There is a reason why the first amendment of the United States Constitution gives the right of freedom of speech and press (also religion but that’s not part of today’s discussion).  It is so that we as citizens can stand up in public and question our government, our leaders, and those spending our tax dollars.  It is the press’s job to poke, prod, and question our leaders decisions, pasts, and acquantinces.  However, the media, especially outlets like the New York Times, CNN, MSNBC, and other television and newspaper outlets have become little more than mouth pieces of the liberal left.  This isn’t just my opinion but the opinions of others I know, several who would be decidedly liberal left.  It’s no secret that the media has a liberal slant.  It’s no secret the right wingers hate it.  It’s no secret that people like Glenn Beck, and Bill O’Reilly give in to sensationalism.  But they aren’t the only ones.

What I want to see more of is informed debate.  We have so many people yelling and arguing from both sides and they have zero clue what they’re talking about.  The left say the right’s uninformed, and the right says the same of the left.  Problem is, they’re both right and neither side wants to admit it, become educated, and have intelligent conversation that is helpful and informative.  When I go political on this blog, I really try to be informative and not just in attack mode.  I’m not saying I’m always successful at it, but I know that I make a concentrated effort to inform, debate, and listen to the other side.  People who know me, know this to be true.

But it all comes back to basic point.  How much do you trust your leaders, especially politicans.  We all know politicans are stereotypically double speakers, yet people who question the president (any president mind you) are looked at as crazy right-wingers, or leftist nutballs.  It is our job as the citizenery to question our government about everything, it is our right to protest publically against that which we don’t agree with.  We’re all different and not everyone is going to agree on everything.  I don’t agree with socialized healthcare, but you might not agree with teaching abstitence in public schools.  We all have different things we’re passionate about, but it’s those difference that lead us to compromise.  Problem is, we can’t compromise if everyone is name calling and yelling at each other.  So instead of yelling at each other as citizens, why don’t we target our energies at our politicians and leaders and make them understand what’s important to us.  Question your government, your leaders, make them scared of us (the citizens), we have control.  If you don’t like what your senators and representatives are doing, vote them out.  Speak with your vote, your petitions, your public assemblies, and your letters.  Call them on their double speak, call them on their indiscrestions, call them on their past affiliations, this stuff needs to take place on both sides.  A democracy in which the leaders do not fear their constituants (the citizenry) is not a democracy.

Here’s the quote:

“Opponents of the measure — including Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, the International Assn. of Chiefs of Police and the mayors of Los Angeles and New York, among others — called it an assault on states’ rights and warned that it would increase gun violence”

Here’s my problem(s) with the above statement.  First and foremost, the law being voted on is not an assault on state’s rights.  The second amendment of the Constitution clearly says:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

While one could debate what “a well regulated militia” means, for the purposes of my argument it means “the people” since in the time the Constitution was written, the army was the people.  But it the amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall NOT be infringed” and with that, allowing a gun owner (and licensed concealed weapon holder) to cross state lines is a right afforded by the Constitution of these United States.

Continuing that line of thought, the tenth amendment of the same Constitution is the one that deals specifically with states rights and it says:

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

When you read the above quote, focus on the part where it says “nor prohibited by it to the States” which means that a state can not infringe on a right specifically granted by the Constitution.  Since the “people’s right to bear arms” is something that “should not be infringed upon” in the previous amendment, the law that failed to pass through the Senate today is not in anyway “an assault on states rights” and in fact, the argument of the people and organizations is in fact a violation of federal rights granted by the Constitution.

Let’s review.  The right for a person to bear arms is the second amendment of the United States Constitution (second to freedom of speech, religion, and press), and the tenth amendment clearly says that a state law can not supersede a right granted by the Constitution.  Therefore, since the second amendment states a person has the right to bear arms, according to the tenth amendment, state laws are prohibited from creating laws that counter that amendment because creating a law that infringes on one’s rights to bear arms is a power prohibited by the Constitution.

I realize that I’m in a fairly small minority when I say this, but I am against socialized health care in the United States.  At least anymore than we already have.  Yes, we do have socialized health care in the United States.  It’s called Medicaid.  You have to apply for it, it’s a ton of paper work and proof of income type stuff but it does exist.  My wife was on it (before we got married) when she had her daughter and didn’t have a job at the time (or at least one that didn’t give medical benefits).

Is Socialized Health Care Better?

What most people want in socialized health care is programs similar to what Canada and France have in that they have mostly free doctor visits and low cost medications.  What most people in the United States do not know is that when it comes to major issues (like cancer) or major operations, socialized health care doesn’t help a whole lot.  In fact in Canada there are numerous complaints about the current healthcare system and things are not as rosy as people would have you believe

• Criticisms of Canadian Health Care System
• (Near) Opposing views on the Canadian health care system: View 1 and View 2

As you can see from the articles linked above, things are not as wonderful as those pushing for socialized healthcare here in the states what you to think.  In fact, there are numerous other records or people traveling from Canada to the United States to receive medical care (that they have to pay for out of pocket) and people being put on long waiting lists for surgeries in Canada.

Who’s Paying For It?

Another reason that socialize health care should be drastically questioned in the United States is because I want to know who’s going to pay for it?  The simple answer is “taxpayers” but it needs to go a little deeper than that.  Which taxpayers?  Most people would be happy to tax the “rich” further to pay for government programs of the “less fortunate” but I feel that would be a huge mistake.  For one thing the “rich” (annual income greater than $250,000/year) already pay the most in taxes of all the economic classes in the United States (in fact the “rich” pay 70% of all taxes collected by the government).  The smallest economic class pays the largest amount of all the taxes collected.  That seems odd to me.  So taxing them further to pay for socialized health care is just going to tick them off and they’ll leave.  But the poor and middle class will cry foul if their taxes go up but they cry for these kinds of programs.  That seems to me like a conflict of interest.  They want to services but they don’t want to be the ones to pay for them.  And those they want to pay for it don’t want to pay for it.

The cost is the largest hindrance to getting socialize health care but if no one wants to pay for it, then it becomes an issue.  Especially when people become forced to pay for it when they don’t want to and don’t feel they should have to.  And rich democrats who are pushing for this kind of program have been the center of attention the past few weeks because they didn’t pay their taxes.  I guess it’s no big deal to raise taxes when you aren’t paying them

The Current System

My other issue with pushing for socialized health care in the United States is that we already have a health care system in place for those that can’t afford it and really need it.  This current system however is not perfect and could stand to be overhauled.  Why are we pushing to add a government provided program when one already exists?  That seems to be a nice quick way to add more bloat to an already bloated system.  Why not overhaul the current system and make it better?  I’m sure the current Medicaid system can be improved tremendously.  I’m also positive that it could have it’s costs looked at and streamlined so that we could get more people that need to be on it onto the program and for the same amount of money.

Also with the current system, it’s bloated and slow.  Any government program is going to be bloated and slow.  If the current system is bad, what do you think will eventually happen to the new one?  It won’t stay shiny and new forever and it too will eventually become a bloated money sucking mess.

Question of Rights

Finally, my largest point is this, government provided health care is not (I repeat NOT) a right guaranteed to you by any government document.  Not the Constitution or the Bill of Rights.  The Constitution says you have the rights to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” it does not say you are guaranteed happiness.  Also, there is nothing that says your government has to take care of you, especially the federal government.  There has been a lot of dilution of what we have rights to and what we do not have rights to as the centuries have progressed.  It just not really the government’s responsibility to provide you with healthcare.

Just so the record is straight, I am all for reducing our dependency on not just foreign oil but oil as a whole.  I think that America should be on the forefront of alternative fuel technologies and be working steadily and quickly to move our vehicles, power plants, and other things that run on fossil fuels to alternative fuel sources.

But here is what I don’t understand.  the same people who say that we shouldn’t drill where we know there is oil are the same people crying for us to cut our dependency on foreign oil.  Now call me crazy, but wouldn’t drilling for our own oil on our own land do exactly what these people want?  In the past, when I have mentioned this people usually say “well, we should just cut our dependency on oil and that doesn’t help that at all” and while they are correct, they are trying to solve too many problems at once.

See here’s what I think most of these people don’t realize.  It’s going to cost money 1) conduct research on alternate fuel technologies and then it is going 2) cost money to convert everything over too those alternative sources.  Also, while these technologies are being researched, what are we going to run these cars, power plants, houses, etc on?  We have to keep what’s already out there going and that means we need oil.  I have a car that currently runs just fine on good ol’ fashion gasoline.  I’m not going to buy a new car just because ones with new fuel types exist.  My car runs fine and I don’t really want a car payment right now.  So unless the government is going to give me the money to purchase a car that uses a new/alternative fuel source I’m not buying one anytime soon.

Our current need for fuel requires oil, so that need is not going away anytime soon.  We can research alternative fuels and start integrating, but we have to solve one problem at a time.  We either need a) cut our dependency on foreign oil (which means drilling for our own) or b) contine to depend on foreign oil while work towards using more alternative fuel sources.  You can’t cut our dependency on foreign oil without finding someway to maintain the oil supply the our current way of life.  Alternative fuels just aren’t quite there yet.

Mister Olbermann, makes some good points during his diatribe but I feel that he misses two important points.

1) A person can vote however they choose.

While Keith goes to at great lengths to ask “why” someone would vote in favor of Proposition 8 I feel that he misses the point that people can vote however they want.  There seems to be this growing sense in America where many people think “you can vote however you want as long as it furthers my point of view and if you fail to do that well than you’re a very mean/stupid/ignorant/raciest person” and to me this pretty much misses the point of voting entirely.

The whole idea behind voting is that I have my beliefs and you have yours and when it comes to voting, we can vote how we believe.  We vote based on our beliefs, morals, principles, and what we feel is right.  You will be hard pressed to find a group of people who all believe the exact same thing.  That’s why we vote.

Keith Olbermann’s rant, comes off as a giant statement about why someone who voted for Proposition 8 is “wrong” for doing so.  Maybe it’s his delivery but it seemed very poineted and “how dare you”-ish.

2) When it comes to the Christian faith, it is largely about “hate the sin, love the sinner”

Another thing that Olbermann brings up (quite a bit) is the Biblical principle that we should love our neighbors as ourself.  Granted he gets it right that this is Jesus’ greatest commandment but he leaves out the first one (yes, there were 2).  The first commandment Jesus gave was to “love the Lord your God with all your heart, mind, and soul” and the second was to love your neighbors.

Since most Christians and religious people believe that homosexuality is a sin (and most will point to Romans where Paul wrote that God gave the Romans “over to their sin” as proof of this fact), it makes perfect sense that they would vote in favor of a law that defines marriage as something that can only occur between a man and a woman.

Also, God doesn’t say that because someone sins you can’t “love” them, in fact he encourages Christians to love everyone regardless of sin because (again) Biblically “we are all sinful in the eyes of God” and no one is blameless.  The Bible makes it very clear that Christians are to love others, but despise the sin in their lives.

So while, Olbermann might have thought he was convicting Christians of hypocrisy, he in fact was making an ill-informed statement.  It is not “wrong” for a Christian to vote in favor of a proposition against gay marriage.

I respect Keith Olbermann’s right to say what he says.  But I just think that some clarification is needed as well as a reminder that as individual citizens, it is our right to vote as we want.  For or against a proposition.  It is our right to vote with our hearts, minds, beliefs, ideals, morals, and anything else we hold dear.

So if you voted for Prop8, or against, good for you for taking a stand for what you believe to be right/wrong/whatever.  That is what makes America so great.

Now, to all of you whom are trying to get the fact that Prop8 passed overturned in court with a bunch of lawsuits, you are a blight on this system and should regulate yourself to live with scum.  Should you succeed, you will prove that the whole concept of voting is rendered useless and disenfranchise anyone who takes time to go and vote.

Allow me to clarify that this is most definitely not the case.  While I do believe in smaller government, less regulation, and in general lower taxes, I do believe that the government can help out those that really need it.  I do also think that several of our current systems need to be reworked.  Quite simply I believe that you should work for what you have/want.  You shouldn’t expect it to be just given to you (by the government or anyone else).

My largest issue with the whole redistribution of wealth is that it gives a sense of entitlement to those that survive off government programs.  We already have enough people that believe the government should just give them money.  Why do we want to further propegate that idea.

I’m okay with the government helping out the common hard working man.  But it needs to be done in a reasonable and intelligent way.  I’m not okay with just giving handouts to people who are too lazy to get a job, education, or even read a book.

I don’t believe that further taxing the rich (a group that already pays somewhere around 90% of the taxes collected in this country) or profitable corporations for simply “making too much money” because I feel that is pusnishing success.

I believe quite simply that “if man does not work, he shall not eat” and I do not believe in the idea of entitlement.  I don’t believe that anyone is entitled to anything and that if you want to be rich, have more money, or a higher position that you have to work to achieve it.  I don’t believe it should just be handed to you.  Does that mean that this doesn’t happen?  It does.  Do I agree with it?  Not really.

The current system isn’t perfect and it does need to be re-evaluated, tweaked, and in some cases, completely reworked.

It really upsets me that people assume that a lot of people are not voting for Obama because he is black.  Do we really believe that the large majority of people are that ignorant?  Are there people out there that are that ignorant?  Yes, there are.  But to just assume that people who aren’t voting for Obama are doing so based on race, that seems far more ignorant.

You want people to “look at the issues” and when they do and decide that they don’t like your candidate, you decide they must be “racist” and nothing could be further from the truth for people.

Obama wants to take the rich and profitable corporations more and then give that money back to what he’s calling the “middle class” and call me ignorant if you’d like but that sounds exactly like “redistribution of wealth” which is socialism.  So excuse me, if as someone who actually works and makes a decent wage, I’m a little upset that I’m going to be taxed further, and have my money goto people who make less than me or don’t have a job at all.  Kiss my white, hard working, American rear-end if you think that I’m racist because I believe that since I actually work for my money I should get to keep as much of it as possible rather than give it to those that can’t be bothered to learn a trade, get an education, or even just simply get a job.

And for those that want to tell me that this country is already socialist, yes I’m aware that things like welfare make the United States a somewhat socialist state.  However, we’re no where near other countries in this world.  I would simply like to avoid seeing someone get into office that wants to make this country more socialist than it already is or needs to be.

All you people who think Obama is going to “save the middle class from those evil rich bastards” better get a wake up call.  If you tax a profitable corporation for simply being success full and having high profits, you better expect that those same companies will raise their prices (which directly effects the middle class) to cover those new taxes.  So great, you taxed the “evil” corporation for making a lot of money, but you have caused the middle class to have to pay more for whatever product that “evil” corporation is selling.  So you’ve in a sense accomplished nothing.

People who wish to vote for Obama need to really sit down and think about how economics and taxes really work.  They also need to do some research.  If they did, they’d realize that “the rich” already pay the largest part of the taxes collected yearly in the United States.  They’d also realize that Obama’s plans are the very definition of socialism (the redistribution of wealth).  Of course, I can understand how that’s hard to see when he says a whole bunch of pretty things in his speeches.

Footnote: I don’t really like McCain for president either.  So before you go telling me I’m brainwashed, or racist, or a McCain-ite, understand that if I vote for McCain it will simply be because he is what I consider to be the lesser of two evils and no other reason.  (I wonder how many people will see this note since it’s at the bottom, rather than reading the first 2 paragraphs and blasting me in the comments)

During the course of our coversation I said, I wonder what the recent polls look like.  So I did a little digging.  As of today, here are the numbers from 2 different websites:

1) RealClearPolitics.com: Obama 49.0 versus McCain’s 43.9

2) CNN Election Tracker: Obama 49.25 (Avg.) versus McCain’s 43.5 (average margin for error: 6.25)

When looking at those it is easy to tell that Obama definitely has a lead on McCain.  However, it is not a huge lead.  It is also worth noting that Kerry lead Bush in most polls leading up to the election (and please don’t cry “election fraud” as it was never proven substantially, and never tried in court).  My point is these polls don’t really show us too much about what will happen in the actual election.

One thing I do want to point out is how much the polls are currently split down the middle (or fairly close to it anyway).  If you were to hit most popular internet sites, many of them will praise the works of Barak Obama and villify John McCain.  Several media outlets will do this as well.  To look at all the praise of Obama and to see/hear/read of the disdain for the republicans last eight years of “reign” and then see the current poll numbers, it can really make one think.  Seriously think about it.  If you knew nothing but what you read on the net, you’d think that Obama (being the democrate nominee for president) would have a huge lead over the republican candidate.  Especially given Bush’s low approval rating.  Congress was replaced two years ago because people felt the republicans weren’t doing their jobs, so they obviously had a low approval rating to have a change in congressional party leadership.

However, the race (at least according to the polls) looks to be at a dead heat.  The conclusion I have come to is this: While most people might in fact be unhappy with Bush, a large percentage of Americans still hold to basic republican ideals.  To put it another way, a large number of people still believe that the republicans have the right idea and agree with it.

Think about it.  If it was simply a party issue, republicans are bad and democrates are good then Obama would have a huge lead over McCain.  But as it currently stands they’re pretty much neck and neck (especially when you consider the margin for error).  But political parties are more than just a side you pick, they represent ideas, principles, and even beliefs.  They are an ideology about how things should be done by the people and for the people.  The fact McCain has just about half of the numbers in the polls really shows that a lot of people still hold to the ideals of the republican party, even if they don’t like their current figureheads.

Just something to chew on.

While there are some areas I feel that this country is doing right, I can’t agree with our foreign policy as of late.  We seem to have gotten away from our isolationist point of view which kept us on many people’s good side for a long time.  However, I do not believe Bush to be entirely at fault on this.  I think he will be nothing more than the fall guy for Cheney’s idiotic politic-ing.  But this is merely an opinion at the moment and only history will really reveal if my foresight on that matter was accurate.

From the email:

You can check this out on Snopes.com under “The Story of Two Houses”
House #1 A 20 room mansion (not including 8 bathrooms) heated by natural gas. Add on a pool (and a pool house) and a separate guest house, all heated by gas. In one month this residence consumes more energy than the average American household does in a year. The average bill for electricity and natural gas runs over $2400. In natural gas alone, this property consumes more than 20 times the national average for an American home. This house is not situated in a Northern or Midwestern “snow belt” area. It’s in the South.

House #2 Designed by an architecture professor at a leading national university. This house incorporates every “green” feature current home construction can provide. The house is 4,000 square feet ( 4 bedrooms ) and is nestled on a high prairie in the American southwest. A central closet in the house holds geothermal heat-pumps drawing ground water through pipes sunk 300 feet into the ground. The water (usually 67 degrees F. ) heats the house in the winter and cools it i n the summer. The system uses no fossil fuels such as oil or natural gas and it consumes one-quarter electricity required for a conventional heating/cooling system. Rainwater from the roof is collected and funneled into a 25,000 gallon underground cistern. Wastewater from showers, sinks and toilets goes into underground purifying tanks and then into the cistern. The collected water then irrigates the land surrounding the house. Surrounding flowers and shrubs native to the area enable the property to blend into the surrounding rural landscape.

HOUSE #1 is outside of Nashville, Tennessee; it is the abode of the “environmentalist” Al Gore.

HOUSE #2 is on a ranch near Crawford, Texas; it is the residence the of the President of the United States, George W. Bush.

So there you have it.  Everyone’s favorite environmentalist is using “20 times” (some reports put the actual number around 14% more) the energy of the average American home while the ever hated President of the United States is using up to 25 percent less.  Sure, Mr. Gore might off set some of it, but that’s still a lot of energy he is using.

As Republican, I recognize that this announcement could eventually lead to something ground breaking. However, as a Republican, I have severe issues with the Clinton family. I believe that a woman could be president, I believe that a woman could even be a successful president. We have female representatives and female senators, so why not a female president?

Why has there never been a female president before? I do not think there is a real answer to that question. I think a lot of it has to do with tradition. As much as people in this country like to change traditions that were in place for centuries, the unwritten rule of male-only presidents does not seem to be in any danger. At least not until now. I think that a qualified woman could in fact be something this country might need to kind of shake things up a little. A little outside of the box thinking might do wonders for this country.

Though, Hillary’s bid for president has a long way to go. There are party nominations, party primaries, and then finally the actual presidential election. I think that first and foremost, we should get away from the Clinton/Bush swapping idea. To go from Clinton to Bush and back to a Clinton, seems a little odd to me. I also think that all those third party supporters should get their wish for one term, let us see how badly a third party president can screw the country up. Heck, it seems to be everyone’s opinion anyway that each president just screws things up more.

What do the readers think? Are we ready for a female president?

[Technorati Tag: Commentary]
[Technorati Tag: Politics]

It seems that the logic behind doing this is that the majority people who work minimum wage jobs still live in poverty. While this might be the case, by raising the minimum wage they just made it harder for those people to live.

Raising the minimum wage causes a domino effect in that because the employers are paying their workers more, they have to raise the price of their products in order to make up the difference. The other option for employers is to fire staff in order to bring labor costs down to be able to keep prices the same. If businesses raise the price of their products, then the minimum wage hike that the employees just got is instantly worth a lot less than intended.

Most people will say that it does not happen, but I was working a minimum wage job when the last hike happened. The place I was working for (Dominos Pizza) raised their prices by a dollar (sometimes two) per pizza. I also saw other places raise their prices as well.

I find it funny though that a lot of people that this is going to benefit did not want it to happen. Could it be that people who work minimum wage jobs are smarter than people give them credit for?

[Technorati Tag: News]
[Technorati Tag: Politics]

The basic argument from politicians and other government authorities is that, blogs are dangerous and should be controlled. While Mr. Johnson sates that:

When you criticize “the bloggers” and question the legitimacy of what they are saying, you are questioning the concept of democracy itself.

On this particular instance I agree with Mr. Dave Johnson. Blogging promotes the idea of free speech better than anything the internet has seen so far. Anyone can start a blog, it is as easy as going to Blogger and sign up for an account and Blogger is just one of many free blogging services available on the internet. If someone would like to run a blog on their own website it is as easy as installing WordPress. So the proliferation of blogging is going to continue to grow as more people realize exactly what it is. What blogging as done is given everyone who wants a public voice the ability to have one. From a politician’s standpoint, this is a very scary thing. People can “speak” and be heard/read/watched with ease.

The continued growth of free speech is dangerous to any government, even one that has such a freedom as one of its first rights. By giving people a voice, a government is open to scorn from its very own citizens and no government official enjoys scorn. Sure, free speech is dandy when it helps push agendas they can agree with, but if you start questioning motives, ideas, and policies you might find yourself on the wrong end of a law that the politician is on the committee for.

Now, this does not mean that a person should go off on a posting spree and write grossly inaccurate articles and just flame every politian or person in sight. Quite the contrary. All a freedom of speech right means is that a person can do those things. Besides, what most of the people questioning the legitimacy of bloggers fail to realize is that, people on the internet do not overly care for garbage, and if a blogger wants readers they will need to put some thought and effort into their posts. Believe me when I say that people looking for accurate information are going to find it and it can very much be from a blog. A blogger has to work to gain credibility. A new blogger can not just post something randomly and receive tons of legitimacy. In the blogging world, it is the readers whom determine legitimacy. And who can really blame people for looking else where for legitimate opinions, facts, and news updates? Two major news papers just last year were found to have knowingly lied about facts and even doctor photographs. Not sure about you, but I would like something a little more credible.

I think that real journalists (those that actually went to school for their trade and work for reputable journalistic outlet) have very little to fear from the blogging community. Legitimacy still comes from the time honored tradition of hitting the streets (or in bloggers case the internet) and digging up facts, researching data, and compiling that into articles that are readable. So criticizing bloggers is really going to accomplish nothing more than cause flame wars.

[Technorati Tag: Commentary]
[Technorati Tag: Blogging]

This theory is not new to me in fact I read a little bit about it before my friend showed me the documentary Loose Change, which is a documentary that covers this exact conspiracy theory in depth. While I do not doubt that our government is capable of something like this, I just do not believe that their involvement was that great. Did the United States government know about the attack? That is a debatable point. I believe that our government officials knew about the possibility of an attack but I do not think that they knew exactly what kind of attack was going to happen.

Many people like to believe that Bush was fully aware that the 9/11 attacks were going to happen because it plays into their theory that he was looking for an excuse to invade Iraq. Kind of nice how that all fits together for anti-Bush speakers.

Me, I believe that while Bush might have wanted to invade Iraq, that he did not purposely let an attack on U.S. soil happen. I believe that our invasion of Iraq was based on several aspects and documents that the public is not yet privy to due to classification of that data. I do not believe that the American public should know everything their government knows and that so things should be kept confidential. And as a result, I believe that our government knew more about both 9/11 and Iraq than the public has been told about.

But, I enjoy a good conspiracy theory as much as the next internet junkie so keep them coming.

[Technorati Tag: Politics]
[Technorati Tag: Conspiracy]

[Technorati Tag: Politics]