Principle and Reason

My Opinions on People

2009-04-30T20:55:00.002-04:00

I've been thinking about a couple of different individuals recently, so I thought I'd share my thoughts about them with you.

First, Muhammad Ali. How is this man the greatest who ever lived? In my opinion, he doesn't even deserve to live in this country - enjoying the freedoms that he refused to fight for fifty years ago. If you don't know what I'm talking about, Ali was a draft-dodger during Vietnam. He said that he had no fight with the North Vietnamese...I don't get it - he was happy enough to fight anyone who dared challenge him in the ring, but when our country was in a fight and death became part of the equation, he wasn't so bold....Not only is he not the greatest who ever lived, but I'd go as far as to say that he's not even on the list. All able-bodied male citizens of this country are required, by law, to register for the draft when they turn 18. They all know what that entails, and I think that any person who decides that our freedoms are no longer worth defending when it comes time to answer the call don't deserve to live in this country. That's my opinion, and I'm sticking to it.

Next, Miss California - Carrie Prejean. I've seen a lot of hate-postings about Carrie since her statements regarding how she believes marriage should be defined. I'm sorry to say it, but this is becoming par for those loons on the left - attacking a person for their views, rather than engaging in an ideological or philosophical discussion over the issue. Last time I checked, every person is entitled to their own opinion regarding anything they want...and in fact, most Americans AGREE with Miss California - that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman. In fact, that was the opinion of the majority of people from her state - a little thing called Proposition 8 proved that, and no amount of personal attacks will change that fact. To all of those who disagree with her view - respectfully say so, and leave it at that. Even try to justify your view, if you believe you can, but personally attacking a woman who was simply stating her view makes you less of a person and hurts your cause far more than you think you're helping. I happen to disagree with many people on many different issues, but that doesn't mean I hate that individual - as many have stated of Miss California. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Third, Legal Mexican Immigrants. That's right, I said LEGAL immigrants. Of all Americans, you should be the angriest about illegals flooding into our country. They give you a bad name by taking advantage of a system of which they are not legally a part. There are now so many illegal immigrants in our country, that people automatically think you're an illegal, even if you're not. Start policing your own ranks - it'll make things better for all of us.

Fourth, Arlen Specter. Arlen recently left the Republican Party and joined the Democratic Party. He says that the Republican Party has gone too far to the right. Gasp! TOO conservative? Are you insane? The Republican Party as of late has been betraying their conservative roots, drifting toward the center during this last election in a futile attempt to gain the independent vote. That's not what people are looking for - there is a VAST population of conservatives in this country who want a party who will represent their conservative values - so if the Republican Party is drifting back to the right where they belong, good for them. The party is better without Specter, as he's one of the moderates who is diluting the party. His leaving the party doesn't represent the fact that the Republican Party is losing touch with the American People - but actually that they're moving back toward their base. The real reason he switched parties was that he figured out he wouldn't even be able to win the Republican primary come next year. I sure hope he loses in the general election. The last part that really bothers me about this is the fact that President Obama welcomed Specter by holding a press conference to say how proud the party is to have him and how he's going to campaign for Specter. Great way to show bipartisanship - by holding a press conference to showcase one of the most partisan events that has happened since taking office. Wonderful...

Fifth - Waterboarding. I know this isn't a person, but it's my blog so I can do whatever I want. Waterboarding IS NOT torture. Torture is inflicting physical harm on a person. Waterboarding inflicts ZERO physical harm, but instead uses the fear of drowning to encourage terrorists to respond to questions. Any person who says they're against this - let me pose a VERY simple question. If your son/daughter/husband/wife/loved one was abducted by two men, and one of the men was caught - while the other man was still holding your loved one, what would you be willing to do in order to get the man who was caught to tell you where your loved one was? If you say you wouldn't want that individual waterboarded if it even MIGHT lead to getting your loved one back, you're lying. Not only would I be willing to waterboard that individual, but probably much worse, and I think the same is true of most people.

Sixth - Nancy Pelosi. Every time you open your mouth, I want to plunge a sharp object into my eardrums. Just in the last couple of months, you've called illegal immigrants "patriotic," you've lied about your knowledge concerning interrogation techniques being used by the CIA, and been arrogant enough to call yourself a Christian while being staunchly pro-choice. The Bible is very clear about protecting the smallest amoung us - and science has proven that life begins at conception. There will not be a happier day of television viewing than the day I no longer have to hear your voice or see your face.

That's all for now. More to come later...

But...It's All Bush's Fault!!!

2009-04-11T22:31:00.002-04:00

NY Times, September 30, 1999:

Fannie Mae Eases Credit to Aid Mortgage Lending

Pretty amazing stuff...I've heard enough people say that it's all Bush's fault. It's time to remember who really caused the current financial crisis.

The Universal Healthcare Myth

2009-04-09T20:22:00.004-04:00

So we've been hearing on and off about President Obama's plan for universal healthcare. In fact, he included about a $700 billion so-called "down payment" for his healthcare plan in his record-breaking budget. I've thought quite a bit about this, and had numerous conversations with others on this topic. I believe the direction our country is headed in regards to this issue demonstrates exactly what is wrong with much of our society today, which is that people believe they are entitled to certain things. This overwhelming sense of entitlement has been created through our out-of-control entitlement spending as well as a general attitude of apathy. In fact, while I was doing my student teaching I asked my class of 10th grade economics students who believed that the government should provide healthcare for all citizens. Almost the entire class emphatically raised their hands. Now, some of this may be due to their youthful empathy and drive to change the world, because, as we all know, any person who isn't a communist at age 20 has no heart...while any person who isn't a conservative by age 30 has no brain. However, I believe much of this has to do with the general sense of entitlement that is present in much of our society. It used to be generally understood that in order to achieve most things in life, a person has to work hard and earn it...however, it's not like that anymore. Attitudes are shifting, and it's really beginning to scare me. We're drifting more and more toward a socialized way of life - the way of life that says if my neighbor has less than me, then shame on me. That's not what this country was founded on, and that's not what capitalism is all about. Capitalism says that you should work hard to get ahead, and that your hard work should be rewarded, not punished. The Obama administration says otherwise, however. A glass ceiling has been put on success. Obama says that if you are too successful, your productivity and success should be punishable through taxation. How is this encouraging the American Dream? It used to be that a person's motive to work simply had to be that he and his family would starve otherwise. That motivation isn't there, anymore...especially when Obama is trying to give tax refunds to the majority of Americans who don't pay taxes in the first place. Take from the rich and give to the poor...this has been tried, and it was called the Soviet Union. It'll be great...everyone will be equal, except that some will be more equal than others.

Anyway, back to my discussion of healthcare...I get distracted easily. Universal healthcare has been tried in multitudes of modernized countries...from our neighbors to the north to our allies in the United Kingdom, and you know what - it doesn't work. Universal healthcare sounds like it's all about compassion - taking care of people, and I wish it were, except that the facts show otherwise. It's simply another way in which a government can gain control over its population. Look at the British - their healthcare is sub-par, and the government is now deciding that people with certain conditions are not worth saving. You may have seen this in the news - many women with breast cancer are no longer being given the drugs they need because the government sees it as cost-ineffective. People are no longer people, but simply dollar signs. Sure, everyone has "healthcare," but there are less doctors because of less incentives and lower pay and the healthcare is barebones to say the least.

Imagine if the government were going to provide all citizens a car to drive...what quality do you think that car would be? The answer is sad, but the explanation is quite simple. Government contracts almost always go to the lowest bidder, which means that the government usually favors low cost over anything else. I see this day in and day out in the military...equipment that can obviously be made better or improved, but it won't be simply because it's being made for as cheap as possible as it is. Healthcare would be the same way...the government would go with a low common-denominator and call it good.

Then comes the question of what other rights the government would claim. If they're now responsible for our healthcare, why not regulate what we eat...how much we exercise...etc., etc. Would it be their right to do so if they're the ones paying the health bills? I certainly would want to protect my investment if I were the government...shut down all the McDonald's, and people are required to work out 3 times a week at a local gym in order to continue receiving healthcare. This stuff really gets me pissed off....Healthcare is a privilege, not a right, and I'm not going to apologize for thinking so.

Granholm an Economic Advisor? What a Joke...

2008-11-06T21:05:00.003-05:00

What a joke this is.

I'm really trying hard not to judge Obama before seeing what he actually does. I obviously know that his record doesn't match his rhetoric, which doesn't lend itself to much optimism. However, I'm trying my best to refrain from attacking the man and his policies too much until he actually enacts them and they fail miserably. But here's what I'm having a problem with...Obama has appointed Jennifer Granholm to advise him on the economy as he transitions to the White House. I really shouldn't have to point out what is wrong with this picture...

Here's the other problem...

As I already said, I'm trying my best...but when Obama's first appointed individual is Rahm Emanuel as White House chief of staff, I can't help but picturing the long list of broken campaign promises that is about to come. Obama ran his campiagn on a promise of bipartisanship, and the first person he appoints is a notoriously partisan Congressman who has actually told Republicans to, "Go F*$@ themselves." Wow...

A comment...

2008-10-27T15:50:00.003-04:00

My dad seemed a little irritated, to say the least, when I told him I wouldn't be voting for John McCain. I'm sorry, but I just simply won't vote for someone who sounds like they will continue growing government beyond its means. If I knew Michigan was going to come down between Obama and McCain, I would probably come through for McCain, giving in to the fact that a vote for McCain is a vote against Obama. Unfortunately, though, it won't be close in Michigan (thanks for nothing, Detroit). The only good that comes from the fact that Michigan is going to Obama is the fact that I can now vote my conscience rather than my common sense. It's too bad that conscience and common sense don't always align, isn't it?

My Vote

2008-10-24T23:08:00.004-04:00

By this point, I'm sure you've all assumed that I'll be casting my vote for John McCain on November 4. I'm sorry to disappoint all of you who thought you had me figured out. I in fact will not be casting my vote for John McCain come November 4. It is true that for the past few months I have been planning on voting for McCain. However, over the past few weeks John has done just enough to make me second guess myself. Of course I will definitely not be voting for Barack Obama, either, as his socialist policies of income redistribution and universal health care, along with his weak stance on foreign policy and complete lack of experience in everything besides campaigning are pretty good reasons to withhold a vote. That being said, I've got some thinking to do over the next 11 days about who I will cast my vote for, whereas I do have my mind made up about the rest of the ballot.

One of the largest factors that drove me away from McCain was simply his negative campaigning. Running for President is like interviewing for the most important job in the world. The potential employer that you're interviewing with is the American people, as it is us who will decide who to employ as the next President of the United States. In any other job interview anywhere in the world, a person with the interview skills of John McCain (or Obama for that matter) would be laughed out of the office. Interviewing 101: When interviewing, you want to describe for your potential employer what benefits you can bring to the company and how you will make the company more successful, both financially and socially. You don't go in there, sit down in front of the desk, and try describing why the other individuals applying for the same job shouldn't be hired. You don't point out their deficiencies, and you certainly don't point out what you believe to be their weaknesses. You leave figuring that out to the employer. All you do is lay out the facts about yourself, answer any questions the employer has, and go on your way. In this case, the call-back is the election. The results of the election reveal who the American people have hired as the next President of the United States. We should hire someone for proving their worth, not for proving the lack of worth of their opponent. Both candidates are guilty of this throughout the election, which is one reason why I will vote for neither of them. When I run for public office someday, I hope someone digs this writing up and calls me out on it if I go back on my values and resort to mud-slinging. It's killing what very little dignity our political process has left, and it disgusts me.

Along with the above reason, McCain's support for the ridiculousness that is the progressive income tax, along with his proposal that the government buy up mortgages from anyone who is struggling to make payments, coupled with the fact that he voted in favor of basically nationalizing our country's banking industry has proven to me that John McCain is no conservative (nice run-on sentence, eh?). Anyway, it's not that I think John McCain would necessarily drive our country in the wrong direction, but I definitely don't think that he would do much to take it in the right direction either. It's basically the stance that Jennifer Granholm has taken over the last 6 years...the idea that if I don't do anything at all, I really can't do anything wrong.

As for why I'm not voting for Obama, it should be fairly obvious at this point. Anyone who can think for themselves and do some simple math will see that Obama's policies don't add up. He's waffled on gun rights, he supports infanticide, shows weakness in foreign policy, wants to increase taxes on small business, redistribute wealth, socialize health care, and the list goes on. Both candidates are completely ridiculous, and I refuse to vote for either of them. I need a shirt that has portraits of each, with the words "dumb and dumber" stamped across their foreheads. I'll leave it up to you to decide which individual deserves each of the two fore mentioned adjectives.

Nicely said...

2008-10-24T20:57:00.002-04:00

This is one of the best summaries on the implications of this election that I've found thus far. It's very, very long. It's also very, very good. If you care at all about voting on issues and based on rationality and reason instead of glamour and rhetoric, take the time to read this piece:

To the Undecided Voter

Let's Talk Taxes

2008-10-22T19:09:00.002-04:00

Over the past couple of weeks, we've heard both Obama and McCain talk a lot about taxes. There's a lot of rhetoric, so let's try to sift through what's been said and figure out the reality and the reason behind the words.

First, we've heard Obama say time and again that McCain favors tax cuts for the rich because he supports extending the Bush tax cuts. The Bush tax cuts lowered the upper income bracket's federal income tax from 37% to 35%. Now, I'm not mathematician, but 35% seems like a heck of a lot of your hard earned money to be paying out in taxes. Now compare the 35% that the upper bracket pays to what I would consider the middle class. Those who make between $33,000 and $79,000 only pay 25%. So the tax burden of the upper class is still significantly higher than that of the middle class. So basically what Obama is saying is that, even though the upper class already shoulders the majority of the tax burden in this country, they're not giving enough of their hard earned money to the government.

The progressive tax system is a complete joke to begin with. Why should those who make more money pay a higher percentage? Just because they can is the answer we've been getting from Obama and Biden. Biden even went as far as to say the upper class needs to be patriotic and accept the higher taxes. The fair tax, or even the flat tax for that matter, would be a much more fair way of distributing the tax burden. If we simply had a flat tax, where everyone paid the same percentage, those making more money would obviously still be paying more. Let's just assume we had a 10% flat tax. Those below a certain income level would obviously still pay nothing, but for those that make $30,000, they'd be paying $3,000 in taxes. Someone making $100,000 would be paying $10,000. You make 3x more money, you pay 3x more in taxes. Seems like a more fair system to me.

Or, even better, how about the fair tax? Let's abolish the income tax altogether and get rid of the IRS, who is simply soaking up billion of budget dollars every year. A fair tax would be a federal sales tax that would fairly tax a person's buying power. A person who has the means to purchase more expensive items will naturally be paying much more in taxes. Not to mention, this would make it impossible for illegal immigrants to avoid paying taxes as well as solve the problem of people simply not filing taxes. There would be NO filing, and everyone would be paying into the system, no exceptions. The progressive system isn't fair to begin with, but apparently Obama thinks it's a little too fair to "the rich." What a joke...

Passing your piece of the American Dream puzzle

2008-10-20T17:51:00.003-04:00

So what is the American Dream, anyway? Well, for everyone it's a little bit different - the substance of the dream, that is. The premise, and the only thing that is guaranteed, is simply the opportunity to pursue whatever it is that you want for your life. That is all the Dream really is. It's not a nice car, house, family, white picket fence, medium-sized short-haired dog, good health care, or good job. It's simply the opportunity to pursue any of the above, or whatever you may have your heart set on. So if the only thing guaranteed is the opportunity, is it then the responsibility of the government to provide the individual pieces of the American Dream puzzle to all? I would say not.

One candidate for President believes to the contrary, however. Not only does Barack Obama believe that the government should hold a person's hand their entire life, but he also is trying to provide for some by taking from others. If you have missed the whole "Joe the Plumber" issue, let me fill you in. Obama's plan is to give tax breaks to the lower and middle class while increasing taxes on those that make over $250,000 a year. For those that are having trouble doing the math, that simply means he's going to take money from those who have, for the most part, worked really hard to get where they are in life and give it away to the lower and middle classes, many of whom don't pay any taxes in the first place. Let me say straight off - I certainly don't want a tax cut, rebate, credit, or whatever, if the money is simply being taken from people who have worked hard and achieved success. Any middle-class person who accepts such a tax cut should be ashamed of themselves. I someday hope to be among those making more than $250,000, and if I do, I'll pay my fair share of taxes, as do most Americans. However, there is no reason that those who make more should pay a higher percentage. A flat percentage of $250,000 is already significantly more than the same percentage of $50,000. The wealthy already pay the majority of the taxes in this country, but apparently not enough in the opinion of Barack Obama.

On a separate note, Jack Hoogendyk completely owned Carl Levin in the U.S. Senatorial debate. Jack was well prepared and used the short amount of time he had to provide pointed and direct answers. Levin once again resorted to the blame game and directed all failures to the Bush administration, while even admitting that he secures a great deal of earmarks (reads wasteful spending) in the U.S. Senate. Levin has been a part of the problem and is certainly not part of any solution. He offered middle-of-the-road answers and failed to deliver any real proposals on how exactly he can make the life of Michiganders better. Jack made some common-sense proposals, such as making English the official language of government, educating people on health care rather than providing it for them, and redistributing education authority to those who actually know something about education. Levin is a joke, and should have been laughed out of the Senate a long time ago. Vote Hoogendyk for U.S. Senate on November 4.

Healthcare is NOT a right

2008-10-09T16:17:00.001-04:00

Read this article. Posed are some very simple questions. What is a right? If you have the right to healthcare, don't you then have the right to three square meals a day, clothing, shelter, etc.? If the government doesn't have the right to regulate what we eat and where we live and the types of activities we indulge in, then healthcare isn't a right.

Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happines, and Healthcare?

2008-09-30T21:20:00.002-04:00

Many people have cited healthcare as one of the important issues of the upcoming election. When Obama supporters are asked why they support him, many reply that he has a plan for improving healthcare. My question to those people then becomes: Is healthcare an entitlement to all Americans? Did I miss the section of the Constitution that deals with this, or maybe I'm just confused? Since when does it become the responsibility of the United States Government to provide some sort of healthcare for its citizens? Should the government then also provide three square meals a day, impose exercise requirements, and ban certain fast-food restaurant chains? Aren't all of these things health related? It seems to me that if the government is going to provide healthcare for everyone, it should protect its investment by requiring people to live a healthy lifestyle. I don't know about you, but I don't really care to have the government regulating how I live my day-to-day life, but that's the only way providing healthcare would make sense. People make individual choices every day to live unhealthily - they smoke, they sit in front of the TV instead of exercising, they go through the drive-thru at McDonalds. And then they have the audacity to presume the government provide healthcare for them? I don't think so. It's true that we pay taxes in this country - but it's also true that the Constitution spells out quite clearly what those taxes are to go for - which is another thing that bothers me when people complain about how much money is spent on defense and the military, because according to the Constitution, defense of our nation and its people is the number one priority. That's another topic for another day, though. Let's stick to healthcare - so we've got people who make choices to live unhealthy lives and then assume it's the government's job to help them with whatever problems arise as a result of their bad choices. I know that some things are beyond an individual's control, and I really do feel for those people, but since when should the majority suffer by paying higher taxes for the benefit of the few? Remember the whole "greatest good for the greatest number" thing? That's what I'm going for here, and if I someday come down with some sort of ailment and have failed to obtain personal healthcare for myself by then, well then don't bother feeling sorry for me. I'm not trying to be insensitive, but I'm simply saying that it's ridiculous to assume that it's the government's responsibility to provide healthcare.

A Couple of Beefs

2008-09-13T00:04:00.003-04:00

So there are a couple of things I need to rant about tonight. First, why do people feel the need to be so economically illiterate all the time? Here's a simple little econ lesson for the likes of the average American who just doesn't get it: OPEC recently announced a slight drop in production of oil. OPEC, who is responsible for pumping 40% of the earth's oil, usually has a great deal of influence over oil prices because of their ability to regulate supply. So, you'd think that after their recent announcement oil prices would have risen at least a little bit. Not so. The good 'ole Saudis promised to drill more if necessary just to keep up the current supply. This turmoil from within OPEC and the Saudi's promise, along with the strengthening U.S. dollar actually caused oil prices to drop. It's been dropping steadily ever since it's all time high of just over $147/ bbl and now is right around $100/ bbl. So, even though there's about a two week lag to get oil refined into gasoline and actually to the consumer, you would think that all of this news, along with dropping oil prices would lower gas prices. Again, not so. Gas prices shot up dramatically today because of the speculation that Hurricane Ike will significantly impact our domestic oil production. Radio commentators and the news media are the ones instigating this fear. Consumers see or hear that "gas prices are bound to go up!" so they rush out to buy gas before the price goes skyrocketing to $6 a gallon (as I heard on the radio today - no joke). There were lines at gas stations all across town, backing up traffic and causing all sorts of problems. Here's the problem I have with this - these idiots are giving into the speculators and actually creating their own bed to lay in. What's that mean? It means that all of the people who rushed out to buy gas real quick before prices went "skyrocketing" are the ones who in fact caused the prices to rise. A substantial and furious rise in demand is always followed quickly by a sharp rise in price. It's econ 101. I got more and more mad every time I passed a gas station and saw a line. If people would do a little research rather than listening to the speculators, they would find that oil prices are indeed holding steady. The United States derives such a minuscule percentage of our domestic oil production from the Gulf of Mexico that even every single platform shutting down really doesn't affect our supply that much. Much of our oil (domestic that is) comes from the Black Hills and Alaska. Stop creating our own nightmare people!

Ok, next - Matt Damon, please shut your overpaid mouth. You're an actor, and one that I actually used to admire...that is, until I heard your pathetic excuse for political commentary today on CNN headline news. Some people in life are born to be professional athletes. Some are born to be construction workers and even some to be ditch-diggers. You, my friend, were born to be an actor. You've got a flair for the dramatic and pulled off being Jason Bourne better than I think anyone else could have. So please stick to what you're good at. Speaking about Sarah Palin's alleged "book banning" is not only out of your league, it's also completely false. Check your facts before you go on a big network and embarrass yourself. I almost felt bad for you. Almost.

That's it for now. Well, one more plug before I go - remember to vote November 4 for Jack Hoogendyk and McCain-Palin. Our rights, wallets, and sanity depend on it.

Carl Levin Doesn't Get It

2008-09-11T15:59:00.003-04:00

So Carl's done it again...he's put out another YouTube video stating exactly why he should not be re-elected. For some reason, though, he continues trying to project his own personal failures onto President Bush and John McCain. He frames it in a way that I'm sure he thinks is pretty clever. He says that John McCain, President Bush, and the Republicans do have a lot of experience just as they say. However, the hypocrite fails to mention that the attacks he makes on the fore mentioned also apply to him.

First, he says that McCain and Bush are experienced in running up the national debt. So, Carl, you're saying that you're not partly responsible for this? What about the millions in earmarks you've secured? Are earmarks not a wasteful form of spending that increases the deficit? In the 2007 defense authorization bill, you secured $210 million in earmarks - the most of any senator in the country. Hillary Clinton was 2nd, securing $148 million in earmarks. And you're trying to call out McCain and Bush? The DEMOCRATIC controlled congress approved the budget resolution for 2008 which increased deficit spending to all time highs, and you're saying it's Bush and McCain's fault? I don't even know what to say to this...

Next, you talk about Bush and the Republicans being responsible for the loss of millions of manufacturing jobs. Did you forget that the largest number of manufacturing jobs were lost in YOUR state, in counties from which you receive your largest campaign contributions? Did you also forget that your state, from which all these manufacturing jobs are leaving has been controlled by democrats for about 6 years now (governor and both senators) and that Detroit is also controlled by democrats? It's the changing economy and the business environment YOU'VE helped create that is killing manufacturing, not President Bush and the Republicans.

Then, you referred to the privatization of social security as a "slot machine." Are you so afraid of educating people on how to save their own money because you think the government will be losing power or because the more educated people are the more they tend to vote Republican? Either way, your lack of faith in the American people makes me sick.

You say that the Republicans have championed NAFTA and cost the United States in terms of valuable trade and created a towering trade deficit. Has it been so long that you've forgotten who really championed NAFTA? Oh, I'll gladly remind you - it was Bill Clinton, and if you are still fuzzy on the facts, Clinton was a DEMOCRAT.

You finally go on to talk about how our country and billions of individuals abroad are aching for change. Well, you finally got something right - it's time for a change, and that includes electing someone to the senate who hasn't been there for the last 30 years and become so indebted to special interests and his own party that he's forgotten the true job description of a United States Senator. I know you're a little slow, so I'll help you out - that's YOU I'm talking about.

Carl, I'm sick of your hypocrisy, and I'm sick of you lying to the people of our great state. Our state may be down and out at the moment, but contrary to the lies you've been spewing, the fault lies on your shoulders. I hope you're proud of yourself, because I certainly am not.

A Little Poem...

2008-08-18T09:19:00.003-04:00

Expanding into new horizons....

**Clears Throat**

There once was a boy,
From Springfield Illinois
Who had big hopes indeed

So he got on stage
and he cleared his throat
and made people weak in the knees

He spoke of hope
and he spoke of change
and he said it with a great big smile

But what wasn't known
and hidden so well
was that the boy was very vile.

Lips of gold
and a tongue of silver
from which these words did flow

He spoke so well
and with such big words
that people didn't really know

He pulled a blindfold
over people's eyes
in hope that they couldn't see

See what he was
and see what he is
or else people surely would flee

He values no life,
unless fully grown,
and shows no morality

But claims to be Christian
and pretends to listen,
but he's sure not fooling me!

He calls his opponent racist
and tries to be sly,
when he's really the one.

The one who smears
and the one who lies
and changes his positions a ton.

Now what I don't get,
and really don't see,
is why people love him so.

Any real American,
Left or Right,
Should cry a resounding NO!