Davids mom's Story Link

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

I will try to learn this skill!!

and he hung out with Kurt Cobain and played bass guitar in Nirvana for a while....he was a secret co-founder of Apple Computers and invented the internet with Al Gore... plus, he has a covert plan to invest in sugar cane crops to make ethanol, before he blows up all the oil derricks and pipelines in the U.S., and he will end up making millions on the stock market...

And the most horrible thing about Obama, he wears ladies panties.

Lacy or plain? Inquiring minds want to know.

Looks like you most certainly am are

____________________

Oh By Jingo

Mrs. Obama's favorite song could be "With a Thong In My Heart"?

By Jove, I think Bonkers/Sage is getting to me! LOL

Maybe this is her favorite:

Parody of "Dust in the Wind"

I see by one of the comments there that one of our regulars here has already visited the site.

____________________

Oh By Jingo

If you look closely, you can see Obama in this clip, on the third row, ecstatic over these sadistic practices.

[Warning: Some of this material is disturbing. Do not view with children present.]

SICK, SICK, SICK!

____________________

Oh By Jingo

love you, man! Where do you find this stuff? Oh yeah. Youtube!

Brilliant!

Cheers,

Kevin "Hack" King

Muddle did have one earlier that he got from you tube.

That great quote from Bill Murray in Ghostbusters:

"Cats and dogs living together, mass hysteria!"

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

Can you give this internet interloper the boot. He has several other web sites in which to spew his bovine manure. I'm not keen on Obama but this is way outside of normal.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

No no no no no. Please do NOT ban clifylq! People need to see what lurks in the shadows working and waiting to spread their own brand of hate under the guise of religion. If we ignore them we hurt ourselves in the process. Without rational feedback nutcases like this continue to travel down a dark and twisted path to who knows what. I am a proponent of what was once known as "reality therapy" and granted, that while this particular blogger is perhaps several bricks short of a load, nothing is served unless he/she knows that everyone else is aware of it.

Just for the record, I don't like Obama OR McCain. I fear for the future of our country.

______________________________________________________________

'All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.'
Sir Edmund Burke.

I don't like squashing people with different views either but this yo-yo has several web sites in which he spews this stuff. My concern is that he'll only use The Citizen as just another outlet. Judging by his other sites, there is no reasoning or discussion with this crackpot. My real fear is that other crackpots - that is those that live on the fringes - will do the same thing. Let him/them project their ideology on their dime through their own websites but not here.

-------------------------------------------
Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

This is just plain silly.

Stop inciting crazy people!!!!

Kevin "Hack" King

The issue is Character, or the lack thereof.

Obamanaiacs have framed the issue that Barack is a New Kind of Politician. He is above reproach, above criticism, above the fray of most Washington politicians. He therefore gets a pass on all of his past dealings, including his flip flops on FISA etc.

The ONLY REASON there was not a Filibuster by the Democrats in the senate is simple. They forfeited that right to be able NOT to put Obama on the record on this issue. They didn't want the media fan fare of an important issue like FISA being played out in the News as a defining moment for how Barack really feels about this issue.

Mind you, this is typical for a political process, but its hypocritical for the NEW Messiah to not keep his promises and pledges that helped get him elected in the first place. Even the Bible says if you can not be trusted with the little things in life, how can you be trusted with the big things. (Black liberation theology likely even teaches this.)

So, yes, its about his Flip Flopping AND the MEDIA BIAS that isn't reporting it.

He scares me, he really does. The damage he might cause is mind boggling, but then again, if AMERICA is stoopid enough to elect this empty suit, then maybe we are too far gone to save. French and English Socialism is but two decades away. I can't wait to see my social security check when I turn 65.

"He scares me, he really does. The damage he might cause is mind boggling, but then again, if AMERICA is stoopid enough to elect this empty suit, then maybe we are too far gone to save."

I pretty much used these exact words when referring to Dubya, prior to each Presidential election, and the American public ended up being very "stoopid", Richard.

It has taken someone like Obama, with a new vision and direction, to inspire voters to move away from the Bush policies, unlike McCain who wants to keep us on the same track. I believe the American public is ready to redeem itself and stop voting "stoopid."

I am now inspired and have hope that some kid fresh out of college can be the CEO of a major corporation. Perhaps a better example would be...a guy with 142 days of US Senate experience can now run the country. I ask the question again; what does a "community organizer" do exactly?

Now, for the first time in my adult life I can be truly proud of my country, as I bitterly cling to my religion and guns.

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

I am now inspired and have hope that some kid fresh out of college can be the CEO of a major corporation.

You mean like the genius of Apple? (He didn't even have a degree)

what does a "community organizer" do exactly?

Organize citizens so that they can utilize the system (law) to improve their lives and the life in their respective communities; Listen to the concerns of citizens; Listen to and understand the concerns of community leaders and system leaders; Coordinate processes to reach goals that improve communities.

Not bad skills for a Senator or a President.

Allow me to revise my statement to relect my point.

I am now inspired and have hope that some kid fresh out of college can be the CEO of an EXISTING major corporation. Use Coca-Cola as an example. And yes, Roberto C. Goizueta did have a degree.

Now, for you analogy:

Steve Jobs was an entrepreneur. He started his own company. Perhaps Barrack-o-rat Obama can start his own country.

As for his knowledge of law (Chicago style), what does Tony Rezko have to say. Don't worry, most politicians are shady.

"Obama's legal career seen as average. Attorneys at his old law firm say he handled few cases." LA Times

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

As for his knowledge of law (Chicago style), what does Tony Rezko have to say. Don't worry, most politicians are shady.

How about 'knowledge of law' Harvard graduate style - with honors. His daddy couldn't afford to pay for it (Bush/Yale) - so he EARNED it.

Relax NOTA - take your time when you answer. I'm sure you can articulate better than you write. I get your point however. Thanks. My blog name is David's Mom.

His knowledge of law is just as flawed as his knowledge of Presidential responsibilities. If you recall, he is going to give out orders to his Joint Chiefs of Staff to end the war. This already demonstrates that he doesn't have a clue regarding the job description.

College? Harvard, in my opinion is only good for case studies and reference. I am a Conservative/Libertarian. I paid for my Undergrad degree on my own. I am still paying for my MBA (Emory) on my own. I too didn't have a daddy to pay for mine either. Perhaps the only difference in our education is principle.

I was referencing the song Me and Julio. It was stuck in my head when I saw you blog name. No disrespect intended.

"Mama Pajama'd rolled out of bed, and she ran to the police station..."

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

"If you recall, he is going to give out orders to his Joint Chiefs of Staff to end the war. This already demonstrates that he doesn't have a clue regarding the job description."

That's definitely right there in the job description.

What did I miss here?

After the 1986 reorganization of the military undertaken by the Goldwater-Nichols Act, the Joint Chiefs of Staff do not have operational command of U.S. military forces. Responsibility for conducting military operations goes from the President to the Secretary of Defense directly to the commanders of the Unified Combatant Commands and thus bypasses the Joint Chiefs of Staff completely.
Today, their primary responsibility is to ensure the personnel readiness, policy, planning and training of their respective military services for the combatant commanders to utilize. The Joint Chiefs of Staff also act in an advisory military capacity for the President of the United States and the Secretary of Defense. In addition, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff acts as the chief military advisor to the President and the Secretary of Defense. In this strictly advisory role, the Joint Chiefs constitute the second-highest deliberatory body for military policy, after the National Security Council, which includes the President and other officials besides the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.

Please stop making me do your research for you.

"Everytime you vote Democrat, God kills a kitten."

1. Who declares war? Politicians or military leaders?

2. Who declares cessation of war? Politicians or military leadership?

Kevin "Hack" King

Bonus question: Does the Commander in Chief have the right to say "No" to military leadership at the highest level?

Let me see if I can harken back to my 8th grade social studies class.
The President is the CinC of the military. Correct?

The President must go to congress to declare war. Correct?

The Joint Chiefs of Staff ADVISE the President on military actions, including budgetary spending and allocation. Correct?

Along with the armed forces, foreign policy is also directed by the president, including the ability to negotiate treaties, which are ratified with the consent by two-thirds of the Senate.

The President is "authorized" to stop, pause, interupt, or permanently discontinue (cessation) a war, or police action. This would include any involvement with U.N. assisted actions.

The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff may transmit communications to the commanders of the combatant commands from the President and Secretary of Defense but does not exercise military command over any combatant forces. That my friends is up to the various Secretaries of each branch of service.

It helps having served, and understanding my general chain of command.

As to your last question, he sure can.

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

Are arguing semantics about military command!

Here is how it really happens:

Most if not all actions during an ongoing war are made by the Commander of the war area. He is expected to know his limitations and won't last long if he doesn't. Very serious matters require more than his approval (dropping the bomb).

A new strategy or serious troop movement always has the President's approval---who uses whatever advice he wants to use from whomever he chooses.

If a Commander gets direct orders from the Chief of staff or the Chairman of the JCS directly instead of from the Secretaries.. he will understand that the order is approved by the Secretary..if he doesn't, he will simply call the Secretary or the President. When Colin Powell as JCS Chairman talked to Schwartzkopf, you can bet Norman obeyed any order given... if not he called!

The Pentagon is full of advisers for everyone to use! If a commander wants advice he simply calls and it is provided. Same procedure here if he has doubts.

We are not a corporation when it comes to orders and follow-up!

Our senior leaders are trained well and understand how the fate of our country must be handled.

In fact, I have simplified how it works for the sake of understanding, but we have yet to lose a war due to the orders coming from the wrong person. Maybe we have by the orders coming from the correct person!

The Joint Chiefs have the responsibility for the unified strategic direction of the combatant forces and their operation under unified command. This is not incompatible with Obama ordering them to end the war.

However, technically you are correct. Thanks for the research help.

I understand your political leanings. . . and of course you are entitled to your opinion. While listening to Obama's answers - and reading his statements, I have not come to the conclusion that he is going to give out orders to the Joint Chiefs 'unconditionally' . . .but will end the war and bring our troops home making sure that Americans are protected and safe. McCain still has not defined 'success'. Does he mean 'occupation'? What will American responsibility be during an 'occupation' of Iraq? Both candidates state that 'conditions on the ground' are an important aspect to decision making. My grandson is in Iraq now. I am proud of his service - and his leadership. . .but I want him home with his children. The Iraqi's had a democratic election; and have made progress in maintaining order. The terrorist are attacking from Afghanistan. It is interesting to me that the Bush diplomats are now following the strategy that our current leadership has called ‘irresponsible’ regarding Obama. Bring our sons and daughters home with dignity; and/or stop the terrorist in Afghanistan!

The terrorists (insurgents) are also coming from Iran, Syria, Jordan, and just about every other islamic country in the region. We are fighting an idealism here. There is a reason they have been called fundamentalists. There are no longer uniforms to identify the "bad guys".
You do understand that even if we do end the war in Iraq, there will still be a US military post there? It's just the way we continue to protect ourselves. I agree, we should be in Afghanistan. The Iraqi government needs to take over policing their own country. And we must continue to maintain a presence there, if for no other reason than intelligence gathering. Again, no attacks on US soil since 9/11.

Being a vet, I will continue to pray for my brothers in arms. That includes your grandson. Godspeed to your beloved warrior.

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

Prayers are appreciated. I do understand the need for a US 'presence'. I feel our combat troops are needed elsewhere. Speaking of intelligence gathering - I'm grateful for the improvement in our own use of intelligence. I feel 9/11 never should have happened. The intelligence that was ignored/discounted for December 7 and September 11 proved costly. I hope we have learned never to 'assume' or ignore again. We have the tools. . .and through international cooperation - America has remained safe.

"a guy with 142 days of US Senate experience can now run the country"

Yup, only in America...the land of opportunity (ain't this country great!)

That is why I hope and pray that our people stay away from the "kool-aid" of Obama-Messiah and his disciples-leftist-leaning-media. He has so much arrogance and so little experience,it is frightening.

because you must be talking about a different media.

The left-leaning media at CBS edited McCain's foreign policy gaffs out of their interview with him.

The "arrogant" candidate tauts himself as a foreign policy "expert" as he fumbles over his own misstatements.

The candidate you fear is THE only candidate that supported enhancements to the GI Bill to honor our commitments to our veterans.

The fact that you would suggest America can't be great if we Americans democratically elect Barack Obama is ...well...... Unamerican, IMHO.

Kevin "Hack" King

You are right! America is great! I wouldn't want to live in any other country.

Sorry, but I don't think they will stay away from the kool-aid. They are already can't go a day without it.

I have to make a choice of the two because I am not happy with either. I am alot happier with McCain. He has more experience in his pinkie finger than Obama.

I do look for Obama to win, I could be wrong. I don't want Obama's change.

I am with you all the way USArmybrat!

My husband has had to go to different countries on his job. He could tell you stories that would break your heart. It did mine at least. I am very thankful for the USA!

The damage he might cause is mind boggling, but then again, if AMERICA is stoopid enough to elect this empty suit, then maybe we are too far gone to save.

The next person elected as president will be/should be constantly scrutinized by the people. We've learned that we can't trust a 'leader' just becauee 30+ percent of the electorate voted for him (Bush) If we don't accept this responsibility - then we are truly lost.

I just finished reading A Remarkable Mother by Jimmy Carter. A wonderful tribute to a true American woman. Georgia's gift to America and the world!

Senator Obama is really an ultra-conservative Facist merely saying whatever is necessary to get elected and then...POW! Orwellian America is next. Clever this diabolical politico.

Don’t listen to what some of his supporters are saying, listen to him.

“He is above reproach, above criticism, above the fray of most Washington politicians. He therefore gets a pass on all of his past dealings, including his flip flops on FISA etc.”

Says who? Certainly not me! I’m going to fire off a nastygram to his campaign people about his FISA stand. The only people saying that are his detractors like you who present him as some kind of messiah then criticize him because he doesn’t measure up.

I keep telling you he’s a politician. Y’all have tried to make him out as some naive stupid person who is where he is because of the media and because he's black. That is simply preposterous. He is an extremely smart Chicago politician with the political savvy to overcome the Clinton machine and put together the finest fund raising machine ever seen.

His flip flips are no worse nor no better than McCain’s, eight or nine of which I listed below. Its politics and so far he’s whipping everybody’s tails mainly because everybody is misunderestimating him.

Sun Tzu said “know your enemy.” If y’all go on fighting this naïve Marxist messiah that you wish you were running against, instead of a super good Chicago street fighting politician, you’re handing over the election to us on a silver platter.

And we appreciate it.

Off the top of my head I remember McCain flip-flopping his positions on Roe v. Wade, immigration reform, the Bush tax cuts, Social Security privatization, first term balanced budget pledge, the estate tax, disinvestment from Iran (his top two lobbyist/advisors Charlie Black and Rick Davis having been bought and paid for by firms doing business in Tehran. Another fun thing is that before he flipped, he called for sanctions like the world applied to South Africa; the sanctions he voted against six times), opposition to hurricane Katrina investigations, pastor John Hagee, gay marriage,

And since Richard brought it up: FISA!

In an interview with Charlie Savage of the Boston Globe (?) Dec. 20, 2007 speaking about the FISA law,

McCain said: “I think that presidents have the obligation to obey and enforce laws that are passed by Congress and signed into law by the president, no matter what the situation is.”

Savage: “So is that a no, in other words, federal statute trumps inherent power in that case, warrantless surveillance?”

McCain: “I don’t think the president has the right to disobey any law.”

June 2, 2008

McCain: “Neither the Administration nor the telecoms need apologize for actions that most people, except for the ACLU and the trial lawyers, understand were Constitutional and appropriate in the wake of the attacks on September 11, 2001.”

Asked about the discrepancy by the NYT on June 6 McCain bravely side stepped the issue and ducked:

McCain: “It’s ambiguous as to whether the president acted within his authority or not,” he said, saying courts had ruled different ways on the matter. “I’m not interested in going back. I’m interested in addressing the challenge we face to day of trying to do everything we can to counter organizations and individuals that want to destroy this country. So there’s ambiguity about it. Let’s move forward.”

As to immunity for the telecoms, McCain opposed it in a May 23 statement: ““unless there were revealing Congressional hearings and heartfelt repentance from those telephone and internet companies.”

That position lasted for four days before he flipped again.

In fact, McCain has flip-flopped on so many issues so often he’s beginning to remind me of Mitt Romney!

you only criticize one party. The Dems can do no wrong, the Repubs are EVIL flip floppers. It's quite hilarious.

Before you peg me as a Repub, I've voted Libertarian in more POTUS elections than I have anything else.

But I was responding to Richard's original post about Obama being a flip-flopper. Naturally I would post a list of his guys flips for comparison. I also expressed here criticism of Obama's FISA flip-flop and compared the Republican and Democratic flops as being equivalent. In politics today every changed nuance is a flip flop, there is no provision for a candidate's position to evolve without partisan attacks. Look at Richard's post here. Richard is attacking Obama for switching position and agreeing with...Richard! Through the looking glass and down the rabbit hole.

As for the Dems, here's a flip-flop I'd really like to see: I'd like Harry Reid to flip-flop and get a spine. Wouldn't that be a wonder!

You are bragging that he's a slick Chicagoan Politician, that in and of itself should tell you something.

The New York Times did a report on his "present" votes, and couldn't understand why. He abstained so often, that it didn't make much sence to them. He routinely abstained in votes that might be used against him in a campaign.

Thats not leadership.

The fact is, Barack is wet behind the ears. You don't even know what kind of a President he is going to be.

So, Jeff, what kind of President do you want? An extreme marxist, socialist, pacifist? If so, I can understand your support of him, but if you want a moderate or even a semi-conserative democrat, following in Clinton's foot steps, then you might be disappointed.

Doesn't it at all concern you that every major influential person behind Obama is either a Marxist, i.e. Frank, a terrorists, i.e. Ayers, a Theological socialists, i.e. Wright, a anti-semite, i.e. Farrakan, or a people like his wife, who haven't figure out what a friggin' wonderful country the United States of America is.

He doesn't deserve to be the President of the U.S.A.. He isn't worthy of that position. Plain and simple.

As much as I hate to admit it, but I would have voted for Hitlary before I would have voted for him.

There you go again. In my opinion, it is just going to be impossible for Obama to be portrayed as, “An extreme marxist, socialist, pacifist?” That’s who you’d like to run against and who you will try to make people think McCain is running against but I just don’t think you’ll be able to pull it off. Again, just my opinion, but when you cite Ayers as proof that Obama is a terrorist because they served on some charity board together I really think that most people (maybe not here, granted) in the US look at that argument and think that the extremism being expressed is being expressed by you. Then they look further at your argument and see that you are still playing the Muslim card when everybody now knows that he is a Christian and everybody knows that you know it. What do they draw from that? Farrakan? Obama has spent his entire political life avoiding Farrakan. Both being from Chicago there has been ample opportunity for Obama to embrace Farrakan and if you were to Google the two what you get are stories of Obama distancing and denouncing Farrakan. Socialist? No body believes that and you can’t cite anything to back it up. No position papers, no legislation, no speeches, nothing; unless you want to try to sell universal health insurance to the American people as socialism. Well, good luck with that. Socialists are passé. Failures from the past. Nobody in the US believes anybody of any importance is a socialist. Not to say you should stop or that you should not continue to express these views just that by taking this tack against Obama you have picked a decidedly difficult task. The more extreme you try to portray Obama as the more fringe you appear if the public’s perception doesn’t match up with yours. The “Hitlary” comment tells people way lots about your position on the political spectrum and I think it pegs the veracity of your argument in people's minds.

“You are bragging that he's a slick Chicagoan Politician, that in and of itself should tell you something.”

What? I’m supposed to be somehow remorseful that the Democrats are playing hardball this time with a candidate who is going to raise $350 million and who is already poised to counter the swift-boaters from your side?

Gimme a break! We both know which side is going to campaign on issues and which side is going to rely on lies, innuendos, racism and whisper campaigns.

“…a slick Chicagoan Politician…”

Do you think I would not have supported Richard Daley?

But...

but when you cite Ayers as proof that Obama is a terrorist because they served on some charity board together

Richard never called Obama a terrorist. That's what you want people to thik he said, sound familiar. Truth is Richard nailed it.

Nobody in the US believes anybody of any importance is a socialist.

Just becausee nobody belives it doesn't mean it isn't so. You cannot dispute the fact that Obama leans more towards Socialism. All the "plans" he has for the government to intervene in our daily lives definitely fits a Marxist definition of Socialism

In a Marxist or labor-movement definition of the term, socialism is a stage of society in Marxist theory transitional between capitalism and communism and distinguished by unequal distribution of goods and pay according to work done with the goal of creating a socio-economic system in which property and the distribution of wealth are subject to control by the community

When it is a certaintity, not just a chance, but a certainty that my taxes will increase and the amount of assistance to the lazy people in this country living off the governmet tit will increase, that's an unequal distribution of wealth. Socialism at its best.

Then they look further at your argument and see that you are still playing the Muslim card when everybody now knows that he is a Christian and everybody knows that you know it.

Once again Richard didn't call him a Muslim. Typical Democratic tactic though, just say that someone said it and that's good enough, without any proof.

Jeff C answer this.
Do you think that everyone deserves to live and be accustom to the same life style, even if they have had no ambition and have done or are not doing anything to attain a better life?

Look how Richard starts this blog:

"Yes, our Chosen One is different. All Praise Allah.." He just changed his icon from one of Obama wearing a silly hat with a Muslim crescent on it; which, in fact, was what I was referencing.

I'll trade questions with you. You asked: "Do you think that everyone deserves to live and be accustom to the same life style, even if they have had no ambition and have done or are not doing anything to attain a better life?"

Absolutely not.

My question to you: Do you believe that Medicare and Social Security are socialist (or Marxist) programs?

Do you believe that Medicare and Social Security are socialist (or Marxist) programs?

In their present forms yes the are. Employees pay taxes to support these programs. In their present forms they give rewards to people whether they have ever paid a dime in or not. That's a socialist concept. I think NOTA 08's quote from Karl Marx applies to this. I had the drive and abilities to go out get a job and make my own way, yet in many cases those in "need" are there of their own doing but they reap the benefits of my contributions (abilities).

Back to my question to you. Your answer contradicts the stance that your party takes on nearly every social issue. The Democratic mantra of tax the rich more because they can afford it is the most basic of socialist (Marxist) views.

Your assumption that taxing the rich more is somehow indicative of thinking, “think that everyone deserves to live and be accustom to the same life style…” is seriously flawed.

If you wish to claim that a progressive tax system is Marxist; well then have at it. Of course you would have to include all but one industrialized nation in the world as being Marxist. Tax systems of the countries of the world can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax

Oh, ironically enough, the one industrial nation without the Marxist progressive tax system is Russia. They have a flat tax.

In 1976 the top 1% held 19.9% of all wealth in the US, by 1989 it was 35.7%, and by 1998 the top 1% owned 38.1% of all wealth in the US. So a progressive tax policy says nothing about an attempt to implement the idea that everyone deserves to live and be accustom to the same life style.

The rich pay more in taxes for the same reason Willie Sutton robbed banks, because that’s where the money is.

system may not be pure Marxist,however, Karl Marx did support it in The Communist Manifesto.

What is your point about Russia being the only one industrial nation with a flat tax?

I'm glad you mentioned it though, because Russia's economy since 2001 actually bolsters the position of those in favor of a Flat or Fair tax system.

From Wikepedia: A simpler, more streamlined tax code adopted in 2001 reduced the tax burden on people, and DRAMATICALLY INCREASED STATE REVENUE. Russia has a flat personal income tax rate of 13 percent. This ranks it as the country with the second most attractive personal tax system for single managers in the world after the United Arab Emirates, according to a 2007 survey by investment services firm Mercer Human Resource Consulting.

Funny you should mention robbery in your reply, that's exactly what I was thinking in regards to the progressive taxation, robbing the wealthy!

Karl Marx also supported free education for all children in public schools in The Communist Manifesto. Does that make people who support public schools Marxist?

It does gives us teachers unions. The United States has always been a free education nation. That would be prior to Commrade Marx. If I'm not mistaken, it is up to the states to regulate education. And, it is up to the parents if they want a better education for their children. Thus, the reason for private schools. Freedom of choice.
(Not in the Manifesto).

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

Jeff, please forgive for jumping into the frey here, but I can't resist.

Hammer's reponse should start like this:

"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." -Karl Marx

Here's another good one that pertains to Obama:

"The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them."

So, IMAO, yes. They are socialist programs.

Again, sorry for jumping in uninvited.

“Every time you vote Democrat God kills a kitten.”

"In fact, McCain has flip-flopped on so many issues so often he’s beginning to remind me of Mitt Romney!

Poor McCain. He is trying to appeal to his base, and he is losing his 'Maverick' reputation in the process, becoming a Bush-clone.

McCain's new political symbol:

BEACH GEAR