Just Get Dressed Already

There are some Nudists that are complaining that Sherriff's Deputies are harassing them at a local beach. I'm just a little confused as to how it is harassment when a law enforcement official tells you that you have to put some clothes on in order to be compliant with the law. To me this is just common sense (and maybe that's the problem) that you can't go nude on a public beach. We are talking about an area that is completely open to the general public, where families go for a fun day, and where children are bound to be when they are not in School.

I would think that people would understand that parents don't want their kids exposed to naked people when they are supposed to be just having a good time at the beach. For that matter, I don't want to see naked people sitting around out in public. It's gross, and what's more, it's wrong. But maybe that enters into it also. Relativism. The idea that just because I think it's wrong, doesn't mean that it's wrong for someone else. Of course this is nonsense. I am a firm believer in Absolutes, and I believe it is absolutely wrong to run around in front of people in your birthday suit.

I know that I have seen arguments in the past where people are trying to say that there is nothing wrong with it because they are not ashamed of their bodies. Well, to that I say, who cares, I'm not ashamed of your body either, but I still don't want to see it. For that matter, I'm not ashamed of my body, even if I am fat, but I wouldn't even consider showing it off to other people, even if I wasn't fat. I don't get where this idea comes from. Somebody please explain to me how it is that Christmas trees are offensive, but naked bodies aren't. I'm totally confused.

Of course, maybe they could work something out where they have a judge who sits in a little booth on the beach and decides who is allowed to tromp around in the nude, and who isn't. At least that could serve to make things a little more pleasant for other beach goers. Ok, I'm just kidding. I'm opposed to all forms of public nudity. If we were talking about a private beach, or a designated "Nude Beach" then I wouldn't care, people would know what was going to be going on there before they ever went, but that's just not the case at a public beach.

Basically, I guess I just want to tell these people to shut up, quit griping, and put some stinking clothes on. Nothing to get all bent out of shape about (no pun intended).

To me, there is nothing wrong with the nude human form. In Private. And more specifically, between a Husband and Wife. It just doesn't belong outside of that relationship.

One other thing that the article on this was sure to point out was that the law that was being enforced was 13 years old. *GASP* 13 whole years!?!?! Can they be serious? They are still enforcing a 13 year old law? How did this happen? Who's responsible? Get a grip. I don't even know why they put that in there. Like 13 years is such a long time. How long has murder been against the law? And they still enforce that don't that? Sure they do, as long as the ACLU doesn't have anything to do with it.

I would also think that there would other reasons for not wanting people to go nude on the beach. Our beaches here are pretty loaded up with broken up shells, which I would think would be painful in certain sensitive area's. Not to mention all the little critters that crawl around in the sand. Wouldn't you want a little protection? And all that extra Sun Block!

It never ceases to amaze me the things that people will defend and fight for as a "right." Not caring that there is no basis at all for calling something like this a right. What would you call it, the right to nudity? And where does it derive from? Certainly not the Consititution, I know, I've read it, and even though I don't remember everything, I'm pretty sure I'd remember that: "The right to walk around buck naked shall not be infringed." --Yeah, I don't think so.

Give Me A Break

Now, regarding the speech that John McCain made to Conservatives yesterday. How is it that the media keeps saying that he accomplished his goal of "reaching out to Conservatives"? I really don't get it at all. If you cut through all of the Political speak, basically, the driving point of the speech was that John McCain did all that he did, and took all the possitions that he took, and that he was not wrong about any of them, but regardless of how those stances may be percieved by Conservatives, it doesn't matter, because he is declaring himself to be conservative enough. Well, gee, thanks John. Now I feel a lot better.

It's good to know that selling out the Republican party under the guise of Campaign Finance Reform, infringing on the free speech rights of countless Americans, and considerably boosting the ability of the ultra-liberal media to affect the outcome of elections, counts as Conservative enough.

It's good to know that selling out the sovereignty of the USA under the guise of Comprehensive Immigration Reform, wanting to give amnesty to tens of millions of people who came here with no regard for our laws or our borders, while giving only token lip service to meaningfully securing the borders, counts as conservative enough.

It's good to know that co-authoring a bill under the guise of fighting against global warming, which would crush the American ecconomy, and destroy the prosperity of, not only the nation as a whole, but also of countless individual Americans, while doing virtually nothing to actually affect polution on a Global scale, counts as Conservative enough.

It's also good to know that many other things, like seriously considering leaving the GOP, considiering being John Kerry's running mate in the 2004 election, and several other things, which you can easily learn about from any number of sources, count as Conservative enough.

Just in case there is any confussion here, I'm not buying it. John McCain is no kind of Conservative, at least not anymore. I don't care if he can talk the talk, when, at least for the last 8 years, he has not walked the walk. He should have at least been honest, he should have gone out there and said, look, I'm not a Conservative, I don't care what you all think, this is what I am, take it or take Hillary Clinton. At least I could have respected his honesty. What he actually did is what is called pandering for votes. He hoped that all of us who are Conservative Republicans would be stupid enough to buy what he was selling. So sorry John, all you did was tick me off for thinking that I'm that stupid.

And as for the Media, I don't know how this has been handled by the mainstream, always liberal media, but I did read an article on Fox News (.com) where they said that McCain went to the Conservative meeting for the purpose of answering attacks by "the Far Right." That's right, the great "Fair and Balanced" Fox News is calling mainstream, grassroots Conservatives, "The Far Right." You have got to be kidding me. They want to lump people like me, who legitimately feel that John McCain is a horrible choice for President, in with the far right, which consists of Neo-Nazis and White Supremacists. This is an obvious attempt to marginalize our legitemate concerns. How very fair and balanced of John McCains cheerleaders... err... I mean, Fox News.

On the end of that article there were some reader comments. Some were good and some were just stupid. There was one that really caught my attention though. One person, who claimed to be in the Military, though there is no way to prove that on an annonymous comment board, said that all of us Civilian "McCain haters" just proved that only Military personel and veterans should be allowed to vote. Wow. What a concept that is. This guy (presumably a guy, the wording didn't feel like something written by a woman) wants to make the USA a Military State. What a great idea, let's toss out the Constitution, forget about all of our freedoms and liberties, and just let the Military run the entire Country. That has worked so well in bring freedom to all the other Countries around the world where it has been tried... or not. Adimittedly, this was just a comment by one moron who claimed to be in the Military, but it really stuck in my craw. Let me say that our Military, by and large, is awesome, full of wonderful people, who are Patriots of the highest order, and really understand what it is that they are fighting for, but this guy is a moron. Besides, a strong military is one of the best servants that any nation could have, but will ALWAYS make a fearful master, which is why this guy is such a MORON!

All that being said, let me just assure you, I will talk about something other than John McCain one of these days, so stick with me.

Something Fishy

Well, sadly, it's pretty much final now. With Mitt Romney dropping out of the race for the White House, McCain is all but certain that he will gain the GOP nomination, and the country may well be doomed. We are fresh out of acceptable choices. I mean, Mike Huckabee is still in it, but short of McCain's ticker giving out, he doesn't really have any chance. And let's face it, Huckabee isn't a very good choice in any event. Romney wasn't a great choice, but he was, at least, acceptable, now what?

To me, this pretty much seals the deal, it is time to start looking for which third party candidate to vote for. At this point in time I don't know anything about any other potential Candidates, or what platform they are running on, but I will try to figure it out. One thing I will take a look at, although I don't hold out a lot of hope for it, is the Unity '08 ticket (http://www.unity08.com/) where they should be selecting candidates this summer, and I'm sure it will at least be worth looking at.

There hasn't been much question to some Conservatives for quite some time now that Mike Huckabee was staying in the race just to promote John McCain. That is to say that he was running as a spoiler, knowing that he could not win the nomination, but wanting to do all in his power to deny it to Mitt Romney. Some have said that there was a very blatant deal in West Virginia, where McCains people all voted for Huckabee in the second ballot, just to deny Romney the victory, which otherwise would have been his.

There is something fishy about Romney dropping out today. Was he getting pressured from the GOP establishment? I could see this since McCain is their man. Did he make a deal with McCain for some top administration spot should McCain be elected? Possible. Sometimes candidates can put their rather harsh feelings to the side for the sake making a deal. Regardless of what the actual reasoning is, something fishy is going on.

The power is being directly removed from the people in picking the people who will run for President. Some people have long said that they don't trust the election process, and don't really believe the outcome of elections, and I've never subscribed to that theory, but it is clear to me now that the establisments powers in the parties, in colusion with the news media, are picking the candidates, and there seems to be precious little that we can do about it.

Of course, that's only part of it. The rest of it is the fact that a lot of Republicans, being upset over the fact that there were no really good candidates this year, have simply stayed home, and declined to vote. I can understand the frustration, though I did go to vote (I'm sure you could have guessed that) but that is partly what is at play here. It's not that Republicans are so in love with John McCain, believe me, they're not, it's just that his supporters are the ones that are showing up to vote.

It may be too late for the GOP primary to be saved, and in a race between McCain and either Clinton or Obama, the USA is the big loser, however, staying home and not voting is not the answer. Remember that we vote for more than just President, and hey, even there, you can use your vote for a third party candidate as a statement of protest, or, if there is one that enough people can unify behind, and all the liberals (McCain and the dems) split the vote enough, we could even elect a third party candidate, as unlikely as that may be. Anyway, what becomes absolutely critical now is that we keep good people in Congress, and replace the bad ones that are already there with good ones. Remember, members of the House of Representatives must stand for re-election every two years, so the entire House is open, and if we are to protect our country, we must get out and vote for good people to fill these seats. Furthermore, a third of the Senate will also be elected this year (though none in Florida or New York) so if your state has a Senate seat up this year, be sure to vote on that as well. Clearly, the worst thing that we can do at this point is to sit home and let the liberals take both the White House and the Congress.

Please, do your homework, learn about the people who are running for Congress in your district, find out where they stand, and, if they have been in politics at all before, explore their voting record. We must not give up this fight. We must get out and vote for the ones that will do what is right without regard for what the party establishment wants them to do.

And remember, the Media cannot be trusted, do not trust them to inform you, and help you decide who you should vote for. Remember these are the same people who have been trying day and night to put McCain over the top, and openly supporting Obama. They are biased, and worse, they are willing to tell you bald faced lies to get you to do what they want you to do. Don't trust them.

And most certainly, don't sit it out.

ADF

The following is a repost of an Article/newsletter from the Alliance Defense Fund. I don't normally do reposts, but I think this one is important, so please read it.
**********


February 2008

Dear Friend,

"We will bury you!"

It has been more than 50 years since then-Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev swore that solemn oath to a group of Western ambassadors...long enough now that many Americans don't remember how deadly seriously their parents and grandparents took the threat.

But in the thick of the Cold War--three long decades before the Berlin Wall fell--most Americans had no doubt that Khrushchev meant what he said and that he and his fellow Communists would do their best to make good on the threat.

Our nation's leaders planned accordingly, and people go used to building backyard bomb shelters while children practiced diving under desks during atomic bomb drills. Spy movies became all the rage as people strained their imaginations to think of clever ways the Communists might infiltrate our culture or try to break our will from within.

It may seem a little quaint now, from the vantage point of distance and the far side of September 11, but it was deadly serious stuff back then. People understood, all too clearly, exactly how much was at stake.

Unfortunately, we at the Alliance Defense Fund (ADF) are finding that's just not as true today when it comes to a threat just as blunt, aimed not at our borders and missile silos...but at the souls of our children.

For nearly 30 years now--in national gatherings and local papers, on network news shows and political platforms--activists promoting homosexual behavior and its corresponding legal agenda have been openly declaring their ultimate goal: the elimination of marriage and the deconstruction of families.

Neither their aims nor their tactics have been secret. Nor have they changed. Anyone who cared to pay attention, attend the events, or peruse the websites and publications of these advocates would find plenty of material outlining the social, political, and legal means of launching same-sex "marriage," civil unions, domestic partnerships, "psychological parenting," and many of the other legal assaults that have inflicted so much damage on American families.

But, of course, most people--certainly most Christians--don't peruse those websites or attend these events, and they find it easier not to pay attention to the stated intentions of those who despise their values and mock their faith. That hasn't slowed up the advocates of homosexual behavior though. They have been very busy doing exactly what they said they'd do.

And if you think their efforts aren't having a devastating impact...you haven't been watching the news from California.

A new state law there eliminates a school's ability to make distinctions based on biological sex...and opens the door for the wholesale moral subversion of schoolchildren.
Specifically, this law requires anything that might promote a "discriminatory bias" toward someone's sexual identity or sexual orientation be removed from the curriculum--all the way down to kindergarten. What's more, such wrongful behavior must be presented to young people as a choice just a legitimate and even desirable as God's plan for marriage and personal purity.
If these laws are allowed to stand:

...textbooks will be rewritten to eliminate any endorsement of sex roles.

...teachers cannot teach that a student's sex at birth is a student's true sex.

...on demand, boys can now be homecoming "queen" and girls can be homecoming "king."

...schools that want to protect students from restroom and locker room intrusions by people of the opposite sex will be faced with a choice--either violate the law and refuse to allow boys to use the girls' restrooms or spend millions of taxpayer dollars to build separate facilities for the small number of students who pretend to be the opposite sex.

Left unchallenged, this law authorizes public schools to force Christian families to embrace the homosexual legal agenda. Inevitably, it will change the attitudes of young people toward homosexual behavior...and that will change the whole moral future of America.

Yes, that's what makes it so dangerous...but it's also what gives ADF--by God's grace and with your strong financial support--a foot in the door to block this massive assault on religious liberty.
ADF is not a public policy organization--but once such a terrible bill becomes law, the momentum moves to the courts for enforcement--and there, ADF is able to bring our fullest resources to bear. Already, ADF has filed suit with our allies in federal court to challenge this California law, asking the court to declare it unconstitutional. If that effort fails, we will actively defend Christians prosecuted by the state for refusing to forfeit their religious liberties.

An Extraordinary Record

The very candor of the homosexual advocates about their intentions has enabled ADF and our allies to prepare well for--and win--these many legal battles. Your prayers and strong financial support equipped us to be at the right places, make the right arguments, and soundly shatter the best-laid legal plans of those who support the homosexual agenda.

Until recently, these advocates' best hope for accomplishing their long-term strategy was to force same-sex "marriage" on us through our nation's judicial system. If they could succeed in making marriage about anything, it soon would be about nothing.

Thanks to you, that tactic didn't work.

Over the past 10 years, ADF has been a part of 41 cases involving same-sex "marriage." Thirty-three of those we've won outright, two were a "tie," while we lost only one (in Massachusetts, where the Commonwealth Supreme Judicial Court used international law to fabricate same-sex "marriage").

Decisions affecting marriage are still pending for cases in California, Connecticut, Iowa, Oregon, and Wisconsin, but that's an extraordinary record of victories, won in the face of often overwhelming legal, political, and cultural opposition. But because the media minimize any mention of these wins, most Christians don't comprehend the full import of what's been accomplished: 45 states now legally protect marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
And you may not even realize what a nation-changing difference your gifts have made.
But those pressing the demands of the homosexual legal agenda understand our success very well. Knowing they can't get judges to fabricate same-sex "marriage" directly, they've adjusted their tactical approach for the same end--the abolition of marriage and redefinition of the family.

More Insidious Attacks on Marriage and the Family

In the popular culture, those advocating same-sex unions like to wrap their agenda in words like "love" and "tolerance." In the courts and legislatures, they put on the mantle of "equality." Among the angles these advocates are playing, with varying success, are the following:

* ADJUSTING THE TERMINOLOGY.

The term "same-sex marriage" may not resonate with the voters, but "civil unions" and "domestic partnerships" sound harmless enough. It's not as if they're really "married."

But these aliases have paved the way for advocates of same-sex "marriage" to secure from their employers the same financial benefits traditionally provided to married couples. The Human Rights Campaign (HRC) recently issued its "Corporate Equality Index," detailing more than 500 major American companies that now grant full benefits to employees (and their partners) who practice homosexual behavior--as well as nearly 200 cities and more than one-third of U.S. states.

This widespread embrace of same-sex unions effectively blurs the definitions of marriage and obscures the true agenda of those promoting homosexual behavior--which is why ADF is working so diligently in courts all across the country to oppose these judicially imposed "redefinitions of marriage."

* SAME-SEX "DIVORCE."

Same-sex couples "married" in Massachusetts and Canada are asking their home states to grant them a "divorce," knowing that no state can exercise the authority to dissolve a homosexual "marriage" without assuming the authority to grant it too. ADF helped stop this effort at the Rhode Island Supreme Court and is currently involved in another case in Oklahoma.

* REDEFINING THE FAMILY.

In several states, advocates of homosexual behavior are petitioning courts to grant parental rights and authority to an adult who is a "legal stranger" to the child over the objections of the child's legal parents--to win tacit endorsement for same-sex parenting and, by extension, "marriage."

* COERCING THE CHURCH.

Those advocating homosexual behavior present their case as a simple plea to "live and let live." But in fact, the invitation is to "live and let die" --and these advocates are working aggressively to block churches from preaching the Scriptures, where those Scriptures condemn homosexual behavior. In Montana, we're defending a church under legal attack for speaking out on God's plan for marriage and in support of a local referendum defending marriage.
Meanwhile, these advocates of homosexual behavior are moving to legally force churches and ministries to open their facilities to civil union ceremonies. ADF is currently combating this in New Jersey, where same-sex proponents are attempting to force a Christian ministry to use its facilities for civil union ceremonies and have even prompted the removal of some of the organization's tax exemptions to compel that compliance.

* EVADING THE LAW.

Although New York's highest court has ruled that there is no fundamental right to same-sex "marriage," the state comptroller continues to grant marriage benefits to same-sex couples through the state retirement system and to legally recognize same-sex "marriages" from Canada. ADF has filed suit to block this blatant attempt to use tax dollars to subsidize homosexual unions in New York.

But looming on the legal horizon is a monstrous piece of legislation currently being pushed through Congress by the HRC--one of the strongest lobbying groups promoting homosexual behavior.

Attacking the Workplace --ENDA is Near

The Employment Non-Discriminatio Act (ENDA), now being debated in Congress, is about legally enforcing special privileges for those who practice homosexual behavior and sharply punishing any business or organization that opposes such behavior. Many ministries, including ADF, could be dramatically affected.

ADF has worked extensively with our policy allies to make them aware of the profound legal implications of this bill, and the good news is that President George W. Bush has promised to veto it.

And if at some point ENDA or similar legislation does become law, ADF will be ready to file suit to stop its enforcement and to defend Christians prosecuted for resisting the unconstitutional dictates of the homosexual agenda.

A Fundamental Question

All of the tactics being employed by those promoting homosexual behavior--and the terrible consequences of their success in California and potentially (through ENDA) in the rest of the country--have again raised the already-high stakes of the battle over same-sex "marriage."
For thoughtful Christians like you, the fundamental question is not just whether homosexual couples should be able to "marry."

The question is: "What kind of country is my family going to live in?"

I can give you a pretty good idea. If what they're trying in California is any indication and if the homosexual agenda succeeds, we're looking at a nation...

...where federal judges decide how your church is led, who it can employ, and how much of the Bible your leaders can teach.

...where you don't have any say at all in what kind of moral and sexual indoctrination your kids receive in school--public or private.

...where you can be compelled to financially support homosexual behavior, whether you believe in it or not.

That's only part of the agenda of those promoting same-sex "marriage." But thankfully, it's an agenda God has equipped ADF to fight tooth and nail for 14 years, with astonishing success.
We've been there, by God's grace and with your help. Time and again, all across this country, we've won the battle for marriage (see John 15:5).

Please pray and give generously. Stand with us to stop the legal tide that would deny religious liberty and engulf our culture, our churches, and our families with the self-destructive impact of the homosexual agenda.

And may God bless our efforts to defend religious liberty, for the sake of our children and grandchildren.

Yours for religious freedom in America,

Alan E. Sears

President, CEO & General Counsel
*******
ADF is always looking for potential precedent-setting cases and for attorneys who could help our cause. If you wish to refer an attorney or a potential case to us, please see notify us.
Copyright ©2008, Alliance Defense Fund. All rights reserved.
Permission to reprint this and other documents as noted in their entirety is granted to ADF ministry friends.

Book Review

Last week I read an absolutely phenomenal book, "The Marketing Of Evil: How Radicals, Elitists, and Pseudo-Experts Sell Us Corruption Disguiesed as Freedom" by David Kupelian. First off, I would like to thank Christine over at the TalkWisdom blog for recommending this book to me.

I think that most Christians can easily see quite a bit of the things that are wrong with our culture today. We can even see and know that there is a great deal of evil, which is very prevalent throughout a great deal of our current culture. But did you know that this did not happen by chance? Did you know that much of this is driven by people who have an agenda of thier own, and have sold us on things that just a few short decades ago would have been unimmaginable?

Upon reading this book, even more than the evil that has been clear to me in our culture, there was quite a bit of stuff I hadn't known, and evil which I hadn't considered before, but which is very real none the less.

I strongly recommend this book, as I feel that it is a very important book. More than that though, I really feel that this is a book that all Christians should read, and even more than that, I feel that it is CRITICAL that all parents, and even grandparents, read this book ASAP.

For me personally, for a long time I read a lot of novels, thinking that non-fictions books would be boring to read, however, I have found this not to be true. I started reading non-fiction last year, with "Crazies to the left of me, Wimps to the Right: How One Side Lost It's Mind, and The Other Side Lost It's Nerve," By Bernard Goldberg, and several others since then, and now, I have trouble getting involved in a novel. I find myself far more interested in non-fiction books about important things in daily life. If you haven't tried reading any of this kind of book you should try it. Trust me, you won't believe how great they are, and you can start with "The Marketing of Evil."

As a side note, with tomorrow being Super Tuesday, let me say, we need people to get out and vote, but more than that, we need people to NOT vote for John McCain. We as a nation cannot afford him as President. The fact that the media is building him up, and more than that, the fact that the Ultra-Liberal "New York Times" has endorsed him, should tell you quite conclusively what kind of President he would be.

Also, I appologize if my spelling hasn't been so hot these last few days, as there is something wrong with the blogger Spell Checker at present. Hope I haven't been doing too badly.

Story Of Betrayal

More and more things are coming to light about John McCain, but, for the most part, you have to go looking for them yourself, because you're not going to see them in the mainstream media. There is a very good reason for this, two reasons actually. First, the media loves John McCain because even if he becomes President, they get the liberal President that they want. The second reason why they want him to be the Republican nominee is because he has enough skelletons in his closet to keep them in scandal stories clear through November. This is something that can't be said of Mitt Romney, who is a pretty clean guy, and they have already dug up about as much dirt on him as they can. Basically, all Romney has against him is a few issues with his record which he will talk candidly about when asked, not something to get the media excited. Besides, if Romney becomes President they fear that he might actually be what they fear most, a real Republican. Now on to my story.

The story of betrayal begins with McCain losing the GOP Presidential Primary bid to George W. Bush back in 2000. Due to this, John McCain felt betrayed by the Republican party, but that's not what this story is about. I'm not going to cite sources for all of this, but with a few google searches you can find this information on your own. When faced with this defeat, and feeling rejected for not being selected as the Candidate, McCain became very angry with the Republican party. He was angry with the GOP from the top down. In fact, some news stories are reporting that he seriously considered leaving the GOP altogether. McCain denies that he ever entertained the notion of switching party affiliation, either to Independent, or to Democrat, but the evidence in pretty overwhelming. Both McCain and persons in his staff had conversations with prominent Democrats regarding the possibility of McCain pulling this switch, and what it would mean for his possitions on Senate committees. The reason why he didn't switch in the end is simple, in the midst of the firestorm of controversy following Jim Jeffords departure from the Republican Party showed him that such a move would prove to be Political Sucicide, and, as is obvious now, he still has designs on the Presidency, and didn't want to kill any chance he might have had. But that's not the whole story, if it were, the story wouldn't mean a lot... enough that hopefully most wouldn't vote for him, but it's still not the whole story.

Even though John McCain decided to maintain his GOP affiliation, he didn't let go of his anger, and he hatched a plan to punish the Republican party for what he percieved as their betrayal of him. What he started doing, even moreso that he had in the past, was co-authoring bills with Democrats, and the farther to the left the better. Some of the most famous of which are in regard to campaign finance reform, which he was sure to craft in such a way that it would deal serious damage to the GOP, but not so much to the Democrats. Mostly, this is because the media is controlled by far left, ultra-liberal loons, who give the democrats a leg up to begin with, though there are some other factors. Of course, there was also his amnesty bill, which he denies was amnesty, but all you have to do is care a little about the truth, and you know that it was amnesty. And his current bill on the Environment, which would hurt all Americans, and not just Republicans, but it does get him in good with the Democrats being that it employs some of their favorite evironmental nonsense, such as "Cap and Trade" which is nothing more than a scam which they hope we re too stupid to catch on to.

All of these thing would be bad enough if he had done them in a spirit of honest ignorance, thinking that he was doing the right thing, but it's even worse knowing that he really did it out of anger and for the purpose of punishing Republicans for not selecting him in 2000. The question is, has he punished us enough, or is he still looking for ways to hurt the GOP, even if he has to do serious damage to the nation as a whole to accomplish this?

These are things that people need to know. John McCain is no Conservative, he is no longer a Republican, and, most sadly of all, he is no longer a friend to the United States of America. That's not to say that he doesn't love the USA, or that he's not a patriot, at least in his own mind, but the problem is that he has proven that he cares more for personal revenge against his percieved enemies than he does about the good of the Nation.

I still can't figure out why people haven't woken up to this. John McCain is a very angry, vengful man, and not someone who you would want to have representing you on the world stage.

Please, please, don't vote for this man.

Tax Sniping

Action movie star Wesley Snipes was found NOT GUILTY of any Felony charges in his tax evasion trial. He was convicted of 3 lesser charges, and potentially could face jail time, but not nearly as much as he deserves.

This is just one more case of a celebrity getting to do as they please, and not being held to account for it. The sickening part is that this was done by a jury this time, and not just one idiot with some power.

We have a serious problem in our Celebrity obsessed culture. You have to look at what happened here. Snipes refused to pay MILLIONS of dollars in taxes that he rightfully owed under the current tax code, not because he was trying to lead some sort of protest against the crazy tax code in the country, which, admittedly, needs an overhaul, but simply because he didn't want to pay his taxes. The taxes that he failed to pay is more money than most of us will make in our lifetimes, and yet if you or I failed to pay our taxes, we would not recieve such lax treatment, and we would get far more than a symbolic slap on the wrist.

How can we demand fairness from our Government when we are unable to dispense fairness when we are ones doling out the "justice''???