“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four; calling a tail a leg doesn’t make it a leg.” – Abraham Lincoln
Recently, a liberal blogger, heady with the euphoria of select Democrats forcing the passage of the Health Care Takeover of 2010, in the face of bipartisan resistance, published a post precociously titled “No, You Cannot Have Your Country Back.” in response to the cries of some conservative Americans, who watched the proceeding in horror, realizing to what extent this bill proposes to entangle government into the lives of every day Americans.
The post did its level best to tar those opposed to the government usurpation in the predictable terms, with retardation soaked references to “Our Country” [that of conservatives] having ended with the Emancipation Proclamation, taking the standard leftist accusation of “Racism!” in the face of resistance and delivering it indirectly (What a clever boy! Maybe MSNBC will give you a show!). These accusations are no substitute for arguments, and people of substance no longer accept this as the condemnation and assault on character that they once did. We would rather deal in the currency of proof and logic rather than the economy of ignorant emotion and spittle-flecked baseless denunciation. It also contained the predictable attempts to describe how this monstrosity is simply Congress fulfilling its “power” to provide for the general welfare, and declaring this presumptive overreach a moral undertaking, done to fulfill the right to pursue happiness. Shockingly, it doesn’t sound any more intelligent when he said it than when the Speaker of the House waxed eloquent with the same sophistry upon the passage of the bill.
But it also reveals a nearly incomprehensible arrogance and inability to grasp the most basic of realities.
This country is not for you to take.
Success in incrementally usurping authority that you were never intended to have has emboldened you to the point of unrestrained cockiness. You have built your power on the dependency of people too gullible to believe that they could not manage their own affairs without the “assistance” of a government entirely too eager to be generous to a select few with the earnings of many others. You cloaked your own intentions with a cloying excuse about how you only intended to help those less fortunate, and you tacked conditions upon this assistance that destroyed the families of those “assisted” and made government the de facto head of these families. You fostered a sense of entitlement that would soon dwarf any charitable intent raised as a justification of such “assistance” to begin with. And then you fed the beast. You fed the beast until it became so bloated, and so unwieldy that it became the exception that ate the rule. Your subjects, totally dependent upon you soon accepted the premise that the entitlements that for decades had supplanted individual ambition was a right, given to them by a generous and benevolent government.
But no matter how much you have attempted to teach and breed the knowledge out of us, we as Americans do indeed have particular rights, and they are not granted to us by the government; we took hold of them despite government. This is our birthright, a legacy of centuries, of something so precious that the very Declaration of these rights echos across the generations, and looks upon we, the keepers our own liberties, with a stern countenance, and reminds us to this day that we have a republic, if we can keep it.
The utopia that you, our self-appointed betters, keep trying to push upon us is not what the Founding Fathers had in mind for we, their posterity. Any man who must look to the government as the provider of the necessities of his own well-being, is not, and cannot be free. Free men know that the only proper role of government is as the guardian of his rights to control every aspect of his own destiny and to be secure in the ability to provide for himself in the manner in which he sees fit, unmolested by the petty jealousies and covetous actions of his neighbors. The recent actions of Congress and the President do not honor the principles on which this nation was founded; those men knew a government that purports to regulate any market in which it also competes is an enemy of freedom. Any government which does so funded by the public fisk with the intent to drive competitors out of business is a thief, and any government which wraps itself in moral pronouncements and self-congratulations as it does so is a liar and sophist.
When we seized our God-given rights, and threw off the yoke of an oppressive government an ocean away, we did not do so with the intent to assemble our own hydra-headed beast here on our shores, poking a head into every aspect of how we live our lives, how we spend our money, and how we choose to live. This bill, by its very nature, will necessarily lead to government making decisions about our treatment, our diets, and our incomes. By its nature, this intrusion into our personal and private decisions, this peering into our individual bank accounts, this ability to pass judgment on our diets and other decisions that we were formerly free to make without such intrusion violate restrictions on government placed upon it by “We the People” with the ratification of the Bill of Rights. A government free to do such things is one that is no longer restrained by the Fourth Amendment “The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
No matter how hard you try, you cannot change the meaning of these words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
These words were not committed to paper to proclaim a belief in the idea that all men are and should be of equal condition. Indeed, if they had intended such a thing to be true, then they would have designed a government that would not have expressly enumerated powers to the government, and specifically stated that others were reserved to smaller sovereigns, and the people themselves. Indeed, if this had been their intent, then there would have been no mention of people having themselves, houses, papers, and effects to have secure from government intrusions, because a government intended to enforce equality of condition could not allow any notion of privacy or private property to exist. The equality that Jefferson spoke of was equality of opportunity, the idea that anyone with the same abilities and the same ambition could achieve the same things for themselves. This notion was embodied in the lives of these men, who were all well-educated, but possessed varying levels of ambition and ability to go with their well-trained intellect.
This gulf that exists between the nation that was, and the nation that you would foist upon us, is likely to breed contempt between the champions of each. Passions will be inflamed between such people. Both will claim that righteousness is part and parcel of their cause. However, there is no morality in a belief that one has the right or duty to declare that another makes too much and must be compelled to give generously to those who don’t make enough. When we empower those who believe that there is, there will never be any incentive for restraint, and those who have more, for what ever the reason, be it the result of harder and longer labor, shrewd investment, or inheritance can never be secure in the belief that government represents them. Any government that would so victimize some its people and give what it steals to others no longer has the consent of the governed. And when a free people recognize that their government no longer subscribes to the principles set forth in its charters and bylaw, chiefly limited government and fiscal responsibility, and talk of restoring the government they were born to, it cannot be treason, no matter how much the unwittingly enslaved wish it to be. Nor can it be sedition, as those who would support tyrants want it to be, as such a “crime” can only exist as an affront to the right of free speech. We have a right to be angry with those who would lie to us as part of their attempt to steal from us, and put us under the yoke of a mediocrity that will make us all equal, with a few of us more equal than the rest. We have a right to express the idea that such a government no longer enjoys our consent, and that such betrayals earn the penalties reserved for betrayal. Because being an American still means something. And that something is not soft tyranny of dependency on government, and the hard tyranny of a government that presumes to retain the consent of the governed while usurping rights reserved to the states, and the people themselves. If you choose enslavement, there are plenty of places you can go, but we will not be chained because you are not willing to believe in yourselves, and instead are willing to cede your freedoms and responsibilities to government in exchange for whatever it chooses to let you have. The promise of the New World was for people who would make their own destiny. The Old World still exists for those who want to mire themselves in the restraints of collectivism and dependency on welfare states.
We live in a free country. It is not for you to take. And we will not be shamed or cowed into accepting your chains. The tyranny of political correctness holds no sway over us, because we do not live in a world where we perceive ourselves victims, and need government to legitimize a perception of ourselves as such. And when we find that you have gone too far, and taken too much, there will be no more warning. The time for talk will indeed be over, and unlike your Chicago Messiah™, we will not continually proclaim it, like the insecure pretender who continually repeats himself because he believes that no one of consequence is paying attention to him. When we stop talking, then you will understand the admonition against angering a patient person.
I’ll say this BiW, you must have kicked ass in moot court in law school. The rhetorical flourishes in this piece abound. Bravo!
Let’s start with your most fundamental premise … it is not “my” country to take. I would then counter, that by saying “I want my country back”, Tea Party members believe it is their country to take, and I respond just as you did, it is not YOUR country to take.
The pre-revolutionary Tea Party protested taxation without representation. That simply does not apply today. If you are not happy with your representation, if they have inadequately represented you, vote them out. Plain and simple. To the extent that you cannot vote them out, that is the extent to which the majority of Americans do not believe in your agenda. If you succeed in voting them out, then you get to play ball your way.
Then your argument is not with Barack Obama but with Woodrow Wilson. Are you in favor of repealing the progressive income tax we currently use?
Absolutely which is why the opportunity to have access to affordable health care regardless of station is completely consistent with Jefferson.
Again, you are so right. Nancy Pelosi so beautifully framed this argument because the average person cannot control his destiny by moving from job to job due to the covetous actions of the insurance industry. As long as the insurance industry can rake in money, unrestrained, making the only marginally affordable insurance that provided by an employer, then you cannot truly be free. You cannot start a business without fear of serious illness bankrupting you.
The Affordable Care Act, while imperfect (I have NEVER denied that) is precisely designed to protect the freedoms of Americans to pursue a life where serious illness will not ruin them. When you are confronted with the fact that every civilized industrialized country on this planet has tackled this, and we have not, your response is to disparage the other countries. At what point are you going to care enough about your fellow man to come to the table with solutions and stop pretending that it is 1776 all over again?
Oh BiW, forgive me if I don’t debate you here AND on the Hostages site. I supposed I could just copy/paste my comments but it would get a bit tedious.
LOL I do have to chuckle at how you fried their brains though. I also admire your insertion of boobs to keep their attention. 🙂
BiW,
If I read the Obama useful idiot correctly, while U.I. states that unlike our ancestors we do have recourse to throw the bums out, he tacitly admits that we just were taxed without representation.
Leave it to the shallow Rutherford to not recognize that raises a whole list of possibilities. I wonder if he would also admit we could just leave him high and dry like our founders did King George?
Rutherford and his band of dependent leeches could not exist without our help and believe me, he knows it. That’s why the sniff of sanctimonious elitism, mixed with the piety of helping the poor (which he manages to do personally).
Rutherford would cease to exist without other’s assistance – the ultimate parasitical relationship as he bleeds the host.
Good post BIC.
Then your argument is not with Barack Obama but with Woodrow Wilson.
No. I can villify both. One unleashed a tremendous wrong on the American people, and the other thought it was a terriffic idea to compound the error, and usurp powers that were not the federal government’s to take at the same time.
Are you in favor of repealing the progressive income tax we currently use?
Absolutely. It has been one of the single most effective tools in the Democratic Socialist arsenal for building their culture of dependency. When everyone has to pay taxes, instead of just the “rich”, however we may define that this week, it wouldn’t take long for the dollars for votes machine to grind to a halt.
Absolutely which is why the opportunity to have access to affordable health care regardless of station is completely consistent with Jefferson.
Hardly. First of all, no one had health care insurance in his day, and people died all the time from not being able to see a physician. Some died despite seeing a physician. If it is a right, it would have been a right then, and you’ll note that the rights they took note of did not require government to deliver or distribute.
Secondly, collectivism was anathema to the founders. They would never have bothered recognizing rights separate of the federal government, or even those reserved to the people, including the notion of privacy and private property clearly elucidated in the 4th amendment.
Sam Adams addressed the notion of collectivism directly:
Again, you are so right.
Yes, I am, but then to say that it is the same thing that the botox-addicted Queen of the House said is to say that a Corvette is the same thing as a Chevette. Believe it or not, Rutherford, there is absolutely nothing in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution that makes it government’s duty to protect you from risk. Risk and reward go hand in hand, and the risk of being bankrupted due to illness is no different then the risk of being bankrupted when your dog mauls a child who wanders into your yard, or when the neighborhood kid runs out in front of your car when you are driving home in the dark. It is not the government’s duty to protect you from risk, and such a thing is only even remotely possible when you surrender every inch of personal autonomy you are invested with by the Charters of our freedom. risk is part of life. If you don’t want to ever live knowing that your destiny is in your hands, you don’t have to, but it isn’t your right, or the right of your heroes in Congress and the Oval Office to take that right away from me.
I don’t want a government that decides that no matter how hard I work for it, I make too much, even though what I am paid for my services is very much a function of the free market. I don’t want a government that decides that it can tell me what to eat, and what not to. I don’t want a government that decides that my mother is too old for the ankle surgery she had last year, and would rather stick her in a wheelchair, despite the fact that she could afford both the health insurance and the deductable that made it possible. I don’t want a government that kills the profit motive that drives innovation, and the demand for it that drives down the price of innovative hearings. If it did not exist, I would be condemned to deteriorating eyesight, or a butcherous surgery that would have left me confined to coke-bottle bottom glasses that still would leave me legally blind, rather than having lens implants that allow me to read license plates on cars three car-lengths in front of me and able to see colors that you, and other people cannot. And I don’t want a government that decides that it is both fitting and proper to presume to regulate an industry that it also competes in. (See Congressional Hearings re: Toyota).
Americans don’t like bullies, and that is what Congress has become.
As for your inane babling about insurance companies “raking in the dollars”, you would do well to separate your analysis from the quantity and instead focus on the percentage of profit. 2 to 5 percent isn’t a really great return for playing a vital role in a system that allows people to enjoy the highest degree of skill and innovation in the world.
When you are confronted with the fact that every civilized industrialized country on this planet has tackled this, and we have not, your response is to disparage the other countries.
Those other countries which do not treat their citizens effectively and in a timely manner, forcing those who can afford the trip and the treatment to come here and take advantage of the innovation and skill only available in a free market system? Not to mention the fact that these nations could only ever begin to think of providing these “benefits” to their sheeple because we generously spared them the full cost of defending and keeping themselves free of the ambitions of their neighbors, and the spectre of full-on Soviet agression for decades, which is one reason why it never bothered me overly much when a subject of these various enlightened nations saw fit to cast aspersions on how we chose to live; their lives were better because of the innovation we provided and the freedom we preserved for them. I didn’t have to call attention to the fact that they were behaving like ingrates. I knew it just the same.
At what point are you going to care enough about your fellow man to come to the table with solutions and stop pretending that it is 1776 all over again?
Rutherford, it simply was not for the federal government to address. Period. This is, and has been properly the purview of the individual states, and if they felt that it was necessary to address them, they were, of course, free to do so. Perhaps you have heard of Massachusetts and the delights of Romneycare. Besides, the single biggest failure to stanch the bleeding from your passionate leftist heart on this subject is that this plan does ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to keep people from dying from a lack of health insurance for so HOW MANY YEARS? However, it will start destroying business, and the prospect of employment for people immediately, gives the government access to my bank account, and control over student loans. Add the fact that it required bribery, and lies, damn lies, and the whoppers that ate the Constitution in order to pass is all the indication that one needs that this isn’t about health care, and never was.
R, then why isn’t the insurance industry against HCR? You keep saying this but they just got the federal government to mandate that every man, women and child buy their product. They just got 32 million new customers, who pray tell, in the insurance industry is against this because I’ve not heard a single one of them call it out.
Stop bleating the talking points and think for just one second before you post…
Well one has to give Rutherford his due that he is committed to his cause and core beliefs.
Rutherford please show the same regard to others when they choose to despise your values.
Also BIC would you please consider adding
Wordpress Political Blogs
as a tag.
Doing so would add your posts to this.
I for one think it would dress the tag place up a bit.
Thank you for your consideration.
Alfie
No doubt Alfie the force is strong with Rutherford, and I his humble adversary do have to give credit where credit is due. Rutherford’s allegiance to categorization of useful idiot and uber lying Obama propagandist is indeed a wonderment.
Rutherford, his family and his friends live out each day of their days politicizing the greatness of El Bomba, actively seeking to demonizing dissent of The Bomba, and determining which action most benefits the Lawson family on the public dole, future be damned.
If the religion of Rutherford politics had a “preacher”, Rutherford would be standing behind the lectern.
Most Irreverant Imam Rutherford: Most merciful OBAMA – we implore you to bestow us blessings off the backs of the evil doers, the producers, the workers! Lead us back into temptation and demonstrate your power by utterly destroying America, Oh gracious Obama! Your earthly kingdom hath come and the Obamanation of Desolation has spoken!
House of Obama congregation: OBAMA AKBAR! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN! YES WE CAN!
ululululululululullulululu….
In reverse order:
LOL, Tex you are hilarious. 🙂
Alfie, “despise” is an awfully strong word. BTW, you must inform BiW that if he is to use the “WordPress” tag, he needs to snatch if from ChenZhen’s site to pick up all the hyperlinks. (Or he can just copy it from the bottom of one of my articles since I doubt ChenZhen updates his tag anymore.)
BiW, since I’m hungry and late for lunch I’m only going to address the most ridiculous aspect of your response. Where are these thousands (or even hundreds) of foreigners deluging our hospitals in search of that great American health care? I assure you, in the industrialized nations that provide universal health care, or close to it, 99.999% of folks get care in their own country. They don’t desperately flock here for the quick fix they need. This is one of the more preposterous claims I’ve seen you and others make, always without any documentation to back it up.
LOL, this is too funny. Tex, if your representative voted for HCR then you, my poor friend, were just taxed without representation. That is absolutely true. But you see, that is the rub. We don’t control where our tax dollars go on an individual basis. You can’t attach a note to your 1040 saying “I don’t want a dollar going to Middlebury, CT because Rutherford is a douche bag.” It just doesn’t work that way. 🙂
The most you can hope for in a democracy is that your representatives vote consistent with your values. If they do not, try to vote them out. Even then, you may still lose. It’s the cost of living in our governmental construct.
And while I am at it, BiW, I would say that joining ANY organization or construct involves shared risk. When you work for a company you hope that your work combined with that of your colleagues, plus the a little luck, keeps the company afloat. All you can do is work hard. You can’t control the behavior of the folks you’ve thrown yourself in with. When you are a citizen of a country, you acknowledge that belonging in that country is better for all involved, that we would be better off as citizens than not as citizens.
The only way to avoid shared risk is anarchy. I must admit that when I read some of the stuff coming from your side of the fence lately, you sound very much like an anarchist.
OH, Imam Rutherford,
If God were to choose to give the world an enema, he would insert the tube in Middlebury, CT. This is true and equally true is my representatives did not vote for HC socialism, and do believe you are a douche bag, therefore they get my unwavering support. 😉
‘Tis a shame. You would be eating mud pies about now for lunch. 🙂
Despise is a strong word in a world that words should mean something;however,that doesn’t mean I want you dead,silenced or ignored as a human being.
As for the taxation/representation tilt the thread is taking.Cut it out.
Did you (R) want to go to Iraq? Stay in Afghanistan?Give $ to Israel? Sanction Iran? Piss off Turkey by insisting on genocide pages inserted into books that already have it? Democracy is more a multi lane highway than a two way street. HCR flawed and fatal as it is passed and the response is pretty clear as well.You can’t say health care passed due to democracy and then say it isn’t democracy for people to try to trim it.
On another note don’t go giving anarchy a blanket standing and chagrin. There are forms of anarchy that have some very good aspects to them. It isn’t all about scribbly A’s in a circle and chaos.
Also BIC for further consideration. What R references is only necessary if you want to do the group ping thing. I don’t recommend that as many of the blogs are gone.
Alfie, you took an unwarranted logical leap here. If folks want to repeal the law through legislative means (vs throwing bricks through windows) then by all means give it a try. Not likely to work but YES in a democracy that is what your next step should be.
One of us has the other at a disadvantage and I’m not quite sure which one. Since I wasn’t writing about politics back when the GOP pulled all the same “dirty tricks” that the Dem’s are pulling now, I can’t be accused of crying foul back when they were having their fun.
As for your advice to BiW … you’ve confused me. I thought you WERE recommending he do the group ping. What did you have in mind?
Tex Taylor quote of the day: “Middlebury, CT is the asshole of the world.”
I need to start collecting these quotes. I’ll call the book Shit My Cyberspace Opponent Says 😀
Hey RUTHERFORD,
Since the only place I can get you to answer questions is anywhere in the universe besides your own blog, I come here.
Check out the people you’re siding with and be proud. Pass this on to Masters Wally!! Be sure to look through all of it Joseph “Rutherford” Goebbels. 😆
Searchlight vs. L.A.: Rival Rallies Reveal Stark Right/Left Divide
http://pajamasmedia.com/zombie/2010/03/29/searchlight-vs-l-a-rival-rallies-reveal-stark-rightleft-divide/
Buwahahahahahaha…
And while I am at it, BiW, I would say that joining ANY organization or construct involves shared risk. When you work for a company you hope that your work combined with that of your colleagues, plus the a little luck, keeps the company afloat. All you can do is work hard. You can’t control the behavior of the folks you’ve thrown yourself in with. When you are a citizen of a country, you acknowledge that belonging in that country is better for all involved, that we would be better off as citizens than not as citizens.
But your statement confuses society with government, which is not something I do.
“Society in every state is a blessing, but Government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state an intolerable one: for when we suffer, or are exposed to the same miseries BY A GOVERNMENT, which we might expect in a country WITHOUT GOVERNMENT, our calamity is heightened by reflecting that we furnish the means by which we suffer. Government, like dress, is the badge of lost innocence; the palaces of kings are built upon the ruins of the bowers of paradise. For were the impulses of conscience clear, uniform and irresistibly obeyed, man would need no other lawgiver; but that not being the case, he finds it necessary to surrender up a part of his property to furnish means for the protection of the rest; and this he is induced to do by the same prudence which in every other case advises him, out of two evils to choose the least. Wherefore, security being the true design and end of government, it unanswerably follows that whatever form thereof appears most likely to ensure it to us, with the least expense and greatest benefit, is preferable to all others.”
Rutherford, what you fail to understand is that I, along with friends, will not tolerate communism.
BiW, since I’m hungry and late for lunch I’m only going to address the most ridiculous aspect of your response. Where are these thousands (or even hundreds) of foreigners deluging our hospitals in search of that great American health care? I assure you, in the industrialized nations that provide universal health care, or close to it, 99.999% of folks get care in their own country. They don’t desperately flock here for the quick fix they need. This is one of the more preposterous claims I’ve seen you and others make, always without any documentation to back it up.
Rutherford, you really need to work on your reading comprehension. You’re asking a question about something I never said.
What I said was:
“Those other countries which do not treat their citizens effectively and in a timely manner, forcing those who can afford the trip and the treatment to come here and take advantage of the innovation and skill only available in a free market system?”
“Those who can afford the trip and the treatment”…that doesn’t imply throngs and masses teeming to our shores for care. Instead, it recognizes that that in these enlightened nations that have created paradises on Earth by making everyone equal have “somehow” allowed a few people to fall through the cracks and become more equal. And when these more equal have a medical condition to be addressed, they choose to come here, and get the best care possible, on their own terms. That demonstrates real problems, both with the execution of equality, and the standard of care provided under such systems. And lucky us…you want to make us just like them, only better! One system for the peons, and another for the political class!
Hey! How good is Obamacare going to be? Let’s see Hippie Prof, Rutherford, Wally or the rest of the commie loving regime defend this…
Exempted From Obamacare: Senior Staff Who Wrote the Bill
http://newledger.com/2010/03/exempted-from-obamacare-senior-staff-who-wrote-the-bill/
Why would anybody need exemption from this beauty Rutherford?
Have you trained your troll to come back on its own or do you have go out and give cookies to lure him in?
I liked the whole morph your statement re coming to the US for healthcare to the troll version….. and then demanding statistics even….
Enjoyed the piece, hope you and yours are well…. dont forget us over at the other place..
Another Obama campaign promise goes astray…and since Rutherford is always complaining about “the source”, will a picture do numbnuts?
http://campaignspot.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NTM5YWRhZGRiOTVmMzk1OTk2NDUzODRkYjg0Mjk1YmI=
[…] Not For You To Take […]
[…] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Frank. Frank said: Not For You To Take « Taxes, Stupidity, and Death: http://bit.ly/cfGBMS via @addthis […]
[…] Big Media Says It’s Evidence of How Stupid Tea Partiers Are Taxes, Stupidity, and Death: Not For You To Take Michelle Malkin: “Tea Klanner:” The Left’s shameless new smear and Denver radicals issue Tea […]
[…] Big Media Says It’s Evidence of How Stupid Tea Partiers Are Taxes, Stupidity, and Death: Not For You To Take Michelle Malkin: “Tea Klanner:” The Left’s shameless new smear and Denver radicals issue Tea […]
[…] Big Media Says It’s Evidence of How Stupid Tea Partiers Are Taxes, Stupidity, and Death: Not For You To Take Michelle Malkin: “Tea Klanner:” The Left’s shameless new smear and Denver radicals issue Tea […]
[…] Video: Rush to Obama – Thank You for Waking the Sleeping Giant Taxes, Stupidity, and Death: Not For You To Take Michelle Malkin: Obama mocks, we remember: and “Tea Klanner:” The Left’s shameless new smear […]
[…] a Mad Conservative: Willing useful idiots to aid in Obama re-election Taxes, Stupidity, and Death: Not For You To Take Michelle Malkin: Obama mocks, we remember: and “Tea Klanner:” The Left’s shameless new smear […]
[…] a Mad Conservative: Willing useful idiots to aid in Obama re-election Taxes, Stupidity, and Death: Not For You To Take Michelle Malkin: Obama mocks, we remember and Denver radicals issue Tea Party crash call: “Cut […]