In My Right Mind

"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

My Photo
Location: Universal City, Texas, United States

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is strong enough to take away everything you have." - Thomas Jefferson

Friday, June 30, 2006

A Possible Response To The Audacity Of Osama Bin Laden's Demands

I heard on the radio and on TV that a message purportedly from Osama Bin Laden has surfaced. No new video, just audio. In it, Osama expresses his surprise in the death of Abu Mosab Zarqawi, who in his twisted mind is a martyr and to be praised for the macabre murders he orchestrated in the name of their demon god and their unholy jihad. Then Osama goes on to demand that President Bush release his body and send it back home to Palestine to Zarqawi's family so that he can have a proper martyr's funeral.

The idea of President Bush even considering the demands of a blood thirsty, demon-posessed barbarian like Osama bin Laden would be laughable if it weren't such an outrage. I mean, here's a guy who has orchestrated the murder of thousands of innocents daring to lecture the president of a country who has sacrificed its young men and women in conflicts to rescue Bin Laden's fellow Muslims in peril.

The way I see it, Bush has two possible responses. His first option is to respond to Osama bin Laden, assuming this message is really from him, and inform Osama that in no way is he in any position to demand anything from America, and then proceed with the cremation of Zarqawi's carcass.

Or he could send an even stronger message to Osama and his terrorist minions. He could have a grave dug and then have several pig carcasses disemboweled and pour their guts into the grave. Then toss the Zarqawi's corpse into the grave to rest on top of the swine guts. Then pour the pigs' blood all over Zarqawi's carcass. Then, as a last touch, disembowel more pigs and dump their guts all over the top of Zarqawi's corpse. Then top of the grave with dirt.

A tombstone could be placed on the grave declaring something along the lines of:

"Here lies one of Satan's useful idiots. This is the best place for him and the American military is glad that it could do their part in sending him to his appointed judgment before God."

This should all be video taped and aired all over the Internet and news media.

Then, Osama Bin Laden would get the appropriate answer to his arrogant demands.

But, this is just my take on the situation.

Thursday, June 22, 2006

First Step In Democrat Tea Party Plan With Osama Bin Laden: Cut And Run!

Liberals, as well as some democrats, would have Americans believe that we are caught in a quagmire in Iraq in a no win situation. Americans soldiers are being killed for the sole reason that the Bush Administration is too bull headed and won’t admit that it is time for a change in our course of action in Iraq. Just what new course of action are they suggesting we adopt? They are urging us to “cut and run” before it’s too late.

Not only should we have never entered Iraq in the first place, our very presence in the Middle East is simply stirring up a hornet’s nest of Islamic terrorists who are going to target us with threats of violence as long as we are in their territory, threatening and impeding their goal of conquest of the Middle East in the name of their brand of radical Islam. That’s right. You see for liberals, all we have to do is withdraw our troops from Iraq and the Middle East, bring them home and “let bygones be bygones” and al Qaeda will in turn, leave us alone.

Of course there are some moonbats from the loony left who rejoice when American soldiers die, because in their warped view, their deaths only serve to make Bush look bad. Besides, they don’t view American soldiers as soldiers, but rather as mercenaries, who are hired by Bush to do his evil bidding. They are more than happy for American soldiers to lose their lives, so long as it’s for the good cause of making Bush and Rumsfeld look bad. For these idiots, the annihilation of cities like, New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, and Dallas via Islamo-Fascist terrorists is of no consequence. At least it makes Bush look bad.

And that is what it is all about for these sore losers. They don’t care about 9/11. They don’t care about eradicating the barbarian, Islamic terrorist scum from the face of the earth so that there can be peace. They only care about getting even with George W. Bush. No matter what the cost. It doesn’t matter how many troops die. It’s not important to them how many innocent American citizens die. It’s all “Bush is Hitler!” for these depraved parasites of our American society.

Liberals are partly correct. Osama Bin Laden and his army of demon possessed hate mongers are angry that America has a presence in their part of the world. One of their goals is to most certainly expel us from their lands. However, liberals aren’t telling the whole truth.

What they have conveniently left out of their fantasy proposal for peace between America and al Qaeda is the fact that Osama Bin Laden and the rest of the adherents of the philosophy of Radical Islam are at war in a holy jihad against infidels. Other than Israel, Western Civilization is the target of their “holy hatred”. In particular their bloodthirsty rage is aimed at the crown jewel of Western Civilization, the United States of America.

For decades, they have denounced America as being “The Great Satan”. After all, the immoral filth running out of Hollywood and being spread all around the world is a U.S. export. They see American woman dare to walk around uncovered, some scantily clad instead of shrouding themselves in burkas, sexually tempting innocent men, and even shamelessly speaking their minds without male permission. Therefore, they are a bunch of whores that are spreading immorality and they are an insult to Allah and the holy religion of Islam. Additionally, they see American men imbibe alcohol; eat pork and other things offensive to Allah. They also see the export of American culture across the world as a serious threat to the type of culture they seek to impose upon the world. Therefore, we are a target sanctioned by Allah and their holy jihad against sin and corruption in Allah’s world.

So, even if we had never entered Saudi Arabia, or Iraq, or Afghanistan, they still would have targeted us for destruction! Cutting and running now will change nothing in terms of al Qaeda’s mission to destroy America. Let’s consider what cutting and running and abandoning the new fledgling democracy of Iraq would do.

Liberals like to claim that we are only making the Islamic terrorists madder at us the longer we stay in Iraq. Well there is another side to the American military presence in Iraq coin to examine. What would happen if we gave in to the liberal appeasers?

First, al Qaeda, and all of those radical Islamo-Fascists who are in agreement with their twisted view point would quickly topple the new Iraqi government in a bloody coup and indiscriminately murder any Iraqis who in any way even looked like they would oppose their rule. They wouldn’t save Saddam Hussein. They would have him executed swiftly, along with the remnants of his following. Saddam and his fellow Ba’athist thugs would be seen as a possible threat to their holy plan.

Then they would establish a truly, fully terrorist nation that in its entirety burned with hatred for America and Western Civilization. Now it wouldn’t just be al Qaeda that had murderous eyes for the U.S. Those Iraqi citizens who were lucky enough not to be slaughtered by Bin Laden’s invaders would now burn with deep hatred for America. They would go to bed each night, never forgetting their betrayal by a country who tricked them into believing that it had their best interests at heart. There would be no recourse left for them now other than to join al Qaeda with all of their hearts and minds and pledge themselves to the goal of getting revenge upon America. Recruits eager to enter the terrorist, al Qaeda army would over-overflow in numbers.

Not only would Iraq be a terrorist nation, but other terrorist nations would be more than willing to assist them with their war against America. Iran, Syria, Libya (Muammar Qadhafi would execute a complete 180 now that mealy-mouthed democrats were calling the shots) would all offer their help to the destruction of America and then Europe and any other nation who refused to bow to the slavery of Islam (which by the way means “submission”).

The democrats’ plan to cut and run from Iraq would also send a message to all nations and peoples of the world that the lone super power of the world is a paper tiger. America doesn’t have the resolve it takes to stand up to evil. America will run and hide from barbarous, backwards, 7th century thugs. Bottom line: you can’t count on America; she talks out of both sides of her mouth.

But, the absolute worst message that would be communicated, should America follow the liberal agenda regarding Iraq and our war against Radical Islam, would be the stinging announcement to the parents, widows, brothers, sisters, friends and fellow soldiers that the loss of each and every American soldier, both male and female, was all for nothing. To the wounded, those who lost limbs, sight, etc. and are struggling to recuperate from their loss, their sacrifice was in the end all for nothing. Because in the end it was the arrogant, cowardly left who won the day.

It’s a real good thing that both of the democrat “cut and run” bills died in Congress today.

The Democrat Party offers no strategy for the War Against Terrorism, other than peace signs and flowers inserted into gun barrels. When election time arrives, just remember this isn’t 1966 and this war isn’t the Viet Nam War. This is 2006, and we are in a war of much more dire importance to our freedom and way of life. The consequences surrounding our success or failure in this war are deadly serious. If we fail in this endeavor, our enemy will ensure that American streets will flow with innocent blood, just as the streets of Israel do.

Which response to the task of our National Security would you prefer: peace symbols, flowers and cowardly appeasement, or America’s sleeves rolled up and fists clenched ready to face our threat head on?

For some of us, it’s a no brainer.

Tuesday, June 20, 2006

Some Ditzy Twits Just Never Learn

Natalie Maines, from the country music band, “The Dixie Chicks” has done it again. She has opened her mouth and expressed yet another incredibly stupid and telling opinion about her character, or rather lack thereof. From a story found here, here is the latest lunacy to flow from her mouth:

“The entire country may disagree with me, but I don't understand the necessity for patriotism,” Maines resumes, through gritted teeth. “Why do you have to be a patriot? About what? This land is our land? Why? You can like where you live and like your life, but as for loving the whole country… I don't see why people care about patriotism.”

The first reaction to such claptrap is, “Hello! Is there anybody home? Is Ms. Maines totally incapable of thinking things through before she shoots off at the mouth?

Once you get past the stunned disbelief that someone could actually continue to pursue career suicide in such a fashion, you get to the gist of what her controversial words actually mean and indicate about what sort of person Ms. Maines actually is. She is apparently a person who enjoys the freedom to pursue her happiness in the career of her choice and enjoy the wealth and riches that come along with it. She enjoys the security of her freedom that her country provides her, security of her freedom paid for by countless fallen Americans in combat throughout its history, and not only does she not appreciate it, but, she also doesn’t see why anyone else should either.

Despite the total depravity and despicableness of her expressed vitriol for her country, it is her constitutional right to make such ridiculous statements. She does not, however, have the right to expect her musical career to go unharmed by making such anti-American statements. I would suggest that Ms. Maines, and the rest of "The Ditzy Twits" relocate to the Rock or Alternative Rock genre of music. She would then find herself in a group of like-minded peers. Maybe they could make an album with Neil Young. Or with those "American Idiots", Green Day. Who knows?

There is something about Hollywood stars and music entertainers. Some of them apparently have an over-inflated view of their own worth. Just because they can sing or act doesn’t mean that they are so much superior to other Americans that we should all be grateful when they grace us with their loony political statements.

To borrow from the lyrics of Lynrd Skynrd in their song “Sweet Home Alabama”, a country audience don’t need them [The Dixie Chicks] around anyhow. Ms. Maines doesn’t see any need for patriotism in America? Country music fans apparently don’t see any need for the Dixie Chicks, as they are about to demonstrate to Ms. Hardhead once again.

I would try and feel sorry for her, but I just can’t feel sorry for someone who is about to receive their just desserts.

Thursday, June 15, 2006

This Ain't The 60's; "Cut And Run" Is No Longer In Fashion

Looks like today brought bad news for liberals in this country. Congress voted 93 against 6 not to abandon the fledgling new democracy in Iraq, not to pull our troops out and give Islamo-Fascist terrorists a victory and the confirmation that their cause is winnable. It looks like the appeasement party isn’t winning anybody over to their appeasement, “cut and run” agenda. It looks like the glory days of Viet Nam, when the liberals dominated the scene are thankfully over.

Here are some highlights from an article found here, of what was said from both sides:

“The war was a grotesque mistake. The administration continues to dig a hole. They refuse to come up and see the light.” - Nancy Pelousi, Democrat Senator from California

This was her counter to what House Speaker, Dennis Hastert, Republican Representative from Illinois said:

“We must stand firm in our commitment to fight terrorism and the evil it inflicts throughout the world. We must renew our resolve that the actions of evildoers will not dictate American policy."

Kerry and other Democrats accused Republicans of political gamesmanship, and promised an authentic debate next week. He and five other Democrats were in the minority on the vote - Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Barbara Boxer of California, Robert Byrd of West Virginia, Tom Harkin of Iowa, and Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts.

Rep. Ike Skelton, D-Mo., began his remarks by asking for a moment of silence to mark the 2,500th U.S. combat death.

In this fight for the future of peace, freedom and democracy in the Middle East and around the globe, winning should be our only option," said Rep. Phil Gingrey, R-Ga.

"Stay and we'll pay," countered Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., who criticized "the failed policy of this administration" and lamented the lives lost, billions of dollars spent and the bruised U.S. image since the war started. "It's time to redeploy and be ready." he said.

Democrats decried the debate as a sham. They said Republicans promised an open discussion but, instead, stacked the deck in their own favor by limiting debate to 10 hours and barring any amendments.

"Republicans offer a political document, just before the fall elections," Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., said. Added Rep. Tom Lantos, D-Calif.: "They are forcing us into a charade."
They also complained that Republicans refused to allow them to present an alternative resolution. But even though they tried, Democrats weren't able to agree on such an alternative.

I like the last bit of whining from the Democrats quoted from above. “They stacked the deck in their favor by only giving us 10 hours to debate…they are forcing us into a charade…they (Republicans) refused to let us present an alternative resolution…boo hoo hoo.

As for the whine about only 10 hours of debate being made available to them, it doesn’t matter how many hours, days, months granted the Democrats to argue their viewpoint, they never would be able to, since they always try to evade admitting that they are for cowardly appeasement to the enemy and admitting that they never support the U.S. troops, but instead support the enemy. They never present any rational arguments to support their agenda. They just make arrogant statements and then when they are challenged, resort to name calling and whining.

As to being forced into a “charade”, I beg to differ. Charade is what the liberals are all about. The charade that they actually care about the poor and have alone declared a “War on Poverty”, that they alone care about minorities by offering employment quotas and endless monetary handouts to minorities from the government for their vote.

And then there’s the really pathetic whine: “[snivel] They won’t let us present our alternative. I know we lost the elections that would have maintained our dominance in Congress, but still….we should be allowed to rule”.

Why anyone could possibly vote for these sniveling losers is beyond me. I welcome the death of the Democrat/Liberal Socialist Party with the condition that we get an alternative major political party in its place to stand up against this nation’s other big government party, the Republicans.

Hat Tip: Stop The ACLU.Com

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

Liberal Ire Over The "Outing Of Non-Covert CIA Agent, Valerie Plame

Good news for Karl Rove came out today when it was announced that special prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald announced that Rove was not going be indicted in the Valerie Plame case. Rove was being accused by the disenfranchised Democrats of the crime of outing CIA agent Valerie Plame and also guilty of perjury.

The main stream media, as well as those Democrats whose sole mission in life is to topple the Bush administration, had their hopes up. For some reason they saw this as a done deal. Rove was definitely going to be indicted any day now. They had been salivating over their “smoking gun” that would help to topple the Bush Administration and put them back in power for quite some time. Alas, it looks like it’s just not going to work out for them.

How did they react? As usual, the proponents of the “Rove is guilty because we say he is” agenda are beside themselves with disappointment. Just take “Screaming Howard Dean” for example. In a story reported on Drudge today here, here is Howard’s take on it:

“If Karl Rove had been indicted it would have been for perjury. That does not excuse his real sin which is leaking the name of an intelligence operative during the time of war. He doesn't belong in the White House. If the President valued America more than he valued his connection to Karl Rove, then Karl Rove would have been fired a long time ago. So I think this is probably good news for the White House, but its not very good news for America.”

Uh, there’s only one problem Howie. You can’t out a CIA agent that isn’t undercover, and employed in covert missions. That we are in a time of war is irrelevant. It had already been revealed early on in the case that Plume hadn’t been a covert agent during the last five years instead, she had a desk job. The fact that she was connected with the CIA was well known in DC cocktail circles.

Either Howard Dean, along with the rest of the democratic cry babies, are incredibly stupid, or they are liars.

Even though Dean acts stupidly on a frequent basis, what’s really going on is that he is a liar. He is betting on his, “the shame of it all, outing an undercover CIA agent especially now while our nation is at war (a war, by the way Dean and the liberals in his party would love to slink their way out of. A war they detest. A war they characterize has American emperialistic terrorism as well as being the criminal intervention into the legitmate affairs of Saddam Hussein who was only trying to govern his country, as was his right in the first place – hence the hypocrisy of the “during wartime” charge), is Rove’s biggest sin” spin to fool uninformed voters into casting their votes toward his party during the next election.

In fact, the truth is not something that liberals worry about. They will use any tactic they see fit to try and get back into power. Rush Limbaugh made an excellent point today on his radio program when he characterized the liberals as living in the alternative reality of their choosing.

There is reality, (an agent has to be covert in order for their cover to be outed in the first place), and then there’s the liberal’s fantasy world, where agents don’t have to be covert to have their cover blown. Blowing the cover of an agent who is out in the open and riding a desk job is the same thing. Especially now, in a time of war!

In a story found here, the lawyers of Valerie Plame Wilson and her husband Joseph Wilson continue with the same nonsensical response that Howard Dean has espoused:

"We have become aware of the communication between Mr. Fitzgerald and Mr. Luskin concerning Karl Rove's status in the criminal investigation. We have no first-hand knowledge of the reason for the communication or what further developments in the criminal investigation it may signal. While it appears that Mr. Rove will not be called to answer in criminal court for his participation in the wrongful disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified employment status at the CIA in retaliation against Joe Wilson for questioning the rationale for war in Iraq, that obviously does not end the matter. The day still may come when Mr. Rove and others are called to account in a court of law for their attacks on the Wilsons."

The liberals are living in denial. They have been ever since they lost the 2000 elections. They have been steadily coming more and more unhinged ever since. I would say that its entertaining watching them expose what they really are to the American public, (lying, whining, sore losers with no real plan to offer the voter except the “Bush is Hitler/Terrorist” derision), except I’m not too happy with the prospects of their collapse leaving us with just a one party government.

In terms of big government intrusion into our lives, the Republicans aren’t far behind the socialist liberal Democrats. They just want a bigger government focused on other aims.

Friday, June 09, 2006

Move Over Cindy Sheehan. There's A New Shameless Parent In The Media Spotlight: Michael Berg.

Michael Berg, the father of Nick Berg, who was horridly beheaded by recently deceased, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and his band of bloodthirsty, demon possessed Islamo-Fascists, has decided to follow the shameful path that Cindy Sheehan paved. That is, he is using his son’s death to catapult him into the spotlight so that he can spew out his leftist, anti-Bush diatribe.

In a story found here, Mr. Berg makes the following statement:

"I will not take joy in the death of a fellow human, even the human being who killed my son."

There are two ways to look at this statement. First, assuming that he really means what he says, then he apparently is a hypocrite. Consider the following statement he made in a CNN interview that he made found here:

“Well, my reaction is I'm sorry whenever any human being dies. Zarqawi is a human being. He has a family who are reacting just as my family reacted when Nick was killed, and I feel bad for that.”

So, for someone who “values human beings” to not feel happy when a monster like Zarqawi is killed, whose mission was to slaughter human beings indiscriminately, human beings whose lives Mr. Berg professes to care about, indicates quite clearly that Mr. Berg does not, in fact, care about human beings. Just about monsters like Zarqawi who kill human beings, like his son Nick.

One wonders. Does Mr. Berg morn the death of Adolph Hitler? Lenin? Stalin? Genghis Khan?

And now for the second way to look at Mr. Berg's condescending statement. And that is, of course, the truth of the matter is that Mr. Berg, like the rest of the leftists in this country, is using spin, and arrogantly proclaiming his positions to be morally superior, like Mr. Berg’s sanctimonious, “I am so superior morally. See, I have the ability to forgive and praise the very man who murdered my son!” He is manufacturing condescending claptrap to hide behind in order to disguise the fact that what he really means is:

the death of my son be damned! It’s all Bush’s fault! Who cares about our men and women of the Armed Forces who are sacrificing all to prevent another 9/11, what’s more important is getting liberals back into political power, and back into the ability to affect the shaping of this country away from the Founding Fathers’ vision and toward the liberal communist/socialist vision.

Move over Cindy Sheehan. You have company. Along with the “Jersey Girls” that Ann Coulter has had the courage to stand up to in her new book: “Godless: The Church Of Liberalism”, Mr. Berg is vying for the spotlight you've been enjoying. It would appear that lousy parents like you are not so rare.

Any parent who would use their child’s death as an opportunity to get into the media spotlight so that they can get their agenda heard cannot really claim to love their child. Clearly, if they loved their child, they would be far too busy coming to terms with their sorrow and loss to wax political.

Mr. Berg. You want to blame our President for the loss of your son because Saddam Hussien’s evil regime was targeted to be toppled. I have some grim news for you. The only person responsible for your son’s life is the man whose death you mourn, Abu Musab Zarqawi. The only other reason for your son’s death was his bad decision to enter an extremely dangerous area like Iraq and become a target. After all, the horrendous beheading of journalist, Daniel Pearl was our first clue as to just what we could expect from the vermin we are fighting. However, despite your son’s poor judgment, the fact remains that the blame for your son’s brutal murder rests with the “human being” you want us all to believe that you care so much about, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

You sir, are shameless and aren't really worth any more of America's attention.

Thursday, June 08, 2006

Abu Musab Zarqawi Is Dead. Finally!!!!

What a great day!

Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is dead.

The goul who delighted in sawing off the heads of his captives in the name of his demon god has now finally, lost his own life. The US military took him out today with two 500 lb pound bombs. The only thing better, would have been to learn that he had been found beheaded. Now that would have been perfect irony.

His brother claims that his demented brother is now in Heaven with the rest of the martyrs who worship the same demon god but, in reality Zarqawi is more than likely roasting in Hell, where he clearly belongs. A man who supervised the slow, tortureous beheading of Nicholas Berg, and others is hardly a candidate for Heaven. But, he most certainly fits the bill as a deserved citizen of Hell.

There is a part of me that wishes that they would have slaughtered a pig, decapitated it, and grafted his head on it, then impaled the corpse on a pole, and displayed it to the world as the victory of finally catching and killng the great, "Muslim Pig".

That would have really stirred up the "Muslim Street," so much, that they would all be shooting each other with their rifles as they spin out of emotional control, like they usually do.

But, there is another part of me that doesn't wish to stoop to such, well-deserved measures.

I'm quite sure that the left, is really disappointed today, much like they have been every time we have managed to deal a blow to al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and Sadam Hussein since 9/11.

I can't wait to hear the outcry from the "sore loser party", the Democrats, that we are wasting our time taking out monsters like Zarqawi and Sadam Hussien, while our troops "remain in a quagmire" in Iraq.

I, for one, look forward to the upcoming "hissy fits" from the Democrat party. They have unwittedly demonstrated to those who are paying attention, that they are the "Party of Permanent Colic" and have been so every since the 2000 Presidential Elections.

So, once again, who in their right mind would vote Democrat?

Monday, June 05, 2006

Banning "Gay Matrimony" Constitutionally? Is That Really A Good Idea?

Ok. Personally, as both a Christian and a political conservative, I don’t like the idea of “marriage”, “matrimony”, and “gay”, or “homosexual” in the same sentence. But, I have to disagree with Congress’ attempt to amend our Constitution so that it bans such a horrid concept from ever happening. I believe that this is a matter of State’s Rights and the Federal Government has no business being involved. In fact, in my opinion, the Federal Government has managed to ignore its constitutional boundaries and push beyond them enough during the last half of the last century up to now and definitely needs to be stopped from further encroachment on its citizens’ freedoms once and for all before dire consequences are paid by citizens of this great country!

Personally, I think that if the word “matrimony” is to be used regarding the union of homosexuals it should be preempted with the word “unholy” at best, or just referred to as a “civil union”. “Marriage” and “matrimony” in healthy societies mean the union of male and female, with their procreativity that results in families an essential foundation of society in general.

The notion of the possibility of homosexual matrimony, which produces no families, and therefore, offers no contribution to society’s furtherance, opens up the potential for a host of many other matrimonies detrimental to society’s health and future such as, matrimony of human and animal, adult and child etc.

However, having said this, (and I am fully aware that I have just invited every leftist out there in “blogsphere” the opportunity to broadcast their “far superior” open acceptance to the “poor downtrodden in our society” to chime in), I believe that my opinion should take a back seat to the opinions of all citizens of the states in this country.

Like the abortion debate, while I see it as usually being just an excuse to use murder to cover up irresponsibility, (and yes I know that there are theoretical exceptions, stress the word “theoretical”), it is still not my wish to impose my religious and moral beliefs on every other citizen in our country.

I may be a Christian, but I would never support any movement that wished to force the views I espouse on every one else. I love the fact that we are a free, pluralistic society. I want to keep it that way. Our society needs protection from zealous Christians, zealous Jews, zealous Hindus, zealous Buddhists, zealous Wiccans, zealous Pagans, zealous Muslims, and even zealous Humanists.

Therefore, I think issues like “Gay Marriage” and “Abortion” should be left up to States’ votes. If I don’t like the outcome, I can always leave that State and choose to go and live in a State that supports my point of view, (are you listening liberals, yeah you, Alec Baldwin, you Dixie Chicks).

What Congress is doing right now is more than likely just producing a “Dog and Pony Show” designed to fool ignorant voters into believing in them and voting for them next election. It is highly doubtful to me that this amendment will ever go anywhere beyond the Congress in the first place.

So, while I am a conservative, I really can’t stand beside Bush and Congress on this one. After all, there are a lot more serious issues we need to face as a nation such as border security and putting an end to those who would spit in the face of immigrants who come here legally by disregarding our laws and sneaking into our country illegally and stealing our money.

It’s a real shame that we are a two party system and I only have the Republican Party as my option as a conservative. [For those who might mistake my position as being an adherent to the Libertine…. I mean, Libertarian Party, I would say you couldn’t be further from the truth. I do believe that the Federal Government has a role to play, it’s not all about the States every time. However, the Constitution provides the boundaries for it and it should be trimmed back down to size.] Otherwise, I would probably vote for a party that represented the Constitution and its guidelines.