Well I'm sick, which means the people that gave it to me are leaving me alone, aside from the occasion opportunity to come down and tell my that I am grumpy. Realistically I am only grumpy after a few rounds of being told that, but after the several hundred more, I tend to be beyond grumpy. I figured today I would use the relative silence {and the knowledge that I do some good grumpy writing} to offer my support to our president in his time of need. I want to work on that leftist transformation that I keep reverting back from, so here is another wonderful venture into leaning left.

I realize that the whole plan {wink wink nudge nude} is to make the country communist. Many rubes will try to spin this into all kinds of other forms of autocracy, like socialism {healthcare}, or fascism {government take over of car companies}, or even feudalism {Obama stash in Detroit} but being an enlightened liberal, I see through the entire smoke screen and see communism at the end. I'm with you Barack, wholeheartedly, and I want to help you get there as quickly as possible. One of the advantages when I get into my enlightened liberal mode is that I no longer have to half-a** anything because liberalism is whole-a** all the time. For those having trouble keeping up, the second anyone talks about redistribution of wealth, the only society that has ever touted it with any success is communism. Communism being the ultimate form of governmental take over based on jealousy and vindication has many of those evil conservative folks laugh at the outcome of utter enslavement due to victimization in the first place. It's ok, if you didn't get there because none of us can even think to compete with the brilliance of the Obama!

Now first of all I want to thank all of those that came before us who have gotten the ball rolling on the inevitable. Protesters now a days will rant about how socialized medicine is always the first step. Buck it up, you silly Republicans. All you have to do is read any history book, and you'll see that the first thing any Communist did, was legalize abortion. Our enlightened fore-liberals had snuck that one through many years ago, and as it always does, it got a majority of loud mouth liberal women completely in lock step with the agenda. They then overpower the voices of any other women who might disagree with them and they take an entire gender, roughly fifty percent of the population and marginalize their belief system to their uterus, and then bully them with it. Fortunately for us liberals, they never read that part and they never read how in Bolshevik communism, it was taken away at a later time, by dictatorial fiat.

The second thing they always do, and I think the Obama has dropped the ball on this one, is to ENFORCE the right to keep and bear arms. This was also popular among the National Socialists {NAZI} so if all the Obama is doing is socializing, then he is screwing up there too. ENFORCING the right to keep and bear arms means that everyone is required to keep and bear arms and then to prove it they must register all of their arms, so that the government knows that they have them and are law abiding citizens. John Doe from Idaho has two .38 caliber revolvers, one .22 caliber hunting rifle, one muzzle loader etc etc, and then this list is kept on record. This immediately removes all of that wrangling from those on the other side of the isle, because now you're a great guy, just interpreting the constitution and maintaining some accountability. Stay tuned for phase 2 of this one continued in the third ideal.

Third, and a further co-option of the Waskwy Wepublican's platform, is you double the salaries, and living conditions of the military. Those idiot Republicans always beat the drum about how the military needs more. More respect, more pay, more freedom, and here the Obama has the opportunity to placate them and solve another one of those problems that all great communists before him have worked on pretty quickly. All communist societies place the majority of salary on the military, and then they start a prolonged “peace time” or maintain an occupation of land “for the greater good” so that they can get a good feeling of who butters their bread. The military will inevitably become hyper loyal to the leader that bestows upon them such great riches and pride, and will follow them to the gates of hell. In reality the only place they will have to follow the leader is to the houses of all the people that “through law” had registered all of their arms. These completely loyal, highly trained soldiers will know exactly what weapons are in that house, and will have at least 3 times that arsenal to take those weapons away. This was a Communist and a National Socialist solution to the whole “gun control” argument, and in one fell swoop you have given to the rich and stolen for the poor. Their base had completely endorsed you and look like idiots when YOUR base gets what it wants in the end.

Now the fourth portion is already in effect, but I think it was accidental. You show the lesser of evils in your platform as a ruse for the more totalitarian {for the greater good of course} of your ideals. People in America have been have been completely desensitized to the true horrors of communism. You actually have factions that think some forms are good and others are bad. This was what Lenin used on his people, pointing towards other forms of “socialism” and Mao Tse-Tung pointed towards “imperialism” and “dynastic” evils to cloud the judgments of the people. They always talked of the redistribution of wealth, and aside from the American public at large not knowing this they also have been mislead on the different communism and socialism. Most people think that communism in China is a necessary evil even if they acknowledge that Soviet style communism was a bad thing. The Obama is smart enough {ask him} to know that letting a few Maoist or even Castro sympathizers slip around changes the subject from a clearly Bolshevik agenda. Why else would we let militant Islamists continue to run amok and more often be defended by the left? It is the perfect precursor for any and all of the major event theory that goes into martial law. The true Maoist way of doing it would require armies going to battle and that is completely unnecessary with all of the useful idiots out there cheering for the home team.

On another note, I have to give the Obama credit for bringing out some new wrinkles in the whole Communism game. I really can't find any evidence that other great Communist figures ever used the world stage to impose oppression on their own people. I realize that it was a plank that was set up by the displaced communists from the past, but it is still pure genius. Of course who would have thought that a former Vice President would write a book defending the lies of the left over communist faction, touting a completely false theory of Global Warming to get the left in this country to literally beg for their own oppression on behalf of “the world” at large? It was a gift, but the Obama is wily enough to grab onto it with both hands. In a country where all forms of energy already covet a net profit of about fifty percent to the Federal Government for doing nothing other than figuring out how to legally steal it, you can now create legislation to tax oppressively on top of that? Pure genius, and it creates the misery, lack of wealth, and bloated bureaucracy necessary for a take down of liberty {aka the enemy}

So you get cracking on those other things you skipped along the way Barack. We liberals out here in the trenches will continue to smear the other side, and run cover for your agendas. There isn't a single stupid thing that you do that will change our minds. We know that you only mean misery for the evil Republicans, and you will figure out a way to keep us Liberals happy. Of course just watching happy people become miserable is enough for us. Don't worry about any of us on the left ever catching on to the universal misery that communist countries inevitably go through. We'll just keep showing the universal happiness of the two percent of China that don't live in abstract slavery. We'll just show “good” communism like China, and you keep working on “really good” communism like Russia ;8o)

I’m going to state two indisputable facts, and then let everyone who simply wishes them untrue, to argue amongst themselves because I am not going to pay attention to them afterward. The first and most important, because it affects me as a citizen of America is that the United States Constitution only applies to United States citizens. The second and almost as important is that the Hague Laws and Geneva Conventions specifically cover soldiers that wear the uniform of any nation that is a signatory of the documents. I will go a bit further and state that any persons not taking part in any active hostilities will be treated humanely, including military persons who have ceased activity for reasons of sickness, injury or detention.

Now with all of that said there is another side of this coin that is reflected in how certain people should be treated when they defiantly work outside of these rules, whether to obfuscate, mislead or create uncertainty in civilized military combat. Of course military combat is hardly civilized, so I will accept some arguing on that statement, but in general, it means anyone following the treaty rules, assuming they are treaty signers in general. Now of course no matter how much you hate America or drink the Kool Aid dispensed by John Kerry, America had gone out of its way to extend these rights to those that don’t quite even fit in the definitions of Geneva candidates. Easy examples are Vietnam, Mogadishu, and of course our wonderful battles that we have been absorbing throughout the Middle East as of late.

I’m not here to defend those wars. I’ve said it over and over again, that since the end of World War II we have had no ability to treat a war properly, and these last two are no different. I am not going to justify our reasoning for both wars, and just remind everyone that the congress and senate had the exact same military intelligence as the president, and I put that as a bipartisan 3 – 0 for both wars, and don’t have to get into arguments about that crap. I have said it enough, that wars are fought like we did in Japan. Swift and deadly accuracy, with swift and deadly resolve, followed by an occupation with fear of death, and then release of the occupation when it is completely deemed that the idiots that you want to cut the crap are done starting the crap. If that takes 5000 years then it takes 5000 years, and nobody is going to like you more or hate you more based on any decision you make. Look how popular Bush became fighting the wars by Democratic rules? I’m right, and that’s all that matters.

Here we fall into a pattern of stupidity that can only be thought up by those that brought you the Vietnam War., We see Eric Holder and other attorneys who were representing Fidel Castro in the war to send Elian Gonzalez back to Cuba, bring Terrorists back to America for Justice. These people have violated the rules of war, they have worked to attack America, and sworn to our destruction. They have already plead guilty in war tribunals, and requested their own executions, and now they are going to be blocks away from the very spot that was destroyed by them and started this war. This is Eric Holder giving Constitutional justice to people who aren’t entitled to it, and in general weren’t even entitled to the basic human rights under the Geneva Convention. They couldn’t use this type of zeal with a little boy who was being sent back to a slave nation, when our own “law” stated that he didn’t have to go anywhere. This is the trouble with your average revisionist who looks at the constitution as a “living document” because more often than not they aren't actually doing it for the greater good.

This is amazing insanity, but it gets worse than that because now the very victims that were in fear after the two planes hit the World Trade Center, now have to settle with the fear of having people that are perfectly happy to die in their back yard again. Look around the internet and you will find YouTube videos from all kinds of Islamic kooks who are already in New York, and preaching the destruction of America, and their own salvation through any form of terror and chaos that they can commit. This is the typical show trial that Obama and his type of Moonbats who want to put America on trial couldn’t wait to get their hands on. Everyone who ever set foot in Gitmo, will be put on the stand, all intelligence will be revealed in open courts with CNN covering it, and any enemy of this nation will have all pertinent data necessary to avoid being captured, detained, or forced to talk for future reference. At this point it really is infantile to think that Barack Obama and his band of Scary Left {and worse yet the people that are convinced that this is a great idea} are desperately trying to destroy the country.

To be honest with you all of the spending, and socialization, and apologizing to every other nation for all of America’s ills, didn’t really get to me. Sure I joked about it being Communism, and a bevy of other Barack OLenin jokes, but these are the things Liberals always do, so I would have been a chowder-head to even pretend to be shocked about it. This on the other hand is the type of thing that just baffles me and really does scare me if I think about it too much. As a constitutionalist I always just folded my hands behind my head and said in a yawn, “Yeah but that’s just the type of thing he lets the idiots in his base think he’ll do,” knowing full well that nobody gets to the job of president without having some basic reasoning skills. Yes that includes Bush so zip it! {Draft in 05’ .. LIARS!} This man really is too busy talking about himself and how great he is, to take any time to think that he could be committing a monumental screw up. He and the morons that still think he is the king of the universe, probably think its all Bush’s fault, and I hope that is the least of everyone’s problems. What happens if any of them get released on a technicality, and walk out the front door onto the streets of New York?

You may not have the opportunity to ever blame Bush again. I know I won’t let you’ if the even worse case scenario {in my opinion} happens. What if the true nirvana of people like our president and the people prosecuting this whole thing goes forth and the death penalty somehow gets taken off the table? You got it! We could end up with the most heinous creatures on the planet like Khalid Sheikh Mohammed {who’s wonderful video-taped cutting off of Daniel Pearl’s head still haunts many} sitting in American prison spewing hate to countless thousands of people that the left has convinced are “victims” of America and not criminals. Many of these people could use the Obama approved method of talking the “Religion of Peace” all the way up to their parole hearings, and don’t get me started on all those parole hearings that the actual enemy combatants will get over the decades.

These parole circuses will be painful to everyone that ever lost anyone to terrorism, but this won’t be anything comparably to the hate that these people will be able to spew to cameras at their trials. The last enlightened liberal president we had took his terrorism moment {note these things happen in the first year of the last 3 Presidents? .. a commonplace welcome to world arena from your friends in The Religion of Peace?} to do EXACTLY what the new batch of liberals want to do. Clinton administration chose the “Justice System” route to prosecute the terrorists that tried to blow up the World Trade Center under his watch, and that trial turned into a media circus where those involved could mock the family members of victims, and {surprise surprise} not stop the problem at all. Every last bit of that trial, through discovery to final verdict was sent to the Middle East through the media wing of Al-Qaeda {CNN} and all of the mistakes, and intelligence holes were filled by 2001.

I know I am just giving red meat to those that are already in agreement with me, and those that don’t see this never will, but let me leave you with a simple hypothesis, that is kinda important to all of this. Bill Clinton watched terrorism, get worse and worse throughout his two terms as president. The Cole was assaulted, and Mogadishu was completely over-run by Al-Qaeda, along with the Yemeni practically begging us to take Osama Bin Laden off their hands. Most of these things interfered with Clinton’s Golf schedule. This was all after the “Prosecution” of the war on terror. America didn’t have many issues at all during Bush’s “Execution” of the war on terror. Despite what that lying indoctrinator Michael Moore spews, Bush discontinued his war on golf courses, and even with all of my issues with Bush, and his idiocy in the way he decided to make war, and contain war, I didn’t have a day of fear, after Bush said he was working on the problem. I have been completely terrified for the last day since Holder and Obama started working on the problem, and I’m pretty sure that his golf game is getting “Clinton Like” attention, while terrorism get's even LESS ;8o)

It is a sad state of my affairs any day that I have a child home sick. I was rousted awake 2 hours early, and woe is me, I didn't spend that extra time doing anything I wanted to. This being two fold, I dealt with the sick child {in this case Captain ADHD} and then went about catching up on my Twittering, which killed off the rest of my free time. I blame me for what happened in Twitter as I thought I would educate a Michael Savage Zombie, the difference between free speech and the mandate to be heard. As always it was merely another learning moment for me, as I had somehow forgotten rule number 1 in dealing with a Savagite. They have no “real world” acceptance of common sense, which is probably why they listen to Michael Savage in the first place.

It was the typical trail of whining, because the United Kingdom blacklisted Savage, and he has spent months now complaining that they have no right to ban him. He has compiled a huge war chest of sycophantic donations to his legal fund so he can sue them, but this isn't enough as he rails against all other talk show hosts who don't defend him in this matter. In reality I believe that what the United Kingdom is doing to him is wrong, but calling upon a sovereign nation that not only doesn't have to respect our constitution, but suffered from it isn't a battle I want to take on. Partly but not completely because I can't stand it when people of other nations tell America what to do, but mostly because I can't stand Savage. It appears to be a battle that other talk show host don't want to take on either, for a bevy of reasons, but I am sure that a major reason is because Michael Savage spends a good portion of his time calling them all names, and getting his audience to do the same.

Now to be fair I have heard a few of them mention the issue and say that they think it is wrong. I personally like the fact that Mark Levin went as far as to say he thinks it's wrong but is not going to devote a lot of time to it because the guy is an insulting whiner. I have always thought that Savage was a great form of “plant” for the Democrats out in San Francisco because if you buy his spiel he not only makes conservatives look like a-holes but at the same time can lampoon, berate, and smear them constantly and cry about how “fair” he is. It's too bad because as a holistic treatment theorist, the guy is a total genius, but still completely undesirable as a human being to me, and I AM a conservative. I don't listen to people who don't entertain me, and the guy doesn't entertain me.

Now of course said “Savage Zombie” had brought the base argument that “Savage burns all the bridges to his island and sits there alone” down to usual Savage speak, “People should speak out about free speech even if their 'feelings' are hurt,” and as always they start getting tuned out like Savage himself. Name calling doesn't get your point across. I'm right, your wrong was the only real argument he had. Oh yeah, I see your point NOW! It still smells of Liberalism for anyone to demand that free speech means a mandate to be heard. I don't take guff from any bullies, and I definitely don't expect a demand from any bully to stand with them on the playground when the rest of the school has decided to kick their rump. The pathetic argument that it could happen to YOU next is laudable, because it happens to conservatives on a daily basis. Savage and all of his whining about being a conservative being picked on doesn't flush because his attitude to the people that aren't throwing down for him is about as viable as Keith Olberman demanding Rush Limbaugh come out for him because they both have opinions.

To Michael Savage I have only one piece of advice. Build a bridge, and invite people in, or keep throwing burning pitch down on your visitors, and look like a fool in a tower with a megaphone. To those that think I have to respect a bully just because he says what I think a lot of the time you get a different piece of advice. Never mind you probably won't listen anyway ;8o)

As the looney left continues it's assault of former Miss California Carrie Prejean, a real pattern starts developing towards the wide spread misogyny that infects the Democratic party as a whole. The perceived belief that the Democrats, through their use of terms like “Pro-Choice” have the best interests of women at heart is a laughable concept at best. In reality though, the acceptance of the lowest forms of hate speech towards anyone who's viewpoint variates from the dictated norm scares me at times, but also doesn't effect me since I am what really scares the far left, that being a white male in the prime of his life.

For those of you that missed it, Carrie Prejean was the Miss California who was asked this question at the Miss USA pageant by Perez Hilton, “Vermont recently became the fourth state to legalize same-sex marriage. Do you think every state should follow suit? Why or why not?” during her “questions” phase of the event. Now we need to keep in mind that the Miss USA pageant {the Trump version of the Miss America pageant} perhaps had done it's homework, on the contestants, and found the radical gay rights blogger Perez Hilton to be the perfect person to ask a question of Miss Prejean, in hopes of a conflict. This was not an “unwarranted” statement, like the left wing press has tried to make it out, it was a blind sided question that was a required part of the pageant, and Miss Prejean answered it truthfully.

The woman's rights activists in this country {a wholly owned subsidiary of the Democratic party} would have you believe that pageants of this sort are demeaning to women, and should be abolished as some sort of sexist propaganda for those that watch it, and there was a time that I would have agreed with them. I have ALWAYS found better things to do with my time than to watch any sort of pageant, and after this sort of aftermath I am happy that I have made that life decision. Myself personally, have believed that pageants were a place for the dumb bimbos that I couldn't stand in school to showcase their bimbosity, while the people that were actually “for” the events would tell me that I am being a neanderthal in my views. They would try to explain to me that it was a lot more than “looks” and a lot of these women have important viewpoints and should be taken seriously. Really? Well what if one of them said something like this, “We live in a land where you can choose same-sex marriage or opposite. And you know what, I think in my country, in my family, I think that I believe that a marriage should be between a man and a woman. No offense to anybody out there, but that's how I was raised.” after being blindsided by a radical gay blogger?

The lunacy started instantaneously. Perez Hilton started in on her immediately, proclaiming that she lost the event for being a “dumb b****” and proclaiming after a false apology that he took it back and should have called her the “C-word.” Every left wing news program {meaning most of them} started on this hate filled campaign to destroy Carrie Prejean, and giving complete buffoons like Perez Hilton a launching pad to make comments like “If I weren't a man I would have slapped her face,” and various other hate filled slurs against a young woman who simply wandered off the pre-defined reservation that has been made for them by the Democrats and the even more left zealots in this country. The reality of all of this is that Perez Hilton is NOT a man and it has nothing to do with his “gayness” it has far more to do with his ideology. This goes for all of the lunatic mouth pieces of the far left, who think that they are “enlightened” when in reality all they are are bullies that use whatever form of power they have to attack women and minorities with different viewpoints, simply to make a show that if you don't “tow the line” you will be humiliated and destroyed. My previous statements of them “not being men” and my lack of fear because I am “a white male in the prime of my life” is simply common sense.

Miss Prejean later down the road, had been barraged with left wing hate at every level. Keith Lewis who runs Miss California, as co-director started the second plan of attack with this statement, “I am personally saddened and hurt that Miss California believes marriage rights belong only to a man and a woman. I believe all religions should be able to ordain what unions they see fit. I do not believe our government should be able to discriminate against anyone and religious beliefs have no politics in the Miss California family,” but the discrimination ends when it pertains to a woman who doesn't believe as he does, of course. Donald Trump himself was forced to get involved, and for a time was able to keep the crown on her head, as she went about the duties that Miss California was to perform. In the end. She was on her way to a Miss California charity event when she got a phone call from a news organization asking her response to being fired as Miss California. She hadn't been informed before the Miss California asshats had released this news to the cheers of a horrifying left wing media.

This wasn't enough for these people, as they continued their assault on her. The media continued to assault her name, her faith and anything else they could get their hands on and in the end what they finally got their hands on was a racy video that she had made for an ex-boyfriend when she was younger. TMZ went public, threatening to air the whole thing if she didn't relent on her threats to sue the Miss California pageant for deformation of character, and she dropped the lawsuit that she had going against the Miss California pageant, and went public taking full responsibility for what she called “humiliating, and stupid things she had done when she was young and stupid,” which must have had the liberal world sitting back with their thumbs up saying “Mission Accomplished!”

This of course was all part of the liberal take down of any woman's ability to have self respect or a voice in the world. Women more and more are being told, taught, and indoctrinated into this brave new world of slavery to their voice, and reproductive organs. Practically from birth the left wing barrages women with their rights to “choose” whatever it is that makes them happy. Then they are slanted into believing what will make them happy is anything that will take them further and further away from the realms of decency. Of course she made a racy video and gave it to her boyfriend. This is what women are practically told to do by the “thought police” that are doing everything it can from the day they enter public education on, that the only thing they have to fear is white males and Christianity, and the best way to do that is to have loose scruples. Later on in life when they inevitably become more conservative in their personal viewpoints, they have more likely than not left some sort of evidence of their “hypocrisy” somewhere and the attack machine can simply go out and find it. As women are {unbeknownst to themselves} the MOST misogynistic gender out there, then the true levels of indoctrination that has been assaulting them their entire lives can finally manifest itself properly. One camp will be yelling at the top of their lungs “See she's a hypocrite!” and even the ones that probably understand, won't admit it by saying, “Well I never did THAT!”

Here's where I finally have the advantage of being a white male in the prime of my life {despite my relative obscurity, and not being worth the ink to smear} as the bully's that run the media simply can't get me. My self righteousness, which has been built into me after years of being hated on simply for my own birth. I am not a woman so I don't get this, I am not a minority so I don't get that, I have been allowed to form my own ideals, and justify them through my own character. David Letterman would not make some sort of statement about me {slutty stewardess} because he would have to face some sort of ramifications beyond that of an angry mob of protesters. People like Keith Olberman {if you're into a bag of meat with lipstick on} would do nothing more than smile and hope he can keep the pee in, if he were in the same room with me. Perez Hilton could spend an entire YEAR denigrating me on whatever he writes, and wherever he is allowed to spew his hate, and it would be shrugged off as “he's a white male, of course he hates everything” and at the same time, he would have to sneak out the back door anywhere we ended up in the same place, despite the hate crime double standard. Women on the other hand are an easy fifty percent of the population that can be subjugated through fear to the liberal agenda.

This is a good thing to the left wing, since over the last few decades it's been harder and harder for them to do this to the minorities in this country. Brilliant black men, like Alan Keyes, Clarence Thomas, Thomas Sowell, and Walter E Williams can simply through “strength” take on any sort of attack, and come out fine in the end. They learned this when Clarence Thomas made it through the lies that came at him from every direction from a racist, and classist left wing that couldn't allow a conservative black man to get anywhere. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, simply through collusion are allowed to speak fro the black people of this country but it is simply a ruse, cooked up by the left wing media, and I have never personally met a black man that could even tolerate either of these clowns. Unlike those two you will see that the Gloria Steinem's of the world don't even really get any face time on television any more because the liberals already get to sit back and say “Mission Accomplished!” on the ownership of women. They don't need a flashy mouthpiece of that sector of their serfdom since their destruction can be done absolutely, and without any help really. This only goes to show that the old fashion retaliation of “a good punch in the mouth” is still a reasonable resistance to power in this world despite the “enlightenment” of the left ;8o)

You can't speak “Truth to Power” without using some sort of personal experience to justify it. The average person might have entirely no respect for that which you have gone through, or witnessed, or in general “believe” but some will. My own personal conservatism stems not from a set of values that I was born with, or indoctrinated into from my parents, but again from a set of injustices incrementally forced upon me by those that seek not to enrich but destroy. It was actually the progressive agenda that repelled me further and further away from what would have once been liberal views, and in the end had no space in my view point.

Looking back I had finished high school like most people, with principals about as far reaching as my own arms, Democrat, mostly liberal, and looking forward to the voting process. I liked Reagan. It was hard not too, because he was a likable person who was on the TV a lot, making the media look silly when they spoke ill of him. He reminded me of my grandfather, only a lot less Archie Bunker, and a lot more Russell Huxtable. It was more first true viewing of “Truth to Power” as I couldn't be persuaded, no matter how hard they tried to agree with the anti-Reagan sentiment that flooded the airwaves, and the print media of the day. Are you going to believe me or your lying eyes?

When they started that whole ordeal of placing stickers on everyone saying “Choice” or “Life” when I was in college, I dutifully put the “Choice” sticker on my chest and walked around with that ear to ear grin, of self importance on my face. After all the enlightened male of the late 80's was never going to get laid if they didn't truly understand the women that they hoped to make their willing accomplices in such endeavors. I was actually for the most part mildly Pro-Choice, since I had fallen under the spell of many years of public education and the “most women are raped sooner or later” mentality that had been beaten into my head. To this day I probably still could be convinced that first trimester abortion is almost ok, but at the time I was “all in” and reality was smacked into me from a friend who happened to be female, and it was my ability to understand HER experience that helped me to potentially get my first conservative view. Her bravery to educate me about what she thought about abortion, to this day sticks in my mind after 20 years.

Now keeping in mind that she wasn't all that subtle, when she walked up to me and peeled the sticker off my chest, got my attention pretty quick. She related to me that her sister had an abortion, and like most women that she had followed up on was never the same after the experience. “She had lost her soul” were the words she had started with, and then explained to me that she “personally” believed that that was the hidden goal of the Pro-Abortion zealots. She didn't sell me on it completely, but she had opened the door to a reasonable and respectable view that I would keep my eye on. Then there was the whole Partial Birth abortion talk in the 90's which took any respectable reasoning out of the debate, and I had to take a stand that “all or nothing” treatment of the issue made me Pro-Life. Later in life, I married a woman that was so Pro-Life {again because of the soul robbing experience of abortion} that she was able to get me to watch the “Silent Scream” and I was a lot more comfortable with the Pro-Life stance I had adopted when there was no viability to accept late term abortions under the “all or nothing” philosophy of the Pro-Choice crowd.

Now that doesn't mean that I am a hate monger, who will never accept abortion in general. I do completely stand on principals, and one of the greatest arguments that her {the ex-wife} and I had had still involves abortion. She had tried to make me promise {during the complicated pregnancy of our third child} that if something were to happen to her and she was incapacitated, that the baby would be first priority. “I will die, before I will let my baby die!” was a favorite expression of hers, and I couldn't just accept that. My stance was simple when I used the actuality versus potentiality argument for what I would do. As Pro-Life as I had become to this day I still believe that a fetus is a “Potential Baby” and the mother is an “Actual Mother” and I was {and always would be} too much of a coward to have to explain to the two children she already had, why she was dead, and worse yet, I would have impeded with her right to “choose” if she couldn't personally choose on her own. I think that putting others in a position of choosing life or death of anyone is unfair, if it goes against their own values, and for that I apologized to her, but at least didn't lie to her.

In the end it was a moot point, as we had a baby girl, who had some issues at birth, but at nine years old now, is perfectly healthy. Our marriage wasn't, and her mental health deteriorated to the point where she has only seen her children about 6 times in the last 5 years. A lot of this {to her own admission during those times she attempts to get help, for her mental problems} are still attributed to that decision she made with the coercion of many others to abort what would have been her second child, potentially. Her horrible depressions each year at the anniversary of the abortion she had had got worse, and longer, and more unexplainable. It encompassed her whole year, and by the time that last child was a year old we were divorced, and her poor decision making skills had forced me to get full custody of the kids, for their own safety. It still makes me sad to think about it all, and despite what most people on the left side of the debate would say, it effected the lives of 2 males and 3 females, meaning myself, my son, my two daughters and my ex-wife. The males of course never have any say in “choose” but they can be effected.

It's part of the great lie, that most women don't even comprehend that Susan B. Anthony herself was extremely Pro-Life. Some of her writings on the matter would be considered hate speech by a large quantity of the left, and I see her point more clearly everyday, as liberal judge after liberal judge declare war on States rights to legislate abortion laws. I'm not even talking about banning it outright, which I actually believe will never happen, but simply the law to inform women about the consequences of abortion. It is far more archaic and evil to keep people of any gender from the information that is vital to an informed decision, and time and time again it is damaging, and perhaps intentional. I look at people like Abby Johnson who was a true believer in Planned Parenthood until she had the “indoctrination event” of watching an abortion ultrasound. She found her way to to religion when they started “promoting” abortion as good for profits, but the ultrasound found her quitting, going to Coalition for Life, and being sued by Planned Parenthood for knowing too much. Nobody will bat an eyelash about the woman getting the abortion's right to “privacy” when used for Pro-Choice approved propaganda.

Call it a line in the sand, call it a belief in something greater than one's own feelings. Call me a hatemonger, archaic, whatever you want. Like most debates, I believe I'm right and others believe I am wrong. I stopped respecting those who fight for abortion, and fight against the death penalty a long time ago, because I don't think they have a good moral compass. I know that somewhere along the lines, I heard a lecture from a doctor at the Catholic Medical center in Boston. I wish I could remember his name, but I will never forget the answer he had to a really stupid question. Say what you want about Catholics, and I can agree with some of the more radically stupid things they have done over the century, but nobody with an ounce of intelligence can denigrate the excellent things they have done for the world of medicine. Under the guise of “He who deals disease shall also deal the medicine” they have sunk large quantities of religiously faithful donations into cures and treatments of disease, discomfort, and so many other medical issues, that I will always respect their opinion on medicine. The stupid question was as follows, “Why doesn't God cure cancer?” and the answer was brilliant, “Since I believe in God's ability to guide us all, I used to believe that someday someone will be born with the knowledge to cure cancer,” after a snarky noise from the questioner he added, “Thanks to abortion I now think those prospects are fifty fifty,” ;8o)

Another one of the horrible secrets about American presidential politics is the way we secretly destroyed the primary system. Back in the day we had “parties” that would nominate their candidates, on a state to state basis, and then the “candidates that were nominated by their respective “parties” would go on to be the “nominee” in the general election. I'm sick of arguing this point with the infantile around the country, so I have come up with a “liberal” style take over plan of the process, that would require me to fall on my own sword, but in the long run would help out the process quite a bit. It doesn't take a lot of explaining to the open minded, but I have to go into detail a bit for those that appreciate how the system was destroyed, so bear with me.

Back when the two party system actually worked, there were initial primaries and caucuses, that were separated by large amounts of time, so that political candidates could refocus their efforts to getting their word out. Iowa would have it's caucus, a few weeks later, New Hampshire would have it's primary, and then a few months after that there would be more primaries and caucuses. This initial “testing ground” gave a wide range of candidates the opportunity to get their message out, and then re-assemble their base for more robust elections later on. It was actually an excellent system in that a loss in Iowa, or New Hampshire didn't mean your campaign was over, it usually meant that you had a good basis for how to reshape your message and carry onward to larger areas. At one time it also gave the Democrats and the Republicans the opportunity to showcase their best candidates, and allow them to reach better audiences and expand the debate further as the race continued.

This system has been failing more and more over the last two decades because of two major changes to the process which in unison more likely than not were a concerted effort to destroy the system. First and more obvious was the encroachment of other states primaries, forcing most of the state's to have their candidates chosen within a month, and the other is the elimination of the two party nominating process. The second of which is far more destructive but a heck of a lot less obvious, especially when it has such appeal to those that shouldn't even have a say on it. Singling out New Hampshire in general, since I have the most experience with it anyway, you don't have to actually be a member of any party to chose it's candidates for the general election. In other words, a “registered” Republican or Democrat has no more say over who the Republican or Democrat candidate will be than any registered independent, since you can register and re-register at the door on the way in and the way out of the polling places. In general this is a much bigger problem than the uninformed understand, and a great tool for the informed to exploit.

Using the last presidential primary as an example isn't completely fair, since ALL of the Republican candidates were useless at best, but it still demonstrates the problem pretty well. John McCain had a overwhelming victory in New Hampshire, being propelled to victory in general by people that had no intention of voting for him in the general election. This was true with the primary before that as well. New Hampshire had single-handedly, through it's horrible election process disrupted 12 years of presidential politics, and it wasn't even a secret. The Democrats swelling the polls to pull the lever for John McCain back in 2000 almost cost Al Gore the primary in New Hampshire, and the Democratic Machine said as much when they encouraged their base to not do that in upcoming elections so that the Bill Bradley swell would be stopped cold. The backlash of the whole farce caused more people to support George W. Bush in the next round of elections purely to stop the take over of the Republican nomination process by nare-do-wells intent on sending a very weak and beatable McCain to the general elections. Unlike the last set of primaries, there were many excellent Republican candidates that were simply squeezed out really quickly by this, and it became a race between Bush and Not Bush. In the last round of Primaries McCain came out of it as the only candidate and it was completely started once again by people who had no business choosing the Republican candidate. Of course it hardly mattered that time because, Romney and Huckabee were silly choices too.

Now if we go back to the old model, say 1980 or so, you will see a different picture, and it is the main reason that the whole process was deteriorated the way it was. Ronald Reagan had lost Iowa, but he had five weeks to pound the pavement in New Hampshire, which he did. His energy, and his campaigning style had won over the New Hampshire Republicans, and we know how that story ended, but for those of you that are waiting for the second coming of Ronald Reagan, I invite you to get your head out of your butt. I personally would love nothing more myself, but that system has been destroyed, and there will never be another Ronald Reagan as the system has been transformed. On the off chance that a Ronald Reagan style candidate gets some sort of traction in the Iowa caucus, there would merely be seven days for the Anti Conservative machine to rally it's base, and squash whomever that person would be in New Hampshire. They would have the media, they would have the system that allows anyone to walk into the poll and vote “against”, and they would have less than a week to watch several larger states confirm whatever poor decision comes out of New Hampshire. I have even heard the the “other” side try to explain to me that the right could do this to the Democrat if they wanted to, but that is a waste of time. Unlike the Republican candidates, the Democrats will usually supply a set of candidates that will represent bad ideals, values, and thinking all across the board. Republicans find this to be a waste of time, since it usually only takes that one bad candidate {hello John} to completely disrupt the Republicans one way or the other.

New Hampshire of course is to blame in most of this, but the lack of concern from the rest of the country doesn't help. As “America's Constantinople” the state of New Hampshire had it's walls kicked in from the sickest forms of Liberalism on all sides {Big Government Massachusetts, Welfare State Maine, Socialist Vermont} all leaving their state to get away from all the taxes. They of course flooded New Hampshire with voters who didn't understand that all that social crap they constantly vote for is the reason for the taxes. What they do understand is that they were also given the great opportunity to “change” the face of the country every four years or so with their pathetic voting style, and they do it in such an unapologetic manner that it seems wonderful to their ally's elsewhere. In a perfect world, this state like every other state should simply take away the idealistic right to vote in other parties primaries, but in reality that is never going away. It is another power that the left has, and it will be pried away from their cold dead fingers. With the assistance of the “useful idiots” that vote with their hearts and not their heads, the means will never be available to change that back. I accept this, but the movement should be afoot to change the part of the system that CAN be changed, and simply put, TAKE THE FIRST PRIMARY STATUS AWAY FROM NEW HAMPSHIRE!

Many would say that this could simply be replicated everywhere else, and it would be a waste of time, but I contend that it could be easily adjusted so that states that ONLY allow “in party” voting could be placed at the front, and states with the “motor voter” style electorate could be shoved to the back where they belong. We would have to listen to all of the whining about disenfranchisement of the poor independent voters {aka. Those that never really have a dog in the fight, or the balls to stand for anything} but in the end it is a moot point. Primaries are set up so that parties can choose their OWN candidates, not so that the independent voters can choose other parties candidates for them. It is a Bolshevik style of leaning everyone towards the inevitable totalitarianism, and it has no place in American politics. I say this and support this knowing full well that my own home state may never see another candidate, and probably will lose a small fortune in political dollars, but I can live with that. We all have choices in this world and my state made it's choice to take away other people's choice. It's time for us to take a time out ;8o)