Post #143 Sympathy For The Devil, Pt. III

All I can say is that I am better off now than I was fours ago.

It's the economy, stupid; it's ALWAYS the economy. In fact, of the Presidential elections I've voted in, I have gone backwards under Republicans -- '84, '88, '92, '04, '08 -- and forward under Democrats -- '96, '00, '12. I'd rather vote for Jill Biden's husband -- in case there any James Earl Rays reading this -- than Mitt Romney.

It's very simple. To get my vote, to make me ignore 32 years of history, Romney needs to explain what happened in '08 and how his policies will address the causes of '08. All I've heard so far is hot air.

Hey, I'm as much a redneck as the next guy and voted for Hillary... twice (once in the primary and once as a write-in the general)... in '08 instead of that black Muslin from Kenya. But President Barack Obama has earned my vote in '12.

Post #142 Sympathy For The Devil, Pt. II

Pat McCrory ® is running for Governor of North Carolina. He was Mayor of Charlotte. A selling point of his campaign is that Charlotte is an "economic powerhouse."

Is Charlotte really an "economic powerhouse?" The answer seems to be, it depends on who you ask. The 1% seem to think so; the 99% are unconvinced.

What actions -- or inactions -- did McCrrory take as Mayor of Charlotte to make that city an "economic powerhouse?" McCrory supported light rail in Charlotte -- with state funds and federal funds and a sales tax increase, by the way (not to be confused with that hotel tax increase used to pay for the NASCAR "Hall Of Fame.") Did light rail in Charlotte make that city an "economic powerhouse?" Don't know.

And do those actions -- or inactions -- translate to state government? Will McCrory support light rail in other North Carolina cities? Don't know.

How do we know that McCrory will not become another loud-mouth Republican who will declare war on "them" -- whoever the "them" is at the moment -- to distract from his own failed policies? Um, we don't. But McCrory did vote for Amendment One to our state Constitution, denying equal rights to all citizens of North Carolina.

Most importantly -- and fundamentally, how will McCrory secure my inalienable right to Life as defined in our state Constitution?

Post #141 Sympathy For The Devil *

Songwriters: Mick Jagger / Keith Richards

Please allow me to introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and fate

I was 'round when Jesus Christ
Had his moments of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that Pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game

I stuck around St. Petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the Czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain

I rode a tank
Held a General's rank
When the Blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
What's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah

I watched the glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the Gods they made

I shouted out
"Who killed the Kennedys?"
Well after all
It was you and me

Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached Bombay

I wrote the GOP plank *
Tax cuts for the wealthy, help for no one else *
I killed religion in America *
'Love thy neighbor' is now every man for himself *

America, America, a dead society *
We are all adrift in this great big sea *
Ain't ya proud? I know I am *
'All men are created equal' has been dissed *

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game, ooh yeah

Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails just call me Lucifer
I'm in need of some restraint

So if you meet me, have some courtesy
Have some sympathy and some taste
Use all your well learned politics
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, mmm yeah

Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, mmm yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, get down
Woo hoo, ah yeah, get on down, oh yeah

Tell me, baby, what's my name?
Tell me, honey, baby guess my name
Tell me, baby, what's my name?
I'll ya one time you're to blame

What's my name?
Tell me, baby, what's my name?
Tell me, sweetie, what's my name?

* additional lyrics by TheDaF

Post #340 A Day That Will Live In Infamy, Pt. V

Bigot, n - intolerant person: somebody with strong opinions, especially on politics, religion, sexual preferences or ethnicity, who refuses to accept different views

As of May 8, 2012, bigotry is in the North Carolina Constitution. Hope the day never comes when I am seen as one of "them" -- men who are losing their hair? -- and can be denied the same rights as everyone else. We all know that most child molesters are men who are losing their hair, and we must protect the children! :p

Article I, section 1 now reads "We hold it to be self-evident that all persons (except for those homos) are created equal; that they (except for them) are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights."

Bigots are quick to point out that there are now 32 states with a 'marriage between 1 man and 1 woman' amendment -- and only 38 states are needed to amend the U.S. Constitution. But what bigots fail to mention -- understand? -- is that North Carolina is only 1 of 17 states to ban civil unions, too. Our dim-witted cousins in South Carolina have done the same thing. But the prospects of writing bigotry into the U.S. Constitution are pretty slim.

Guess what? Homosexuals are still here and will continue to be here. Despite what that "preacher' from the hills of North Carolina says when he wants to put homosexuals in concentration camps -- have you seen that video on YouTube?

* sigh *

Post #339 Free John Edwards! Pt. II :p

Whatever happened to limiting the size and scope of the federal government?

The problem with the trial of John Edwards is that the prosecution is putting the cart BEFORE the horse. No crime was committed. The prosecution is using the court system to retroactively change the definition of what is a campaign contribution. There is no 'Edwards' rule, making it illegal for a pregnant mistress of a candidate to get a gift. Now, I'd support such a rule, but that rule needs to be deliberated, passed and written. Let's follow the law, shall we?

Call me ol' fashioned, but, if I ran a stop sign, I'd expect to be charged with running a stop sign -- not a traffic violation complete with a jury trial to determine who benefited from my running of a stop sign. That is the problem: Edwards violated no law, there is no rule about running a stop sign -- to continue the tale. But he is being charged with a traffic violation complete with a jury trial to determine who benefited from him running of a stop sign.

We ought to reject this kind of judicial activism that will lead to who-knows-what-all. I say letting the government get away with using the court system to retroactively change the definition of what is a campaign contribution is more dangerous than letting Edwards get away with soliciting "hush money" to hide his pregnant mistress. The proper way "to get tough" is through the legislative branch. Hopefully, the jury will do the right thing, limit the federal government's reach and end this madness!

What we are left with is private citizens X and Y gave gifts -- and paid gift taxes on those gifts, by the way -- to private citizen Z. No money went to Edwards or his campaign. Edwards, a slimy sleezeball, played by the rules as they were written at the time. It's time to move on.

Did Edward do "wrong?" Of course -- and he will be hounded to his unmarked grave. Edwards had sex with a woman other than his dying wife and then long refused to acknowledge the child that resulted. But his life is over, public and private. He will never go to the Angus Barn -- THE place to eat in Raleigh -- in peace again, and Domino's Pizza will not deliver to his house, and he will hear the taunts from the playground:
"Ma Ma, where's my pa?"
"NOT in the White House, ha ha ha!"

The everlasting shame of John Edwards is that there really are two Americas but no one will address that for another generation....

Post #338 Obama's War

My 2nd cousin, Michael, 19-years-old, has been injured in a mortar attack on his base in Afghanistan -- burns and shrapnel in his chest. He was evacuated to Germany and then to Bethesda in D.C. He had broken his foot during training but went with his unit to Afghanistan anyway and was given a desk job. He is still undergoing therapy but is going to be OK. :)

And now President Obama wants to continue that War -- after cleaning up George W. Bush's mess, he wants to add his own mess: Thus, Obama's War.

I believe in giving the military whatever they need to accomplish a clear and well-defined mission. Building roads and schools does not qualify. That is something best left to the State Department and foreign aid.

Obviously, our strategy has devolved into 'the best defense is a good offense.' In other words, we are over there for the sake of being over there. In my opinion, that is not good enough. We need to improve our defense -- monitoring communications (translators), spies -- as a good offense cannot be sustained forever. 'The best defense is a good offense' only works in timed events, like a football game. It is a losing strategy against terrorism.

Good Luck with that.

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.