A few points:

1) My issue with this is on tactics and not on whether the girl should be allowed to go to the prom with the date of her choice.  I think that’s an issue for the parents within the community to decide.  This is about kids, not adults, and even their freedom is limited until they are 18 (and even at 18, if they are attending a school function).

2) The ACLU is known to use these bullying tactics to push their agenda.  Instead of working for social change by dialog and other forms of speech, they push a lawsuit.  The school district, whether you agree with their reaction or not, was responding to the bullying when they canceled the prom.  The girl said that she didn’t think the school would react the way it did, which I find amusing.

3) Now since the ACLU didn’t get their way, they are pressing another lawsuit to force the school to hold the prom.  More bullying.  This would be like the government passing a law that you cannot discriminate against gay couples for adoption and then forcing the Catholic adoption agencies to stay open instead of closing due to moral obligations.

4) The original lawsuit was not claiming discrimination.  As Ed at Hot Air points out:

It’s interesting to me mainly as a legal matter: Per the ACLU’s complaint, this is not a discrimination claim. It’s a First Amendment claim, alleging that McMillen would essentially be engaged in a form of speech (“communicative content”) about her orientation in wearing a tuxedo and bringing a girl to the prom. That’s weak — she’s not going to prom to make a statement, she’s going because she wants to dance and have fun with her girlfriend — but because the Equal Protection Clause has never been held to apply to sexual orientation, the ACLU really has no choice but to try the speech argument. Not sure it’ll work, but then the point isn’t to win the suit. It’s to turn up the heat on the school district until the bad publicity makes them cave or, at the very least, scares other districts that might do this into thinking twice. Working like a charm so far.

The bottom line is this:  Coercing people to do what you want even if they don’t does NOT bring about good will and social change.  It puts people on the defensive, and actually hurts whatever progress you are trying to make.

At a joint press conference with Iran’s Atomic Energy Organization chief Ali Akbar Salehi in Tehran, ElBaradei brought Israel under spotlight and said that the Tel Aviv regime has refused to allow inspections into its nuclear installations for 30years, the report said.

“Israel is the number one threat to the Middle East given the nuclear arms it possesses,” ElBaradei was quoted as saying.

Chalk this up to one more reason the UN has no credibility. They are in Tehran for talks concerning Iran’s recently revealed secret nuclear site. They’ve given them two weeks to let them inspect the site – which is pleny of time for iran to hide anything they want to hide. Iran has repeatedly called for Israel’s destruction. Yet Israel is the bigger nuclear threat on the middle east? And to make matters worst, this announcement was made in Tehran.

I think Saudi Arabia would disagree since they’ve agreed to allow Israel to use their air space for any future strikes on Iran. Israel better hurry. The West seems hellbent on allowing Iran to build a bomb.

“I’m convinced that today the majority of Americans want what those first Americans wanted: A better life for themselves and their children; a minimum of government authority. Very simply, they want to be left alone in peace and safety to take care of the family by earning an honest dollar and putting away some savings. This may not sound too exciting, but there is something magnificent about it.”

Lori Roman is founder of RegularFolksUnited.com, the bully pulpit for regular folks.

From the Washington Examiner via Hot Air.

I mention this fact only because I was doing my daily reading of news and came across a blog about Ann Coulter’s new book titled “Guilty: Liberal “Victims” and their Assault on America.”  The Right Wing News blog was a summary of the best quotes in Ann’s book.  I have to say most of the quotes are right on.  

However, one of the quotes (from Ann’s book) in the blog was the following:  

“Getting pregnant isn’t like catching the flu. There are volitional acts involved — someone else explain it to Dennis Kucinich. By this purposeful act, single mothers cause irreparable harm to other human beings — their own children — as countless studies on the subject make clear. Not only do single mothers hurt their children, they also foist a raft of social pathologies on society. Look at almost any societal problem and you will find it is really a problem of single mothers.” 

I’ve never been punched in the face, but I imagine it is less painful than reading the above.   

What hurts is not that what Ann stated is false.  On the contrary, I know first hand that single-parent households can open the doors for kids going into gangs, drugs, abuse, low self esteem, etc., but it is the generalization that ALL single mothers are causing a problem and creating society’s evils.   

Believe it or not, I kept reading.  At the bottom of the blog was a link to another of John Hawkin’s pieces: “Ann Coulter on Single Mothers…”  Below is a clip from Ann’s book cited in Hawkin’s blog:  

“Here is the lottery ticket that single mothers are handing their innocent children by choosing to raise them without fathers: Controlling for socioeconomic status, race, and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent. By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy-two percent of juvenile murderers and 60 percent of rapists come from single-mother homes. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents, and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced. A 1990 study by the Progressive Policy Institute showed that after controlling for single motherhood, the difference between black and white crime rates disappeared.

Various studies have come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. According to the Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, children from single-parent families account for 63 percent of all youth suicides, 70 percent of all teenage pregnancies, 71 percent of all adolescent chemical/substance abuse, 80 percent of all prison inmates, and 90 percent of all homeless and runaway children.

A study cited in the Village Voice produced similar numbers. It found that children brought up in single-mother homes ‘are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home.’ Single motherhood is like a farm team for future criminals and social outcasts.

….Many of these studies, for example, are from the 1990s, when the percentage of teenagers raised by single parents was lower than it is today. In 1990, 28 percent of children under eighteen were being raised in one-parent homes (mother or father), and 71 percent were being raised in two-parent homes. By 2005, more than one-third of all babies born in the United States were illegitimate. That’s a lot of social problems coming.

…Imagine an America with 70 percent fewer juvenile delinquents, 70 percent fewer teenage births, 63 to 70 percent fewer teenage suicides, and 70 percent to 90 percent fewer runaways and you will appreciate what the sainted single mothers have accomplished.” — P.37-38

Well, if the first quote I read was a punch in the face, the second link and more detailed context of Ann’s book was definitely a dagger to the heart.   

It hurts me deeply to know that my daughter could end up as a statistic – it hurts to know that the odds are against me, even if I do everything I can to be a good mother.   

That being said, I want to go back to Ann Coulter.   

As a former liberal, I could not stand Ann Coulter.  As I’ve changed and have become more conservative, I have learned to appreciate many of the things she says.  Although I understand her point about single mothers, I feel she is doing the same thing a liberal would do: cry foul, without true remedy, i.e. she has become a victim.  

It is fine to point fingers and say that single mothers “choose” to be single mothers, or incite people by titling one of her chapters “Victim of a Crime? Blame a Single Mother.”  No matter what the statistics are, this is generalization at its finest.  Not to mention that she’s alienating people that might otherwise give what she is saying (which is an important point) a valid chance.  Worst of all is that she doesn’t get to the root of the problem.  Yes, single motherhood is bad for society, but what is causing this trend, what is at the root of this problem?    

Here’s an example.  I was abused as a child.  I lived with my abuser in my home until the age of 18 when I could no longer stand the sight of his face and could legally leave my home.  I was alone, naive and fell in love.  I got engaged and pregnant all by the time I was 19.  My daughter was born.  My daughter’s father wanted to marry me – and it would have worked out were it not for the fact that he raped me and turned out to be a child molester.  Does Ann call this “choosing” to be a single mom?  I would give my life to be with the man I love and have a family and a father for my daughter, but there are limits to what one can stand in the name of staying together.     

I know there are many single mothers that have done a great job in raising their kids alone, without being on welfare or sucking up taxpayer money, or raising thugs.  Single mothers that have raised kids that contribute to society.  I also know many married couples that could not control their kids and they ended up as criminals. 

So maybe it is not so much raising kids alone that is the problem, as it is raising kids with moral values.  It does not take two parents to teach a child that stealing is wrong (although it is ideal), or that rape is monstrous, or that a child is wonderful in God’s eyes and they deserve the best.  

I will be the first to agree with the study that Ann cites, which states that a home where the parents are married is the best place for a child to grow up in, but that does not change the fact that there are good single parents, and that not all children in single-parent homes are society’s downfall.   

I know Ann is trying to sell books, but I wish she would be more conscious of how she delivers her message.

Melissa Etheridge, champion of gay rights, declared back in November 2008 that because the people of California voted to keep marriage between a man and a woman, she would no longer pay taxes.  Her “reasoning” (I call it emotional blabbering) for not paying taxes was that it made her a “second class citizen” so she no longer needed to pay taxes.  Taunting the government, she blogged that the government would not be getting her “half million” in taxes owed.  Too bad that California and the country are going through tough times Melissa stated, she was keeping the extra money.  Who cares that she still uses California services, she no longer needed to pay her share.  Here’s the story.  

Anyway, for some reason, this story is still “news”, as it was on the front page of my AOL welcome screen a few days ago, and it made me think.   

As a single mom, I have worked hard to make something of myself (despite not going to college), and this year I am told by the government I owe taxes.  You can imagine how reading Melissa’s little tantrum makes me a little bit frustrated. 

Here is some reality for Ms. Etheridge.  I will be paying over $1,200 in Federal taxes this year (may seem small compared to her amount, but let me tell you that the money is needed much more in my household).  Do I like the fact that I am paying the taxes…no.  However, do I understand it as being part of living in this society, yes.  Is it then my right to be ABOVE THE LAW just because I don’t feel like paying taxes for whatever whimsical reason I can concoct today?  Let’s see, I am upset at a lot of things lately – maybe I should withhold paying my taxes because I disagree with Pelosi spending it on contraception?  Maybe I should withhold taxes because Obama is now paying for baby murder with my hard earned money?  Maybe I should withhold it because greedy politicians will end up stuffing it in their pockets anyway?   

Where does it begin and end? 

Here’s the kicker – before Prop 8, Ms. Etheridge had the same rights she has today.  She is able to legally be with her partner (just without the use of the word marriage).  Nothing has changed.  She is no more a second class citizen now than she was last October 2008.  Come and talk to me about being a second class citizen when you are really mistreated and denied your rights, like not being allowed to vote, or denied access to a restaurant because you’re gay – not just because the majority of California has an opinion different than yours.   

In her blog, Melissa also asks “Since when did we start legislating morality?”  Here’s the answer - always.  Does she not realize that when the government says “Murder is wrong” it is legislating morality?  Or how about when the laws state that it is not okay for a 40 year old man to rape a 10 year old girl?  That is legislating morality is it not?   

Anyway, I expect that if this woman does not pay her taxes, the full authority of the law will come down on her.  I’d ask Wesley Snipes how he would feel about Melissa getting away with not paying taxes.  

If they allow one person to skip taxes based on ideology, then maybe it’s time we all did.  After all, how many people can the government actually fit in Federal prison?   My guess is there’s not enough room to hold every single American that hates to pay taxes.  

Last night he had Dr. Drew Pinsky as a guest.  Dr. Drew is pretty well known (recently has the celebrity rehab shown on VH-1. 

Glen and Dr. Drew were discussing the emotional reaction to the AIG bonus scandal (see a clip here).  Glen brought up the fact that United States SENATORS were making ridiculous statements such as suggesting AIG employees who received bonuses should commit suicide (Sen. Grassley – sadly a Republican from Iowa), and the apathetic reactions (like just shrugging your shoulders and continuing with nonsense) from the likes of Sen. Barney Frank when Liddy (current CEO of AIG) advised that AIG employees had received death threats (some as horribly descriptive as using telephone wire and involving their families and children) and that releasing their names publicly could bring serious harm to innocent families – yes, Sen. Frank just continued with his gibberish.   

The general nature of the discussion, and it’s worth watching the whole clip, was that these overreactions by United States Senators, people who are supposed to be the leaders and are the lawmakers, were narcissistic and borderline crazy.  Beck suggested that it was a mob mentality on behalf of these politicians – trying to overrule the law (by finding ways to void a legal contract) and letting their emotions rule instead of the law (emotions that are fake and hypocritical anyway - see yesterday’s post for more on that) .  

Dr. Drew compared what is going on now to pre-French Revolution times, where those at the top thought they were “above the law.”  It made sense since there are actually US Senators thinking that in “solving” these problems they can overstep laws, retroactively implement laws, and tax 100% of the money that an individual made privately in a legally binding contract, which is completely ridiculous.

Based on last night’s show, I did a little more research because the media is spinning this story every which way, except in the way of truth.  First, I want to make clear some things I learned, that I did not get from reading any MSM notes. 

* Of note, Ed Liddy, the current CEO of AIG, came out of retirement (called upon as a public service) to help out with the AIG mess.  He did not create the mess and for some people to call for jail time of Liddy is stupid and defies any common sense (even Sen. Frank had to openly admit that). 

* The so-called “performance” bonuses everyone is all in a “rage” over, are actually retention bonuses.  What’s the difference you ask?  Well, Liddy explained it very well.  AIG needs to get back on its feet in order to pay back the money they took from the Federal government.  AIG will never get back on its feet if the people working there now just quit and leave behind a mess, without winding down the sections of the company that created the problem.  In order to keep these people working there, they paid them money to stay and do a good job in winding these areas of the company down.  Once they were done with the winding down aspect, they were allowed to leave.  Ignoramus, Sen. Barney Frank, doesn’t get that.  He keeps saying that he wants the names of the people that took money from AIG and then just quit.  HELLOOO!!! That was the point of retention payments - pay these people to finish the job (even if it was “distasteful” to give them any money as Liddy stated), which is necessary to keep AIG afloat, and then get rid of them. 

Nobody likes the bailouts- nobody wants to hear about people getting million dollar bonuses, but what is making this situation worse is the lack of truthful explanation from the government, especially the Treasury and the President, and the media’s refusal yet again to be unbiased and to seek the full story. 

Politicians are so intent on holding on to their power, making money, and still looking like the heros in front of the American people, that they are crumbling.  You cannot have it all.  You cannot always have your way.  And most importantly, the truth always, always, always comes to light – even if it’s not at the moment. 

Michelle Malkin has a good take on it (btw she looked great on the Glenn Beck show and is very well spoken – I can say that even though I disagree with her delivery of message on certain issues). 

Update:  Friday’s CG here’s a good read from Michael Goodwyn at the NY Daily News.

Hypocrite – a good word to describe President Obama.  While he is screaming and declaring his “outrage”  at AIG for paying out bonuses based on “performance” in 2008 – which is ridiculous in itself – he apparently forgot that he received $104,333 from AIG in 2008. Hat tip to CG for the link and to Cara Ellison for the short but sweet summary.   

To be fair, the list of politicians who have received contributions from AIG is long and it includes Republicans and Democrats alike (although it shows Democrats received the majority of the contributions in 2008).  In my opinion, anyone pretending to be offended by AIG paying out bonuses, while receiving money from them is a hypocrite. 

Anyway, this reminds me of a comparison someone made about Democrats trying to “fix” the housing and economic problems – they said something like “it’s like an arsonist coming back and trying to help put out a fire he started.”  I wish I could remember the source of that quote.  The point being that first Democrats create these horrible messes, and then pretend to be outraged, all while still managing to make a profit.   

One of the biggest claims Democrats/liberals always make is that Republicans stand for big corporations.  The repeat over and over that Republicans are not for the people, they’re for big business, etc, etc.  The truth (and I learned it recently and the hard way) is that politicians from both sides get money from corporations.  I’ll be the first to say that I was (maybe still am to some point) a Wal-Mart hater.  I had it in my head that Wal-Mart “oppressed” workers and they got away with it by paying off Republicans – yes, I was one of many victims of the mainstream media.  I’ve slowly learned that corporations are necessary to create a little something that the U.S. needs – it’s called JOBS.  

I don’t want to ramble – just wanted to note Obama’s hypocrisy – not that it’s the first, or the last time, there will be opportunity to point it out.

On March 9, 2009, Obama lifted the ban on embryonic stem cell research.  President Bush had formerly placed restrictions, and was only funding embryonic stem cell lines produced before August 9, 2001.   

Once again, Barack Obama reveals his true stance on things – not the moderate BS he spewed day-in-and day-out while on campaign.  Worst of all, he is promoting bad science.  

I can easily argue why this is morally wrong from a religious standpoint, but I’ll stick to my argument of bad science.   

Obama has just approved the use of taxpayer money to fund a science that has had no success in its research.  The taxpayer money will fund embryonic stem cell research, which involves the murder of human embryos (babies), but has yet to be successful in treating diseases.  This, in spite of the fact that Adult Stem Cell research (which does not involve destroying embryos and is described as “fragments of skin to create stem cells”) has been recognized as a better alternative and has been successful in treating various diseases. 

Daniel McConchie wrote about the false hope of embryonic stem cell research on The Center for Bioethics Human Dignity website.  

Mr. Hughes at the COG For Life blog states it best (in my opinion):  

“Adult stem cells (or, more accurately, tissue stem cells) are regenerative cells of the human body that possess the characteristic of plasticity–the ability to specialize and develop into other tissues of the body. Beginning in an unspecialized and undeveloped state, they can be coaxed to become heart tissue, neural matter, skin cells, and a host of other tissues. They are found in our own organs and tissues such as fat, bone marrow, umbilical cord blood, placentas, neuronal sources, and olfactory tissue, which resides in the upper nasal cavity.[2] This simple fact has remarkable implications for medicine–diseased or damaged tissue can become healthy and robust through the infusion of such cells. This has consequently commanded the attention of many researchers as well as those suffering from disease.   

It is necessary to note that the power of adult stem cells is not nebulously potential, but tangible and real, as it has produced wonderful results in multiple cases. These have been documented in clinical trials, that is, treatments with human patients. With adult stem cells, physicians have successfully treated autoimmune diseases such as lupus, multiple sclerosis, Crohn’s disease, and rheumatoid arthritis.[3] Furthermore, adult stem cells have helped to avert corneal degeneration and to restore vision in cases of blindness.[4] They have also restored proper cardiac function to heart attack sufferers[5] and improved movement in spinal cord injury patients.[”  

It is worth reading the whole thing (note that he wrote this in 2004).   

In 2007, the man who created Dolly the sheep by cloning, abandoned cloning altogether because he realized that adult stem cell research had the “best chance of leading to effective cures for chronic illnesses.”   

You can find many more articles about the success of adult stem cell research just by Googling.   

My point is this – why promote, and fund with taxpayer money, a science that has not yielded positive results and is at the center of a moral argument, when there is a better alternative?  I can find no real reason other than eagerness to promote your political views.   

If Obama were to admit that adult stem cell research has been more successful than embryonic stem cell research, he would essentially be saying that conservatives and many Republicans (including President Bush) were right, and that Democrats and liberal nuts were wrong.  

President Obama, the man who campaigned on bringing people together, would rather keep Americans separated by lies than united in truth.  Truth be damned with Mr. Obama – who needs truth when lies have gotten you the White House, and who needs truth when lies bring in more money to your causes, right?   

Update:  In doing further reading, I found someone that said it way better than I could and ties in the financial aspects of the argument.  Good read. 

I think I started caring more when I realized what my votes as a non-informed voter had provoked.  I had voted for people that stood strongly against my beliefs and I never cared enough to find out or dig deep enough to find those differences.  I was a Democrat, I voted Democrat, and that was that – no thought involved – easy stuff.

Too long of a story to add here, but I’ll just say that through experiences in life and my learning more about my Catholic faith, I now consider myself a reformed Democrat – turned away from the dark side (if I may use that term withouth George Lucas descending his lawyers upon me).  Once I opened up my mind to consider the fact that maybe, just maybe, Democrats weren’t the helpers of the oppressed and the saviours of the poor as they claimed, then I was able to use logic in my voting.  I am proud to say that I voted Republican in the last election (and I won’t get into an argument about how the Republican party is not perfect – trust me I know – but they are the better alternative at the moment). 

Anyway, back to what I wanted to talk about.  Having an open mind, and an informed conscience, I realized what was happening in California.  Activist judges were trying to force homosexual marriage on Californians and they didn’t care that California voters had already decided on this issue only a few years back.  When I heard about what this meant, and that there was actually a movement to try and fight for our rights (thanks Maggie Gallagher from NOM for coming to California), I knew I had to be part of it.  From the beginning I had the opportunity (and I say blessing) to be involved in the Prop 8 campaign. 

I was only a small drop of water, part of a group working with a region in Los Angeles to motivate Catholics to volunteer and vote for Prop 8 to protect traditional marriage.  It was hard work and we as a group faced daunting tasks.  Sometimes it seemed impossible that we could achieve our goal. Faith is what kept us going through the attacks (physical, verbal, emotional) from the other side.  Faith is what kept us going when we met opposition even in our churches – people that should know what the Church teaches and what we as Catholics believe. 

I worked with so many great people – people I would not have met otherwise – brothers and sisters from other denominations, and especially wonderful people from the Church of LDS.  Together we tackled many tasks and reached many, many voters.  Throughout the whole campaign we were told by news programs, all types of media, polls and people around us (ahem, won’t say any names) that we shouldn’t be hopeful, that we were likely going to lose and that there was no way that California would vote to overturn gay marriage.  Faith kept us going.

On November 4, 2008, the people of California spoke.  Despite so many deceiving ads from gay marriage advocates, the attacks on our churches,  the enormous amount of money that celebrities poured into the opposition’s campaign, and just the overall hatred spewed in our direction for standing up for our beliefs and our rights, Californians voted to protect traditional marriage.  The voters spoke and their will was to uphold marriage between a man and a woman. 

This did not satisfy homosexual marriage advocates.  They of course decided to challenge the decision.  Sadly, even the State Attorney General (Brown) in charge of protecting and upholding our constitution decided to proclaim the Prop 8 Amendment was unconstitutional.  Protesters to Prop 8 went to the streets and caused disrputions, and to Churches and antagonized churchgoers.  Supporters of homosexual marriage began a blacklist of people who voted for Prop 8.  They physically and emotionally attacked people at their place of work, and businessowners who privately donated to the campaign.  As they shouted for tolerance, they tried to crush our spirt and intimidate people who exercised their right to vote.

Yesterday, the California Supreme Court heard oral arguments in the actions filed against Prop 8.  Their main argument was that Prop 8 was not an Amendment, but a revision and should have gone through a 3/4 legislative vote.  In my opinion, the opposition’s arguments were weak and unsupported.  I felt the Justices were good about questioning and trying to obtain evidence from the Prop 8 opposition as to why they should overturn the will of the people – and frankly, in my humble opinion, they did not get a valid response (you can see for yourself here http://www.calchannel.com/images/tcc_live.html).

Now the Justices have 90 days to give their decision.  I remain confident that the will of God will prevail. 

Here is my recap.  Ironically, I think Elton John said it best on November 14, 2008: 

“I don’t want to be married. I’m very happy with a civil partnership. If gay people want to get married, or get together, they should have a civil partnership,”  “The word ‘marriage,’ I think, puts a lot of people off.   “You get the same equal rights that we do when we have a civil partnership. Heterosexual people get married. We can have civil partnerships.”

The homosexual community already has the rights to be legally in a committed relationship.  What they want is the term “marriage.”  And in order to get the term, they are willing to insult, threaten livelihoods, intimidate, blacklist, physically harm, and legally outspend anyone who believes different.  They have said it many times, whatever it takes. 

I pray for the conversion of hearts and minds, and I pray for the strength to continue fighting for my beliefs and my voting rights in the face of such intolerant opposition.

Since our gracious host seems to be MIA – even when I randomly text and/or call (that’s just me making him feel guilty, I didn’t really call him…shhhh), I’ve got the urge to blog on his site.  He always told me to do so, and I always felt weird about being all up in his space – well, actually, as a Mexican woman I didn’t feel like I deserved the space on his blog site – you know a Mexican California woman and a conservative White Southern man….ooooh sounds like the next hit sitcom. 

So my blog today will be about our dear, hopeful, changeful President Obama. I thought I would do a small recap of his progress so far – I mean it’s only fair we chronicle his great crusade to enlighten and free us all of the great oppression we were in under Evil President Bush (insert evil laugh here).

Okay, so let’s recap:

Day One – Inauguration:  Yay!  First Black President everrrrr….woohooo.  PARTYYYYYY!!! I mean it’s not every day you see a black man elected President.  Who wasn’t out and partying?  Who didn’t host an Inauguration Day party? Who didn’t spend $1,000,000 on this monumental event?  You’re just not cool if you’r not down with O.  I mean Oprah is doing it, I should too, right?

Day 2 to Present: Wow, Obama sure wasn’t kidding about change.  And he’s not all talk, he’s action too – I mean who would have ever thought of nominating a man (Geithner) who owed thousands in back taxes to manage the nation’s finances – BRILLIANT MOVE SIR!!! Yes, the big “O” trusts a man who “forgot” to pay taxes, but is still considered a genius – to manage the United States’ financial future, and who wouldn’t right?  Don’t tell me you never thought of hiring Wesley Snipes as your CPA?  I know I have.   

Then there was the amazing pick of Sen. Daschle for Secretary Health and Human Services.  Wow, another pick that owed taxes – probably forgot too.  Unfortunately, Sen. Daschle had to reject the offer from O - I mean who wants to be in the spotlight where all your past illegal blunders come to light.  But President Obama being the hopeful man that he is, kept hoping that one of his picks would actually be a worthy pick.  I love faux-hope.

There’s so many rejected picks going back to before President O was even elected that it’s hard to name them all – there was Gov. Bill Richardson – who politely withdrew as a cabinet pick because, well…because of something called “legal inquiry.”  Fancy terms for Democrat did a booboo.

But our leader did not let those little hiccups phase him (insert an image of President O waving his hand in front of his face, and saying ‘YOU CAN’T SEE ME’), he continued with his goal of making the biggest, bestest, grandest Government ever!

And for that he required assistance: step in, Ms. Nancy Pelosi (the Queen of Quasi-Catholocism herself), Barney Frank (ooh just typing his name gives me goosebumps, in a rash-like sort of way), and  every other self-aggrandizing Democratic politician in the United States.  It takes a lot of people to come up with a TRILLION DOLLAR spending plan. 

I mean there’s sooooo much to buy: 

* Many toys (can’t criticize the O for buying those fancy helicopters when everyone else is suffering – how else can he spread the hope and change?)

* Hungry potlicians to feed

* irresponsible Americans to reward. 

President O and his Dem Dream Team broke a sweat on this one I can assure you – and they sure brought change – change from a thriving nation to a failing miserable one that has to turn to government for every aspect of life.  CHANGE – no one said it had to be good change, right?  Way to keep your promise Mr. Prez.

In more recent days, the big O has had to change his hope talk and has exchanged it for “DOOM, it’s coming, you better believe it!” and “Let’s spend your money, so your kid’s don’t have to.”    All great leaders know that sometimes you have to change your message – and if scaring Americans into supporting the spending plan (aka Democratic wish list), then it’s all good baby!

Ok, that’s my recap.  Whewww….it’s been exciting times – not knowing what the future holds, being scared for my daughter’s future – it has my pulse all racy and stuff.  Fun times indeed.

And since there’s a chance that some “englightened” folks might drop by this site – it’s sarcasm.