Post #337 A Day That Will Live In Infamy, Pt. IV

To "NCCitizenX:"

If Amendment One to the North Carolina Constitution passes on May 8, 2012, will it:

1) Protect the children? NO.
2) Extend Domestic Violence protections? NO
3) Prevent two men from moving in next door and having homosex 30 feet away from my bedroom? NO.
4) Prevent the chief of staff for the Speaker Of The House of North Carolina from having sex with a lobbyist who is not his wife? NO.
5) Prevent the serial marriages of someone like Newt Gingrich who practices his own "special" brand of polygamy? NO.
6) Secure equal protection for all citizens before the law and equal access to government protections. NO.

Indeed, the only reason I see to support this Amendment is that its passage will make bigots feel good 'cause they'll know there are a lot of other bigots out there. I could have told 'em that! :p

But, dear, "NCCitizenX," you have an ally: The ignorant.

I saw a post the other day: "My core value is, marriage = one man + one woman. Period. Let homosexuals have 'civil unions,' but leave marriage alone. That is why I am voting FOR this Amendment."

Good Lord. * sigh * Amendment One outlaws "civil unions" -- that is what the fuss is about. Nobody wants to mess with core values -- this is about equal protection for all citizens before the law -- see the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Amendment One reads: "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." The first part -- marriage between one man and one woman -- is pro-marriage, a core value of many; the second part -- the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State -- outlaws "civil unions" and is anti-gay. Do not be fooled by those who claim 'pro-marriage' only without telling the whole tale of this discriminatory policy.

But never let ignorance keep someone out of the voting both, right, "NCCitizenX?"

The cry is dogs, incest, polygamy. Even the most ignorant can see that dogs and children are ruled out by the definition of the marriage contract: Between 2 consenting adults, governing the transfer of wealth and rights. Of course, the State has a compelling interest in prohibiting other types of incest as the child of NCCitizanX and his mother would probably be more ignorant than NCCitizenX himself! :p

But why do people have are hard time understanding "2?" Look, if a husband is in a wreck and terribly injured -- in a coma and on life support, and wife #1 wants to 'pull the plug' immediately, and wife #2 wants to wait 6 months. Then, we'd have a court battle to figure out who really is wife #1 and who really is wife #2 -- which defeats the whole purpose of a marriage contract. So, "2" remains, and polygamy is a non-issue.

But, aaahhh, the bigoted and the ignorant -- that is quite a coalition!

Post #336 Justice For The Unarmed Juvenile, Pt. II

Thank Goodness this case is now in the court system.

Let me elaborate on my previous post:

I say let the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 reasonable jurors that George Zimmerman's suspicion of Trayvon Martin was unreasonable. Look, if I am sitting on my front porch enjoying the heavy air of a post-dinner rain and notice a tall black boy wearing a hoodie walking slowly down the street and looking around, when he gets to my house, I am going to holler, "Hey, son, you lost?" To me, Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin was unreasonable.

I say let the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 reasonable jurors that Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight. Back to my scenario, if the boy does not answer and cups his hand to his ear, and I leave my porch to repeat myself, do I carry my gun? NO. There is an ol' saying around here, "People who carry guns plan to use 'em." To me, it is reasonable to believe that Zimmerman planned to get his satisfaction by any means necessary, that Zimmerman's actions were unreasonable.

I say let the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 reasonable jurors that Zimmerman provoked the fist fight by following Martin off the road for 26 seconds. If thee boy takes of running after I leave my porch, do I follow him? NO. To me, Zimmerman's actions again are unreasonable.

I say let the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 reasonable jurors that Zimmerman's injuries do not match a reasonable fear for life. Bleeding from the nose and from two cuts on the back of the head do not match a reasonable fear for life. It seems to me that, if Zimmerman's injuries inspired a reasonable fear for life in him, why did not those same injuries inspire a reasonable fear for life in the police who would have sent Zimmerman to the hospital?

Of course, the real tale lies in the autopsy report -- which has not been released. To support Zimmerman's account of a struggle at the waist and the gun going off into Martin's chest, the path of the bullet would have been upward. If the bullet entered straight into the chest, that would indicate that Zimmerman extended his arm -- the fist fight was over -- and shot, not an act of self-defense but an act of execution.

Boy, this ought to be good.

Post #335 Justice For The Unarmed Juvenile

What we have: An armed adult shot and killed an unarmed juvenile. That this case is not already in the judicial system is appalling. We know who the armed adult was.

Yes, of course, I am referring to the Trayvon Martin case. Take away race and the inflammatory language, and you're left with 'an armed adult shot and killed an unarmed juvenile.'

And now the FBI is investigating to see if Martin's rights were violated. Duh! How about his unalienable right to Life!?!

I say let the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt to 12 reasonable jurors that George Zimmerman's suspicion of Martin was unreasonable, that Zimmerman brought a gun to a fist fight, that Zimmerman provoked the fist fight by following Martin 100 yards down a path, that Zimmerman's injuries do not match a reasonable fear for life.

But -- for Goodness sake -- let's go. Any killing -- not just an armed adult shooting and killing an unarmed juvenile -- deserves a day in court.

I am surprised -- well, not really surprised but more disappointed that many conservatives are focusing on issues other than what this case is about: an armed adult shot and killed an unarmed juvenile. The Black Panthers, the media circus, Al Sharpton. Good Lord. *sigh * There would be no media circus if this case was in the court system.

Post #334 Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - A system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

Let me rephrase that definition: (in-ep-toc'-ra-cy) - A system of government where the lazy are elected by the lazy, and where the lazy are rewarded with goods and services paid for only by the stolen wealth of the non-lazy.

Why are the lazy (those least capable of leading) elected? Because the non-lazy will NOT run for election.

Government -- particularly federal government -- is a gold mine (google Mitch McConnell and see how much his wealth has increased since the Great Recession began). But as Donald Trump knows, the real money is in the private sector. EGO is the only reason the non-lazy will run -- and that is a poor reason to run.

As you know -- or should know, gentle reader (unless you've been busy counting your millions -- $$$), the playing field is NOT level. Being lazy/non-lazy is NOT always a factor in success -- for evidence. I offer Paris Hilton. :p

EVERYBODY pays taxes -- welfare queens, illegal immigrants. In North Carolina, we have a 4.5% sales tax -- a person who spends $10 a day on food contributes 45 cents every day to the government coffers. Surely, states without a sales tax have some way of sticking it to EVERYBODY! ;O

As for the 'stolen' money, it is called taxation WITH representation; taxation WITHOUT representation was why we fought the Revolutionary War. Nobody is stealing money today.

Where I live, we have a system of government where citizens are elected by citizens, and the unalienable rights of all citizens are secured by taxes paid by all --citizens AND non-citizens.

Obviously, no, things do not always work that way, but it is something we strive for.

Post #333 A Day That Will Live In Infamy, Pt. III

To "NCCitizenX:"

Amendment One to the North Carolina Constitution, to be voted on May 8, 2012, is NOT about YOUR morality, your judgment about what is right and wrong -- no matter on what you base you morality.

You and other proponents of Amendment One realize you can't win a Constitutional argument without amending the Constitution. And even then, the U.S. Constitution trumps the North Carolina Constitution. This a waste of time and money -- just to support your own bigoted views.

So, you hijack the Bible using selective quotes to support your own bigoted views. Faith or questions of religious faith -- as referenced by the Bible -- touches the lives of everybody. Even atheists have a faith in themselves.

But there is nothing in the Bible to support voting for this Amendment. Now, the Bible says "homosexuality is a sin," but it doesn't say what YOU should about that sin -- other than "do not lie with [another] man" (Leviticus 18:22).

In fact, the Bible opposes this Amendment. There are plenty of instructions in the Bible on how YOU should treat your fellow man: "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31)., "Judge not lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1)., "Let the one without sin among you cast the first stone" (John 8:7).

Aaahhh, the arrogance of YOU, a mere man, trying to do the work of God -- His justice will be delivered by His way in His time.

Amendment One to the North Carolina Constitution, to be voted on May 8, 2012, IS about equal protection for all citizens before the law -- see the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Are "all men created equal" -- that is, does everybody have equal standing before the law? The answer is -- or should be, yes. How does Amendment One secure the unalienable rights of all men? The answer is, it doesn't -- securing unalienable rights only for some. That should be reason enough for any conservative to oppose this.

Amendment One reads: "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." The first part -- marriage between one man and one woman -- is pro-marriage; the second part -- the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State -- is anti-gay. Do not be fooled by those who claim 'pro-marriage' only without telling the whole tale of this discriminatory policy.

So, you use a "straw-man" -- restating a position of opponents and then knocking down that position. Dogs, incest, polygamy. Good Lord. *sigh * This debate is about equal protection for all citizens before the law and equal access to government protections

Post #332 Rush Limpaugh....

Two things I want you, gentle reader, to take from the Rush Limbaugh controversy:
1) That advertisers and radio stations are pulling away from Rush IS the free market at work. Those advertisers and radio stations have made the BUSINESS decision that supporting Rush is bad for BUSINESS -- even Rush understands this. There is no vast Left-wing conspiracy out to get him -- Rush did this to himself.
2) Rush's Constitutional right to freedom of speech is NOT being violated. Rush can stand on the steps of the town hall and spew all he wants -- there is no Constitutional right to have a radio show. A radio show is governed by the free market.

Post #331 Personal Responsibility

Isn't it time that we, as a society, hold people responsible for their own actions or inactions? Let's judge people by the content of their character, not the color of their skin.

A girl applied to the University of Texas at Austin and was rejected. Naturally, she's suing -- citing the tired ol' bogeyman of racism, saying that she was discriminated against because of her race. The United States Supreme Court will hear the case.

The University of Texas accepts the top %10 of each high school's graduating class. The plaintiff did not make it. Her application then went into a pool with the other 'losers' to be judged on what they did in high school -- the content of their character. You know, extra-circular activities: clubs, student government, sports, jobs, charity work. And she wrote an essay extolling her virtues to be a Longhorn. Again, she did not make it.

And now she's whining. She's going to court -- claiming that, because she is not a member of the 'privileged race,' she has been discriminated against. She wants government protection -- can you say "nanny-state socialism?" -- for her race.

Good Lord. Nobody from the 'privileged race' made her not work hard to improve her grades; nobody from the 'privileged race' made her not join clubs; nobody from the 'privileged race' made her write an unconvincing essay.

It's called personal responsibility, pulling yourself up by your own bootstraps, doing the best you can and accepting your shortcomings.

Hopefully, the Supreme Court will do the correct thing and laugh this case out of court.
It's time we stopped blaming racism for every slight..

Post #330 Happy Days Are Here... Again!, Pt. V

Happy Days Are Here... Again! Stocks rise, heading for best February in 14 years - http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/29/1893589/stocks-rise-heading-for-best-february.html

Oh, no, can't the Republicans do something to slow this? We need more stories about $5-a-gallon gas. :p

Happy Days Are Here... Again! Chrysler leads strong February auto sales http://money.msn.com/top-stocks/post.aspx?post=d407fa0a-5b74-45fe-a1eb-82352a12663d#scptit

Let's get on the OBAMATRAIN, the hippest trip in America!

Post #329 I Love Pat Buchanan; I Love Al Sharpton

Pat Buchanan reminds me of my father, slightly stooped over and always reminiscing about the good ol' days under Richard Nixon -- days which become more rosy with each passing day. Dad and Pat both resist change.

Al Sharpton reminds me of my recently-deceased great-uncle with his gravely voice and my deceased grandfather with his habit of making screwed-up comical faces -- like when Mitch McConnell says that we must protect job creators, Al will look like somebody really stunk it up!

They are both entertaining bigots. I would not expect a 'fair and balanced' opinion from either one, but I do not watch TV for 'fair and balanced' opinions -- that is what e-mail is for! ;O

The reason I am bringing them up now is that Pat was recently fired by MSNBC from his job as 'political analyst' because of his recent racist book; Al has his own show on MSNBC. A white commentator on a message board decried the unequal treatment of bigots -- the white bigot was fired; the black bigot kept his own show.

Another white who does not get it. [rolleyes] When Al walks the halls of the White House serving two Administrations -- like Pat who served Nixon and Ronald Reagan, then we can talk 'unequal.'

In case Billy Bubba Jim Bob does not get it, America is a WHITE society, most of the power and wealth are in white hands. Whites' wealth pulls far ahead of minorities - http://t.co/8PoFZfX The redistribution of wealth IS happening... in whites' favor. HAPPY TO BE WHITE! :p

I have the economic, political, social power in this society. If I use a racial slur, it is offensive -- I have the power to threaten a black's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness; a racial slur against me means nothing -- a black has no power to threaten my life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.

And that is why a white bigot gets fired; a black bigot keeps his job. Blacks do not have the power to enforce their prejudices in America.

Post #328 A Day That Will Live In Infamy, Pt. II

Amendment One to the North Carolina Constitution, to be voted on May 8, 2012, reads: "marriage between one man and one woman is the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State." The first part -- marriage between one man and one woman -- is pro-marriage; the second part -- the only domestic legal union that shall be valid or recognized in this State -- is anti-gay. Do not be fooled by those who
claim 'pro-marriage' only without telling the whole tale of this discriminatory policy.

Are "all men created equal" -- that is, does everybody have equal standing before the law? The answer is -- or should be, yes. How does Amendment One secure the unalienable rights of all men? The answer is, it doesn't -- securing unalienable rights only for some. That should be reason enough for any conservative to oppose this.

"But why do people muddy the water and drag the Bible into this debate?"

Proponents of Amendment One realize they can't win a Constitutional argument without amending the Constitution. So, they hijack the Bible using selective quotes to support their own bigoted views. Faith or questions of religious faith -- as referenced by the Bible -- touches the lives of everybody. Even atheists have a faith in themselves.

"But the Bible is a book of myths, fables and legends."

That may be true. But the Bible is entertaining, a fascinating mystery story of good vs. evil. The kicker is that the ending is not resolved -- you read the whole book, turn the last page, and you still do not know which side won, good or evil. The ending is written in your heart.

The best way to counter the religious argument is to tackle it head-on. There is nothing in the Bible to support voting for this Amendment. Now, the Bible says "homosexuality is a sin," but it doesn't say what YOU should about that sin -- other than "do not lie with [another] man" (Leviticus 18:22).

In fact, the Bible opposes this Amendment. There are plenty of instructions in the Bible on how YOU should treat your fellow man: "Love your neighbor as yourself" (Mark 12:31)., "Judge not lest you be judged" (Matthew 7:1)., "Let the one without sin among you cast the first stone" (John 8:7).

Aaahhh, the arrogance of man, trying to do the work of God -- His justice will be delivered by His way in His time.

Post #327 Obama Disrespects America... Again! *

That dirty stinkin' no-good Muslim from Kenya we have as President did not attend the Super Bowl. What is more American than a game in which overstuffed men beat the stuffing out of each other and the women prance on the sidelines wearing skimpy outfits!?! Yet Barack Obama spent the day in the White House, causing excessive wear and tear on one of our oldest monuments, the ungrateful son of a gun.

You know, the Secret Service flies Air Force One every day. What would have been wrong with flying the Prez to Indy and making him stay in a Holiday Inn?

* This is satire. If you do not "get it," it is probably aimed at YOU.

Post #326 The Reliability Of E-Mail?

I got another e-mail recently -- actually, it was the second tine I had gotten the same e-mail -- that showed some pictures of angry Muslims at a peace rally in London and including the text warning that they are coming and bringing their ways. Well, the pictures were actually from a protest in London that time there was a cartoon of Mohammad published in Europe -- not a peace rally, and I would expect anger at that type of protest.

What really caught my eye was a response from one of the members of the same mailing list addressed to the whole list. She said, to paraphrase, yea, they ARE coming and they ARE bringing their ways and traditions. I just had to respond:

First, I pointed out the real nature of the pictures and then went on --

"Well, who? Who are you so worried about that will bring their ways and traditions?

"Like the Swedes who would not give up Christmas trees?
"Like the Jews who have their own Sabbath and their own food?
"Like the Italians who brought us pizza?

"Who and what are they bringing that's got you so upset?"

I did not expect a reply, but I got one -- addressed to only me, by thr way.

I replied, "I appreciate your passion and Thank You for your reply." No need to be nasty. :)

She started by acknowledging the true nature of the pictures and then decrying the war on Christianity -- without offering examples of this war. I guess she just assumed everybody knew what she was talking about. I said, "The reason I am not excited about this is because there is no war on Christianity here, where I live, North Carolina." She's from Michigan. Who knows? Maybe there is a war on Christianity in Michigan.

Then she identified who is coming -- Muslims -- and what they are bringing -- Sharia law. She cited an example of 1000 Muslims in Minnesota marching and demanding Sharia law. I said, "We [in North Carolina] would not pay any attention to 1000 Muslims demanding Sharia law -- not sure why them exercising their Constitutional right to assembly upsets you so. If you think 1000 protesters can change laws -- especially after you organize 1000 anti-Sharia protesters, you really do not understand our government and the way laws are written."

I'm confused. What is Sharia law? How does it differ from what have now? And how will the Muslims get it enacted?

She closed with one local example of the Muslims being catered to: A local college in Michigan had installed a fountain to let Muslims wash their feet. "Don't you care about terrorism and 9/11?"

"Of course," I replied, "I am concerned about terrorism. But I fail to see any connection between 9/11 and foot washing. Did you know that there were two mosques inside the World Trade Center on 9/11?"

I ended with "I'd like to know more about what you see outside your window that indicates a culture war -- as opposed to crap you get in e-mail. :)"

I did not get another reply....

Post #325 The Donald Endorses An Anchor Baby

What in-the-name of Sarah Palin is going on!?! Mitt Romney's father is from Mexico. :p

New jobs -- is that one of the 'bad things' The Donald warned us about? Unemployment rate hits 8.3 pct. after hiring burst - http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/02/03/1827286/economy-likely-started-2012-with.html

Post #324 The Predatory Capitalist Strikes Back:

Romney credits change in tactics for Florida surge - http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/01/30/1817165/romney-not-taking-any-chances.candidate Mitt Romney.

"There's a reason we have low rates on capital gains and that's because it spurs new investment in our economy and allows capital to move more quickly," House Speaker John Boehner said. Well, maybe capital moving too quickly is what is wrong with this country.

Post #322 Fair!?!

Fair? Romney's tax returns show extent, complexity of wealth | http://ajc.com - http://shar.es/fWiux

Yes, look, Mitt Romney paid all his taxes and gave a lot to charity -- unlike, say, Donald Trump. My question is, will Romney now advocate everyone who can afford it to pay income tax at an equal rate?

We should all be treated equally under the law. How is taking from some -- the middle -- but not from others -- the rich -- to pay for something everyone receives equal? The only fair way to collect taxes is to make everyone who can afford it pay an equal rate.

Note that I am not including the poor because I am a decent human being with compassion for those less fortunate than I am. You?

The shame of America is not that we are letting 47% of Americans get away with not paying federal income tax; the shame of America is that we have 47% of Americans who cannot afford to pay federal income tax.

Post #322 The Strange And Bizarre World Of Sarah Palin

Sarah Palin has kind of, sort of endorsed Newt Gingrich.

Newt Gingrich -- the worst insult I can think of -- is a career politician who went to D.C. in 1979 and never left, even after resigning as the first Speaker having been found guilty of an ethic violation. He has used his political connections to enrich himself to the tune of some $32 million.

He will bend to benefit himself -- how much did he get for his consulting with the Right's #1 whipping boy of BIG government, Freddie Mac? Would not you like to know what that work entailed?

Gingrich's political skills are suspect -- he led the politically unpopular government shutdown and Impeachment while banging wife #3 but still married to wife #2 (who was the product of an affair, too). And he tries to hide behind Ronald Reagan's divorce, ignoring the fact that Reagan did not even meet wife #2 until after his divorce.

Gingrich is unmotivated -- how else do you explain his failure to qualify for the Virginia ballot? -- except to himself. Now, as the Virginia failure shows, he's more interested in running a book tour than a campaign -- as his campaign staff who resigned in June said. And then he compares the Virginia failure to Pearl Harbor. WHAT!?! He is NOT the United States of America, and the Virginia law has been in effect for some 40 years!

I would not vote this guy to be dogcatcher. Newt Gingrich IS part of the problem.

But Sarah Palin would -- which actually says A LOT about her. But Palin does not really endorse Gingrich: Her motive is to keep the process going -- which that kind of double-talk actually says even more about her.

Palin said, "Because we know the mistake made in this country four years ago was having a candidate that was not vetted to the degree he should have been."

No, ma'am. The only candidate who was not properly vetted four years ago was YOU. Only Tea Party fanatics believe that Obama was not properly vetted because he did not show his birth certificate from Kenya.

Only in the strange and bizarre world of Sarah Palin is she relevant -- and Paul Revere is a traitor who warned the British. :p I am only writing about her because it feels good to kick a bag when she is down. ;O

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #321 Happy Days Are Here Again!, Pt. IV

Two things I want you, gentle reader, to take from the previous Post:
1) The company Freightliner received incentives -- bribes -- from the county to maintain a 'skeleton crew' until the economy picked back up and they could re-hire., Isn't that a positive example of BIG government at work?
2) The company expanded -- new jobs to increase supply -- in response to the economy picking up -- demand. Yes, supply & demand. What is missing from that equation? Tax cuts -- tax cuts have nothing to do with job creation; tax cuts are how the right redistributes wealth. It's social engineering brought to you by your favorite (R).

Post #320 Happy Days Are Here Again!, Pt. III

NC Freightliner factory to add 1,100 jobs - http://www.newsobserver.com/2012/01/12/1772308/nc-freightliner-factory-to-add.html

Who is this job creator? Didn't he get the GOP memo about waiting until after the election?

Post #319 The Three Men Who Brought Down Wall Street (E-Mail Hoax)

I have an e-pal who consistently sends out-of-date political smears -- the funniest I've gotten was clearly aimed at President Bill Clinton over 10 years ago (complete with a reference to Obama and his wife Hillary).

And I got another one the other day -- The Three Men Who Brought Down Wall Street -- intended to smear President Barack Obama's re-election bid. The original went around in September of 2008 intended to smear Obama's election bid, and now it is popping up again to smear Obama's re-election bid.

The three men who brought down Wall Street -- really? These three men -- Franklin Raines, Tim Howard, Jim Johnson -- did indeed work for Fannie Mae and left office under a cloud for having done some hijinks and shady stuff and received 'golden parachutes' to go. Um, they were forced out in 2004, 2004 and 1998. The e-mail did not make clear how they were responsible for the meltdown in 2008.

Um, 2004 -- was not George W. Bush President then?

The kicker was that these three men were identified as being economic advisors to the Obama campaign, but that is not true. Raines did receive a phone call from the campaign, and Johnson was appointed to the Vice-Presidential search committee but resigned one week later before doing any work. And now these three are again being identified as Obama's financial advisors. * sigh *

An UPDATE: Raines is paying the biggest fine in history levied by Obama's Department Of Justice in 2010.

Post #318 And The Winner Is...

... Mitt Romney.

No, I do not have some kind of crystal ball here to know what is going to happen in Iowa. but the winner should be Romney -- if the Republicans want to have a chance to win the White House.

To win the Presidential election of 2012, Republicans must oppress the 'Obama vote' of 2008 -- not by legal maneuvers, as they are already doing. * sigh * But by offering a reasonable alternative to Obama. 'Birthers' need not apply -- 'birthers' stir up the 'Obama vote' and scare away moderates. That leaves Romney.

Now, the other half of the equation is, to win the Presidential election of 2012, Republicans must increase the 'McCain vote' of 2008. The real question of 2012 is, can Republicans rally around Romney or will the 'birthers' lead to another defeat?

All politics is local, and all political questions are personal -- so:

I have diabetes. As you may or may not know, diabetes is an expensive disease to have and is -- Thank Goodness -- covered by Medicare. A couple of years ago, I developed a heart rhythm problem and was prescribed some drugs under George W. Bush's infamous Plan D complete with a 'doughnut hole.'

Obamacare closed the 'doughnut hole' -- thusly, saving my life.

So, yes, I am asking what my country can do for me -- how can my country secure my unalienable right to Life? Of the Republican Presidential candidates still standing, I most trust Romney to keep the 'doughnut hole' closed. I will be looking for him to address that issue in the next 10 months.