This political season conjures memories of a particularly silly night back in those days many of us would just as soon forget.
The occasion was the Michigan-Seton Hall national championship game in men's basketball. A friend and I watched at a bar and, before tip-off, for reasons even NASA would not be able to figure out, we decided to drink a shot for every three-point basket made by Michigan.
Nevermind that Michigan was rather adept in this area. Had it been ninth-grade girls basketball, this would have been a bad idea.
Before halftime, our vision and attention span had regressed to the point we were drinking if a shooter was anywhere near the three-point line. Just to be safe, mind you.
At some point in the second half, we apparently lost the ability to keep track of which team was shooting.
The Tea Party movement specifically and conservatives in general are fast approaching a similar state.
I'm all for the grass roots thing. Getting people interested, and in some cases involved, in politics for the first time is a very good thing.
And I'm all for rooting out the RINOs. People like Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, John McCain, Lindsey Graham ... it's past time to retire them or, at the very least, send them the way of Arlen Specter.
Problem is, far too many people who embarked on this RINO hunt became drunk on a handful of victories the past year and began shooting at any large animal.
Now, it's come to the point they're taking aim at anything on four legs.
I've not known in my lifetime of a politician with whom I've agreed 100 percent. Or 90 percent. Probably not even 80 percent.
Conservatism's Godfather, Ronald Reagan, thought amnesty for illegal aliens a grand idea, for crying out loud. And that was front and center for everyone to see.
Wonder if we dug below the surface what we could find to not like about Ol' Ronnie?
The point is this: Give me any politician with at least a four-year stay in office, and I'll bet you your house I can pick through those four years, day by day, line by line, and find something I don't like. Something that just "isn't conservative enough." Something that smacks of "cronyism" or "good-old-boy politics."
Now that isn't to say people shouldn't have favorites. Or even least-favorites.
Many have crossed the line, though, in supporting one over another.
The infighting among "conservatives" has reached a crescendo, particularly here in Texas, where Debra Medina supporters talk about Republican incumbent governor Rick Perry the way I would about Nancy Pelosi.
No matter. Not yet, anyway.
Most telling will be after the primaries, after some of these Tea Party candidates lose their races, will their supporters line up behind the victors to defeat the real enemies?
How this spring, summer and fall play out in that regard will give us a good indication of how 2012 will come together for the Republican Party.
Because the presidential field is bound to be crowded. Battle lines already are being drawn by a lot of folks who seemingly are as adamant in their devotion to certain candidates as some are to their gods.
When all is said and done in the primary, though, will bitterness leave this party fractured and scuttle the Republican nominee's chances?
Or will a united front emerge to complete a very necessary undertaking?
Sunday, February 21, 2010
Monday, February 8, 2010
Super (or not) thoughts
I love watching sports fans and even the media react.
Sean Payton is being hailed in many quarters as a genius after the Saints cemented momentum in the Super Bowl by recovering on onside kick to start the second half.
This, of course, was after I saw many online screaming for his head after the Saints failed to score on fourth-and-goal in the second quarter.
The undeniable fact is that success dictates emotion where sports fans are concerned. Had the Saints not recovered that kick? No doubt the media, as well as fans of course, would be referring to him in a much different light.
Result notwithstanding, was the gamble worth taking? What do you think?
*****
New Orleans is one of my favorite cities. Well, let's be honest. The Quarter is one of my favorite places.
It's also a source of much frustration.
With all the "scene" stories out of New Orleans this week in the aftermath of the Saints' Super Bowl victory, one theme was constant:
Renewed hope for a struggling city.
First of all, yes, this city suffered a horrific disaster. I've never, nor do I intend to now, belittle that fact.
But reading quotes from people there about the Saints and what it all means, one is left with the impression that a football team hoped enough, and a championship was bestowed upon it.
New Orleans continues to struggle four-plus years after Hurricane Katrina in large part because New Orleans struggled for decades before the disaster. Generational welfare long ago robbed a large part of this city's people of the ability or even desire to do for themselves.
That was never more evident than immediately before the hurricane and most certainly after it.
And now, four and a half years and no telling how many billions of dollars in aid later, a football team's championship, in one New Orleanian's estimation, "gives us hope that good things will begin to happen for us, too."
*****
Would more than a handful of people known what the Tebow ad was about had the Looney Left not lost its mind a month before the game?
And that's not even the most asinine part of this story.
In the aftermath, the geniuses at NOW actually suggested in its criticism of the ad that it glorified violence against women.
Almost as pathetic as criticism of Sarah Palin for having a few words written on her hand.
Sean Payton is being hailed in many quarters as a genius after the Saints cemented momentum in the Super Bowl by recovering on onside kick to start the second half.
This, of course, was after I saw many online screaming for his head after the Saints failed to score on fourth-and-goal in the second quarter.
The undeniable fact is that success dictates emotion where sports fans are concerned. Had the Saints not recovered that kick? No doubt the media, as well as fans of course, would be referring to him in a much different light.
Result notwithstanding, was the gamble worth taking? What do you think?
*****
New Orleans is one of my favorite cities. Well, let's be honest. The Quarter is one of my favorite places.
It's also a source of much frustration.
With all the "scene" stories out of New Orleans this week in the aftermath of the Saints' Super Bowl victory, one theme was constant:
Renewed hope for a struggling city.
First of all, yes, this city suffered a horrific disaster. I've never, nor do I intend to now, belittle that fact.
But reading quotes from people there about the Saints and what it all means, one is left with the impression that a football team hoped enough, and a championship was bestowed upon it.
New Orleans continues to struggle four-plus years after Hurricane Katrina in large part because New Orleans struggled for decades before the disaster. Generational welfare long ago robbed a large part of this city's people of the ability or even desire to do for themselves.
That was never more evident than immediately before the hurricane and most certainly after it.
And now, four and a half years and no telling how many billions of dollars in aid later, a football team's championship, in one New Orleanian's estimation, "gives us hope that good things will begin to happen for us, too."
*****
Would more than a handful of people known what the Tebow ad was about had the Looney Left not lost its mind a month before the game?
And that's not even the most asinine part of this story.
In the aftermath, the geniuses at NOW actually suggested in its criticism of the ad that it glorified violence against women.
Almost as pathetic as criticism of Sarah Palin for having a few words written on her hand.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Texas needs perspective
I have nothing against Deb Medina. Honestly, I don't. I just question this whole thing from the start.
I'm all for challenging the status quo and getting rid of actual RINOs. And there are plenty still to be weeded out. There are, in fact, a number in Medina's part of the state that need to be taken on.
I guess the state legislature or a U.S. House seat didn't pique her interest enough, though. She wants to be quarterback or nothing.
Even though she's thrown very few passes in her career.
This whole grass roots, Tea Party thing is wonderful. Gets folks involved who hadn't been before. Folks with strong values, conservative leanings and all that.
But it needs to be kept in perspective.
An example: Scott Brown clearly won one of the most stunning political victories of my lifetime by winning the Massachusetts special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy.
Almost immediately, though, people started with the Scott Brown 2012 stuff. The media even started asking whether he had designs on running for president.
Get a grip.
It's one thing to get "real people" involved in the political process. It's quite another to hand control of a cruise ship over to someone whose sailing experience doesn't go much beyond a 14-foot Sunfish.
It's also one thing to challenge the liberal establishment, as Brown did in Massachusetts, and even some of these career politicians who carry an "R" by their names but have scant conservative leanings.
Rick Perry, however, isn't one of those. And all these claims otherwise, from both Medina supporters and the ever-dwindling number backing Kay Bailey Hutchison, are disingenuous at best and outright lies at worst.
Yes, I've seen the list of grievances. Yes, I'm aware that a decade or so ago, he supported this, and under his leadership he pushed that.
Not once in my life, though, have I been 100 percent happy with a politician, and that includes Ronald Reagan.
Bottom line to me is that Texans might need to take a peek outside the borders and catch a glimpse of the hideous shape many states are in these days. By comparison, Texas is faring pretty darn well.
I give Perry props for doing the kind of job that has made that possible.
Disagree with this position or that. Fine. I've had my disagreements with some of his positions, too.
But calling him "too moderate" or "a RINO" is blatant dishonesty.
It just is.
And giving him the boot because someone else thinks, in essence, that "it's my turn"?
That's a position I don't agree with and can't respect.
I'm all for challenging the status quo and getting rid of actual RINOs. And there are plenty still to be weeded out. There are, in fact, a number in Medina's part of the state that need to be taken on.
I guess the state legislature or a U.S. House seat didn't pique her interest enough, though. She wants to be quarterback or nothing.
Even though she's thrown very few passes in her career.
This whole grass roots, Tea Party thing is wonderful. Gets folks involved who hadn't been before. Folks with strong values, conservative leanings and all that.
But it needs to be kept in perspective.
An example: Scott Brown clearly won one of the most stunning political victories of my lifetime by winning the Massachusetts special election to fill the Senate seat vacated by the late Ted Kennedy.
Almost immediately, though, people started with the Scott Brown 2012 stuff. The media even started asking whether he had designs on running for president.
Get a grip.
It's one thing to get "real people" involved in the political process. It's quite another to hand control of a cruise ship over to someone whose sailing experience doesn't go much beyond a 14-foot Sunfish.
It's also one thing to challenge the liberal establishment, as Brown did in Massachusetts, and even some of these career politicians who carry an "R" by their names but have scant conservative leanings.
Rick Perry, however, isn't one of those. And all these claims otherwise, from both Medina supporters and the ever-dwindling number backing Kay Bailey Hutchison, are disingenuous at best and outright lies at worst.
Yes, I've seen the list of grievances. Yes, I'm aware that a decade or so ago, he supported this, and under his leadership he pushed that.
Not once in my life, though, have I been 100 percent happy with a politician, and that includes Ronald Reagan.
Bottom line to me is that Texans might need to take a peek outside the borders and catch a glimpse of the hideous shape many states are in these days. By comparison, Texas is faring pretty darn well.
I give Perry props for doing the kind of job that has made that possible.
Disagree with this position or that. Fine. I've had my disagreements with some of his positions, too.
But calling him "too moderate" or "a RINO" is blatant dishonesty.
It just is.
And giving him the boot because someone else thinks, in essence, that "it's my turn"?
That's a position I don't agree with and can't respect.
Monday, January 25, 2010
A vote for Bernanke
As the stock market tanked at the end of last week, streams of venom were cast toward the White House and President Obama, who had just come down very hard and very publicly on bankers and those who run financial institutions. Obama promised to start hitting recipients of big bonuses with a big new tax.
It was an interesting tact by Obama. And not just because he's tended, when the heat starts to rise just a little, to start threatening (and, of course, blaming George Bush).
But it was strange considering the federal government has essentially allowed these institutions to make 8 kajillion tons of money during the last year and, therefore, want to reward its top people.
More on that later. That wasn't the reason for the rabid sellout on Wall Street, though.
In a sense, it was the anti-Obama administration voices who caused the drop.
That's right. And no, I'm not crazy.
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke isn't the most popular guy in Washington these days. He's increasingly unpopular on the right, and talk the past month or so that he was a virtual slam dunk to be reconfirmed for another term caused many heads to spin.
Well, what else happened around the middle of last week? A monumental upset in a Massachusetts Senate election essentially turned Washington on its ear.
Suddenly, the prospects for health care reform didn't look so great. In fact, nothing much on Obama's agenda did.
Including Bernanke's confirmation.
This sent investors into a panic. The key here is understanding who those investors are.
The very bankers and financial guys Obama went off on.
As I've said repeatedly, all this talk of a recovery is nonsense. Yes, the media can pull a number here and a number there, quote some "leading economist" (usually code language for "White House advisor") and announce with aplomb that THIS is a sure sign we're recovering.
Well, there's certainly no recovery where employment is concerned. Foreclosures and credit card defaults continue upward. Demand for energy is the lowest of our lifetime as evidenced by U.S. refineries operating now at only 76 percent capacity. Sales tax receipts are off by double digits every month in even the states least affected by these hard times.
What's been good? Well, Wall Street has been. The DOW made an upward climb most of the year. Commodity prices were up, as well. Everyone knows how volatile the price of oil has been the last 12 months. $60 per barrel one week, $70 the next. Back down to $60. Up to $75.
That's not demand or world events. That's someone monkeying with the market.
Now think about this, folks. Joe Citizen is hurting and hurting bad. He's losing his job, his house. He's not buying much.
So where's all this money in the stock market coming from?
The banks and financial institutions. How, you might ask, especially considering the fact that well more than 100 banks have gone belly-up the last 13 months?
Stimulus. Quantitative stimulus. Or, what I see most people erroneously refer to as the government "printing money."
In a nutshell, banks lost their shirts in 2008. Along came TARP to cover all that bad paper banks were holding. The government basically bought those bad loans, allowing the biggest banks (that were "too big to fail") to survive.
Only the rules changed a bit when Obama stepped into the White House.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wound up with a lot of bad paper, as intended. But they could only take so much, considering they already were drowning in red ink.
So rules were further relaxed on what constituted a "holding company" ... the lines became blurred between your average bank and various types of financial institutions.
And the fed opened its window to all these companies and has been lending money -- LOTS of money -- at zero percent interest.
The banks had to get well, after all. They'd taken a beating like none had ever experienced. Several of the big ones went down.
But here's the rub. It wasn't business as usual. They didn't start lending again ... not to Joe Citizen, not to small businesses (who weren't really in a position to borrow anyway, given the recession, unemployment and falling demand for most everything).
Instead, they took that money ... with Bernanke's and the federal government's blessings ... and gobbled up T-bills by the 10s of billions. Why not?
If the government offered to loan you $1 million tomorrow at zero percent interest, then held a bond sale the next day with a "special" rate, you'd be a fool to turn it down.
Well, add four or five zeros to that $1 million, and yes, banks got well in a hurry. They also played the markets, and along with your Warren Buffets, kept them on an upward trend. Same with commodities, which were a slam dunk investment with the dollar in the toilet for most of the year. With the rules relaxed, anyone and everyone could set up "hedge funds" (Obama went off on those, too, remember?) ... and they did. Now you see $60 oil. Now you don't.
A lot of these companies got so well, they were able to start paying back large chunks of TARP money ... too fast, in fact, for Washington's liking if you'll remember.
The happy days hit a big ol' pothole last week, though. Bernanke's tenure suddenly fell into question. A change easily could whip things in a new direction, because what the government was doing economically clearly and obviously was helping no one but the very banks liberals love to demonize.
Buffett himself told CNBC last week that if he had two votes, he'd give them both to Bernanke. "If he's not reconfirmed," Buffett said, "tell me a day ahead of time so I can sell stocks."
So there's a big part of the problem with the markets. And it will continue to be this week. So long as Bernanke's future is on the line.
I'm no fan of the man. And the direction we're headed isn't a good one.
Thing is, I don't see that changing given the current makeup in Washington. At least not for the better.
I've joked about it with Twitter friends, but it really isn't all that funny. Bernanke might be bad. But his replacement? Probably not a whole lot better. And very possibly, if not likely, a whole lot worse.
It was an interesting tact by Obama. And not just because he's tended, when the heat starts to rise just a little, to start threatening (and, of course, blaming George Bush).
But it was strange considering the federal government has essentially allowed these institutions to make 8 kajillion tons of money during the last year and, therefore, want to reward its top people.
More on that later. That wasn't the reason for the rabid sellout on Wall Street, though.
In a sense, it was the anti-Obama administration voices who caused the drop.
That's right. And no, I'm not crazy.
Fed chairman Ben Bernanke isn't the most popular guy in Washington these days. He's increasingly unpopular on the right, and talk the past month or so that he was a virtual slam dunk to be reconfirmed for another term caused many heads to spin.
Well, what else happened around the middle of last week? A monumental upset in a Massachusetts Senate election essentially turned Washington on its ear.
Suddenly, the prospects for health care reform didn't look so great. In fact, nothing much on Obama's agenda did.
Including Bernanke's confirmation.
This sent investors into a panic. The key here is understanding who those investors are.
The very bankers and financial guys Obama went off on.
As I've said repeatedly, all this talk of a recovery is nonsense. Yes, the media can pull a number here and a number there, quote some "leading economist" (usually code language for "White House advisor") and announce with aplomb that THIS is a sure sign we're recovering.
Well, there's certainly no recovery where employment is concerned. Foreclosures and credit card defaults continue upward. Demand for energy is the lowest of our lifetime as evidenced by U.S. refineries operating now at only 76 percent capacity. Sales tax receipts are off by double digits every month in even the states least affected by these hard times.
What's been good? Well, Wall Street has been. The DOW made an upward climb most of the year. Commodity prices were up, as well. Everyone knows how volatile the price of oil has been the last 12 months. $60 per barrel one week, $70 the next. Back down to $60. Up to $75.
That's not demand or world events. That's someone monkeying with the market.
Now think about this, folks. Joe Citizen is hurting and hurting bad. He's losing his job, his house. He's not buying much.
So where's all this money in the stock market coming from?
The banks and financial institutions. How, you might ask, especially considering the fact that well more than 100 banks have gone belly-up the last 13 months?
Stimulus. Quantitative stimulus. Or, what I see most people erroneously refer to as the government "printing money."
In a nutshell, banks lost their shirts in 2008. Along came TARP to cover all that bad paper banks were holding. The government basically bought those bad loans, allowing the biggest banks (that were "too big to fail") to survive.
Only the rules changed a bit when Obama stepped into the White House.
Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac wound up with a lot of bad paper, as intended. But they could only take so much, considering they already were drowning in red ink.
So rules were further relaxed on what constituted a "holding company" ... the lines became blurred between your average bank and various types of financial institutions.
And the fed opened its window to all these companies and has been lending money -- LOTS of money -- at zero percent interest.
The banks had to get well, after all. They'd taken a beating like none had ever experienced. Several of the big ones went down.
But here's the rub. It wasn't business as usual. They didn't start lending again ... not to Joe Citizen, not to small businesses (who weren't really in a position to borrow anyway, given the recession, unemployment and falling demand for most everything).
Instead, they took that money ... with Bernanke's and the federal government's blessings ... and gobbled up T-bills by the 10s of billions. Why not?
If the government offered to loan you $1 million tomorrow at zero percent interest, then held a bond sale the next day with a "special" rate, you'd be a fool to turn it down.
Well, add four or five zeros to that $1 million, and yes, banks got well in a hurry. They also played the markets, and along with your Warren Buffets, kept them on an upward trend. Same with commodities, which were a slam dunk investment with the dollar in the toilet for most of the year. With the rules relaxed, anyone and everyone could set up "hedge funds" (Obama went off on those, too, remember?) ... and they did. Now you see $60 oil. Now you don't.
A lot of these companies got so well, they were able to start paying back large chunks of TARP money ... too fast, in fact, for Washington's liking if you'll remember.
The happy days hit a big ol' pothole last week, though. Bernanke's tenure suddenly fell into question. A change easily could whip things in a new direction, because what the government was doing economically clearly and obviously was helping no one but the very banks liberals love to demonize.
Buffett himself told CNBC last week that if he had two votes, he'd give them both to Bernanke. "If he's not reconfirmed," Buffett said, "tell me a day ahead of time so I can sell stocks."
So there's a big part of the problem with the markets. And it will continue to be this week. So long as Bernanke's future is on the line.
I'm no fan of the man. And the direction we're headed isn't a good one.
Thing is, I don't see that changing given the current makeup in Washington. At least not for the better.
I've joked about it with Twitter friends, but it really isn't all that funny. Bernanke might be bad. But his replacement? Probably not a whole lot better. And very possibly, if not likely, a whole lot worse.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
Viva Keith Olbermann
Growing number of folks out there are calling even more loudly for Keith Obermann to be taken off MSNBC after his repugnant rant Monday night about Massachusetts Senate candidate Scott Brown.
Please stop this silliness.
I'm not defending Olbermann by any stretch. And this isn't even about the First Amendment.
But we spent eight years listening to liberals and the media (redundant, yes I know) claim that it was George W. Bush and conservatives who were "devisive" and at fault for this country being divided more than at any other point.
Yes, the same people who every day for eight years spewed the most vile filth about Bush and anyone who supported him.
And Olbermann? Yes, he's about as despicable as they come. But I want him on the air, every night at the same time. I even want more people to watch ... just enough to keep him relevent enough to the folks who put him there.
That way, he can serve as a constant reminder, and as a lesson to those on the fence, of just how venomous and detached from reality liberals really are.
Please stop this silliness.
I'm not defending Olbermann by any stretch. And this isn't even about the First Amendment.
But we spent eight years listening to liberals and the media (redundant, yes I know) claim that it was George W. Bush and conservatives who were "devisive" and at fault for this country being divided more than at any other point.
Yes, the same people who every day for eight years spewed the most vile filth about Bush and anyone who supported him.
And Olbermann? Yes, he's about as despicable as they come. But I want him on the air, every night at the same time. I even want more people to watch ... just enough to keep him relevent enough to the folks who put him there.
That way, he can serve as a constant reminder, and as a lesson to those on the fence, of just how venomous and detached from reality liberals really are.
Monday, January 18, 2010
A Brownout one way or the other
Tuesday's special election in Massachusetts already has been eye-opening in so many ways. I would have no more thought a Republican would stand a chance in such a liberal stronghold than I would bet San Francisco would toss Nancy Pelosi out on her ear.
But here we are on Election Eve, and Republican Scott Brown has emerged from Ron Paul For President-like depths in the polls to leading Martha (Don't Call Me Marsha) Coakley by anywhere from 5 to 11 points.
Will he win, though? Yes, that's the $40K question, isn't it?
As eye-opening as Brown's meteoric rise has been, Tuesday's result largely will determine this country's direction. And I'm not talking health care, Cap & Trade or open borders.
Democrats can not lose this election. The reasons are numerous.
First, imagine the shock waves throughout the party if a Republican wins a Senate seat occupied for nearly half a century by a Kennedy in such a liberal mecca. The media's collective "this has no national significance" claims would become the very definition of vacuous.
Then there's the pending health care legislation that Democrats desperately need their 60-vote super majority to force down America's throat.
The repercussions of a Brown victory would be immensely negative for Democrats, President Obama in particular, on both fronts.
This is why SEIU and ACORN have been pouring people and resources into Massachusetts for at least a month. Obama and the uber liberal machine backing him cannot leave anything to chance. The stakes are too high.
So this election will offer Republicans (well, conservatives anyway) a sneak peek at what they can expect going forward.
What is the magic number for a Republican to overcome fraud? Is it 5 percent? Six? Or is it to the extent already that no lead is sufficient and the concept of a legitimate election of consequence has passed?
And what will be the reaction if that is so? Will America simply bend over as it did in Minnesota last fall and again in New York District 23 and accept the outcome?
We'll soon find out. Either Brown will represent the beginning of a political tidal wave or we'll be left to wallow in brown of quite another sort.
But here we are on Election Eve, and Republican Scott Brown has emerged from Ron Paul For President-like depths in the polls to leading Martha (Don't Call Me Marsha) Coakley by anywhere from 5 to 11 points.
Will he win, though? Yes, that's the $40K question, isn't it?
As eye-opening as Brown's meteoric rise has been, Tuesday's result largely will determine this country's direction. And I'm not talking health care, Cap & Trade or open borders.
Democrats can not lose this election. The reasons are numerous.
First, imagine the shock waves throughout the party if a Republican wins a Senate seat occupied for nearly half a century by a Kennedy in such a liberal mecca. The media's collective "this has no national significance" claims would become the very definition of vacuous.
Then there's the pending health care legislation that Democrats desperately need their 60-vote super majority to force down America's throat.
The repercussions of a Brown victory would be immensely negative for Democrats, President Obama in particular, on both fronts.
This is why SEIU and ACORN have been pouring people and resources into Massachusetts for at least a month. Obama and the uber liberal machine backing him cannot leave anything to chance. The stakes are too high.
So this election will offer Republicans (well, conservatives anyway) a sneak peek at what they can expect going forward.
What is the magic number for a Republican to overcome fraud? Is it 5 percent? Six? Or is it to the extent already that no lead is sufficient and the concept of a legitimate election of consequence has passed?
And what will be the reaction if that is so? Will America simply bend over as it did in Minnesota last fall and again in New York District 23 and accept the outcome?
We'll soon find out. Either Brown will represent the beginning of a political tidal wave or we'll be left to wallow in brown of quite another sort.
Monday, December 21, 2009
12 Days of Christmas (Redux)
Wrote this last year. Let's see a year later what's accurate:
On the first day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
The Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the second day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the third day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the fourth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the fifth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the sixth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the seventh day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the eighth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the ninth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the tenth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the eleventh day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Eleven brand new taxes
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the twelfth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Twelve million new citizens
Eleven brand new taxes
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the first day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
The Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the second day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the third day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the fourth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the fifth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the sixth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the seventh day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the eighth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the ninth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the tenth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the eleventh day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Eleven brand new taxes
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
On the twelfth day of Christmas,
The Messiah gave to me:
Twelve million new citizens
Eleven brand new taxes
Ten percent unemployment
Nine new welfare programs
Eight U.N. sellouts
Seven Kyoto mandates
Six forms of gun bans
Five dollar gas.
Four years of failure.
Three state-run networks.
Twice the babies murdered,
And the Fairness Doctrine so I cannot see.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)