Open Letter to the GOP

Snatched from Radarsite
From  our founder’s new blog through  Maggie’s Notebook, through a cross post at Radarsite,  and cross posted here because it really belongs here. This post contains a vital message which will be too widely ignored. Read it and weep for America; for the liberty & prosperity we are losing forever bercause we put our trust in demogogues instead of statesmen.

Rejecting the GOP: Sharing the Disgust – No. 1

by Maggie at Maggie’s Notebook
Mark Harvey

An Open Letter to the GOP
May 14, 2009
The Snooper Report

The Preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny of the republican model of government are justly considered…deeply…finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the hands of the American people. George Washington, First Inaugural Address, April 30, 1789

Dear Democrats in Drag in the GOP/RNC Leadership positions,

Please stop sending me letters begging me for money. I am no longer a member of the Republican Party.

For years I was a member of the GOP because it was the closest political machine that represented my views as a Conservative Libertarian but that was too hard to explain to the idiots the federally run public indoctrination camps spits out these days, aka the Public School System. By the way, the American Public School System is unconstitutional. Try to locate the constitutionality of the Department of Education and what they are doing within the Constitution and I’ll go along with it. I won’t hold my breathe.

I grow weary, no, I am passed that stage. I am ultimately sick and tired of getting letters with the opening lines asking me if I have given up on the GOP. That’s a dumb question and tugging on my heart strings doesn’t work. I have more integrity that that and I do not live by emotion – emotion does not drive me, my intellect does and these kinds of form letters insult me. I am not an emotionally driven Democrat. So, please stop. However, I do have emotions and it breaks my heart when I see this Nation slip into that abyss of obscurity because cowards will not stand for what they believe in and go along to get along.

I came home from a war and for the first time I realized what the Vietnam Veterans experienced – a country lost and wallowing in the primordial ooze of a lost identity and a lost mission. The United States Constitution that I fought and bled for means nothing to you, apparently. If it did mean something to you, and it should because all of you swore the same Oath I did, you would be addressing each and every Bill in the confines, edicts and restrictions set forth in our Founding Document. Yet and alas, you do not. Why is that?

I hear all of you debate and argue and not one of you – NOT ONE – even dare to mention the United States Constitution. Well, perhaps one of you does and, oddly enough, that is Senator Byrd that mentions it and waves it around before the CSPAN cameras and then promptly votes against it. Lip service disgusts me. Well, perhaps Ron Paul does also but he is the wrong guy for the right message. He just so happens to be wrong about some key Constitutional issues but that’s for another day. And, you don’t care anyway.

And about that ill-founded statement about me abandoning the Republican Party. What Republican Party? The one going by the wayside of the Whigg Party, the Know Nothing Party? When I hear alleged Republicans say we have to move into the bigger tent and move further to the left, I have to ask myself, who is the idiot that is saying all of this? Move further to the left when others are saying that the GOP has moved to the far right? When did the GOP move into the Anarchist’s Camp? Did you do that while we were fighting the Jihadi? Is that why I hear we have to move left because we are all Anarchists now? What did I miss while I was fighting to keep you all warm and fuzzy at night?

Perhaps you are all referring to those neocons. You know, those Democrats that moved into the GOP because they knew that running as a Conservative would guarantee a win and the Democrats, to this day, run “conservatives” against the “liberal” Republicans…and WIN. And you guys put a liberal Republican, ie John McCain up against another seasoned liberal? To what end? How did that work out for you, and the Nation? Does it make you proud that now, at this moment, a known Jihadi sympathizer, a known Communist is now in the position of acting President of the United States? An unknown? A nobody? A liberal so far to the left that Stalin would be proud? And you want to move FURTHER to the left? Have you lost your minds? And you ask me if I have abandoned you? You ask me if I have given up? You ask me for donations so that you can win elections by moving further to the left? I was, in fact, born in the early morning hours but, it wasn’t yesterday morning.

I have watched time and time again as the RNC/GOP machine embrace, coddle, promote and support known liberal Republicans and have watched each one fail and lose elections or re-elections. I witnessed my Senator, John Cornyn, throw all of his weight behind that democrat in drag Arlen Specter. When I heard that, I fired off a letter telling Senator Cornyn that the last election was my last vote for him and now he is doing the same with yet another democrat in drag that is all of a sudden, like McCain, Graham and Cantor, talking about “conservatism” like they believe in it and live it. Please. I can spot a liar from 10 clicks. Cornyn is now supporting and throwing his weight behind Crist. Who has abandoned whom? You have got to kidding me. Is Crist now going to defect to the Democrat Party like Arlen Specter did? He should.

What the RNC/GOP leadership ought to do but doesn’t have the moral fortitude to do, is purge the GOP of the democrats in drag and have their Party membership revoked, their membership cards sent through the shredder and have them take their neocon (old democrat) selves back to their first love, the Democrat Party. At least the enemy can be identified once more. It is nearly impossible to win a battle when the enemy cannot be clearly defined.

When one takes a critical look at both main political parties, it is very hard to distinguish which one is more liberal than the other and it seems like each is trying to out-liberal the other.

I watched the buffoons of the GOP act the court jester over the Terri Schiavo debacle – unconstitutional and an international embarrassment.

I watch and behold grown men and women make fools of themselves in both parties acting like spoiled brats caring for one thing and one thing only – winning an election at all costs. With a complete disregard for the United States Constitution, both parties go after each other in a power struggle because one Party says they can do a better job than the other and neither is worth the powder to blow them all to hell. Neither Party argues or debates their policies with the Constitution in mind.

When I witness people like Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid say in the public domain, “The will of the Congress will be done” or, “The will of the Congress has been heard” and no one challenges them on that, something is seriously wrong and I have to question the mental capacity of those that have sworn to protect and defend the United States Constitution. Last I knew, it was the will of We The People that WILL be done and WILL be heard.

We The People no longer have standing, so says SCOTUS. Excuse me? And the GOP says and does nothing of this? Do you support such nonsense? That very statement is unconstitutional and you ask me if I have abandoned you? I am a Soldier and you would not appreciate what I really have to say to you…perhaps one day face-to-face I will just to watch you tremble in shame. I’ll even show you my battle scars – the physical and psychological.

And, you should be ashamed. You should be ashamed that the United States Constitution gets left out of the debates except for the convenient mention of it when the cameras are rolling and republican democrats in drag are railing about Big Tents and winning elections. Shame on you.

Shame on you for giving lip service to border security.

Shame on you for allowing two Border Patrol officers to be sent to prison because democrat in drag Sutton’s career enhancement was more important than two men that did their damn jobs and some socialist hack nobody gave the criminal a free pass and punished two men for doing their jobs. And the GOP did nothing until the very end…and that is unacceptable as well. Shame on President Bush and the GOP for that domestic and international embarrassment.

Shame on you for fighting like little girly-men over the unconstitutional non-stimulus stimulus quagmire that no one read and not one of you in Congress challenged the constitutionality of it.

Shame on you for even considering HR45.

Shame on you for passing HR1388 and the equally unconstitutional Senate version. How is that constitutional again?

Shame on you for passing HR1913 and soon S909. What is the constitutional authority for that again?

Shame on you for NOT debating HR450, the Enumerated Powers Act of 2009. Why are you so afraid of that Bill? Is it forcing the federal government to actually adhere to the United States Constitution? Why are you so afraid of We The People?

There’s more and it only gets better. Read it at The Snooper Report

The Ins and Outs of This War…2007

The only “wars” in recent times that I know of that took a very short time to “win” are the Faulkland Islands and the Invasion of Grenada. The current “war” we are involved in has been going on for decades upon decades upon decades. This “debacle” as touted by the Reids of the world must first be understood for what it is; a Global War of Jihad. There really is only one way to have an ultimate and clear-cut end…total annihilation of the enemy.

Some would have us believe that we can negotiate a settlement with the Global Jihadists. Others proclaim that a radical few have hijacked an otherwise peaceful “religion”. Both of these noble premise, although well intended, are as wrong as wrong can get. There is no such thing as “peaceful Islam”. I would like for someone to tell me of one instance…just one and only one…where there was ever a “peaceful Islam”.

What is Jihad?

What is Jihad: The Arabic word Jihad is derived from the root word Jahada (struggle). Jihad has come to mean an offensive war to be waged by Muslims against all non-Muslims to convert them to Islam on the pain of death. Jihad is enjoined on all Muslims by the Quran.

We have a series on this blog dedicated to the exposure of what our pathetic political leaders cannot nor will not accept…it is not politically expedient and it is surely not politically correct to KNOW the truth.

Perhaps this video will begin to cast a glimmer of a shadow of a hope that a dim light at the end of an infinite tunnel will begin to glow.

 

 

The Politically Correct proponents fear world opinion and will not allow themselves to honestly see what the world faces. The world faces World Conquest of Jihad.

I find it appalling that the American Quest and Lust for Political Power within my country has brought us to the brink of self-induced destruction. We haven’t been this politically split since 1861 and look how that unfolded. Idealism. Realism. And any other “ism” imaginable or invented to espouse one’s “world view” will be the demise of this nation called The United States of America.

What are we united against? What are we united for? We hear a minority in numbers tout separation of Church and State, when there is no such doctrine in the Constitution, when it comes to the Ten Commandments on display in courtrooms and elsewhere yet we allow without impunity, the fabrication and construction of Islamic “cleansing basins“, a religion-based tenet of foot-washing in our universities, tax dollars supported. We allow “special” public schools where “peaceful Islam” can be taught to the “peaceful Jihadist’s” children in our school systems.

We allow “peaceful religious” Islamic militant compounds to thrive on our own soil yet we take down the Branch Davidians. Duplicitous does not even scratch the surface of this sham called Separation of Church and State.

I read today in the “harpy” news media all manner of wrong-headed and politically charged rhetoric, politically driven, naturally, as to the “ill-gotten when will it all end” nonsense. Those of us that are in The Know, laugh scornfully at the uneducated.

It will all end when the world is ruled by the Caliphate.

More to follow. Let the video sink in.

 

UPDATE:

Excellent editorial by Seth Leibsohn at NRO:

James Gilmore weighs in:

Mystery: Will The GOP “Capitalize”?

Doodlehead Obey threatened the GOP and the GOP should jump on this with a vengeance second to none.

FNC

House Appropriations Committee Chairman David R. Obey (D-Wis.) has handed Republican lawmakers a golden (literally) opportunity to end earmarking during the current session of Congress. (In our new book, Outrage, we highlight how abuse of earmarking costs taxpayers $64 billion — three times what it was just a few years ago.)

 

 

According to Tuesday’s New York Times, Obey warned Republicans that “he would ban earmarking completely if Republicans attacked individual projects to score political points.” What an opportunity for the GOP!

 

There we go with the NY Slimes again. What a waste of a facility…

Idiots and Illegal Immigration Amnesty

The picture says it all.  (Stolen from Miss Beth.)

Message to Bush

Rightfully Swiped From Miss Beth

BAD GUYS: Factual Videos-What THEY Don”t Want YOU To Know (What THEY HOPE Doesn”t Get Out)

• Democrats Regarding WMD, Saddam Hussein and War In Iraq
• Dems “Iraq Plan”
• Harry Reid Laughs Regarding Troop Funding
• Harry Reid Lies Directly to Veterans Regarding Funding
• Jihadists Posing As American Soldiers to Infiltrate American Sympathies
• John Kerry Agrees With WTC7Conspiracy Theorist
• Moms of Fury Confronting Congressman Hodes
• Rosie’s “Expertise” on the War on Terror
• USA Wake Up

Of Donkeys and Elephants…Differences

Of Donkeys and Elephants…Differences

Thursday, June 07, 2007 2:01 AM

Interesting read:

THE MOST cogent characterization of last night’s Republican presidential debate was made by Senator Hillary Clinton during the Democratic candidates’ debate two nights earlier. “The differences among us are minor,” she said. “The differences between us and the Republicans are major. And I don’t want anybody in America to be confused.”

In 1968, running for president as an independent, Alabama Governor George Wallace insisted that there wasn’t “a dime’s worth of difference” between the two major parties. No one who watched the two debates in New Hampshire this week would say that today.

On issue after issue, the contrasts came through loud and clear. Where the Democrats squabbled over who is the most opposed to the war in Iraq, nearly all the Republicans spoke about the importance of not abandoning Iraq before it has been stabilized — and defended the decision to invade in the first place. “Absolutely the right thing to do,” said Rudy Giuliani. Where Democrats called for ever grander and more expensive government health-insurance schemes, the Republicans called unambiguously for a freer market in healthcare. California Representative Duncan Hunter pointed out that 80 percent of the world’s miracle drugs are developed in the United States because of a free enterprise system that encourages pharmaceutical companies to take expensive risks. “Maybe they drill three dry holes in trying to produce a good drug that will save somebody’s lives,” he said. “Then they hit the jackpot and they produce something that will save people and help their health.”

On topics large and small — gays in the military, making English the official US language, using nuclear weapons to keep Iran from getting the bomb, even the proper role for former presidents — the differences between the parties came through, stark and unmistakable. If this week’s debates are a preview of coming attractions, the 2008 campaign will be very divisive, and deeply consequential.

Which of the morons on the left made the statement that health care in America should be a non-profit venture?  Who’s the idiot that said that?

The Idiot Liberals

The Idiot Liberals

Wednesday, June 06, 2007 7:15 PM

James Taranto

The Liberal Suicide Pact
It seems we weren’t the only one to notice that the New York Times buried news of a foiled terror plot against John F. Kennedy International Airport on page 37. A pair of Times readers submitted questions about this to Suzanne Daley, the paper’s national editor, who is doing a “Talk to the Newsroom” question-and-answer series this week. Here is Daley’s explanation:

Here’s the basic thinking on the J.F.K. story: In the years since 9/11, there have been quite a few interrupted terrorist plots. It now seems possible to exercise some judgment about their gravity. Not all plots are the same. In this case, law enforcement officials said that J.F.K. was never in immediate danger. The plotters had yet to lay out plans. They had no financing. Nor did they have any explosives. It is with all that in mind, that the editors in charge this weekend did not put this story on the front page.

In truth, the decision was widely debated even within this newsroom. At the front page meeting this morning, we took an informal poll and a few editors thought the story should have been more prominently played. Some argued it should have been fronted, regardless of the lameness of the plot, simply because it was what everyone was talking about.

Today, the Times has yet another editorial demanding that enemy combatants be afforded full rights under the U.S. Constitution:

Congress should shut down Guantánamo Bay, as called for in bills sponsored by two California Democrats, Representative Jane Harman in the House and Senator Dianne Feinstein in the Senate. Both lawmakers are intimately familiar with the camp and have concluded it is beyond salvaging.

Their bill would close Gitmo in a year and the detainees would be screened by real courts. Those who are truly illegal combatants would be sent to military or civilian jails in the United States, to be tried under time-tested American rules of justice, or sent to an international tribunal. Some would be returned to their native lands for trial, if warranted. The rest would be set free, as they should have been long ago.

The Guantánamo camp was created on a myth–that the American judicial system could not handle prisoners of “the war against terror.”

The attitudes expressed by Daley and the Times editorial board are quite typical of elite liberal thought. They share a premise that the threat of terrorism has been greatly exaggerated. But on closer analysis, there is a contradiction, one that reveals why liberal thinking on terrorism is dangerous not only to American national security but also, in the long run, to liberal ideals.

Every time law-enforcement authorities announce that they have stopped a terror plan, we hear Daley-like pooh-poohing from the left: The plot wasn’t really that serious, it was nowhere near being carried out, the suspects were just a bunch of losers, that sort of thing. (The battier Bush-haters add that the announcement is a publicity stunt to stoke public fear or serve some political purpose.)

If this is true, then the Times’s blithe assurance that the criminal-justice system is sufficient for dealing with the terror threat is utterly fatuous, is it not?

Of course, newspaper editorialists don’t make policy, so their fatuity is cost-free. But the Times’s ideas are well within what passes for the mainstream of the Democratic Party. The Times carries a news story today titled “Democrats Hope to Expand Rights at Guantanamo.” They are unlikely to succeed as long as George W. Bush wields the veto pen, but if a Democrat is elected president next year, all bets are off.

John Edwards has endorsed the view, which the Times expressed with those scare quotes above, that the war on terror isn’t real. Barack Obama, in a CNN forum the other night, declared, “I believe Guantanamo, the decision to detain people without charges, is unjust”–never mind that under international law, even legitimate prisoners of war may be held without charge for the duration of hostilities.

If the Democrats hold their congressional majorities and one of them becomes president, then, it is quite possible that the Times’s view will prevail.

What the Times is proposing is that all terrorists in U.S. custody be freed unless prosecutors can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have committed a specific crime–and in making their case, prosecutors would be bound by all the restrictions on admissibility of evidence that protect ordinary criminal defendants in the civilian courts.

What if the U.S. adopts such an approach and it turns out to be inimical to national security? What if, that is, President Clinton or President Obama or President Edwards signs the Harmon-Feinstein legislation, Guantanamo is emptied, and a few years later we see another 9/11 or worse?

Would the American people accept the idea that serial mass murder on our own soil is just the price we have to pay to preserve some abstract concept of liberty–that is, that the Constitution is a suicide pact after all? We doubt it.

It is much more likely that the political system would find it impossible to resist public demands for much harsher antiterror measures, probably involving genuine curtailments of civil liberties. There is no reason to think that liberal politicians would resist such demands. After all, Woodrow Wilson restricted free speech during World War I, and Franklin D. Roosevelt interned tens of thousands of American citizens during World War II, cheered on by then-Gov. Earl Warren of California. In both cases the Supreme Court ratified the president’s excesses.

By overreacting to imagined civil liberties threats today, American liberals may be setting the stage for future overreactions in the other direction. Guantanamo helps keep America free as well as safe.

Some of the world’s most prominent idiots are going to get us all killed.

GOP Tops On Terror

GOP Tops On Terror

Wednesday, June 06, 2007 1:21 PM

Some would have us believe that, I am sure.  Whereas the GOP candidates and others are indeed on the right track on the issues we face in regards to terrorism, they are far from realizing the real threats.  The DNC, on the other hand are lost in space.

Both parties are guilty of missing the messages from the Islam.  Islam is NOT a religion of peace.  A few radicals have NOT hijacked the religion of Islam.  Islam, is a religion of death,  murder, rape, torture and slavery.  Just read their unholy book.  This blog is running a series by guest authors and their works can be seen in the Studies In Islam (Jihadism).

From the New York Post

GOP TOPS ON TERROR: PANEL
By KENNETH LOVETT

June 6, 2007 — MANCHESTER, N.H. – The Republican presidential candidates were far stronger on the war on terror in their debate last night than their Democratic counterparts Sunday, according to most members of a Post panel of independent voters.

“The Republicans recognize we’re in a war and understand we need to fight it; the Democrats don’t,” said Bob Dugan, 50, a pharmaceutical-products supervisor from Manchester.

The Post gathered the panel of seven undecided independent voters to watch both the Democratic debate Sunday and the GOP debate yesterday in New Hampshire, which holds the earliest presidential primary and where independents can pick which primary to cast a ballot.

“The Republicans are stronger on terror than the Democrats,” concluded Andrea Lamy, 24, a second-year Franklin Pierce Law Center student from Manchester.

Bill Lynch, 62, of Manchester, and Doug Schofield, 36, a benefits-account manager from Franklin, agreed.

“I like the social agenda of the Democrats, but the war on terror is so big,” said Schofield.

But Elizabeth Nistico, 18, a senior at Manchester Central HS, and Debra Davis, a 54-year-old stay-at-home mother of three boys from New Boston, said they believe most of the Republicans were intent on focusing on terrorism and the Iraq war to scare voters.

[And here lies the problem.  Scare tactics.  Since when is truth designed to be scary to garner support?  If these people KNEW what the islamists have intended for us, they truly would be frightened into action instead of platitudes and ignorancs.  Exhibiting the Ostrich Syndrome is “Rather” stupid and lethal, in this case.]

“Those Republicans, war, war, war,” Davis said.

[Morons like Davis, dumb, dumber, dumbest.  He should be saying,  “Those Democrats, socialists,  communists and retards.]

Georgian Tutuianu, 17, of Manchester, also a senior at Manchester Central HS, said most of the Republicans are too divisive in dealing with terrorism.

[That is due to some of them KNOW what we face and others pretend they don’t know or refuse to accept it in fear of being called racist.]

“They seem to overly simplify things,” Tutuianu said. “A war is a complex issue and I don’t think you can say ‘we’re good, they’re bad – let’s fight them.’ ”

[An idiot prattles.]

Former Mayor Rudy Giuliani and Sen. John McCain drew the most praise from panel members after last night’s debate while former Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney was the biggest disappointment.

Dugan described Giuliani’s performance as “very forceful, very commanding.”

[I guess he missed Duncan Hunters three home-runs; Libby, immigration and terrorism.]

“He may be the moderate candidate who can drag independent voters and Reagan Democrats into the Republican camp,” Dugan said. “Most of the other candidates were too polarizing.”

[Yep.  Dugan was sleeping.]

Truth Be Told

Truth Be Told

Saturday, June 02, 2007 3:49 PM

Honor, Duty, Country…

June 02, 2007
Honor, Duty, Country?
By William F. Buckley

While it is true that no historical event exactly replicates another, it is certainly the case that what happened in Vietnam in 1972-1975 bears very closely on the current situation in Iraq.

To truncate the story drastically, what happened back then was the result of the correlation of four strategic factors:

(1) Hanoi’s resolution to conquer the south. The North Vietnamese were held back by the failure of their spring offensive in 1972. That offensive was weakened by U.S. mining of the harbors and by the reluctance of China, in the swoon of the Nixon visit to Mao, to give full-bodied support to an invasion. But Hanoi simply bided its time.

(2) The withdrawal by the United States, ending in March 1973, of a combative military presence. Only a few hundred U.S. advisers were left in South Vietnam.

(3) The growing stability of the South Vietnamese government, which was assumed competent to carry out the terms of the Paris agreements of 1973. These agreements had been negotiated in dozens and dozens of meetings between Le Duc Tho and Henry Kissinger. The agreements called for the removal of U.S. forces, the cessation of North Vietnamese offensives, and recognition of the Saigon government as the ruling political entity in the south.

And (4) the progressive disunity of the United States government. Here we had the anti-war movement as a continuing force. But that movement attained dominance pari passu with the weakening of President Nixon. As Watergate metastasized from a “second-rate burglary” into grounds for the removal of a president, U.S. support for success in Vietnam wilted.

The parallels in the current situation are plain, beginning with the nature of the United States’ participation. What we have right now is a progressively immobilized executive and a dissenting legislature, leading — inevitably — to an impotent military.

Compassionate Conservatism is NOT working, folks.  There are those that know not what we face.  I believe that GWB needs to fire his advisors and hire some folks that know our enemy.  We ALL can learn of our enemies bt starting here, Studies In Islam (Jihadism).  These are the faces of our enemy and the Upper Echelon MUST come to grips with this scourge we face.  We are in the correct place in time and locality to defeat these evil elements.  Coming to terms here, stateside, is no place to “finally figure it out”.

The question immediately posed is: Do we feel responsibility for what happens in the period ahead? The Iraqi government resembles the government of South Vietnam in 1973-’74 in that Baghdad is fighting, as Saigon fought, for a political system free of overweening foreign elements. But Saigon could not hold out in the long run without U.S. military support, and neither can Baghdad.

If the parallels hold, i.e., if the result of failure in the Middle East is equivalent to the result of failure in Indochina, then we would expect to see the collapse of the Maliki government in Baghdad, some kind of bloody vengeance against Iraqis who had supported that government, and a people subjugated by a regime that sits on 1 percent the world’s supply of oil and is unlikely to proceed indifferent to the march, by Iraq’s eastern neighbor, to becoming a nuclear power.

In the currency of human deaths, it is unlikely that we would match in Iraq what we stood by for in Vietnam. The statistics aren’t even there to count accurately the casualties of defeat in that theater. But the most graphic symbol is the picture of Vietnamese, young and old, clinging to a U.S. helicopter in the desperate, final hope to be taken away from those waiting to torture and kill them. As stated, the statistics are not final, but somewhere between a quarter-million and 2 million or even 3 million Vietnamese suffered from our flight from the burden we first had undertaken, and then abandoned.

Henry Kissinger has said that the use of the American fleet to contain the invasion of 1975 could have saved the day. What could save the day in Iraq? Nothing short of public revulsion toward those Democrats who are measuring these days the political value of honor. In the election ahead, all the world will be looking over our shoulders, including the ghosts of Vietnam.

In the elections ahead, we need leadership that understands the our enemies.  We don’t need the political hacks that are only interested in power and control of the helm, steering us into one nightmare after another.  For decades, the Islamic menace and threat has attacked the United States the globe over and nothing has been done…until now.

We shall not be victorious until we understand our enemies and THAT MUST begin with the political leadership.

My Hero…RWR!

My Hero…RWR!

Sunday, May 27, 2007 2:24 AM

Can the GOP OR the DNC or ANY other party EVER produce another man as this?