A Boston Tea Party …(Ward Of The State)

I realize it is not the proper way to act but would someone in Colorado please punch this Ward Churchill guy in the mouth. Enough is enough already. I get the whole free speech thing but what this guy keeps saying is repulsive. Certainly, I am not the only person who has had about all they can take of his hate speech. He definitely thinks he is the big man on campus.

The more I see of him in his long hair and macho talk the more I find he resembles the professor in “Animal House” played by Donald Sutherland. Can’t you just picture this so called native American relaxing by smoking some weed and putting the moves on one of his students? You know just impressing her with his amazing intellect on how America is such a terrible country. How we are the root of all the world’s problems. You can see how full of himself this guy really is.

Can there be anything more pathetic than being a college professor lecturing to a bunch of young impressionable college students? What an ego trip it must be. It reminds me of my days in radio where these 20-30 year old DJ’s thought so much of themselves because they were so popular with kids between the ages of 11-13. Being cheered by a bunch of college students who have yet to do anything in life, Churchill thinks he is much more important than he really is.

If this Ward of the state of Colorado were not protected by the stupidity of something called tenure, he would be a nobody. This man could not function in the world outside academia. To those of us in the real world he is no more than a characture of college elites. Unrepentant assholes like Churchill strongly bring the definition of tenure to mind. I for one cannot accept the thought that anyone is guaranteed employment. If you are not qualified or do something to embarrass your employer, you should lose your job. The citizens they work for must hold Churchill and others like him responsible. Since he probably won’t be punched he should be fired and be made to spend a few nights at the local truck stop. Let us see how well he does lecturing them about the evil country he we live in.

Cry of The Loon …(William Hung)

In a national search reminiscent of “American Idol”, KFGO announced today that Joel Heitkamp of Hankinson would become the new host of KFGO’s “News and Views”. Evidently the talent pool was as sophisticated as what is seen on “American Idol”.

The few times I have seen parts of “American Idol”, it seems to me that anyone is allowed to perform. Talent is not a prerequisite. Most of the winners of the talent search are really not all that talented. They cannot hold a candle to many of the singers of the past. It was announced originally that KFGO would do a national search for a new host. This national search led to Joel Heitkamp? Are you kidding me? If it weren’t so transparent, one would almost call it pathetic. JOEL HEITKAMP!! The best in the nation? Hell, he probably isn’t even the best talent in Hankinson.

The fingerprints of the “Master Loon” are all over this selection. He handpicked this one without any regard to ability. As was predicted when Vern Thompson joined his national team, the choice was between Joel and Heidi. Rather than go national and find real talent, Ed decided to choose on of the two “William Hung types” that he had worked closely with in the past. Since when should talent get in the way of cronyism? I worked in the radio area for a brief time……….it is a good ‘ol boys network. Besides talent, the predictability of this selection is what makes it so hilarious. Ed you are more predictable than a cold North Dakota winter. Your actions are so easy to predict it isn’t even challenging anymore. I can only imagine how R.D. Knutson must be feeling right now. I hope your still friends.

Cry Of The Loon …(Nothing…Anything…Something)

Can an idiot be both contradictory and ironic? Well, This one can. The moron of the Midwest does it easily a couple times a day without even recognizing it. Ed spends so much time blabbering into the microphone that he often gives credence to Republican criticisms of Democrats. He wants so very much to condemn Republicans and their ideas but one almost wants to call and thank him for making the argument for us.

Ed mentioned on his show that Social Security does not need to be dealt with at this time in American history because we are running huge deficits. He said we couldn’t afford to make it solvent because there is not enough money to pay for it. His feelings were that the deficit should trump any Social Security reforms. If you had only heard his show for those few minutes, you could accept his argument. However, if you heard the man speak the week before about how he could not understand how Republicans could cut spending in their budget plans, you would think deficits were not that big of a deal. Confused? Me too. Somehow Ed can wrap his little mind around both arguments. I know him…….i am not surprised.

Another instance of Ed confusing the argument is when he talked this past week about relinquishing Rev. Jerry Fallwell’s tax-exempt status. It might be my imagination but for every Jerry Fallwell the right has there is a Jesse Jackson for the left. Both men are given tax-exempt status. If we call for the end of Rev. Fallwell’s status should we not also call for an end to Jackson’s status? Not in Ed’s world.

Idiots can speak. It is what they say that makes them idiots. It is very similar to when Ted Kennedy talks about someone drowning or swimming. One is left to wonder if they even realize how easily they make themselves out to be idiots. My hunch is Ed does not. He is to busy spewing nothing that never really amounts to anything that only he believes is something. Confused? I’m sure he is.

A Boston Tea Party …(Hey, Look)

Yesterday we were told that we should not be surprised if terrorists are plotting another attack against the homeland of the United States. This stunning (sarcasm) announcement came on the heels of the previous day’s news that the President was asking for another $80 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Coincidence, I think not.

I have problems with both of these two pronouncements. First of all allow me to discuss safety. WE ARE NOT SAFE. IF YOU THINK SO THEN YOU ARE A FOOL. Don’t forget the golden rule, government does nothing well. Just because Washington talks a good game does not mean it is actually happening. If you do any research on air safety, intelligence, or border patrol you will notice one common thread. WE AREN’T DOING ANYTHING CLOSE TO WHAT IS NEEDED TO PROTECT THE CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES FROM FURTHER ATTACKS. We have not been attacked for one simple reason. The terrorists have not yet decided how or when it will happen. WE throw money and words at homeland security while continually failing to take the action it requires. Political correctness, government inefficiency, and cost are the main reasons. As Newt Gingrich says in his new book “Winning the Future”, we need to triple the amount of money being spent on national security before we even begin to do what is necessary to actually keep Americans safe. Tripling the amount of money spent….hmmm….what a great segue into my other problem.

I was so excited to hear during the State of the Union speech that the President was going to cut 150 federal programs in his new budget. A few weeks later I have learned the cuts are not quite as dramatic as he made them sound that night. Those same 150 programs amount to $20 billion, equaling a cut of eight tenths of one percent (.008). Yes, that is right we have heard complaints about cutting eight tenths of one percent of the total budget. This country truly has turned into a dependency citizenry. Last wek on “the O’Reilly Factor” Newt Gingrich whimsically told Bill O’Reilly that one could cut $50 billion out of the budget without really having to look too hard. Then they both laughed at the absurdity of the comment. I have a real suggestion for spending cuts. If Bush wants another $80 billion for the war then he should have to cut $80 billion from some other spending. To do so he would have to cut a whopping (sarcasm) 3.2 percent of the proposed spending. Imagine the outrage from Congress and the public. I have two cars, if I want a new one I have to decide which of my two cars I am willing to get rid of so that I can afford the new one. All budgets require choices, most much more than eight tenths of one percent.

The government tells us all what we want to hear. The skies are safe. Bullsh**! The borders are secure. Bullsh**! America is safer than we were before. Bullsh**! Spending is being reduced. Bullsh**! Conservatism still exists. Bullsh**! America will sacrifice for freedom. Bullsh**! The federal government plays the easiest trick in the book on us. If you want to distract a child, to keep them from seeing something you don’t want them to see, you yell, “Hey look over there” as you point the in the other direction. While the child turns their head you hide what you don’t want them to see. The governments gets us looking the wrong way with the words they use hoping to distract us from what they don’t want us to know. It is the people’s fault that the government is not required to be upfront and honest with us. We allow the deceit.

A Boston Tea Party …(Kofi’s Klub)

The outrage for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison is still being vocalized by the far left and the print media. Placing Iraqi prisoners in embarrassing positions has been compared to what Saddam Hussein did when he tortured his own citizens. While the actions of a few in our military were deplorable, there was at least an explanation for the actions. They were trying to humiliate the enemy to gain intelligence information. These actions become even more reasonable when compared to rape. Yes, I said rape.

United Nations soldiers on peacekeeping missions in Africa are committing rapes of young girls, the very people they have put in charge of protecting. Soldiers are providing food to starving young black girls in exchange for sex. Now most of these soldiers are multilateral forces from Uruguay, Tunisia, and other third world countries. The main point though is that the people that U.N. forces are protecting are in fear of them. It has gotten so bad that in the Congo U.N. officials are being forbidden from having any contact with the natives. Like most things being done by the U.N., these orders have been ineffective. Brian Ross of ABC’s “20/20” showed video of soldiers and even top U.N. officials entering clubs and leaving with young women after the orders were given to prevent such interaction. The parents of these young women are outraged and want the U.N. peacekeepers removed. He reported that the reason for the interest in very young girls is that the soldiers have less chance of getting aids. The final straw in this pathetic scandal is that these same soldiers are leaving behind babies that they financially will not be supporting.

This is all happening on Kofi Annan’s watch. Just like the Oil-For-Food rip-off, the top dog at the U.N. has failed in his responsibilities. If you are a member of Kofi’s Klub then outrage seems not to materialize. It is time the left and the print media join Republicans like Norm Coleman in asking for his resignation. They should be doing so as loudly as they screamed for Donald Rumsfeld’s job over Abu Ghraib. For my tastes rape seems much more indefensible that does embarrassing war combatants. The United Nations needs a shake-up from top to bottom. Lets see if the Democrats and media types hold them to the same standards as they do our soldiers.

Cry Of The Loon …(And The Oscar Goes Too)

It is Oscar season. In the next few weeks we will learn whom in Hollywood will win an Oscar for their performance. Many articles have been written about who deserves to be the winners. Today, I offer up two nominations worthy of nomination for “political character actor of the year”. The nominations are: Ed Schultz for his role in “The Ed Schultz Show”, where he plays a talk show host recently converted to liberalism. The other nominee is Hilary Rodham Clinton for her role in “A Move To The Middle”, where she plays a liberal recently open to more centrist ideas. Allow me to provide some background just in case you have missed one or both of these performances.

Hilary’s performance takes place as she pushes for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. We have not seen such a stunning, far reaching performance since Jane Fonda starred in "Agnes of God". Hilary gives a very calculated performance by giving speeches that begin with prayer and praising God. She talks about the hope that women never ever again need another abortion. In what many call “her performance of a lifetime” she even votes for a black woman for Secretary of State while 12 others from her party do not. This performance leaves it up to the audience’s imagination on whether or not her conversion is genuine and the ending fails to show whether she does gain the nomination in 2008. The reason so many are applauding her performance is that rarely have we seen such a premeditated attempt at playing your exact opposite. It is rare when an actor can actually play the part so well that she is able to make her audience vomit. Her acting is made that much more believable with the silence of NARAL, Planned Parenthood, and NOW.

As much as Hilary’s performance leaves the audience in suspense, Ed’s performance does not. This is a performance that leads one down a money trail. Like Hilary’s, Ed’s act is career worthy. Many have related his willingness to do anything for money to that of some of the best hookers to ever take part in Hollywood movies. One review stated, “Ed plays a slut better than any man I know.” His most convincing scene is when he actually shows how bought and paid for he really is by supporting Ted Kennedy on a regular basis. He shows his versatility as an actor by often changing his accent from Midwestern to southern, reminiscent of his Virginia upbringing. Ed plays a very juvenile talk show host but does so with his total being. You can tell he really gets into the role. He works hard at allowing us to realize that you can make it in this world without really knowing anything. Ed allows the audience to get so close they can almost touch him. He puts himself out there as a mouth for hire and his performance should provide more opportunities to advance his career. Hollywood movies are always in need of hookers whether a high priced call girl or a street ho. This performance shows Ed is versatile enough to play either. One minute he tells a caller, "to shove it up his ass" and the next he is close to tears as he says, "I think they are still my friends." Pure and simple the man has total range as an actor.

And The Oscar Goes Too ?

A Boston Tea Party …(Gridlock TV)

I am a big fan of talk radio and cable news shows. Shows like “Hannity and Combs”, “Hardball”, “Meet the Press”, “Crossfire”, “Scarborough Country”, and “This Week with George Stephonapolous” usually have a guest from each party debating the issues of the day. For a independent logical thinker like myself, these shows continually annoy the heck out of me.

Parts of each show contain cardboard cutout formats. A topic is proposed and as soon as it is opened for discussion by the host, the answers from each party will be as predictable as the sun coming up each morning. Am I the only one this annoys? What the hell good is it to continually know the respective views on a topic before the guests even utter a word? There are a few certainties I can give you if you are new to the debate shows. They are as follows:

1. All Republicans will never criticize fellow Republicans.
2. All Democrats will never criticize fellow Democrats.
3. All Democrats will not agree with any Republican idea.
4. All Republicans will not agree with any Democratic idea.
5. A question will rarely get answered directly.

Another annoying part of these cookie cutter shows is that the host will at times allow a guest to spew nothing but pure B.S. on a particular topic. Most of them must be well studied enough on the topics of the day to understand the basic facts of a topic yet they will sit across the table from a guest and allow them to give out huge amounts of misinformation. What good does that do? News shows should be a place to go to get facts not just anyone’s opinion without regard to facts. On the few occasions where a host calls on a guest to answer a question directly, the guest somehow worms his or her way out of it. Why not cut-off the guest’s microphone if they are unwilling to answer without spin? Why not tell your audience that what the guest said was not factual? Why not challenge the guests? My hunch is that if you did, the host would have no guests. Just because we have gridlock in Washington does that mean we should have gridlock TV? Shouldn’t the host or hosts be more than just moderators?

In many ways gridlock TV is no better than the crap we get in our left leaning newspapers. Anyone in search of the truth is left to find it for themselves. Gridlock TV contributes to the concept of “versions of the truth”. For example if you want the truth on Social Security you will not find it on cable news shows. The host won’t demand it and the guests will distort it. We have reality TV all over the evening programming; maybe someday we can have a single factual cable news show where only guests that value truth would be allowed. Now that would be groundbreaking television. For now “The O’Reilly Factor” might be as close as we get. He seems to be the only one who doesn’t find it an absolute that a respective guest needs to be offset with a guest from the other party.

A Boston Tea Party …(12.1 Reasons)

If you listen to Democrats, one would think that Social Security is the best thing ever created by man. We have all heard that it is the third rail of politics and is untouchable for politicians. Republicans are offering a new reform but Democrats won’t even listen to any potential changes to this mainstay of Americana. This seems confusing to me because if the system is so wonderful why don’t politicians take part in it?

This is the one main question that needs to be thrown in anyone who opposes Social Security reforms. As of now I have not heard any politician answer this question. Why are they opting for a savings plan rather than joining the plan all of America is involved with. George Will writes in last weeks “Newsweek” that the thrift savings plan that all federal employees are members of returned a rate of 12.1 percent over the last 17 years. Those last 17 years included the dot com bubble and the recession that followed 9/11. The thrift savings plan allows them to diversify their investment into very safe secure choices. My hunch is that each member is very happy with the results.

Social Security returns 1 – 1.5 percent on your money. It does not take a rocket scientist to figure out why federal employees including all Congressmen prefer a different system.
I have 12.1 reasons why I want their thrift savings plan to be available to all Americans. They have one reason why they don’t. They get to spend the money received as Social Security taxes but would not be able to spend money placed into private accounts. I say if they are willing to join our system then I will understand an argument against reforming Social Security. Each politician should be asked why they prefer their system to ours.

A Boston Tea Party …(Not Another Word)

The Democrats reaction was to President Bush’s budget was expected. It has always been obvious to me that their stance on deficits was hypocritical. It is all about raising taxes to balance the budget. Have you ever heard one single Democrat name a federal program that should be done away with? Don’t hold your breath, it will never happen.

Something that needs to happen is that a Republican controlled Congress needs to finally walk the walk rather than talk the talk. There will be no excuses if spending is not cut. It is already being debated whether Republicans will fall in line and support Bush’s budget. The word conservatism should be considered obsolete if Republicans lose the will power to act on spending cuts. They are right on lowering taxes and now need to be legitimate deficits hawks. If they choose too keep the status quo then it should be expected that we don’t hear another word on deficits. Two trillion dollars is being spent in this budget and they can’t find any waste? There should easily be twice as many programs that should be eliminated than the 150 Bush is asking for. Republicans in the next few weeks will make it obvious to me whether they are real or fake conservatives. I hope for the best but recent history says it won’t happen. If this opportunity for deficit reduction is lost then I guess deficits don’t really matter to either party.

A Boston Tea Party …(Conrad’s Box)

Kent Conrad is concerned with deficits and social security. They have been his two babies since he came into office. This week President Bush announced a plan to reform social security and next week he will propose a budget that tightens the fiscal belt of the federal government.

Did you hear that fellow conservatives? He is throwing us a bone to chew on. President Bush is going to cut spending. He said. “I will send you a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation, makes tax relief permanent, and stays on track to cut the deficit in half by 2009. My budget substantially reduces or eliminates more than 150 government programs that are not getting results, or duplicate current efforts, or do not fulfill essential priorities. The principle here is clear: taxpayer dollars must be spent wisely, or not at all”.

President Bush has handed Senator Conrad ways to solve his two biggest issues. How has Conrad reacted? He signed a letter with fellow Democratic Senators saying that any plan to reform social security is immoral. I am confident he won’t be satisfied with the cutting of any federal programs as well when the budget comes out next week. You see for Senator Conrad it isn’t solving the issue that matters rather it is solving the issue his way. His way means raising taxes. He would prefer we solve social security by raising the limit on payroll earnings that are taxable. He believes in solving the budget problems by raising taxes on the rich. He talks a great game about spending responsibly but it is not spending that he is willing to cut. He wants more of your money to spend. These two issues will help to define where exactly Mr. Conrad stands. I know where he stands and hopefully in the coming weeks so will everyone else. President Bush can take these contradictions and place Mr. Conrad in a political box. A box hopefully his next opponent can crush.

A Boston Tea Party …(Half-Truth)

Yesterday on KFGO’s News and Views Democratic Congressman Earl Polmeroy was speaking about social security. Obviously, he was arguing that social security did not need any reforms. As his appearance was about to come to an end he said he wanted to leave the audience with one final comment. He wanted those under 55 to remember that their social security benefit will decrease if President Bush’s reform plan is adopted.

What Polmeroy did was use the art of the half-truth. Half-truths work well in politics. They allow you to scare the opposition while allowing the self respect of telling the truth. Allow me to explain. Under President Bush’s plan you will take your 7.5 percent that is being paid into social security right now and split it into two accounts. For this example lets assume you take the full 4 percent the reform is allowing to go to your private account. Account “A”, our social security money, will be getting 3.5 percent of your payroll tax (7.5 percent minus the 4 percent you place in your private account) and account “B” will be getting 4 percent of your payroll tax (this is your private account). When you retire, account “A” will have 3.5 percent of your total payroll taxes and account “B” will have 4 percent plus any income earned in the bonds or stocks that you invested in. When you start withdrawing your money you will only be allowed to take 3.5 percent from account “A” because that is all you put in there. This is where Polmeroy tweaks the truth. Obviously, your social security payout will be less because you put less into it. You only put 3.5 percent into social security while the other 4 percent is in your own private account. It would be expected then that you could not draw out more than 3.5 percent from your social security account. When you combine that 3.5 percent with the 4 percent you will be withdrawing from your personal account you get the same as you would had you put it all in account "A" (social security). The one major difference is you will also be able to withdraw any income made from bond or stock investments.

Polmeroy is correct you will get less from social security if you choose to put money in your private account. He states the obvious while purposely not mentioning the total facts. You will be getting more money in total between the two accounts. The audience is left with a half-truth too contemplate. Another reason to investigate any comment a Democrat makes that is against a certain policy. If your prefer the whole truth, you are better off not listening to them at all. Lets hope the whole truth wins.

A Boston Tea Party …(You Can’t Handle The Truth)

Let the misinformation begin. The battleground for Social Security has been brought to the attention of the American public with the President’s state of the union speech. He spoke of the problems with the current system and his ideas on fixing those problems. Over the next few months we will hear plenty of misrepresentation about those problems. I want to clarify the truth and why many can’t handle the truth.

1. People in Congress are allowed to invest in thrift savings accounts. They have a wonderful health care system. For some reason they don’t want Americans to have the same as they do. When President Bush spoke about this in his speech only one side of the isle stood and clapped. Why don’t Democrats want you to have the same opportunity for savings as they have?

2. Many current retirees get much more money back from social security than they pay in. Why, because they are living longer and did not make much money during their lives. Even though they are getting more than they paid they want more. If any one in politics even brings up raising the retirement age or lowering their benefit they are certain to be voted out of office. Why shouldn’t the benefit increase with inflation rather than being indexed to a much higher level. Most workers in America get raises based on inflation but not selfish retirees. They want all they can get and if they don’t get it they will vote you out of office.


3. Social Security is the product of a Democratic President. They feel it is their issue. If a Republican President creates a more modern Social Security system he will be remembered for it. The Democrats then lose one of their major constituencies, senior citizens. They will have no one to scare at election time.

4. One of the major lies being told about reform is that a person could lose their investment just like Enron employees did. The investment opportunities will be very, very limited. Only a few secure bonds and stocks will be allowed. Your expected return would be around 4 – 6 percent rather than the much more speculative stocks that return 15 – 20 percent. Only a moron would believe that the government would allow you to hedge your senior years on risky stocks.

5. The President says that the system will go bankrupt in 2042. Democrats say it won’t. Well, who is telling the truth? In the year 2042 the Social Security fund will not be out of money. Retirees will still get payments. Their payments will be only 70 cents for every dollar of earned benefit. That is the definition of bankruptcy. People file for bankruptcy when they cannot pay their bills in full. Social Security will not be able to pay its bills in full.


6. The issue that sticks in my craw the most is that we have a chance to keep OUR OWN money. Why are so many people willing to blindly turn over their earnings to the federal government? You earned it, it should be yours. If we are allowed to keep our money for ourselves and earn a higher rate than we would normally, aren’t we better off? The cost of living will be ever higher as young people reach retirement. Having more money to pay for those years seems like a good idea. Not everyone has a 401k plan or pension plant at work. Politicians want you to give them YOUR money so they can continue to spend it. Every dollar kept out of the Social Security system is one dollar less for politicians to borrow against and spend.

7. Freedom of choice is what we deserve. If your weak and would rather have the federal government be your baby sitter than you will have the chance to stay in the current system. If you’re wise and want to empower yourself you will have the choice to create a personal (private) account. It doesn’t matter what you call it, personal or private, it is still yours. You own it and You keep it and You can give it to my family when You are gone.

Educate everyone one you meet on the details of what President Bush is trying to do. Always remember that a politician’s life is 2,4, or 6 years. They think only in those terms. They do what ever allows them to get re-elected. Democrats don’t want to give up their pet issue for the last 60 years because it will cost them future elections. They know senior citizens vote and if they can’t scare them on Social Security, they lose a major campaign issue. Clinton, Moynihan, and many committees have suggested parts or all of the same reforms President Bush is suggesting now. Could Democrats be rejecting them only because he is a Republican? If you don’t think so then “You can’t handle the truth”.

Cry of the Loon …(Three Blind Mice)

Three blind mice, three blind mice,
See how they speak, see how they speak,
They all ran after radio fame,
Knowledge of subject matter is not part of their game,
Of their audience, they hope they get the same,
As the three blind mice.

The first thing you are taught in debate class is too learn your subject matter inside and out. If you study and become knowledgeable on a topic you will be able to make accurate statements and perhaps persuade your audience that your argument is the correct one. Of course learning your subject matter takes effort and time as well as an ability to comprehend the information you seek.

The three blind mice of “The Ed Schultz Show” are Ed Schultz, James Holm, and Tank McNamera. Let’s just say the prefer debate “lite”. They are so busy trying to gain radio stations that they have decided a well-informed, knowledgeable host is not required. Certainly, knowledge of subject matter has never been one of Ed’s strong suites. One would have hoped that by going national his two cohorts could have convinced him that separating fact from rumor, truth from lie, or absolute from theory should be part of the responsibility of a national host. Instead they continually allow guest callers to speak without every really challenging them on the real facts of the issue. The callers are allowed the freedom to make any statement they wish regardless of how far from the truth it is. Usually the callers are softly agreed with and thanked for listening to the program.

The difference between Ed’s show and the shows of Rush’s and O’Reilly’s is that Ed will never educate his audience. His show is strictly a depository for anti-Bush bullshi*. A listener will never leave the show smarter than when he first tuned in. Quantity is more important to the three blind mice than is quality. If you have an Internet rumor or a misrepresentation of social security call the show, they welcome your involvement. Educating your audience takes the desire to know your subject matter better than they do. Either these three blind mice lack the desire or are just dense. I know the host better than I know the other two. He is dense. My hunch is the other two are following in his lead.

A Boston Tea Party …(Would Have You)

On Saturday night as the elections in Iraq were about to begin my wife and I were watching pictures of empty polling places. She commented that why would anyone want to risk their life to go out and vote. I replied, “Assume that you’re a 40 year old man in Iraq and your family and relatives had been tortured and/or murdered by Saddam Hussein. You are the only person left in your entire family and have lived with the misery that Saddam had brought to your life. Would you not say the hell with it…….there is no way anyone is keeping me from voting today? I am going to vote regardless of the potential of me losing my life. Because my life is not worth much as I sit here today. The only way I can get any satisfaction is to vote and say Saddam stick my vote up you’re a$$”.

It took personal courage be each and every Iraqi citizen to do what they did on Sunday. It was a day when they put their future ahead of their past. I know I would have joined them in voting. I wonder would have you? Everyday I become more shocked by how few people are genuinely involved in the happenings of their own government. People are so busy with their everyday lives that they fail to pay attention to things that affect those very lives. Who we elect matters. Why you elect them matters. What they do after they are elected matters. It is too bad that so few pay any attention. Our government takes OUR own money from us and many people aren’t even concerned with how it is spent. In life we often get what we deserve. These walking zombies, who would have a tough time telling you who the secretary of state is, should not complain. If more people were engaged in the process, American citizens would be more empowered to prevent the government from screwing us. Whether it be open borders for Mexican illegal aliens or spending nearly a billion dollars for a bridge for 12,000 people in Alaska, the federal government counts on a majority of the people being to busy to care. I have a hard time believing that a person in Iraq who has suffered so much will ever have such a careless attitude. Sacrifice for liberty, heck to many just take it for granted.