September 11, 2010 Soros' latest gambit
, from AMERICAN THINKERGeorge Soros, patron saint of Democrats everywhere, sugar daddy of their party, early backer of Barack Obama, funder of influential think tanks (such as the omnipresent Center for American Progress, a group that has become a media mouthpiece), and the grand champion funder of 527 groups nationwide (such as MoveOn.org) has been funding the takeover of one more branch of government: states' judiciary, according to this Washington Post:
Record spending on judicial elections around the country has prompted calls for changes from a broad array of advocates, including moderate conservatives such as retired Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
But a report issued Thursday by a small conservative group active in judicial elections alleges that the efforts to change such elections amount to a campaign to bolster liberals, with backing from financier and philanthropist George Soros.
The report from the American Justice Partnership alleges that Soros has spent millions on "a highly coordinated, well-funded campaign" to "fundamentally alter the composition of America's state courts."
Colleen Pero, a Michigan judicial activist who wrote Thursday's report, said she combed through tax records from Soros's foundations to identify more than $45 million given within the past decade to advocacy groups dealing with judicial issues.
Of course, Soros and his allies and employees are fighting back-justifying their actions by bringing out the old bugaboo of corporate America. They justify their efforts by characterizing them as defensive and, of course, they portray themselves as the selfless good guys.
Aryeh Neier, president of Soros's institute and foundations, said he is proud of efforts to limit the influence of corporations and other special interests in state courts, noting a recent Supreme Court decision that rebuked a judge for helping decide a case benefiting a coal company that supported his election.
"Increasingly there has been corrupt influence on state judiciaries through spending in elections," Neier said. "As far as I'm concerned, this is essential work to try to protect their integrity
I don't buy what they are selling. Soros is also one of the prime movers behind the Democracy Alliance - a shadowy and powerful group that, among other goals, has been trying to pick and choose who gets elected as Secretary of States in key states. These are the officials in charge of securing the integrity of elections. Does anyone think that those officials, including Minnesota's Secretary of State who was elected with help from the Democracy Alliance and where Al Franken's election to the Senate is suspect, will be completely free of the influence of George Soros and his friends?
END OF LASKY ARTICLE.
They got otherwise fairly bright Americans (Democrats) to actually believe Wall St is ALL BAD, Obama doesn't miss a chance to slam ALL CORPORATIONS...in AMERICA, imagine? And these dopes fall for it and now we're facing this kind of thing? So, what do you think? This kind of stuff's going on, Dem election fraud in 2008 has been revealed, Dems are talking amnesty for illegals (voting next, of course) and getting felons the vote.......A country whose officials have been elected by criminals, illegals and Soros connivers...........do we have a chance?
z
60 comments:
Karen, great minds think alike... There is absolutely nothing wrong with this S.O.B. that a bullet couldn't fix...
George Soros IS a corporation. In fact, he's MORE than one. I think he's mumbling about himself.
As conservatives know only too well...
The judiciary has arrogated to itself the right to refashion the nation through creative interpretation of law. Coincidentally, (of course!), the law has come increasingly to reflect the political and social positions of left wing judges, so often either appointed by left wing governments to do exactly that, or who simply exploit their untouchability.
Time and time again we see left wing activist groups successfully go over the heads of fellow citizens and their elected representatives, petitioning the courts to enforce legal changes opposed by the people. Thus are the people disenfranchised and demoralized. Thus is political strife exacerbated, because what should be resolved democratically is instead decided upon by those unelected, their decisions resisted and often considered illegitmate by the people.
Thus is political resolution denied and democracy weakened.
Well, with all due respect to MLK, I also have a dream - a super Republican majority at the federal and state levels making possible a constitutional amendment. It will make absolutely clear that the judiciary must respect the law as intended by those elected by the people to draft it. "Reading in" will be specifically outlawed, as will the notion of a "living constitution." The amending formula will be clearly stated to be the only means to alter original intent.
Thus will democracy be reinvigorated and the constitutional division of powers reestablished.
But I'm not American, so why do i care? Because the undemocratic tendency of social engineering judiciaries is an international trend. What happens for the good in one major democracy may portend changes for the better elsewhere.
Canadian Steve
David beat Goliath, I have to believe we shall overcome, Z.
Soros is Dr. Evil. We must keep a close eye on him and shine the light of public scrutiny on his activities.
The only things this evil vermin lacks are horns, a tail, & a pitchfork!
He is the perfect dedfinition of loathesome.
Silvrlady
"How can America survive SOROS?"
Through brutal assassination with a nice head shot.
I honestly do NOT believe we can survive him and his ugly plans...or his obvious attempts at bringing this country down, but I sure have HOPE that we can somehow.
It's up to US, FOLKS..most of our kids are indoctrinated or too lazy to care and don't know the Constitution, anyway...
It's OUR GENERATION, now that I think of it...kind of a daunting thought.
remember, I have said that I think that the Left pulled the Healthcare and Stimulus Packages out of their bag, this HUGE and destructive, just 10 years too early; had they waited, our elderly who know and love America as it should and can be and WAS, would be gone, and the Left knows they've got a lot of our kids thru union teachings...they're trying to get felons to vote, trying to legalize those who've come in illegally, and things like the info in my post are being done, AND voter fraud!
It's going to be a tough fight.
I'll be back much later today...
thanks for your comments
I'm glad you mentioned the judiciary and Minnesota in the same post. These two subjects combined have been a huge issue within the Republican party in the state. Whereas a great many of the party's rank and file support the electoral process for judicial appointments, Tim Pawlenty has broken from this and instead continues to support appointment.
There are of course consequences for either but at least, under the electoral process, there is recourse for the voters against judicial activism.
Al Franken's election is only suspect among paranoid right wing conspiracy theorists.
Karen - Soros is part of the evil Jewish international banking cartel.
Actually Ducky you're full of shit on that one. The statistical improbabilities of Franken's win are well documented. I wanted Coleman out and though I voted for neither I accepted the possibility that Franken could win. That he did with all the shenanigans and improbabilities is nothing conspiratorial at all but instead clear evidence of a system that needs fixing.
Stubborn facts for Ducky's reading pleasure:
Consider the following from John Lott Jr., senior research scientist at the University of Maryland, regarding the improbabilities of this particular race:
"When voters woke up on Wednesday morning after the election, Senator Norm Coleman led Al Franken by what seemed like a relatively comfortable 725 votes. By Wednesday night, that lead had shrunk to 477. By Thursday night, it was down to 336. By Friday, it was 239. Late Sunday night, the difference had gone down to just 221 -- a total change over 4 days of 504 votes.
Amazingly, this all has occurred even though there hasn’t even yet been a recount. Just local election officials correcting claimed typos in how the numbers were reported. Counties certified their results shortly thereafter, and their final results were then sent to the secretary of state on Friday. The actual recount didn't even start until November 19.
Correcting these typos was claimed to add 435 votes to Franken and take 69 votes from Coleman. Corrections were posted in other races, but they were only a fraction of those for the Senate. The Senate gains for Franken were 2.5 times the gain for Obama in the presidential race count, 2.9 times the total gain that Democrats got across all Minnesota congressional races, and 5 times the net loss that Democrats suffered for all state House races.
Virtually all of Franken’s new votes came from just three out of 4130 precincts, and almost half the gain (246 votes) occurred in one precinct -- Two Harbors, a small town north of Duluth along Lake Superior -- a heavily Democratic precinct where Obama received 64 percent of the vote. None of the other races had any changes in their vote totals in that precinct.
To put this change in perspective, that single precinct’s corrections accounted for a significantly larger net swing in votes between the parties than occurred for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, or state house races.
The two other precincts (Mountain Iron in St. Louis county and Partridge Township in Pine county) accounted for another 100 votes each. The change in each precinct was half as large as the pickup for Obama from the corrections for the entire state.
The Minneapolis Star Tribune attributed these types of mistakes to “exhausted county officials,” and that indeed might be true, but the sizes of the errors in these three precincts are surprisingly large.
Indeed, the 504 total new votes for Franken from all the precincts is greater than adding together all the changes for all the precincts in the entire state for the presidential, congressional, and state house races combined (a sum of 482). It was also true that precincts that gave Obama a larger percentage of the vote were statistically more likely to make a correction that helped Franken.
The recent Washington State 2006 gubernatorial recount is probably most famous for the discovery of ballots in heavily Democratic areas that had somehow missed being counted the first and even second time around. Minnesota is already copying that, though thus far on a much smaller scale, with 32 absentee ballots being discovered in Democratic Hennepin County after all the votes had already been counted. When those votes are added in, they seemed destined to cut Coleman's lead further.
Indeed, it is probably through the discovery of new votes that Franken has his best shot of picking up new votes. Despite the press pushing a possible replay of election judges divining voters’ intentions by looking at “hanging chads” to see if voters meant to punch a hole, that shouldn’t be an issue in Minnesota. The reason is simple: optical scan vote counting machines return ballots to voters if no vote is recorded for a contested race."
FYI: That is a cut and paste from a Yahoo "Answers" response I posted shortly following that particular race.
Details here: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090415091741AA51TMH
Sorry soapster, improbabilities are not illegal.
To be stupid, selfish, and have good health are three requirements for happiness, though if stupidity is lacking, all is lost.
--- Gustave Flaubert
Libertarians could use that as their party slogan.
Joe, I agree, Soros is a corporation, along with his minions.
Z, I think we can survive him. I have faith in America and our people. We've risen to the occasion in a little more than a year. The Tea Party is here to stay.
I have found that when a power base is formed by any group, they tend to want to grow, and to be blunt, they enjoy the power.
We've been forced to motivation by the arrogance and unwillingness of liberals and leftists to heed the people. They overplayed their hand.
The Republican establishment has underplayed theirs, and if they don't embrace us, it will be to their political peril as well. I think perhaps they're getting the message. They'd better.
Young people will see soon enough, how their future will be shaped by the left. They will see that they are poised to be held down, forced to face a less prosperous future, and fewer freedoms than their parents enjoyed.
So, I have faith that we can prevail. This is America, and we've faced hard challenges before.
One man, Soros, won't stop a juggernaut of true Americans, and I see it growing, and flexing it's muscles.
With prayer for strength, and optimism for the future, we can do it. We have to fight for it, and we are.
Pris
Hey pea brain ducky, here are some quotes for you about your socialist ideas, which are not stupid but are the very definition of insanity, for all the mistakes have been done but you want to repeat them.
I'd rather be stupid than insane.
“Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” Tocqueville
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery.” Churchill
“Socialism is the religion people get when they lose their religion”
Call me stupid as much as you want. It's more intelligent than insane.
Still waiting for your specifics on France's discrimination practices against muslims, by the way, pea brain.
Democracy and socialism have nothing in common but one word, equality. But notice the difference: while democracy seeks equality in liberty, socialism seeks equality in restraint and servitude.” Tocqueville
Socialism (collectivist governmental rule) isn't the answer, but, if you ride the democracy (rule by the people) train to it's final destination, you can end up in a state of anarchy.
H
Sorry, Heather but I don't get your quote. As Ducky suggests, I'm stupid so thanks for clarifying.
Frogburger,
Forgive me for not elaborating. I'm not suggesting you or anyone else here is stupid.
I know that most of the people who visit this site make a distinction between democracy and republic, but I seriously wonder whether much of the American public does.
Even if the concept of "republic" is touched in our schools, I suspect the aspect of "democracy" has been more greatly emphasized. When children are taught everyone's opinion is equally valid--and are told such while in a sort of religious vacuum, each man becomes his own authority--at least in his own mind. Without a recognition of a greater standard by which to measure one's beliefs/values/morals etc, how can a culture effectively define what is right and wrong and maintain a sense of order?
I wasn't necessarily directing my comment as an argument against what you quoted. Just thinking aloud that perhaps the chaotic mess which we have in our country today is due to a generalized lack of balance between the concept of "democracy" and that of representative rule under our Constitution.
Does that make more sense?
H
Yes it does and I agree with you there's a lot of confusion between democracy and republic.
I'd rather have an American-style Republic than a Democratic Socialist system like in the former Eastern Germany.
But I don't think democracy leads to anarchy. I actually believe in can only lead to statism and less freedom. Because people buy their votes, buy welfare to make up for their weaknesses, compensate their fear of the future, etc...
There's a reason why democracy and demagogie have the same greek origin, isn't it?
One additional thought, which perhaps ties back to the original post-
When a society is in disorder, the situation makes it that much easier for a single, well organized power, operating subtly and pervasively, to step in and "reorganize".
But I don't think democracy leads to anarchy.
It doesn't always have to. But I believe it can, if taken to an extreme.
If anarchy means disrespect of the Rule of Law, then I would agree. It definitely leads to a lot less respect for things like private property. But that goes with statism since the State ends up being the biggest criminal and thief in my books.
Guess it's aphorism day.
"... in a capitalist society, both rich and poor alike are free to sleep under a bridge."
--- Anatole France
Heather, even fewer make the distinction between democracy and state capitalism.
Froggy, you seem to be falling into the error of Locke and making property an absolutist fetish.
And THAT is precisely how his "fight" is going to be framed:
As an assault AGAINST "corporate" influence.
Spinning for stupid people.
BZ
"... in a capitalist society, both rich and poor alike are free to sleep under a bridge."
...and in a socialist society, everyone must sleep under the stars. The bridge is out.
Froggy, you seem to be falling into the error of Locke and making property an absolutist fetish.
You're making the mistake of being intellectually dishonest. Fetish?
No property is in human nature and important to its survival.
If it weren't, why would the leftists be so adamant to provide welfare to people so they can buy stuff? Why would they create human rights for materialistic things like housing then?
Explain to me this contradiction, pea brain?
Still waiting for my specifics on France also.
FB
If anarchy means disrespect of the Rule of Law, then I would agree.
I believe that tends to be the understood definition.
It definitely leads to a lot less respect for things like private property. But that goes with statism since the State ends up being the biggest criminal and thief in my books.
According to your assessment, the State is the biggest criminal---but in a truly democratic environment, someone else might not see it that way. How can we know who's right...by what standard ought we to measure these opinions? ;)
Ducky:
Heather, even fewer make the distinction between democracy and state capitalism.
Neither option sounds all that appealing to me, actually, if the type of democracy of which you speak runs parallel to my ideas. But perhaps I'm the stupid one here.
Educate me.
Heather
Well, I think you saw an excellent example of state capitalism at work when 5 members of the Supreme Cort where able to make the determination that corporations are free to buy elections at any level they desire.
Government is simply the legislative arm of capitalism and citizen input regardless of whether we call the structure a republic or democracy is virtually absent.
This has its start in the most activist court decision in our history, "Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad"
Ducky that's the result of statism, not capitalism.
If you were for small government, small corporations, marketplace flexibility and atomicity you wouldn't have the problem or a lot less.
The more centralized the government, the bigger and the more at stakes. Therefore the more corruption.
How do you explain that corruption is stronger in countries with less economic freedom and bigger government?
I know you want to replace it with nationalized companies. But since you're insane and I'm just plain Libertarian stupid, you have forgotten the corruption in regimes where industries are nationalized and "for" the people.
Your analytical skills and sense of logic are again severely lacking.
It is so easy to deconstruct your thought process, I may just as well go teach highschoolers.
Ducky that's the result of statism, not capitalism.
If you were for small government, small corporations, marketplace flexibility and atomicity you wouldn't have the problem or a lot less.
The more centralized the government, the bigger and the more at stakes. Therefore the more corruption.
How do you explain that corruption is stronger in countries with less economic freedom and bigger government?
I know you want to replace it with nationalized companies. But since you're insane and I'm just plain Libertarian stupid, you have forgotten the corruption in regimes where industries are nationalized and "for" the people.
Your analytical skills and sense of logic are again severely lacking.
It is so easy to deconstruct your thought process, I may just as well go teach highschoolers.
How do you explain that corruption is stronger in countries with less economic freedom and bigger government?
Human nature is corrupt. The more centralized the concentration and distribution of resources, the more likely will be abuse of the "little people" by those who are drunk on power.
H
Human nature is human nature.
I wouldn't say it's corrupt. It's not perfect but it's not corrupt. And in human nature, there's the word 'nature.'
Nature isn't pretty. It's violent, wild and by definition not civilized.
I think not accepting this and trying to make human nature something that is not has led to the most atrocious things in History.
That's where people like Ducky are utterly deluded.
Human nature is human nature.
I wouldn't say it's corrupt. It's not perfect but it's not corrupt. And in human nature, there's the word 'nature.'
Nature isn't pretty. It's violent, wild and by definition not civilized.
Well, we've previously parted ways at this point. There is a reason why nature (particularly that of humans) is violent, wild and not civilized. But I expect such discussion would venture out of the appropriate boundaries. I suppose we will just have to agree to disagree on this.
H
Well, I think you saw an excellent example of state capitalism at work when 5 members of the Supreme Cort where able to make the determination that corporations are free to buy elections at any level they desire.
How about a working definition? Examples are great, but they need a reference point.
What you've offered looks a bit to me like "state capitalism" is actually the flip side of the "state welfarism" coin. Only the supply/productivity aspect is being directly affected rather than the demand/consumer end.
It would appear that regardless of which angle you view this from, having a few of special interest determine for the many what is best may not be ideal.
H
I see where you're going though. If by corrupt, you mean sinful, then I think we're on the same page.
Now sinful needs to be defined as well :)
I'm not the most religious person and in my case I think many sins were created by humans seeking to make human nature perfect or establish power, and not by God himself. And therefore the atrocities of the Church in medieval times. Or terrorism these days.
Heather, Ducky has been deconstructed so he's gone for the day to watch something he can debate more seriously: movies or baseball.
Ducky, doesn't say much for Minnesota, does it. Many think Franken lost; fraud is rampant in your party. Thanks, from America.
Opus, I just don't see how we can when we have a media complicit in the ruin of this country...and I believe many are. It sounds utterly ridiculous, but how many stories can be tweaked and misrepresented toward the Left and still allow us to think there IS a real media in this country anymore?
Thankfully, the "Mainstream Media" is becoming RIGHTWING MEDIA because, MAINSTREAM would connote MAJORITY...FOX is SO much more popular only because people are sick to death of the spin; even Democrats I know who aren't so indoctrinated they can't THINK, watch FOX now.
Pris, I can't agree but I do hope you're right.
Speedy..
"...and in a socialist society, everyone must sleep under the stars. The bridge is out." So true. But, that's the leftwing dream....imagine?
Ducky "...5 members of the Supreme Cort where able to make the determination that corporations are free to buy elections at any level they desire."
You need to do your homework, Alito was right when he corrected obama's stupid "Spin for spinning sake, America's will buy it because I say it with CONVICTION" BS
thanks for the good discussion; I'm too pooped after a five hour meeting, a car still not ready, another car's battery dead and pilates! i'm going to watch me some TV!
see y'all later.
FB, what did Obama say the other day? I had it in a blog...something about how SIN IS WHEN I GO AGAINST MY VALUES or something?
It's ALL about him.
And, please, interesting topic, but maybe you can all discuss what SIN IS somewhere else! Thanks. xxx
Ok, boss :)
But yes, like Nietzsche explains it brilliantly, very often morality is defined by the elite. Obama is a perfect example of that.
FrogBurger,
You understand what I'm saying.
Out of respect for Z's wishes, I won't go any farther, but if you ever feel like discussing, my blog's always open.
Ducky has been deconstructed so he's gone for the day to watch something he can debate more seriously: movies or baseball.
That's okay. I need to quit playing online, too.
Have a great evening.
H
FB and HEATHER:
Joe Conservative has an excellent piece you both might like:
http://politicaltealeaves.blogspot.com/2010/09/reading-political-tea-leaves.html
Sure Froggy, we'll replace it with your Libertarian utopia.
Conflicts of interest? Only Libertarians minimize the difficulty of their resolution and the tendency of power to prevail.
And lets play last man standing because the Libertarian model concentrates the power in the hands of a couple players by its nature. Not good.
Just calling it "statism" and expecting people to see that as an argument is foolish. Libertarianism has serious problems, the greatest of which is a virtually denial of mans group origins.
Libertarianism has serious problems, the greatest of which is a virtually denial of mans group origins.
Man's origin from the group? Can you be more specific b/c your permanent broad statement don't cut it.
Man needs the group to survive but the group that is needed to survive is family or community, and not the gigantic collective you're implying.
And in needing this small group to survive, it is still selfish interest at play, and therefore individualism. It is not by dedication to others we like the group. It because it provides us joy, relief, support -- selfish needs.
Also you tend to forget that the fact we have a conscience, an ego, means we are individualistic by nature.
I could go on and on because I don't think you have thought things through very much, as usual for a lefty "thinker."
I'll debate you any time Ducky. I went beyond highschool.
Oh, still waiting the details about France... Maybe it's on the wikipedia or something.
I guess you could mention the banning of the *full* muslim veils.
Just helping you.
Soros is evil. There's no getting past that simple fact.
We'd better find a way to survive Soros or our goose is cooked.
Shaping up like a Bagger sweep tonight.
Best gift the Dems can receive.
I agree with you, Ducky, and I'm blogging on it very soon...
I would like to register my disdain for the "assassinate Soros" sentiment. Let's leave violent solutions to the leftists.
We, unlike leftists, have the capacity for rational thought that significantly widens our options beyond slinging Molotov cocktails.
That said, I don't like Soros either.
The way to survive him is to oppose every thing he stands for at the ballot box.
I don't vote to retain state judges, ever. Even if they're good judges. The reason I don't is my choice is yes or no, not him, her, or another. So, all judges get the no.
beamish - I was happy to read your comment against the 'assassinate Soros ' sentiment.
Not because I like him, but because it was inappropriate.
actually, I have to say this is the first I've read on any conservative blog of anybody wishing anybody harm.
We all saw it when Huffington had to close down after Tony Snow's death because they got so many rejoicers, we saw it when Cheney would fall ill and Moveon, etc., was thrilled...horrible things like that; oh, and wishing Limbaugh dead, etc., but it took SOROS to elicit this response here. The guy is THAT BAD...
We don't need to wish him dead...I just wish he'd disappear and STOP TRYING TO HURT AMERICA SO BADLY AND SO QUICKLY WE CAN'T FIX THINGS IN HIS WAKE.
I agree with Beamish. Soros will have plenty of time to rot in hell.
Ducky, maybe it's good for the Dems. But it is now a fight of the little people vs. the elite, including Dems, GOP not supporting O'Donell and media people who think we're just a bunch of crap. And this is only the beginning.
All it does is highlight the corruption of the statists in both parties whose goal is only to maintain their fat paychecks financed by the tax payers.
I am glad the GOP didn't get my money and it will never get it again. It will only go directly to candidates that are anti-statist. If it means the Dems win, fine. They will keep sinking the ship and at some point things will turn around.
People like you pea brain will have all to take all the blame.
Still waiting for your enlightenment on France. Should I give up?
We know that Mr. Soros is a very rich man. This means he gets to push other people around. He not only created socialist organizations in our country, he has them throughout Europe working toward global socialism. People like John Podesta, Cass Sunstein, Francis Fox Piven, Bill Ayers, and Barack Obama have become his useful idiots in achieving this long-range goal.
In effect, Soros wants to dominate the world politic. I think he already does that. Soros is most certainly playing god, and this makes him a very dangerous man. He is safe, however, for as long as he controls our national leaders —and he does that. Every one of Europe’s leaders, every notable politician and industrialist in the USA kowtows to George Soros. Will he succeed in his quest for world domination? I think that depends on whether he (and Cass Sunstein) are right about the average American. Are we simple-minded like Homer Simpson?
soros betrayed his own people - to Hitler's goons --he is a follower of the Dark Side (Lucifer) and remember- alinsky gave honor to Lucifer in his book _Rules for Radicals_ ( I recommend that all read it to know how the goons we have in office have learned to be goons)....so it isn't just the $$$ of soros- it is a mutual belief system of power over people...
C-CS
I despise Soros.
That said, his money gives him great power, and he's no dumb ass either when it comes to controlling the political arena.
Taking control of the courts? A smart strategy. In many ways, our judicial system is immune from responding to the will of the people. Furthermore, the judiciary has the last word many times on a given issue.
The Left thinks they're going to win Delaware now...
I guess they forget how Independents are likely to weigh in during the "general" election. Delaware's was a "closed" primary.
"George Soros, patron saint of Democrats everywhere, sugar daddy of their party..."
Don't you mean pimp daddy?
"They got otherwise fairly bright Americans (Democrats) to actually believe Wall St is ALL BAD..."
To be frank, it's not difficult to get democrats to believe something false. All you have to do is ensure they don't have to take responsibility, convince them that you have to take money from someone else and make them feel nice about it and that's all you need. Liberals will swallow any old stupidity, they are the reason con artists, scammers and other assorted scumbags are still in business and living large.
The Left thinks they're going to win Delaware now...
Probably will. I'm not sure there actually are right-of-center Republicans north of the Potomac River.
Post a Comment