A political blog, written by a fiscal conservative, with socially libertarian views. Imagine if Hunter S. Thompson somehow had a baby with George Will, then they both drank heavily during pregnancy. I'm the result.
I cast my vote today. It was an uneventful drive from my house to the Balch School in Norwood. There were no IEDs blowing up along the way. No guerrillas ambushed me from the trees. No Panzers hid themselves behind buildings. No Zeros strafed my car. No distant artillery rained a storm of shellfire upon the school parking lot. No saber wielding cavalrymen charged into the gym as I filled out my ballot.
All I had to deal with was road work on Route 1 and a small line to receive my ballot. Voting is relatively easy in this country because of people who did difficult things, who had to live with and fight through the threats I mentioned above. From SEALs taking out Osama bin Laden in Pakistan to Minutemen fighting the British at Lexington, our Veterans have sacrificed and we've reaped the rewards. So if you voted today, thank a Veteran.
Here's why:
Whoever wins this election, they were elected. They're not Royal Governors appointed by a monarch in Britain. Thanks to our Veterans.
Whatever happens with our economy, we're free to trade with other countries across the world. We don't have British ships commandeering our ships and kidnapping our sailors. Nor do we have to compete in trade-wars with the Spanish Empire, the Japanese Empire (which would have controlled China), or the Nazi Empire (which would have controlled Europe, Russia, and the Middle East). Thanks to our Veterans.
We have a black President, at least for the next few weeks, maybe the next few years. Thanks to Union Veterans, slavery was abolished. Thanks to Soldiers and National Guardsmen, schools were integrated. We have no poll taxes, no literacy tests, no more Jim Crow.
General Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne to Bastogne in 1944, then President Eisenhower sent them to Little Rock in 1957
We no longer fear nuclear Armaggedon with the Soviets because our Veterans were a strong presence in Western Europe, Southeast Asia, and in the world's oceans.
Thanks to our Veterans, Al-Qaeda's destructive activities have been contained to the Middle East and North Africa. They no longer terrorize us.
Thanks to our Veterans, Osama bin Laden is dead.
Thanks to our Veterans, we live in a peaceful country. And when disaster strikes, men and women in uniform are there to assist us.
New Jersey National Guard, Hoboken, NJ
US Marine Corps, Staten Island, NY
US Air Force, Newburgh, NY
New York Air National Guard, Staten Island, NY
Our rights are written in the Constitution with ink, but the blood of our Veterans is what gives those words life. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance." Our Veterans have been the vigilant ones, paying the price for our freedoms.
So if you exercised your right to vote today, remember how much hard work, how much sacrifice was made for you to be able to.
Barack Obama apparently pounded a few Red Bulls as he came out swinging last night. I think the town-hall forum suited him. And as has been the formula for this Administration, Joe Biden tested the waters, then Obama dove in. Biden in the VP debate was aggressive, interrupted, and bordered on smugness and arrogance. Obama pulled back the haughtiness a little, but still interrupted, still made smug remarks, was still aggressive. He not only debated Romney, he worked the ref. At the end of the debate he even prompted moderator Candy Crowley to cut Mitt Romney off. He told the moderator how to moderate the debate.
Rude and aggressive wins. Passive and polite doesn't. It's a fact. I'm fine with it. Supporters of either candidate can point out the opposite candidate's lack of politeness, but both are rude, both are pompous, both are somewhat disconnected from us. As much as some would like to think their man is well mannered, neither side supports a polite, respectful angel fighting against a rude bully. They're both bullies.
Candy Crowley didn't do a good job at moderating this debate. And that's how I know Obama won. The loser of a debate frequently blames the moderator, and here I am, a Romney supporter, criticizing the moderator.
She did insert herself far too much into this debate. I wanted to see Obama and Romney in a verbal brawl, and she broke it up far too often. There were times when they needed to be separated but she frequently didn't allow them to discuss issues. She moved on to new subjects far too often. She seemed to have money on the over/under for the number of questions the audience would get to ask.
The debates are the only chances for candidates to directly address each other and their points, Crowley didn't allow them to do that. They answered a question, insinuated something about their opponent, and Crowley didn't let the opponent respond. We moved on to the next question.
I'm sorry, but I wanted to hear Obama and Romney last night, not Joe Undecided from Islip, NY. And certainly not Candy Crowley, who by the way did not do her job in ensuring the candidates answered the question asked.
So cue the out-of-context talking points. On the Left, I'm already seeing that apparently Mitt Romney thinks women exist in binders (trapper keepers?). Also, Mitt Romney is rude (and Obama is polite and humble? Really?). There was also that stupid question about AK-47s, about which Romney talked about single-parents. Although this study from the University of Chicago points out that gun violence is disproportionately carried out by children of single-parents. But don't let an actual discussion of Romney's points interrupt the Left telling jokes to each other. The memes must go on!
All these debates are entertaining, but I feel like this election boils down to a difference in philosophy not a difference between two men. Do you want Government to take care of you and also guide your life, or do you want an opportunity to take care of yourself and guide your own life? As far as the candidates go, they're both rude, both kind of jerks, both skew the truth, so it's the philosophy that separates them.
I was tempted to use stronger words in this post's title. "Union Forces Members to Campaign for Warren," or even "Mercenary Campaigners: The Unholy Alliance Between Warren and a Carpenter's Union."
Now that's just a guy being filmed. Who knows who he is, where he is, et cetera. Hardly a firm source.
But hidden (and I mean hidden like opening scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark hidden) in a Boston Globe story was confirmation that if union workers don't participate in rallies, they will lose $150.
Mark Erlich, executive secretary treasurer of the New England Regional Council of Carpenters, said the worker was describing an annual assessment that is waived when members do community service, which can include attending a political rally.
"Brown is flat-out wrong," Erlich said. "We have never and never will fine any member for not participating in political activity and have never paid any member to participate. Brown’s voting record is motivation enough."
So it isn't technically a fine. You just lose money if you don't participate in the rally. Which actually sounds very much like a fine.
How is a political rally considered community service?
If that's the case, would going to an Obama or Romney rally count as hours for court ordered community service?
Elizabeth Warren denied knowledge of this policy and I don't doubt it. What does she actually know about what working people do and have done to them? That's probably why Scott Brown has an unusual amount of union support for a GOP candidate (one WHDH poll had Brown supported by 46% of union members, and Warren by 41%). Maybe not from the unions themselves, but from the members who actually work.
After Mitt Romney soundly defeated Barack Obama in the first Presidential Debate, all Obama and his supporters could do was make each other laugh with funny memes about Mitt Romney.
Then again, that's all he and his supporters have done for the past few months. Whether it was making fun of Romney's $10,000 bet offer to Rick Perry, or Romney's comments about 47% of Americans who don't pay income taxes, or Bain Capital, or putting a dog in a crate on the roof of his car, or having a car elevator in his garage, or not hugging his garbageman, or giving tax breaks to the wealthy, or the alleged war on women... et cetera.
There haven't been many factual arguments emanating from the Left. And there certainly hasn't been any talk of Barack Obama's illustrious 4 year record as President.
Now it's Big Bird's turn to be a Liberal meme.
Seriously, that's the best the Left has. Funny as it may be, it addresses no issue, and adds nothing to the discussion of this country's problems except snark and dismissiveness.
The day after Mitt Romney pointed out that Barack Obama's record with the economy is questionable, all the Left seemed capable of doing was spreading this meme around. Why is that? Maybe because when actually talking about issues, the Left has nothing but air and fluff. They couldn't really address any of the points Romney adroitly made in the debate. The Left can't stand on Obama's record. All they can do is make jokes that make other Liberals laugh.
One common thread - before the debate and after - for Liberals was that Mitt Romney hasn't been detailed with his proposals.
I think it's hilarious that the same people who screamed ambivalent slogans like "Hope" and "Change" and now "Forward" are demanding details. When did these people become so meticulous? All Obama has to do is say "Yes we can" and they cheer wildly. But with Romney, they demand details.
However specific or nonspecific Romney has been, he has a general plan to alter the course of the economy. All Obama has are jokes about Sesame Street characters. Well to borrow a word from my favorite Sesame Street resident, I think it's time for Obama to scram.
We all thought Barack Obama was the skilled, smooth-talking debater, and Mitt Romney was the disconnected, awkward robot.
But in delivering their messages, Romney was a concise Power Point presentation. You could see bullet-points on the screen as he spoke. Obama was an unprepared professor without any notes, nursing a hangover, and ad-libbing his early morning lecture.
Even when not talking, Romney was winning. While listening to Obama, Romney maintained a polite but emotionless poker face. When Romney spoke, Obama hardly looked at him. He smirked smugly, and sometimes looked away, as if he didn't want to be there.
I think the endless series of GOP debates helped Romney prepare. The sweaty, white-hot crucible of Newt Gingrich & company seems to have turned Romney into a savvy debater. Obama has spent the last 4 years selling his policies and campaigning. He's accustomed to speaking in monologue, not dialogue. And the media doesn't ask him challenging questions. Last night was something new for Obama.
The substance of the debate also favored Romney. Obama reiterated some of his campaign's rhetoric about tax cuts for the rich, and about the deficit left by George W. Bush. Romney did well to address and dismiss those tactics.
Unfortunately for Obama, he couldn't boast much about his record. He tried boasting about Bill Clinton's then comparing it to his own. Meanwhile, Romney demonstrated an impressive understanding of economics and businesses. Every point Romney made ultimately led to job creation, how he plans to do it, and how Obama has failed to do it.
Last night the real Mitt Romney introduced himself to America, and to Barack Obama. For Obama's sake, he'd better have been paying more attention than it seemed like he was paying.
Barack Obama's campaign has come up with a new slogan. It's inspiring, abstract, vague, and includes the letter "O," which means that Obama's logo can be used as a letter.
But all it reminds me of is The Simpsons. Apologies for the low quality of the clip. It was the best I could find.
It's not a bad slogan. Ingenious, actually. It's powerful, but also allows people to envision their own idea of what "Forward" means. Then they think that Obama is for that particular idea. So people think Obama is fighting for their particular idea of what "Forward" is. It's an ambiguous message phrased directly. It's the type of brilliance that has been the cornerstone to Barack's success as a campaigner.
Of course, I doubt that having this "Forward" looking campaign will stop Obama from looking back on the Bush administration and blaming it for our debt. But I digress.
If Obama is re-elected, I'll be hoping to fast-Forward the next four years. HAHA...
I amuse myself so much.
Don't feel silly if you tried to click the above image. I did it too.
Obama's background is college. He probably feels more at home at a university than anywhere else in the universe. Four years as an undergrad. Three more getting his JD. Twelve more teaching law at the University of Chicago. And this week he's going back to college campuses to campaign.
I could rant and rave about how he's using your tax money to do so. This trip to the Universities of North Carolina, Colorado, and Iowa is being called "official," and not political. Which means you're paying for it. It's a weird coincidence that all three of these states will be hotly contested in November. I could discourse about such expenditures being paid for by taxpayers being akin to Big Banks using Bailout money to fund "business trips" to Las Vegas. But that would be too easy. It would be an emotionally based tirade. And since Obama is barnstorming college campuses across the country, I'm going to try to keep things intellectual in this post.
Every week, the Obama Campaign Machine mobilizes on a new issue and attacks Mitt Romney and the Right. Remember that Phony War on Women a few weeks ago. How about Romney's car elevator. Last week it was the Buffett Rule. This week it's student loans. It's classic divide and conquer campaigning. Group people together, then point out how much you're on the side of their group, and how much your opponent is against that group.
Recent college grads are finding themselves in a very tough job market. 53.6% of recently graduated bachelor's degree holders are either unemployed or underemployed (Source). And these people are also burdened with massive amounts of student loan debt. The interest on which might increase from 3.4% to 6.8% in a few months.
A college education is less likely to result in a job. Yet the cost of that education has increased dramatically. How is it possible for the value of something to decrease at the same time that its price increases? Well that conversation is for another time. Part of the reason is that the price of college is artificially inflated by how easy it is to get a student loan. Which means it's easier for families to pay for college no matter what the actual price. Which means colleges can spend millions on new buildings and send out thousands of brochures that have pictures of students from 5 different ethnic groups on the cover.
Both Obama and Romney are in favor of legislation that would prevent student loan interest from doubling to 6.8%. And that makes sense. I think raising the rate would only raise the number of defaults. And politically, it's smart for both candidates to support college students that are struggling to pay off their debt. Students were part of Obama's base in 2008. And while Romney will never claim an outright victory in the 18-34 demographic, if he can convert a few of them, and avoid enraging the rest of them with higher interest rates, then he drastically improves his chances of victory in November.
Both Obama and Romney agree that recent college grads are facing enormous challenges. Where Obama and Romney differ is in the philosophy of how those problems should be fixed. Obama is focused on making it easier for them to survive in this harsh economic climate. He wants to give out umbrellas on a rainy day.
Romney, on the other hand, is focused on the climate. He wants a Government that taxes less and spends less. He wants policies that foster economic growth and to remove policies that hinder it, so jobs are created and recent college grads can afford to buy their own umbrellas.
So the question is, do people want a President who will take care of them when it rains. Or a President that will give them a chance to take care of themselves. Do you want to be taken care of, or take care of yourself? Do you want Dependence or Independence?
As much insane fun as a brokered GOP Convention would have been, it won't happen. Rick Santorum has abruptly dropped out of the race to run against Barack Obama. And the Republican establishment has exhaled a collective sigh of relief, thus raising Greenhouse Gas levels across the continent.
Mitt is the only Republican candidate suitable for the task of removing Obama from office. Santorum was able to excite the passions of GOP voters, but he'd also scare off the moderates who will ultimately determine the winner of November's election.
CNN and other news outlets criticized Romney for being unable to "mobilize the base" of the Republican Party and win in GOP strongholds like Alabama and Georgia. But those electoral votes are now securely in his pocket simply because he is the Republican nominee and is not Barack Obama.
Santorum's bid was an expression of irrational passions. The media look down on such passions when expressed by Conservatives. Then glorify similar passion when expressed by Liberals. What is the difference between abstract slogans like "Hope" compared with "Freedom?" Look at how differently the media treated the Tea Party compared to Occupy Wall Street.
At any rate, Americans have had enough abstractness and slogans. They want concrete plans. And I'm not talking about bloated Stimulus funds to pour concrete on roads nobody travels on.
Americans want a President who will put them in a position to be successful. Not one who will coddle us when we fail, or when we don't even try.
We want results, not rhetoric.
We want a President that leads, not one that attacks those who disagree with him.
I am tired of the Campaigner in Chief. I am tired of his inexperience. I am tired of him inflaming when he should be discussing. I am tired of him turning serious issues that should be debated into opportunities to talk trash and make his opponents look bad.
Obama doesn't listen to the people. He tries to convert them, convince them, but never listens to them. He'll be forced to listen to us in November.
Mitt Romney can't save the economy on his own. He can't save the country on his own. But he can save us from Barack Obama.
This was a huge story yesterday afternoon on CNN. Mitt Romney is putting a car elevator in the garage of his beach house. It's yet another example of Mitt Romney's almost cartoonish wealth. He might as well build a vault for all his gold coins and swim around in it Scrooge McDuck style.
While CNN's on-air personalities repeatedly stated that Romney need not "apologize" for his wealth, they repeatedly stated how things like this car elevator make Romney "out of touch" with regular, currently struggling, working class Americans. We don't have car lifts in our garages. Car lifts are for people who have so many cars, that their garage isn't big enough for all of them.
Romney is using the car elevator as part of the $12 million renovation of his beach house in La Jolla. The idea of the car elevator is to allow for multiple cars to be stored in a garage without expanding the ground level footprint of the garage.
I love how CNN, Politico, and most other media outlets feel that because Romney has more money than us "average folk" that he'll have trouble connecting with us. Especially in this harsh economic climate. People are struggling to fill their cars with gasoline and here's Rich Uncle Romney building elevators for his cars.
It's funny how JFK, despite being obscenely rich and coming from a rich old family, isn't seen as "disconnected" from the average masses of America.
FDR came from an extremely wealthy family (two wealthy families, actually), went to Groton, then Harvard, and yet somehow was able to take office in a harsh economic climate and connect with the "average people."
And how connected is Barack Obama to the 99%? His net worth is estimated between $2.8 and $11.8 million dollars.
Is there a feeling of disconnection between the average American and Mitt Romney? Yes! But there's also a feeling of disconnection between many average Americans and Barack Obama. And it has nothing to do with wealth, or background, or race.
It's about ideas. It's about dreams.
Mitt Romney doesn't just have money, he has a shitload of money.
And I want that. Millions of average Americans will be buying MegaMillions tickets this week so we can feel connected to the likes of Mitt Romney. I want an elevator for all my cars. I want to be comfortable. I want to take care of my friends and family. I want to travel. I want money.
I don't want a President to understand me, to feel connected with me. When was the last President that was truly connected with the American people? They're all borderline schizophrenics.
And these Liberal intellectuals on Politico and Huffington Post are so insulting with their "average folk" rhetoric. All the so-called "average" people in this country are different, we're all separate individuals. We all have different dreams, different desires, different ideas. I'm offended at being called "average." I'm offended by the notion that these media folk think that millions of Americans are so simple and function with a simplistic herd mentality.
It's true, Mitt Romney would not understand what your feet feel like and what your brain feels like after working a 12 hour security shift for $9/hour. Neither would Barack Obama. And I don't care.
I don't want a President to sympathize with me and coddle me and make me feel like I'm being understood and acknowledged. I want someone who can Run this country, who can help put me in the best position to help myself, who can give me the opportunity to achieve what I feel like I'm capable of achieving.
I don't care about car elevators, I want a President who can elevate America. And despite his absurd wealth, his stilted awkwardness, and his constant cheerfulness, I feel like that person is Mitt Romney.
"It was nice. I’ll bet it drives real good. And five years from now when I’m not president anymore, I’ll buy one and drive it myself."
-Barack Obama, on the Chevrolet Volt
The President made this declaration just a few days before GM halted production of the Volt. It's simply not selling as well as anticipated. Dealers' inventories are backing up as production outstrips demand for Chevy's "plug-in hybrid electric vehicle" (PHEV).
Despite the $7,500 tax credit given to Volt buyers (Obama has proposed increasing that to $10,000), only 9,623 of the cars have been sold in North America through February 2012. 3,600 Volts are sitting around dealership lots, waiting like unwanted puppies to be adopted and taken to a good home. GM had once planned to produce 45,000 Volts in 2012. That is no longer their goal. (Source)
Why would you buy a Volt? To save money on gas? Even with the $7,500 tax credit it would take the average driver 9 to 12 years to save enough money on gas to recover the price difference between the Volt and the equivalent Chevy Cruze. 9 years with gas at $5/gallon, 12 years with gas at $4/gallon. (Source) And by then, the battery will have lost 20 to 30 percent of its range. (Source) A new battery costs $14,000. So by the time the Volt "pays for itself," it needs a new battery. And after three years, Kelly Blue Book predicts that used Volts will be worth about $17,000. (Source)
You'll need to buy a $14,000 battery to propel your car worth $17,000.
So you don't save money. Depending on where your house gets electricity from, you might not do much to help the environment (coal=electricity+pollution). And while you'll use less oil from the Middle East, you'll be buying a battery made from Chinese lithium and rare earth elements. You're trading dependency on one foreign market for dependency on another.
The only reason to buy a Volt is so you can call yourself a Volt driver. Which is fine. Plenty of people do that with Corvettes, Ferraris, Porches, BMWs, and so on. They like to make a statement with the vehicle they drive. Cars aren't just functional, they have style and personality. They're like clothes. So if people want to "wear" a Volt as a statement about themselves, good for them. All cars should make a statement. That's why we get to choose what color we want our cars to be.
Unfortunately, the actual people who NEED to save money at the pumps cannot afford a Volt. Not in the short-term with its high upfront cost, not in the long run with its depreciation and need to replace the battery. Right now the tax-credits are only helping the rich people who buy Volts as part of their automotive wardrobe.
And isn't the President against giving tax breaks to the wealthy?
Obama wanted 1 million PHEVs like the Volt on the roads of America by 2015. But common sense is against the Volt. It's a statement-vehicle for wealthy environmentalists, not a fuel-efficient people's car. And if you have to pay people $10,000 to buy a car, doesn't that speak volumes about the lack of demand for it?
PHEV technology is the future. It's not the present. That's why nobody is buying it, nor should they. The technology simply isn't good enough yet for Volts to be a successful consumer good.
The Volt is also an example as to why Government shouldn't guide an Economy. It's one thing to fund research into better battery technology with taxpayer money. It's another thing to hand $7,500 to someone because they want a Volt, or to give UAW-GM workers a job just because they make a Volt.
Instead of investing taxpayer money into encouraging people to buy a product they don't want, the Government should use that money to help the product develop into something that people would want. Spend some money to research military applications of electrically propelled vehicles (they'd be quieter, and you wouldn't need to constantly resupply them with oil-based fuels).
Consumers control markets. Not products. Not Governments. The idea of Government controlling the economy disturbs me. Government struggles to run itself, let alone the automotive industry. But Obama and his ilk think that they know better than the free market.
But they don't. Just look at the money-saving, environmentally friendly car they want us to buy. It's called the Volt and it doesn't save you money or help the environment.
I'm Conservative, but I've been telling people that if Newt Gingrich won the GOP nomination, I'd not only vote for Obama, but I'd also campaign for him. My fear of Santorum's America is even more extreme than that. If he were to be elected, I'd secede from the Union. I'd drive up the Maine coastline in a pickup truck (a Toyota Hilux of course, unlike All-American Mitt Romney and his poorly built Chevy) pile about 10 big rocks in the bed, drive into the sea, and wherever the waterline crested above the cab of the Toyota, that's where I'd start my new Nation: The Hilux Republic.
New citizens would be welcome, provided they bring their own rocks to live on. And as far as immigration policies go, I think that's better than anyone else's. Our national anthem would be "We Built This City" by Starship.
One fundamental principle of this fledgling Republic/tax haven would be the separation of Church and State.
That's an idea I learned from the ancient history of that legendary lost nation called the USA. That mythical land of Freedom. The USA's Founding Fathers formed a government that incorporated this principle. Or so the legends tell us. They believed that Religious bodies and Government bodies should not be connected. Government shouldn't make laws about religion, and Religion shouldn't govern.
These mythical Founding Fathers, like myself, learned from other nations' histories. England's most tumultuous error was when it violently debated with itself whether to be Protestant or Catholic or Miscellaneous. Think of all the wars that have been waged with religion underpinning the call-to-arms. Think of all the horrible things that have occurred when Religious authority and Government authority were embodied in the same person/organization. The Spanish Inquisition, for instance. The Salem Witch Trials. The Middle East.
The history isn't all ancient. It's current. Look at Iran. The Taliban. These are examples of the great things that can be accomplished when Church and State aren't separated.
Frankly, I do not want to live in a country that doesn't believe in the separation of Church and State. And I don't want to live in a country that has a President who believes stuff like this:
I don't just mean that I'll be upset if he's President. I'm upset that Obama is President. I'd be upset if Gingrich were President. But I still want to live here. If, however, Santorum were President, then I would no longer want to live in this country. I'd establish Hiluxia off the Maine coast.
I don't think he understands what separation of Church and State truly means. It's not that Government needs to be strictly atheistic. Nor does it mean that religion shouldn't be a part of the lives and morals of those who govern. It means that religious institutions shouldn't govern. It also means that government shouldn't govern religious institutions.
Santorum is a shell-shocked veteran of the War on Religion. A bit crazy, very paranoid, and blinded by irrational Fear. He's afraid he'll somehow lose his Religion if gay people get married. And Religion isn't just a faith for Santorum, it's his moral high ground, it's his identity. "I am religious, therefore I'm a good person."
Separation of Church and State is meant to protect religion from the Government. We all have the right to our own religious beliefs. What's holy to one faith might be sinful to another. So keeping religious institutions out of government actually protects all religious institutions. That's why the separation goes both ways and religion cannot govern.
It's easy to state such philosophies likes the ones in the last paragraph, but there's a vast grey area in this issue. Laws are morally phrased, and very similar to religious edicts. For example, it's against the law to steal. It's also against the 8th Commandment. Murder. Rape. Lying under oath. These are all sins and also all crimes.
Then again, the 7th Commandment forbids adultery. But adultery is not a crime (in most states at least, and where it is a crime, it's an antiquated law that is rarely prosecuted). Adultery is wrong, if you ask me, but it's not illegal.
Stealing is an infringement on another person's rights. That's why it's illegal. Not because it's morally wrong.
Legend has it that the US Government was once concerned only with protecting the rights of its citizens. The Kingdom of Hiluxiastan will be established on this principle too.
Some people, like Rick Santorum, seem to think that the purpose of Government is to determine and declare God-given rights, not protect them. He thinks Government should tell people what they should and shouldn't do. He thinks Government should determine what is moral and what isn't moral, based on what he thinks God wants. He is disgusted by the notion of a secular Government.
I want to see his Birth Certificate. He claims to be from Virginia but his ideas sound oddly Iranian.
In the Hilux States of America, we will re-establish the separation of Church and State because making laws based on individual personal morals is unwise. Laws are for protecting rights, not dictating them. These are rights given to us by our Creator. Whether you believe that Creator to be God, or to be random chance. We have rights as sentient creatures. Life. Liberty. Pursuit of Happiness. I know these are odd concepts to establish a country under, but what the hell.
If in a few months you find yourself living in a country under the leadership of a Holy Roman Emperor who believes he is God's Anointed Vessel on Earth, then rent a Toyota, drive up to Maine, grab some rocks, and join us in the H.S.A. We're having lobster for dinner, and you don't have to say Grace if you don't want to.
This blog does not endorse the Toyota Hilux. The Hilux is simply the toughest truck in history and would be ideal to literally build a Nation upon.
