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 3:47 PM
This a political art piece by Arthur Szyk, who did most of his work in the 1940's. You can read about him here.
This is called "The Four Horsemen" (l to r) Hitler, Mussolini, a Japanese Ultranationalist and a Bolshevik are potrayed as the four horsemen of the apocalypse.
This is political art. This is not. (scroll down just a bit)
The Guardian reports: "Mr Sokolov described the photo as political provocation and said he was pulling it, together with 16 other works, from a show at Paris's Maison Rouge exhibition hall. The exhibits were all displayed in Russia this year at Moscow's state-owned Tretyakov gallery. The minister also banned another work by the same irreverent group, Blue Noses, that shows Vladimir Putin, George Bush and Osama bin Laden cavorting on a double bed in their underpants."
I'm not posting the photos of the art mentioned above because they just disgust me (they are safe for work though), You can click on the link to see them. But when did political art that is displayed in exhibition become something that looks like a Democratic Underground photoshop???? I mean if you are going to make a statement against Pres. Bush, fine. But could some talent be involved here?
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 11:45 AM
But her comments Thursday on the issue prompted him to question whether she's changed her mind.
During a Democratic presidential debate in July, Obama said he would be willing to meet without precondition in the first year of his presidency with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea.
Standing with him on stage, Clinton said she would first send envoys to test the waters and called Obama's position irresponsible and naive.
But asked about it Thursday by a voter, the New York senator said twice that she, too, would negotiate with Iran "with no conditions.
"I would engage in negotiations with Iran, with no conditions, because we don't really understand how Iran works. We think we do, from the outside, but I think that is misleading," she said at an apple orchard.
Why would she change her mind? One word. Polls.
We know through Dick Morris that Bill Clinton used polls almost daily in his Presidency. Nothing mattered more to Clinton than being liked, so he would do what the polls told him that the people wanted. Morris said that Bill and Hillary did absolutely nothing, without first weighing how it would effect public opinion. It's how we finally got welfare reform.
Now, Hillary doesn't care about being liked. She will do as she wishes if she becomes President, but to get the nomination and get elected, she must be liked. So I believe she is following in her husband's footsteps in this regard.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:46 AM
Think Progress has this "shocking" headline:
EXCLUSIVE: E-mail Reveals That McConnell Staffer Propagated Smear Campaign Against Graeme Frost
How did the McConnell staffer do this? By this e-mail:
"Seen the latest blogswarm? Apparently, there’s more to the story on the kid (Graeme Frost) that did the Dems’ radio response on SCHIP. Bloggers have done a little digging and turned up that the Dad owns his own business (and the building it’s in), seems to have some commercial rental income and Graeme and a sister go to a private school that, according to its website, costs about $20k a year ‹for each kid‹ despite the news profiles reporting a family income of only $45k for the Frosts. Could the Dems really have done that bad of a job vetting this family?"
Can someone explain to me how this is a "smear??" Let's see. He points out that bloggers found that the Dad owns his own business and building and that the kids go to private school. He then expresses disbelief that the Democrats would put this child out there as an example of why we need an expansion of the SCHIP program without finding out that they might not be that needy.
I just had to laugh at the notion that this is somehow a "smear." Listing facts about a person, who the Democrats put out there as a response to the President, is a "baseless smear?"
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:19 AM
I think we have all gotten used to this award being handed out to prominent liberals:
"The Norwegian Nobel Committee characterized Gore as "the single individual who has done most" to convince world governments and leaders that climate change is real, is caused by human activity, and poses a grave threat."
That is true. He has done that. You may have noticed that I don't blog on the global warming debate. I don't blog on it because there are too many confusing voices and I don't trust any of them either way.
But the shame of this award is that although Gore has done more in a PR sense to convince people about global warming, he has also been the biggest hypocrite on this issue as well. He encourages us all to take measures to conserve energy while he lives an elite lifestyle of private jets, multiple houses, and many cars.
I don't have to agree with someone to respect them. Just show me that you truly believe in what you believe and live your life reflecting those values, and I can respect you. Gore could have earned some respect from me by living a life that served as an example of conserving energy. If he had flown commercial or downscaled his home (especially since only two people live there). If he had always implented energy saving devices before he was asked to do "An Inconvient Truth." All those things would have convinced me of at least his dedication to saving the environment.
Finally, many have discovered serious errors in Gore's movies and they never seem to be addressed in the media.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:34 AM
Thursday, October 11, 2007
And probably more important than any of us realize:
"World's future hinges on peace between faiths, Islamic scholars tell Pope"
In a letter addressed directly to Pope Benedict XVI and other Christian leaders including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Rowan Williams, 138 prominent Muslim scholars said that finding common ground between the world's biggest two religions was not "simply a matter for polite ecumenical dialogue".
The letter, which is entitled A Common Word between Us and You, says: "Muslims and Christians together make up well over half of the world's population. Without peace and justice between these two religious communities, there can be no meaningful peace in the world. The future of the world depends on peace between Muslims and Christians."
The 29-page document argues that the basis for this understanding can be found in the common principles of the religions: "Love of the one God, and love of the neighbour".
Supporting their argument with quotations from both the Bible and the Qur'an, the signatories say that Mohammed was told the same truths that had already been revealed to previous Christian and Jewish prophets, including Jesus.
But the scholars also stress that there is more at stake than "polite ecumenical dialogue" between religious leaders.
"With the terrible weaponry of the modern world; with Muslims and Christians intertwined everywhere as never before, no side can unilaterally win a conflict between more than half of the world's inhabitants. Thus our common future is at stake. The very survival of the world itself is perhaps at stake," the letter says.
Read the whole thing.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:52 PM
It is too funny.
Rep. Bennie Thompson, Mississippi Democrat and committee chairman, responds to concerns by Rep. Robin Hayes of Concord, North Carolina, that committee staffers should be immunized against certain diseases before attending NASCAR races.
"I have been to numerous NASCAR races, and the folks who attend these events certainly do not pose any health hazard to congressional staffers or anyone else," Mr. Hayes said.
A committee staffer says that the Republican staffers have declined the shots but that two Democrat staffers were immunized before attending the race at Talladega last weekend.
They have GOT to be kidding. I can't imagine anyone being that ignorant.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 1:02 PM
"In my column last week, I argued for electoral pragmatism by my fellow conservatives (e.g. better a Giuliani Republican than Hillary). About two-thirds of my self-identified conservative Christian e-mail respondents strongly disagreed."
I've been trying to drive this home with my conservative friends. Most religious conservatives will simply not vote for Rudy. Period. It may anger you, but it's reality. Can someone call Iowa and New Hampshire and tell them this?
That response reminded me of a very shrewd observation several years ago by Robert William Fogel that: "Coalitions spawned by religious movements are more ideological than partisan." The current Republican-conservative coalition that started forming under Richard Nixon and reached its zenith under Ronald Reagan would never have become a national governing coalition without the powerful impetus of the expanding religious movement in America. Without the conservative social-religious faction of the coalition, the remaining fiscal conservatives, free marketers, hawks and country-club Republicans would routinely come up short of a national majority.
Blankely argues, as most of you do, that we are only shooting ourselves in the foot if Rudy is our nominee and we stay home on election day. He makes this point:
"Those of us who have stayed in the fray have had to constantly wrestle with our consciences as to whether we are making a reasonable compromise — or whether we are becoming power mad political hacks.
No doubt there is a danger of becoming precisely the sort of swamp creatures we came to Washington to rid the nation of when we said we wanted to drain the Washington swamp. But perfect purity of principle in application is not a functioning governing process — it is a posture. And whether one is a Washington professional or a citizen voter, anyone who considers himself a person of good conscience, must have the courage to judge whether the net effect of his political decision advances one's moral objectives or not"
But where is the line drawn? I don't think it is "perfect purity" to demand that our candidate at the very least value human life as it's being born. I don't think it is "perfect purity" to desire our candidate agree with us on immigration, gun rights, campaign finance reform, and gay marriage. Letting one or possibly even two of these issues go is one thing. But the host of them adds up to a nominee that might as well be a Democrat. That isn't purity, that's promiscuity.
Blankley ends with this:
"But in the practicality of democratic elections we cannot make such a similar commitment to every one of our governing ideals. Elections are very specific and limited choices between different outcomes. The decision not to vote, or vote for a third-party candidate with no hope of winning, is itself a moral choice for the outcome such a vote will effectuate. People of conscience will have to decide whether feeling pure by voting "none of the above" is the highest ethical act or not."
This is a good argument. Very good. The problem is that millions and millions of Christians will never read it. The problem is millions will not agree.
I'm growing tired of this. We need to stop trying to convince people to vote for Rudy before Rudy is even our nominee. The simple and right answer to me is to NOT NOMINATE RUDY.
If we do, then we can have this argument. Not that it will make much difference.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:13 AM
Wednesday, October 10, 2007
Camille Paglia at Salon:
I find it hard to believe that my fellow Democrats want to backtrack and relive every tedious scandal from the Clinton era. But that’s what we’ll get if Hillary is the nominee — a long, sulfurous night of the walking dead, with chattering skeletons tumbling out of every closet. I’ve been discouraged by the clumsy missteps of the Edwards campaign, but I’m still hopeful about Barack Obama, who had the guts and good sense to publicly oppose the Iraq war from the start and whose ascent promises a clean, invigorating break from the sordid past.
via TJ Green
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 4:01 PM
.....then plant racists hateful flyers and sign the other sides' name.
The ongoing determination to slander the right.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 2:00 PM
The Plain Dealers blog has this:
"House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today defended the Architect of the Capitol's refusal to permit use of the word "God" on official certificates enclosed with flags flown over the U.S. Capitol.
Dayton-area GOP Rep. Michael Turner and more than 100 of his Republican colleagues sent a letter to Pelosi last week after an Eagle Scout in his district asked that a flag flown over the U.S. Capitol be sent to his grandfather with a certificate inscribed with the message: "In honor of my grandfather Marcel Larochelle, and his dedication and love of God, country, and family."
The boy and his father contacted Turner's office after noticing the word "God" was left off the certificate included with the flag. Outraged upon learning that the acting Architect of the Capitol, Stephen T. Ayers, won't allow religious expressions on flag certificates, Turner sent a protest letter to Pelosi.
"The Architect's policy prohibiting "God" from appearing on certificates for flags flown over the U.S. Capitol puts at risk our religious freedoms and heritage,"
Pelosi, of course, takes the usual anti-God stance. She had to take a break from praying for George W. Bush to make this statement:
"It's not about being anti-religion," Pelosi said, noting that each day in the Capitol starts with a prayer. "It is just about what the architect thought was appropriate for him to proclaim in a certificate."
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:04 AM
I haven't listened to Rush in years. I'm not in the car in the afternoon anymore, so I just haven't caught him. But after the Democrats launched their smear campaign on him, I started listening again. I had forgotten how clear and concise and funny he is.
Brent Bozell has an excellent article over at Townhall how Rush has been vindicated and he makes excellent points, which I will get to in a moment. But I think it's important to stop and think for a minute about what happened.
The Democratic congress went after a private citizen. I know they think if they can censor Rush then they might have a better chance in '08. And Rush isn't the only one they want to shut up.
Imagine for a moment if Republicans had tried to get Air America off the air when it began? Of course, we never would call for that. We aren't afraid of the opposite view. It's ironic, isn't it? That the same people who scream about wiretapping to catch terrorists seem to have no problem with the Democratic arm of the government going after a private citizen.
The Democrats could not have chosen a more ridiculous charge. As Brent points out, Rush has been an unrelenting supporter of the Military:
"A day doesn't go by when he isn't praising our military on his radio program. He's visited the troops on the battlefield in Afghanistan and brought comfort to our wounded at the Walter Reed Army hospital. He's raised and donated millions to military charities. It is no wonder that he is the single most popular personality on the Armed Forces Radio Network."
There is no doubt what this is about. Media Matters, MoveOn and other leftwing organizations are trying to shut Rush up. They don't want to debate the issues on the merits. They want to censor the opposite view.
That is what the smear on Bill O'Reilly was about as well. As Brent rightly points out:
This is no accident, and no coincidence. Yesterday, it was MoveOn. Today, it's Media Matters. This is the far left at its repugnant worst, perfectly content to destroy a man's reputation through dishonest attacks if it will further its agenda. Josef Stalin would be proud of this movement.
But this won't stop the left. Tomorrow it will be Sean Hannity, or Mark Levin, or maybe Laura Ingraham. This group plays for keeps.
Brent is right about that:
"Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."
Scary stuff. Scary.
This should be a concern for all of us.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 8:35 AM
Tuesday, October 09, 2007
I watched some of this. I really only wanted to see how Fred would do and I think he did pretty good. He was more charming and funny than I expected. I had read so much from others at NRO and Townhall that he was a lackluster speaker. I'm glad that turned out not to be the case.
HotAir has more here and here.
David Brody from CBN has a good overview of the debate as well.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 6:53 PM
Hard to tell which is which.
Newsday has the following article, which was supplemented by wire reports:
"British pullout in Iraq leaves Basra in chaos"
Yet today I get an e-mail from Michael Yon:
A new dispatch is published: Under Distant Stars.
I've just spent 10 days on the Iran-Iraq border with an excellent British "Battle Group" called 4 Rifles. We truly were living under the desert stars.
I am currently in Basra. There are reports that Basra is in chaos.
These reports are false. Basra is mostly peaceful; the British have not lost a soldier in combat for more than a month, and Iraqi-on-Iraqi violence has plummeted in the last six weeks or so.
The British have NOT pulled out of Iraq or Basra yet, but from what I can see, their force reduction decisions are militarily and politically sound, and are supported by top American commanders in Baghdad. The news reports I am seeing about Basra are incomplete at best, and largely inaccurate.
(Reminds me of Mosul during 2005.)
I can't tell you how disturbing it is to me to think that news from the war is not accurate. Is there really an effort by some in the media to portray everything in a negative light? I wonder.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 12:20 PM
If ever there should be a role model for women, Lynne Cheney is it. She is accomplished, smart, and strong.
I love her values and her opinions. It is ironic that she is married to the man the left thinks of as the devil, but as usual, the real story paints a very different picture. When their daughter came out as gay I'm sure the left assumed that the Cheney's would turn their backs on her, but of course that didn't happen. They showed unconditional love, which we are called to do in our faith.
As I discussed in my previous post regarding Christian's call to help others, not through the government, but through our own personal finances or time, the Cheney's come through there as well:
"Lynne Cheney has made about $2 million by writing books, giving half to charity. In addition, she and her husband have given nearly $7 million to George Washington Hospital, the University of Wyoming, and a scholarship program for students in the District."
"Mr. and Mrs. Cheney gave 78% of their 2005 income to charity. The couple donated $6.9 million, including the proceeds from stock options and book royalties that Mrs. Cheney routinely gives away. Their giving went to three nonprofit causes in health, higher education and services for inner-city youth."
I remember reading that a 1997 federal tax return showed Vice President Al Gore and wife Tipper reported giving $353 to charity that year. I don't question that Gore cares about the poor, but it seems he'd rather taxpayers actually foot the bill. I suppose if one depends on the government to help others, you don't feel much of a need to do so yourself. Which is one of the problems with it.
Just for comparison's sake, sort of like I did with the Bush girls and Chelsea, let's compare the percentage of the Gore's giving after the 1997 debacle. In 1999 they gave away 5.1% of their income.
78%-Cheny to 5.1%-Gore
Interesting, is it not? Some people practice what they preach and other's just preach.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 10:18 AM
I've been getting some liberal commenters blasting me for not supporting the SCHIP, because that is what Jesus would have done, right?
Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21)
Should we pay our taxes? Yes. But that is where the line is drawn of Christ ever mentioning the government in relation to his ministry. And it was to make sure we knew the difference between what was God's and what was Caesar's. Never did Christ ask us to come together as a government and help the poor. He called us as Christians to help the poor. Each of us. Individually. It's interesting to note that in the New Testament Christ refers to how employers should treat their employees, how people should treat those who are in debt to them. He told parables about employees being generous and how they had a right to do with their money as they wished.
Christ never called on his followers to band with the government to help the poor. And he could have easily done so. It is wrong to bring Christ's teachings into politics unless it concerns moral issues. When moral issues are being forced upon us by the government then it is right to respond with Christ's message. Whether it be abortion, gay marriage, the death penalty, persecution, or civil rights for minorities. It is right to stand up for what we believe Christ would want us too. And we don't have to always agree with what that is, but it should stand on moral grounds.
Although it is fine to confront political issues with our religious belief, this is not demanded of us in our faith. That is our own decision. Many good and holy people live lives of giving and never enter the political process and that is fine. We answer the call we are given.
Now, that having been said, I do believe in a safety net for the poor by the government, but not because of my Christian beliefs, but because it seems to be the easiest way to provide that care for those who cannot take care of themselves. But we are so beyond a "safety net' right now. We have give a way programs that take away our hard earned money in billions and billions of dollars of fraud every year. That is wrong.
We are over taxed, over regulated, and over governed. Too much government is wrong for a free people.
So my liberal friends can stop lecturing me on what Christ would want. I have spent my entire life trying to make sure I am doing exactly that. It doesn't mean I haven't failed many many times, but nothing matters more to me. But you will never convince me that Christ was political in any way. He was about one thing and one thing only...our salvation. That's it. Period.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 9:20 AM
Monday, October 08, 2007
I thought you guys might be interested to watch the beginning clip of the Dixie Chick's "Shut Up and Sing" DVD where my blog is discussed. Other than the first thing he reads about me saying it's too bad and even this angry song is good, none of the rest is me. It's commenters on this blog and my Houston Chronicle blog. In fact, I'm not sure about the last line one of the Chicks reads, because I don't allow the "F" word, so that may be from somewhere else. Just wanted to make that clear.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 4:29 PM
Sunday, October 07, 2007
Pres. Bush is a heartless S.O.B.. right? Who doesn't want healthcare for children? Well, it's like this.....
I just have to expand on this. It's just mind boggling. Think about it. The Democrats thought they were being really crafty by having a 12 yr old boy named Graeme Frost read the rebuttal to President Bush's radio address about the SCHIP program. It really needs to be understood here that President Bush is for expanding this program and adding 4 million more children to the rolls, but the Democrats will not be happy until we are under socialized care and we all know that.
But I digress.
What is funny about this, is that this wasn't Republicans going and looking for a perfect example of how this expanded program doesn't help poor children. They are covered. It helps middle income America. People who can afford their own healthcare insurance. No, Republicans didn't have to go looking. Graeme Frost was the Democrats own little poster boy for the program. Only problem? His family lives in a half a million dollar home. He and his sister attend a private school that cost $20,000 a year. His father owns the half a million dollar commercial property that he works out of. And on top of all that, the insurance premiums this blog snoop found for the area were affordable. This family made choices and one of them was to take advantage of the system.
I don't blame them. But this is the problem with the ever expanding programs the Democrats want to force on us. We all say "Ok, we will help cover the poor children with health insurance." But that is never enough. The more give away programs the Democrats can push through, the more they look like the "caring" ones and the more votes they buy with the handouts.
Their poster boy for the expansion of the SCHIP becomes our poster boy against it.
You just can't make this stuff up.
Update: I went over to Michelle's since jandrew thinks it's so awful to expose the TRUTH and I find what I suspected. It may be that the grandparents foot the expensive private school bills. How about this? Let the grandparents pay for healthcare insurance and let the kids go to public school, instead OF LETTING THE TAXPAYERS FOOT THE BILL FOR THEIR INSURANCE.
It's time to get perspective here.
When I think about my Dad growing up without shoes in the summer. Bargaining with chickens to get goods and YET he became a lawyer, a legislator, and a circuit clerk. Why? Because he learned to depend on HIMSELF and not the government.
Posted by RightwingSparkle at 4:48 PM