In yet another example of the kind of slant you can only get from liberal news organizations, politifac gave Mitt Romney its "lie of the year" award. He got it for his claim Jeeps were being made in China.....
That's it,
that's the "lie of the year."
Forget when Harry Reid accused Romney of
not paying taxes in over ten years. No, that wasn't that big. It certainly
wasn't that much of a big deal since Harry felt comfortable enough to then move
on to call Romney a poor example for the Mormon faith. Nothing wrong with that
either I guess.
Forget when Obama's campaign manager Stephanie Cutter
stated Romney could be guilty of a felony. No, that's not that bad either. Heck,
a few weeks later when President Obama faced the press he was asked point blank
about this accusation and it's effect on the "tone" of the campaigns. Obama's
response "well, lets be clear, no one has said Romney is a felon." BTW, there was
no follow up on this false statement from the President. Nope, Cutter's remarks
and Obama's false statement later are not that bad.
It's not even
that bad when an Obama Superpac put out an ad accusing Romney of causing a
woman's death from cancer. The ad featured a man who had been laid off by a
company purchased from Bain Capital. His wife still had a job, but lost it a few
years later herself. Still a few years later she unfortunately was diagnosed
with cancer and ended up passing away. No, that wasn't the lie of the
year either.
The lie of the year..... was Romney when he stated Jeeps are
being made in China.... Are you friggin kidding me?
Here's the link to
the news story.
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/ticket/romne....--election.html
Friday, December 28, 2012
NY Newspaper publishes names of gun owners
A newspaper is "naming names" of all those who own firearms and where they live in two counties, so far, in New York.
I guess openly creating a list and seeking to turn neighbor against neighbor is "cool" again. This is especially amusing considering how much the liberals despise Senator Joseph McCarthy for his investigations into citizens for unamerican activities and ties to communism.
I can't speak for all gun owners, but I can say I have no issue with my name and location being published and it being known that I am a gun owner. I think the more it's known I keep a gun where I live, the less likely it will be that I'm targeted by criminals or would be thugs.
A blogger has responded though, and published the home locations for the editors and journalists responsible for this as well. What's good for the goose I guess.
.......................................
Thousands of critics – including some journalism professionals – have weighed in. And at least one blogger has retaliated by publishing the names and addresses of editors and executives at the Journal News, the publication headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., north of New York City and part of the Gannett organization.
Still, the Journal News is not backing down. Editors say they’ll publish information on handgun owners in a third county (Putnam) once county officials have responded to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that resulted in tens of thousands of names and addresses in Westchester and Rockland Counties.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1227/Gun-owner-map-ricochet-Blogger-publishes-journalists-personal-data?nav=87-frontpage-entryNineItem
I guess openly creating a list and seeking to turn neighbor against neighbor is "cool" again. This is especially amusing considering how much the liberals despise Senator Joseph McCarthy for his investigations into citizens for unamerican activities and ties to communism.
I can't speak for all gun owners, but I can say I have no issue with my name and location being published and it being known that I am a gun owner. I think the more it's known I keep a gun where I live, the less likely it will be that I'm targeted by criminals or would be thugs.
A blogger has responded though, and published the home locations for the editors and journalists responsible for this as well. What's good for the goose I guess.
.......................................
Thousands of critics – including some journalism professionals – have weighed in. And at least one blogger has retaliated by publishing the names and addresses of editors and executives at the Journal News, the publication headquartered in White Plains, N.Y., north of New York City and part of the Gannett organization.
Still, the Journal News is not backing down. Editors say they’ll publish information on handgun owners in a third county (Putnam) once county officials have responded to the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request that resulted in tens of thousands of names and addresses in Westchester and Rockland Counties.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2012/1227/Gun-owner-map-ricochet-Blogger-publishes-journalists-personal-data?nav=87-frontpage-entryNineItem
Sunday, December 2, 2012
What Would W. Do?
We now have 30 days left until the fiscal cliff is reached and the country faces severe repercussions for Washington's failure to come to a budget compromise. While the President should feel emboldened by being re-elected, I am shocked at the offer he recently gave Republicans. It wasn't just that he wanted more taxes than he had pushed for while campaigning, that is to be expected. It wasn't just that he wanted an immediate approval of 80 billion dollars in stimulus spending for the "infrastructure" the guy's a spender, this request would be expected. It wasn't even his request to put off sequestration for a year, that was troubling, but it would be easy to take that off the table if both sides could simply come to an agreement.
No, what was really troubling was his request to have sole authority to raise the debt ceiling without congress' approval.... forever. Basically, the man talked of a need for a "balanced" approach to solving the fiscal cliff after the election, but he wants to be able to spend perpetually with no more oversight? That kinda takes away all balance and puts all the control into one mans hands. The offer was shocking and frankly, could not be taken seriously.
And so now, here again we find ourselves, less than 30 days out, and rather than stay in Washington and meet with Republicans to talk over the deal, the President went to a rally in Pennsylvania where he implored republicans to accept the deal and not hold the American people "hostage." This is a term he often uses, and remember this is what he did, he went to hold a rally, and demonize the other side... 30 days out.
That got me thinking about how President Bush handled his parties defeat in the 2006 mid-term elections which saw democrats take control of both houses of Congress. President Bush signaled a willingness to work with both sides, and had a considerable amount of praise for then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the 2007 State of the Union. When it came to the budget he and the GOP worked with the dems, giving them most of what the wanted and still passing a budget.
That brings us back to today. What would W. do about the fiscal cliff? In the past President Bush accepted his parties defeat in 2006 and he worked across the aisle. He didn't run off to hold rally and he didn't hold rallies against democrats. He was elected to help run the country, and he did. So it is then reasonable to assume he would do the same now. At least that's my observation.
What will President zero do? My guess is more of the same, but unless he takes both the debt raising clause and putting off sequestration, off the table, no deal will be reached and the unfortunate victims of this political miscarriage will be the American People.
-Zach
No, what was really troubling was his request to have sole authority to raise the debt ceiling without congress' approval.... forever. Basically, the man talked of a need for a "balanced" approach to solving the fiscal cliff after the election, but he wants to be able to spend perpetually with no more oversight? That kinda takes away all balance and puts all the control into one mans hands. The offer was shocking and frankly, could not be taken seriously.
And so now, here again we find ourselves, less than 30 days out, and rather than stay in Washington and meet with Republicans to talk over the deal, the President went to a rally in Pennsylvania where he implored republicans to accept the deal and not hold the American people "hostage." This is a term he often uses, and remember this is what he did, he went to hold a rally, and demonize the other side... 30 days out.
That got me thinking about how President Bush handled his parties defeat in the 2006 mid-term elections which saw democrats take control of both houses of Congress. President Bush signaled a willingness to work with both sides, and had a considerable amount of praise for then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi during the 2007 State of the Union. When it came to the budget he and the GOP worked with the dems, giving them most of what the wanted and still passing a budget.
That brings us back to today. What would W. do about the fiscal cliff? In the past President Bush accepted his parties defeat in 2006 and he worked across the aisle. He didn't run off to hold rally and he didn't hold rallies against democrats. He was elected to help run the country, and he did. So it is then reasonable to assume he would do the same now. At least that's my observation.
What will President zero do? My guess is more of the same, but unless he takes both the debt raising clause and putting off sequestration, off the table, no deal will be reached and the unfortunate victims of this political miscarriage will be the American People.
-Zach
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Election 2012: The Aftermath
Well I was obviously way off in my election prediction. In the aftermath a lot of conservatives, including myself are feeling some doubt as to our idea of who are country is anymore. It is a fair question to have when we review the two campaigns. Romney's sought to stay above the fray, championed bipartisanship and gave out plans on how a Romney Presidency would improve the country. Obama's campaign was negative from the start, alleging Romney was a felon, had allowed a woman to die of cancer, hadn't paid taxes in ten years, and in the final moments of the campaign Obama urged his voters to vote for "revenge." Such horrible themes and yet he won re-election easily.
What does that say about our country? For me, I think it says Obama still has broad appeal amongst key demographics including the youth vote, single women, and minorities. Romney unfortunately didn't due enough to blunt this advantage to make the difference and so now we are saddled with the most incompetent President ever for another four years. For us as conservatives, while the loss is huge, our goals must remain the same, to put forward candidates for election and retake the country.
How do we do this? We start with short term goals which are the 2014 elections. Odds are good we can deepen the the Republican majority in these races, as well as possibly take the Senate. The odds are good because those lazy bums who voted for Obama usually don't show up during the mid-terms. We achieve this we will have effective control of the country for the final two years of Obama's administration, and of course then we turn to the Presidential election.
Moving on to long term goals. We absolutely need to find a way to send our economic message to single women and minorities. People agree with our economic policies, but the media and the Democrats have succeeded in painting us into a corner on social issues. These issues are driving single women and minorities away and will cost us future elections. Our way around this isn't to compromise or change on social issues, but to become broader as a party. We need to be welcoming of those who share our economic views, but are liberal on social issues. These republicans will come mostly from northern states such as Mass. and Michigan, but they are our key and bridge to our next generation of voters.
Another long term goal will be putting women and minorities up for President next time around. Tops on this list would be Marco Rubio, who by this time will have had a full term in the Senate under his belt. A secondary option may be Susana Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico. She gave a good speech at the RNC, but I don't know much else about her to make a comment. A third option was Chris Christie, but his warm embrace of Obama following Hurricane Sandy I think will cost him his national aspirations. A shame, I don't blame him for his praise, that hurricane was a huge disaster for New Jersey, but plenty within the party won't see it that way.
Back to the point, if the GOP puts up Rubio or Martinez, it forces the media and minorities across the country to reconsider their views of the GOP as a "whites only" club. Once they get past that and consider the economic message I believe more will come to our side, but it will take time.... a lot of time.
-Zach
What does that say about our country? For me, I think it says Obama still has broad appeal amongst key demographics including the youth vote, single women, and minorities. Romney unfortunately didn't due enough to blunt this advantage to make the difference and so now we are saddled with the most incompetent President ever for another four years. For us as conservatives, while the loss is huge, our goals must remain the same, to put forward candidates for election and retake the country.
How do we do this? We start with short term goals which are the 2014 elections. Odds are good we can deepen the the Republican majority in these races, as well as possibly take the Senate. The odds are good because those lazy bums who voted for Obama usually don't show up during the mid-terms. We achieve this we will have effective control of the country for the final two years of Obama's administration, and of course then we turn to the Presidential election.
Moving on to long term goals. We absolutely need to find a way to send our economic message to single women and minorities. People agree with our economic policies, but the media and the Democrats have succeeded in painting us into a corner on social issues. These issues are driving single women and minorities away and will cost us future elections. Our way around this isn't to compromise or change on social issues, but to become broader as a party. We need to be welcoming of those who share our economic views, but are liberal on social issues. These republicans will come mostly from northern states such as Mass. and Michigan, but they are our key and bridge to our next generation of voters.
Another long term goal will be putting women and minorities up for President next time around. Tops on this list would be Marco Rubio, who by this time will have had a full term in the Senate under his belt. A secondary option may be Susana Martinez, the Governor of New Mexico. She gave a good speech at the RNC, but I don't know much else about her to make a comment. A third option was Chris Christie, but his warm embrace of Obama following Hurricane Sandy I think will cost him his national aspirations. A shame, I don't blame him for his praise, that hurricane was a huge disaster for New Jersey, but plenty within the party won't see it that way.
Back to the point, if the GOP puts up Rubio or Martinez, it forces the media and minorities across the country to reconsider their views of the GOP as a "whites only" club. Once they get past that and consider the economic message I believe more will come to our side, but it will take time.... a lot of time.
-Zach
Sunday, November 4, 2012
This Tuesday, a Clear Choice in a Close Election
It shouldn't come as much of a surprise that I'm backing Mitt Romney for President. It should come as a surprise how close the election actually is. President Obama has only been in office for four years and has somehow managed to double our debt in that time, while at the same time presiding over an economy that saw 43 consecutive months of 8% unemployment or higher. The amount the government spends on welfare and food stamps have both doubled, and when Obama speaks of the next four years he generally says, do more of the same and just tax the wealthy "a little more."
That always gets me, the "a little more" comment. I also heard it recently when California Governor Gerry Brown made the same statement. California is facing a huge budget deficit and Brown, like so many others, says this can be solved by asking "a little more" of the wealthy. Gosh it's just "a little more" and of course the implication is the wealthy are being selfish, or aren't paying at all if they oppose it. Forget the fact that in California, that "little more" will now have some wealthy Californians taxed at over 50% now, it's half of what they earned, but gosh, just pay "a little more" to help the state out.
Back to my point on Obama though. The other thing that gets me about that so called "plan" is how, exactly does it spur economic growth and create new jobs? Are they going to create more government jobs and just use the new tax rate to pay for new employees? Or, are they just going to encourage more people to get on the government dole like welfare and food stamps and wait it out until eventually it "gets better" and claim victory?
My guess is the latter, and if that's the case, it's not a plan. Mitt Romney has a plan, has gone over it repeatedly and frankly, I'm shocked so many would still back the current President. He literally couldn't have been more of failure if he tried, but still, this race is razor thin.
That said, I'll give my "hope" for how the election goes. Currently Rasmussen has the electoral college as 237 safe for Obama, 206 safe Romney. Going over the swing states, I see the following.
Nevada: 6 electoral votes. My home state, I love it there but almost all polls give the edge to Obama. I don't see this changing so it will go to Obama, but hopefully Dean Heller pulls out the Senate Victory over Shelly Birkley. Obama 243, Romney 206
Florida: 29 electoral votes: All polls give the edge to Romney, so I say it goes to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 235
Virginia: 13 electoral votes. Very close. Obama really wants this one. The President has Senator Mark Warner giving a close out ad for the President in which he says he picks the President as a "business investor." Problem with that logic is when one considers all the other "business leaders" who have endorsed Romney, including the CEO of Chrystler. It's close, but I think Romney gets it. Obama 243, Romney 248
New Hampshire: 4 electoral votes. Very Surprising how close this NE state is, and most polling has it for Romney. Obama 243, Romney 252.
Colorado: 9 electoral votes. Polling and the huge crowds makes me a believer this one will go to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 261.
Ohio: 18 electoral votes. All polls are indecisive. This is too close to call, but I'm cynical enough that I'll call it for Obama. Obama 261, Romney 261.
Iowa: 6 electoral votes. Very blue, but I think this one is trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 267.
Wisconsin. All tied up, but currently trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 277.
With that, Romney wins a narrow victory that is likely to be subject to court challenges, but eventually wins.
Note: I used Rasmussen's toss ups for my review here. Recent polling have all placed Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota within the margin or error, or within the "toss up" category. I'd love for Romney to pick up any one of these states, but I don't see it happening.
Anybody else?
-Zach
That always gets me, the "a little more" comment. I also heard it recently when California Governor Gerry Brown made the same statement. California is facing a huge budget deficit and Brown, like so many others, says this can be solved by asking "a little more" of the wealthy. Gosh it's just "a little more" and of course the implication is the wealthy are being selfish, or aren't paying at all if they oppose it. Forget the fact that in California, that "little more" will now have some wealthy Californians taxed at over 50% now, it's half of what they earned, but gosh, just pay "a little more" to help the state out.
Back to my point on Obama though. The other thing that gets me about that so called "plan" is how, exactly does it spur economic growth and create new jobs? Are they going to create more government jobs and just use the new tax rate to pay for new employees? Or, are they just going to encourage more people to get on the government dole like welfare and food stamps and wait it out until eventually it "gets better" and claim victory?
My guess is the latter, and if that's the case, it's not a plan. Mitt Romney has a plan, has gone over it repeatedly and frankly, I'm shocked so many would still back the current President. He literally couldn't have been more of failure if he tried, but still, this race is razor thin.
That said, I'll give my "hope" for how the election goes. Currently Rasmussen has the electoral college as 237 safe for Obama, 206 safe Romney. Going over the swing states, I see the following.
Nevada: 6 electoral votes. My home state, I love it there but almost all polls give the edge to Obama. I don't see this changing so it will go to Obama, but hopefully Dean Heller pulls out the Senate Victory over Shelly Birkley. Obama 243, Romney 206
Florida: 29 electoral votes: All polls give the edge to Romney, so I say it goes to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 235
Virginia: 13 electoral votes. Very close. Obama really wants this one. The President has Senator Mark Warner giving a close out ad for the President in which he says he picks the President as a "business investor." Problem with that logic is when one considers all the other "business leaders" who have endorsed Romney, including the CEO of Chrystler. It's close, but I think Romney gets it. Obama 243, Romney 248
New Hampshire: 4 electoral votes. Very Surprising how close this NE state is, and most polling has it for Romney. Obama 243, Romney 252.
Colorado: 9 electoral votes. Polling and the huge crowds makes me a believer this one will go to Romney. Obama 243, Romney 261.
Ohio: 18 electoral votes. All polls are indecisive. This is too close to call, but I'm cynical enough that I'll call it for Obama. Obama 261, Romney 261.
Iowa: 6 electoral votes. Very blue, but I think this one is trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 267.
Wisconsin. All tied up, but currently trending towards Romney. Obama 261, Romney 277.
With that, Romney wins a narrow victory that is likely to be subject to court challenges, but eventually wins.
Note: I used Rasmussen's toss ups for my review here. Recent polling have all placed Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Minnesota within the margin or error, or within the "toss up" category. I'd love for Romney to pick up any one of these states, but I don't see it happening.
Anybody else?
-Zach
Monday, October 22, 2012
Foreign Policy Debate - Does It Matter?
It did in the 2004 election when Iraq was the main concern for the country and
hung heavy around the neck of President Bush. Entering his second term many
figured it would remain the top issue as the global war on terrorism dragged on
eventually leading to President Bush's decision to send in surge troops to
Iraq.
Of course the economy then collapsed and this dominated the 2008 election. Either way I believe Obama would have won the election, the circumstances around it just changed in the final months.
Today the economy remains easily the biggest issue for most voters which leads me to ask how much tonites debate will have on the overall election.
It matters in the sense that Obama is sure to try and paint Romney as a return to the Bush foreign policy which would lead to war, most likely one against Iran or possibly one against Syria. If Obama is successful in this matter it could drive away key votes in swing states. People will remain concerned about the economy, but there is no desire for another war.
For my own consideration, Obama has improved in his foreign policy handling IMHO. Drone strikes are up and we are working with allies to combat terrorism as in the current cases of Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. I don't desire to see a change in this issue, but for me the issue returns again to the economy and so I'm going with Romney no matter what.
Romney will need to defend against this, he'll likley make statements such as the need to work with allies to applie pressures on states such as Iran. This will be easily defended as Obama points out this as what his administration's policy.
Romney will then move on to generalities about the need to project a strong American, and will stay away from specifics on how he would do this. Instead he will just point out Obama's weaknesses of projecting a diminished America.
All and all I expect tonites debate to end in a wash and have no real dent on the election. It will come and go and afterwards both sides will claim victory. After this Romney will move on with ads and campaigns highlighting his economic plan. Obama will do the same, but will go negative against Romney as well.
And it all ends on November 6th.
That's my take.
How bout y'all?
-Zach
Of course the economy then collapsed and this dominated the 2008 election. Either way I believe Obama would have won the election, the circumstances around it just changed in the final months.
Today the economy remains easily the biggest issue for most voters which leads me to ask how much tonites debate will have on the overall election.
It matters in the sense that Obama is sure to try and paint Romney as a return to the Bush foreign policy which would lead to war, most likely one against Iran or possibly one against Syria. If Obama is successful in this matter it could drive away key votes in swing states. People will remain concerned about the economy, but there is no desire for another war.
For my own consideration, Obama has improved in his foreign policy handling IMHO. Drone strikes are up and we are working with allies to combat terrorism as in the current cases of Yemen, Somalia, and Libya. I don't desire to see a change in this issue, but for me the issue returns again to the economy and so I'm going with Romney no matter what.
Romney will need to defend against this, he'll likley make statements such as the need to work with allies to applie pressures on states such as Iran. This will be easily defended as Obama points out this as what his administration's policy.
Romney will then move on to generalities about the need to project a strong American, and will stay away from specifics on how he would do this. Instead he will just point out Obama's weaknesses of projecting a diminished America.
All and all I expect tonites debate to end in a wash and have no real dent on the election. It will come and go and afterwards both sides will claim victory. After this Romney will move on with ads and campaigns highlighting his economic plan. Obama will do the same, but will go negative against Romney as well.
And it all ends on November 6th.
That's my take.
How bout y'all?
-Zach
Monday, October 8, 2012
So.... about the upcoming VP Debate
Four years ago after Sarah Palin became the VP choice there
was a media firestorm which lasted throughout the election cycle. It added a huge pressure atmosphere as Palin
and then Senator Joe Biden showed up for the debate. Adding to the debate were gaffs and supposed guffaws
made by Palin during interviews with the media.
All eyes were on her. As the
debate concluded Biden came across looking poised, gave his responses in a
clear and concise manor, contrasting Palin who while she did not perform poorly,
did not perform as well as Biden, IMHO.
Four years later Biden finds himself entering another VP debate which will be closely watched, but this time partially because of the many gaffs Joe has had himself over the past few months. Addressing a grouping of largely black supporters in Virginia, Biden told the crowd "They (Republicans) want to unchain Wall Street... They're gonna put y'all back in chains." Just a few weeks ago Biden had another gaff when he railed against the current Republican ticket stating they would raise taxes on a middle class which has been "buried for the last four years."
Whether or not his "chains" comments were meant to
be solely about Wall Street, the audience in which he made the comments made it
a very poor choice of words. Similarly
his "buried" comment which may have been echoed by Mitt Romney
purposely in the last debate, have hurt the Obama campaign.
And so, entering the VP debate on Wednesday, people will be watching and wondering if Biden is going to step on his toes again and offer a devastating gaff which Republicans will use to their advantage. The person he'll be facing will not be Sarah Palin with her "folksy" way of talking the media hated last time. His opponent this time around will be Paul Ryan, a very good public speaker who has endeared himself to independents in Wisconsin, and given this public platform, will likely endear himself to more independents nationwide.
-Zach
Friday, August 17, 2012
The first time I heard of Paul Ryan
Back in 2009 I remember a friend of mine forwarded me a link to a youtube video. This was during the big debate in the country over Obamacare. The video in the link had a Republican congressman who was doing an interview with two hosts on msnbc. This particulare congressman had released a statement expressing concern over the speed with which Obamacare was being pushed through Congress. In the statement the congressmen stated it was impossible for all members of Congress to have fully reviewed the legislation and with a recess coming up it would be best for Congressional members to go home, hear their constituents out and review the bill completely before rushing it through.
Now, as most people know, msnbc veers very far to the left and it didn't take long for them to ignore this Congressman's point completely, asking questions such as "Are Republicans genuine?" "Are there really going to be townhalls or will they just go on vacation?" etc. The congressman took it all in good cheer and patiently explained everything to the msnbc hosts. At one point one of the hosts pushing for a public option in the bill opined she considered it "unamerican" to not have it as it reduced competition. The Congressman was quick to point out that competition is about producing quality produce for a price, government run systems don't have this same drive but ultimately would be the ones picked up. He also pointed out the amount of extra cost this would bring to the taxpayer, and in a very impressive line he lightly rebuked the msnbc host by statying he found it troubling she "was using capitalist rhetoric to push a plan that is inherently anti-market." A short time later the msnbc hosts broke off their own interview quickly thanking the Congressman and saying they would try to do an interview later. In short, they ran away.
Wow, I was very impressed with what I thought was a inexpeienced Congressman at the time. The guy looked so young and yet had handled himself very well. This was my first introductiona dn impression of Paul Ryan. From that interview I remembered him whenever he came up in the news again, most notably as a budget wiz who was doing great things to reign in, or at least try to reign in spending. In one very notable example he proposed a budget to Congress which ultimately failed, but received 200 votes, coming much closer than the President's budget which received no votes at all.
In the lead up to Romney making his choice I knew Ryan was on the short list, but to be honest I hoped he wasn't going to be chosen. The man is a great congressman who has done so much for this country. I'm not sure he would be able to do the same as Vice President. If we don't win in November I wonder how much stock the Dems will now put into trying to oust him completely from office. So it goes though. Ryan was the pick and he is a good pick. His eloquancy, his ability to argue for the budget in terms relatable to most Americans, and of course the overreaction of the partisan leftists have put this man to the forefront and have given Mitt a needed bump.
I can only hope this bump continues through till November. Our country is in tough shape right now and I fear what four more years of reckless spending on top of little to no growth will leave us. We must win, there is no other way, and I hope Ryan will continue to impress people the same way he impressed me during that same interview I saw three years ago.
Now, as most people know, msnbc veers very far to the left and it didn't take long for them to ignore this Congressman's point completely, asking questions such as "Are Republicans genuine?" "Are there really going to be townhalls or will they just go on vacation?" etc. The congressman took it all in good cheer and patiently explained everything to the msnbc hosts. At one point one of the hosts pushing for a public option in the bill opined she considered it "unamerican" to not have it as it reduced competition. The Congressman was quick to point out that competition is about producing quality produce for a price, government run systems don't have this same drive but ultimately would be the ones picked up. He also pointed out the amount of extra cost this would bring to the taxpayer, and in a very impressive line he lightly rebuked the msnbc host by statying he found it troubling she "was using capitalist rhetoric to push a plan that is inherently anti-market." A short time later the msnbc hosts broke off their own interview quickly thanking the Congressman and saying they would try to do an interview later. In short, they ran away.
Wow, I was very impressed with what I thought was a inexpeienced Congressman at the time. The guy looked so young and yet had handled himself very well. This was my first introductiona dn impression of Paul Ryan. From that interview I remembered him whenever he came up in the news again, most notably as a budget wiz who was doing great things to reign in, or at least try to reign in spending. In one very notable example he proposed a budget to Congress which ultimately failed, but received 200 votes, coming much closer than the President's budget which received no votes at all.
In the lead up to Romney making his choice I knew Ryan was on the short list, but to be honest I hoped he wasn't going to be chosen. The man is a great congressman who has done so much for this country. I'm not sure he would be able to do the same as Vice President. If we don't win in November I wonder how much stock the Dems will now put into trying to oust him completely from office. So it goes though. Ryan was the pick and he is a good pick. His eloquancy, his ability to argue for the budget in terms relatable to most Americans, and of course the overreaction of the partisan leftists have put this man to the forefront and have given Mitt a needed bump.
I can only hope this bump continues through till November. Our country is in tough shape right now and I fear what four more years of reckless spending on top of little to no growth will leave us. We must win, there is no other way, and I hope Ryan will continue to impress people the same way he impressed me during that same interview I saw three years ago.
Friday, July 20, 2012
Shooting in Colorado
Early this morning a madman attacked a theatre crowd watching the latest Batman movie "The Dark Knight Rises." So far their have been twelve confirmed deaths and fifty people wounded in this attack. No reasoning for the shooting has been deduced, but this is a tragedy in which another coward went to an area where they were confident no one would have weapons and conducted mass murder. These people were patrons simply attending a highly atticipated movie, they were mothers, fathers, sons, and daughters and this slug walked up and gunned them down. The reasons why will be coming out in the news as more becomes known and the need to know "why" remains unsatisfied. Ultimately though, the reasons are irrelevant as this incident shows we still live in a dangerous world where nothing is entirely sacred or safe.
A person named James Holmes has been arrested for the shooting. A recent news release states the young man was from California, but had moved to Colorado to study medicine at the University of Colorado. People will no doubt assume this man was mentally unbalanced, and perhaps as more information is known that may be the case. As a college student though, and as a person who apparently conducted a fair amount of pre planning before this attack, I think this man knew exactly what he was doing. He was aware it was wrong and I believe that makes him competant enough to stand trial and to hopefully be sent to death row.
In the meantime, I would say that although these events make us feel that much more vulnerable, I hope people will still live their lives free. Don't let the actions of a mad man trap you in your homes. Don't let the actions of a mad man make afraid to go to public places. Live you life and have faith justice will prevail against this man, in this life or the next. As for me, I am going to the batman movie tonite as I have been looking forward to it's release for weeks. I hope to see many others there as well.
-Zach
A person named James Holmes has been arrested for the shooting. A recent news release states the young man was from California, but had moved to Colorado to study medicine at the University of Colorado. People will no doubt assume this man was mentally unbalanced, and perhaps as more information is known that may be the case. As a college student though, and as a person who apparently conducted a fair amount of pre planning before this attack, I think this man knew exactly what he was doing. He was aware it was wrong and I believe that makes him competant enough to stand trial and to hopefully be sent to death row.
In the meantime, I would say that although these events make us feel that much more vulnerable, I hope people will still live their lives free. Don't let the actions of a mad man trap you in your homes. Don't let the actions of a mad man make afraid to go to public places. Live you life and have faith justice will prevail against this man, in this life or the next. As for me, I am going to the batman movie tonite as I have been looking forward to it's release for weeks. I hope to see many others there as well.
-Zach
Thursday, July 19, 2012
Obama and the Left's latest Attacks on Business
I remember hearing a story about a dozen years ago regarding Chevy Chase and Beverly D'Angelo. The story took place during the filming for "Vegas Vacation." Anyway, whenever they weren't filming the actors were spending some time playing the slot machines at the hotels they were staying at. D'Angelo spent a good part of one day feeding a machine that never really paid out for her. The next day Chase was at the same machine and suddenly the machine was paying out jackpot after jackpot. D'Angelo was angry with Chase's success at the same machine she had been feeding so much and demanded Chevy pay her some of his winnings, claiming it was her feeding the machine the day prior which lead to his current success. Chevy reportedly denied D'Angelo this, rationalizing that if he was to pay her, than logically he would also owe money to anyone else who ever played that particular machine.
The reason I bring up this old story is because of what our President did in Roanoke, Virginia last Friday. In what has to be the most incredible display of socialistic rhetoric I've ever seen from the man, he claimed that people who are successful in building a business, are not responsible for their own success. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" was one of the lines from Obama's nearly minute long rant linked below. During this rant the President made references to people benefiting from having good teachers, or benefiting from people building roads, or just benefiting from living in a system which somehow... gave I guess, their success to them. Obama's line is troubling for a number of reasons, one of which is that it reveals the Presidents opinion on business owners, which is that no matter how successful, all profits or proceeds should be confiscated and redistributed to everyone else. It's all part of a theory called "social justice" which is espoused by many individuals with ties to the Trinity Church, or as we know it best, the church in which Jeremiah Wright was a preacher and in which President Obama was a member for over twenty years.
What's really troubling here is that we have a President who's economic record has been horrible for his entire term in office and facing re-election he attacks business owners, who if successful, are the very people needed to help rebuild the country. Is it any wonder why this President's policies have failed? He, his administration, and his know nothing Democrat allies in Congress have always been on the side of bigger government involvement and an increase in spending. During Obama's term in office we will have seen the government take over of nearly 20% of the economy and spendning that has equated to nearly 8 billion dollars... a day. And as I write this unemployment is over 8% and has been there for over three years. The economy has not resonded and the President's latest comments should be a clear indicator that four more years of this man will ensure the economic malaise stays exactly where it is.
On a seperate, but similar note, I read a article in USA Today sometime last week which I unfortunately can not track down right now. The article stated that the American Dream of working hard to earn a better life had not been realized by the vast majority of Americans. The main point of the article was that people stayed within their station in life, the rich stayed rich, the middle class stayed in the middle, and the poor stayed poor. The article stated with so few rising to the top, it appeared to debunk the claim of an America were people could succeed.
In reading the article I am again reminded of my favorite Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Yes, the poor stayed poor and the rich stayed rich, but this does not prove the system isn't there or it doesn't work. People have a level of education available to them which would have made their great grandparents red with jealously 100 years ago. They have the means to obtain loans for schools, businesses, and seek higher office themselves should they so choose. They have all these options, but in order to be successful they will need to put in a lot of long hours, dedication, and determination. For many Americans it's far easier to seek a job paying them wages which affords them the lifestyle they are used to living. So their status in life has nothing to do with the "American Dream" not being there, it comes down to personnel choices, as it always had. Success isn't a given, you have to want it bad enough to risk failing first.
Alright, that does it for my first post in awhile. A lot of stuff has been going on in the political world and since I do have a few days off I will take some time to make a few more posts in the coming days. If you have time, please review the video below. I think if you were on the fence before on who you may vote for in November, that this video should convince you Mitt Romney is the right choice for America, if for no other reason than the fact that Mitt understands the concept of encouraging business growth within America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng
-Zach
The reason I bring up this old story is because of what our President did in Roanoke, Virginia last Friday. In what has to be the most incredible display of socialistic rhetoric I've ever seen from the man, he claimed that people who are successful in building a business, are not responsible for their own success. "If you've got a business, you didn't build that" was one of the lines from Obama's nearly minute long rant linked below. During this rant the President made references to people benefiting from having good teachers, or benefiting from people building roads, or just benefiting from living in a system which somehow... gave I guess, their success to them. Obama's line is troubling for a number of reasons, one of which is that it reveals the Presidents opinion on business owners, which is that no matter how successful, all profits or proceeds should be confiscated and redistributed to everyone else. It's all part of a theory called "social justice" which is espoused by many individuals with ties to the Trinity Church, or as we know it best, the church in which Jeremiah Wright was a preacher and in which President Obama was a member for over twenty years.
What's really troubling here is that we have a President who's economic record has been horrible for his entire term in office and facing re-election he attacks business owners, who if successful, are the very people needed to help rebuild the country. Is it any wonder why this President's policies have failed? He, his administration, and his know nothing Democrat allies in Congress have always been on the side of bigger government involvement and an increase in spending. During Obama's term in office we will have seen the government take over of nearly 20% of the economy and spendning that has equated to nearly 8 billion dollars... a day. And as I write this unemployment is over 8% and has been there for over three years. The economy has not resonded and the President's latest comments should be a clear indicator that four more years of this man will ensure the economic malaise stays exactly where it is.
On a seperate, but similar note, I read a article in USA Today sometime last week which I unfortunately can not track down right now. The article stated that the American Dream of working hard to earn a better life had not been realized by the vast majority of Americans. The main point of the article was that people stayed within their station in life, the rich stayed rich, the middle class stayed in the middle, and the poor stayed poor. The article stated with so few rising to the top, it appeared to debunk the claim of an America were people could succeed.
In reading the article I am again reminded of my favorite Mark Twain quote: "There are lies, damn lies, and statistics." Yes, the poor stayed poor and the rich stayed rich, but this does not prove the system isn't there or it doesn't work. People have a level of education available to them which would have made their great grandparents red with jealously 100 years ago. They have the means to obtain loans for schools, businesses, and seek higher office themselves should they so choose. They have all these options, but in order to be successful they will need to put in a lot of long hours, dedication, and determination. For many Americans it's far easier to seek a job paying them wages which affords them the lifestyle they are used to living. So their status in life has nothing to do with the "American Dream" not being there, it comes down to personnel choices, as it always had. Success isn't a given, you have to want it bad enough to risk failing first.
Alright, that does it for my first post in awhile. A lot of stuff has been going on in the political world and since I do have a few days off I will take some time to make a few more posts in the coming days. If you have time, please review the video below. I think if you were on the fence before on who you may vote for in November, that this video should convince you Mitt Romney is the right choice for America, if for no other reason than the fact that Mitt understands the concept of encouraging business growth within America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YKjPI6no5ng
-Zach
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Book Review: Ike's Spies by Stephen E. Ambrose
I picked up this book at an airport and figured it would be a good read. I wasn't disappointed, but one thing that did surprise me was that this book was written back in 1981. I did not pay enough attention to that fact prior to buying the book, but it took little away from the book, while adding the unappreciated fact that the author many times when referring to Eisenhower would actually refer to conversations he himself had with the former President and General. That kind of closeness and intimacy is rare when reading a historical account of events which transpired more than fifty years ago, but added considerably to my enjoyment of the book.
With that said, the general overview of the book is one of a look of the early birth of professional intelligence gathering organizations in America from the viewpoint of Dwight D. Eisenhower's involvement with it. The book gives an early positive portrayal of Eisenhower as he arrives in London to meet with Winston Churchill and to be formally read in a program being run by the British known as "Ultra." The British had broken the cipher the Germans were used in their cable traffic and were able to read all message traffic being sent from German head quarters to their military units. Ultra was obviously a huge advantage to which the British and American counterparts used to receive advanced warning of German movements as well as to gage how successful their deception campaigns against the Germans were going.
From this early introduction Eisenhower learned the importance of consistently intercepted and correctly translated signals from the enemy. He would also learn the value of traditional espionage using spies when he learned from the British that they are intercepted and turned all Nazi spies which had been sent to Britain. This coup allowed the British to deceive their German counterparts by feeding them false information time and time again.
Throughout the war General Eisenhower would receive daily intelligence updates from a British General, Kenneth Strong. Strong kept Eisenhower informed on enemy movements, their dispositions, and the prediction on what further defensive measures they would take. From this Eisenhower learned the importance of timely and accurate information.
One interesting point I'd like to make about this book while it described American intelligence activities during these years is that this is probably the book that has been the most critical of the OSS activities during this period, and of William Donovan in particular. While it is generally accepted that OSS was little more than a bunch of amateurs who made little difference in the overall war effort, Ambrose paints Donovan as a person who played to the favor of sycophants rather than to the duty the war demanded.
Following the war, Eisenhower appears to have been content to retire, but eventually returned to run for President. The interesting point Ambrose makes in Eisenhower's decision to run is in how he says the Republican Party convinced him to run. It was through appealing to Eisenhower's sense of duty to his country. Republican Party officials reportedly stated to Eisenhower if he did not run they did not believe they could beat the Democrats, and without a Republican victory they believed it would effectively end the two party system in America. With that said Eisenhower made his decision and came out of retirement and won the election in 1952.
While President Eisenhower allowed the CIA to grow and flourish, enjoying a time described as the golden years of the CIA. Early on the CIA enjoyed success toppling governments in Guatemala and Iran. The author makes the case though, that this early success were against weak governments and unfortunately gave the CIA a sense of ability which was not really there. The author later linked this belief in their own ability to the failure commonly known as the bay of Pigs.
In planning for the overthrow of Fidel Castro the CIA had pitched an idea which involved the establishment of a Cuban government in exile, a trained military force to invade Cuba, and the establishment of support groups within Cuba itself to help with the invasion. Eisenhower approved of the idea and the CIA was able to move ahead with the training, however all searches for a suitable Cuban alternate to Castro produced no results. As to building support networks in Cuba, Castro's forces had the island so well blocked off from the outside world it was virtually impossible to establish anything prior to the approved invasion. Still, Eisenhower maintained that the trained Cuban forces would only be used if there was a Cuban government in exile which could be put in power immediately following Castro's removal from office. When JFK came into office they believed the CIA had planned all along to move ahead with this force and based off of Eisenhower's legitimacy they moved forward. The invasion was a disaster ans so ended the so called golden years for the CIA.
In the end, Eisenhower helped take an organization that had only been in existence a few years and allowed it to grow and flourish. After Eisenhower left office the CIA had a firm base from which to grow and to win the fight in the cold war.
-Zach
With that said, the general overview of the book is one of a look of the early birth of professional intelligence gathering organizations in America from the viewpoint of Dwight D. Eisenhower's involvement with it. The book gives an early positive portrayal of Eisenhower as he arrives in London to meet with Winston Churchill and to be formally read in a program being run by the British known as "Ultra." The British had broken the cipher the Germans were used in their cable traffic and were able to read all message traffic being sent from German head quarters to their military units. Ultra was obviously a huge advantage to which the British and American counterparts used to receive advanced warning of German movements as well as to gage how successful their deception campaigns against the Germans were going.
From this early introduction Eisenhower learned the importance of consistently intercepted and correctly translated signals from the enemy. He would also learn the value of traditional espionage using spies when he learned from the British that they are intercepted and turned all Nazi spies which had been sent to Britain. This coup allowed the British to deceive their German counterparts by feeding them false information time and time again.
Throughout the war General Eisenhower would receive daily intelligence updates from a British General, Kenneth Strong. Strong kept Eisenhower informed on enemy movements, their dispositions, and the prediction on what further defensive measures they would take. From this Eisenhower learned the importance of timely and accurate information.
One interesting point I'd like to make about this book while it described American intelligence activities during these years is that this is probably the book that has been the most critical of the OSS activities during this period, and of William Donovan in particular. While it is generally accepted that OSS was little more than a bunch of amateurs who made little difference in the overall war effort, Ambrose paints Donovan as a person who played to the favor of sycophants rather than to the duty the war demanded.
Following the war, Eisenhower appears to have been content to retire, but eventually returned to run for President. The interesting point Ambrose makes in Eisenhower's decision to run is in how he says the Republican Party convinced him to run. It was through appealing to Eisenhower's sense of duty to his country. Republican Party officials reportedly stated to Eisenhower if he did not run they did not believe they could beat the Democrats, and without a Republican victory they believed it would effectively end the two party system in America. With that said Eisenhower made his decision and came out of retirement and won the election in 1952.
While President Eisenhower allowed the CIA to grow and flourish, enjoying a time described as the golden years of the CIA. Early on the CIA enjoyed success toppling governments in Guatemala and Iran. The author makes the case though, that this early success were against weak governments and unfortunately gave the CIA a sense of ability which was not really there. The author later linked this belief in their own ability to the failure commonly known as the bay of Pigs.
In planning for the overthrow of Fidel Castro the CIA had pitched an idea which involved the establishment of a Cuban government in exile, a trained military force to invade Cuba, and the establishment of support groups within Cuba itself to help with the invasion. Eisenhower approved of the idea and the CIA was able to move ahead with the training, however all searches for a suitable Cuban alternate to Castro produced no results. As to building support networks in Cuba, Castro's forces had the island so well blocked off from the outside world it was virtually impossible to establish anything prior to the approved invasion. Still, Eisenhower maintained that the trained Cuban forces would only be used if there was a Cuban government in exile which could be put in power immediately following Castro's removal from office. When JFK came into office they believed the CIA had planned all along to move ahead with this force and based off of Eisenhower's legitimacy they moved forward. The invasion was a disaster ans so ended the so called golden years for the CIA.
In the end, Eisenhower helped take an organization that had only been in existence a few years and allowed it to grow and flourish. After Eisenhower left office the CIA had a firm base from which to grow and to win the fight in the cold war.
-Zach
Friday, February 24, 2012
Santorum has appeal because of low unfavorability rating?
Listening to the radio today I heard Rush Limbaugh talk about how Presidential candidate Rick Santorum has been boldly talking to the media about the so called contraception issue currently between the Obama Administration and the Catholic Church.
The sum of the commentary was that Santorum waded into the issue and has maintained a low unfavorability rating. Looking over the USA Today Gallup Poll from February 23, 2012 Santorum did maintain the lowest unfavorability rating when compared to Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich. That Santorum has maintained this low number despite the media attempt to label him as a religious zealot is impressive, but it is more an indication of his low name recognition than anything else.
Until the last month Santorum remained a candidate that was viewed as a serious presidential contender by anyone. He hadn't served in an elected office since 2006 and his viewpoints while in the Senate were considered extreme by some and given little publicity or attention nationwide. That Santorum has suddenly become relevent in the GOP nomination process is due to the thinning out of Presidential contenders, down now to just four, and the continued sour appitite of many in the Republican base to nominate a moderate conservative like Mitt Romney.
With this rise has come a sudden increased scrutiny, but Santorum has spent so little time being taken as a serious contender that people are unaware of his supposed shortfalls and so Santorum's unfavorability rating remains low. For those that think this will stay that way, I will remind them of what happened with Sarah Palin in 2008. She was a virtual unknown govenor, but after being picked for the VP slot. The media blitz was staggering, but she initially maintained a low unfavorability rating mostly due to the common American having a distaste for the blatent slanderous media being used against her at the time. Had she followed this up with solid media spots which allowed Americans to get to know her better, she may have walked out of the election with a low unfavorabiltiy and a serious shot at the nomination this year. As it was though, she seemed flustered and at times lost during questions from media and during the VP debate with then Senator Joe Biden.
Santorum, like Palin, currently has the low unfavorability rating and he hasn't been hurt by any of his recent social commentary largely because of a populace tired of the long election process. Eventually though, if he keeps staying in the race he will receive more and more scrutiny and should he win the nomination you're going to see a similar media blitz to defame the man. Santorum will stand tall and give you his honest opinion during this times, how he delivers it will determine his view by the general population but one thing is for sure, his unfavorability will go up.
-Zach
The sum of the commentary was that Santorum waded into the issue and has maintained a low unfavorability rating. Looking over the USA Today Gallup Poll from February 23, 2012 Santorum did maintain the lowest unfavorability rating when compared to Mitt Romney, Barack Obama, Ron Paul, and Newt Gingrich. That Santorum has maintained this low number despite the media attempt to label him as a religious zealot is impressive, but it is more an indication of his low name recognition than anything else.
Until the last month Santorum remained a candidate that was viewed as a serious presidential contender by anyone. He hadn't served in an elected office since 2006 and his viewpoints while in the Senate were considered extreme by some and given little publicity or attention nationwide. That Santorum has suddenly become relevent in the GOP nomination process is due to the thinning out of Presidential contenders, down now to just four, and the continued sour appitite of many in the Republican base to nominate a moderate conservative like Mitt Romney.
With this rise has come a sudden increased scrutiny, but Santorum has spent so little time being taken as a serious contender that people are unaware of his supposed shortfalls and so Santorum's unfavorability rating remains low. For those that think this will stay that way, I will remind them of what happened with Sarah Palin in 2008. She was a virtual unknown govenor, but after being picked for the VP slot. The media blitz was staggering, but she initially maintained a low unfavorability rating mostly due to the common American having a distaste for the blatent slanderous media being used against her at the time. Had she followed this up with solid media spots which allowed Americans to get to know her better, she may have walked out of the election with a low unfavorabiltiy and a serious shot at the nomination this year. As it was though, she seemed flustered and at times lost during questions from media and during the VP debate with then Senator Joe Biden.
Santorum, like Palin, currently has the low unfavorability rating and he hasn't been hurt by any of his recent social commentary largely because of a populace tired of the long election process. Eventually though, if he keeps staying in the race he will receive more and more scrutiny and should he win the nomination you're going to see a similar media blitz to defame the man. Santorum will stand tall and give you his honest opinion during this times, how he delivers it will determine his view by the general population but one thing is for sure, his unfavorability will go up.
-Zach
Saturday, February 18, 2012
Republican Voters Stuck Looking for the next Reagan
Almost a year since my last post, let's see if I can try and keep up the high quality that was my commentary before my prolonged absence.
The first post I would like to make in this new year is in regards to the ongoing Republican primary in which it appears Mitt Romney is the clear best choice available, and yet can't seem to take the nomination to save his life. There are multiple reasons why conservatives will give for their refusal to back Romney, but one of the more interesting ones you'll still here is how Romney is not like Ronald Reagan, or "what the Republicans really need is a Ronald Reagan to lead the party." Everybody says that, and yes, it's a great line that basically says, what our party needs is the best leader it ever had to lead the party again.
The problem with having that kind of a mindset is that the people doing the looking are essentially looking for something that his not there, a already known "legend" to take up the mantle. As history has shown us, people don't become legends until after their time in office and after history has had a chance to shine a light on how much their actions have helped or hurt us. The best example of this in "recent" history would be Harry Truman who's approval rating was somewhere below 20% after he left office, but today is considered one of the stronger Presidents this nation has ever known.
In looking for a leader to lead the Republican Party against the Socialist agenda of President Obama and his fellow Democrats we can't get caught up thinking about how wonderful the past was and how we need more of that in the future. We need to focus on what's important now, the economy and beating Obama, and come together for a consensus on a nomination soon, otherwise our division will doom the country to four more years with zero in office.
-Zach
The first post I would like to make in this new year is in regards to the ongoing Republican primary in which it appears Mitt Romney is the clear best choice available, and yet can't seem to take the nomination to save his life. There are multiple reasons why conservatives will give for their refusal to back Romney, but one of the more interesting ones you'll still here is how Romney is not like Ronald Reagan, or "what the Republicans really need is a Ronald Reagan to lead the party." Everybody says that, and yes, it's a great line that basically says, what our party needs is the best leader it ever had to lead the party again.
The problem with having that kind of a mindset is that the people doing the looking are essentially looking for something that his not there, a already known "legend" to take up the mantle. As history has shown us, people don't become legends until after their time in office and after history has had a chance to shine a light on how much their actions have helped or hurt us. The best example of this in "recent" history would be Harry Truman who's approval rating was somewhere below 20% after he left office, but today is considered one of the stronger Presidents this nation has ever known.
In looking for a leader to lead the Republican Party against the Socialist agenda of President Obama and his fellow Democrats we can't get caught up thinking about how wonderful the past was and how we need more of that in the future. We need to focus on what's important now, the economy and beating Obama, and come together for a consensus on a nomination soon, otherwise our division will doom the country to four more years with zero in office.
-Zach
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)