Friday, October 24th - Zero: Obama Bi(n la)den

You guys have all heard this ad nauseum, so I won't get to far into it. Just a few tidbits and then the funniest picture I have seen in a long time.

I saw a clip of our friend 'Barry' on one of the morning news shows, probably the All Barak News, where he says he does not regret his 'Spread the Wealth' statement to Joe the Plumber. So just in case you missed it the first time, or you were trying to rationalize the statement in your mind: Barry has confirmed he IS a socialist. And he's not even trying to hide it.

We are well on our way to becoming the USSA instead of the USA.

Speaking of horror movies, have you seen what the media is doing to poor Joe the Plumber? This guys is being hounded, harrassed, and terrorized. It's un-freaking-believable. Since it's obvious that their so-called messiah is not going to explain away his statements, the zombie army has decided the need to make ol' Joe into a war-mongering, kitten-eating, capitalist pig.

Let's see - a leader who sends his goonies after you if you dare question his motives or views - sounds a little familiar, doesn't it. Well, if you went to school and didn't completely sleep through World History class anyway.

By the way, did you know that Sarah Palin has a higher classified security clearance than either Biden or Obama?

Bet she knows how many letters are in "J-O-B-S", too.

Peace, Love, and GOD,
Tracy

Wednesday, Oct 22nd - Zero: Joe Biden

Also known as: the Gaffster, Mr. What Am I Talkin' About, The Plagerizer.

He just can't seem to stop himself, whether at the debate or campaign stops, the guy proves over and over again why he couldn't get even 1% of the vote in the primary.

These weren't minor errors, such as when Biden said, "Look, all you have to do is go down Union Street with me in Wilmington or go to Katie's restaurant or walk into Home Depot with me where I spend a lot of time, and you ask anybody in there whether or not the economic and foreign policy of this administration has made them better off in the last eight years."

It turns out that Katie's restaurant, where Biden gets his feel for the average American, closed 20 years ago. As for all the 'regular' people that live in his neighborhood? Only if regular people live in Million Dollar McMansions.

Palin would surely have been forced to withdraw from the ticket had she said something like that, but most of Biden's errors were not trifling mistakes like these. They were lengthy disquisitions that were pure fantasy from beginning to end.

For example, Biden said about Hezbollah: "When we kicked -- along with France -- we kicked Hezbollah out of Lebanon." Hezbollah was never kicked out of Lebanon.

He went on: "I said and Barack said, 'Move NATO forces in there. Fill the vacuum, because if you don't, Hezbollah will control it.'" This is madness -- Lebanon is not a NATO country, nor had any NATO country been attacked by Lebanon.

Biden also resolutely denied that Obama ever said he would sit down with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Liberals find it hilarious that McCain can't use a computer keyboard on account of his horrendous war injuries, but Biden is apparently unaware of the Internet, because there are clips all over of Obama saying exactly that during the CNN/YouTube debate last year.

You would think that Biden might have remembered that debate since: (1) He was there, and (2) he later attacked Obama's answer, telling the National Press Club in August 2007: "Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president? Absolutely, positively, no."

And that's still not all! Obama's own Web site says: "Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."

Apparently, being Liberal means you can be stupid without consequences. Sounds like their Education policy now that I think about it.

Biden also gave a long speech at the debate on vice president Dick Cheney's "dangerous" belief that "he's part of the legislative branch." The great constitutional scholar Biden cited Article I of the Constitution as proof that Cheney "works in the executive branch" and has "no authority relative to the Congress." Biden huffily added: "He should understand that. Everyone should understand that."

Palin would have had to deny that Alaska is a state in the union in order to say something comparably stupid.

Article II, not I, describes the executive branch. Someone tell Biden, who is supposed to be a lawyer. Apart from getting the Articles of the Constitution mixed up, what on earth does Biden mean when he says that the vice president "has no authority relative to Congress," apart from breaking ties?

The Constitution makes him president of the senate every day of the week. I realize that Biden may not be able to count to two, but Article I says the vice president is president of one of the two houses of Congress -- the one Biden is in, for crying out loud -- which is what you might call "authority relative to Congress."

Even on the one issue that is supposed to be in his 'strength category' Biden authoritatively stated: "With Afghanistan, facts matter, Gwen. ... We spend more money in three weeks on combat in Iraq than we spent on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country."

According to the Congressional Research Service, since 9/11, we've spent $172 billion in Afghanistan and $653 billion in Iraq. The most money spent in Iraq came in 2008, when we have been spending less than $3 billion a week. So by Biden's calculations, we've spent only about $9 billion "on the entirety of the last seven years that we have been in Afghanistan building that country." There isn't even a "9" in $172 billion.

In the same answer, Biden went on to claim that "John McCain voted against a comprehensive nuclear test ban treaty that every Republican has supported."

The last nuclear test ban treaty the Senate voted on was the one Clinton signed in the '90s. As The New York Times editorialized on the Senate vote a few years later: "Last week, Senate Republicans thundered 'no' to the nuclear test ban treaty, handing the White House its biggest defeat since health care in 1994." Forty-nine Republicans voted against the treaty; only four liberal Republicans voted for it. That's the treaty Biden says "every Republican has supported."

Being interviewed by Katie Couric (oh goody - another bimbo to make fun of) on the "CBS Evening News," Biden said: "When the stock market crashed, Franklin D. Roosevelt got on the television and didn't just talk about the, you know, the princes of greed. He said, 'Look, here's what happened.'"

For those of you who aren't hard-core history buffs, Biden not only named the wrong president during the 1929 stock market crash, he also claimed a president who wasn't president during the stock market crash went on TV before Americans had TVs.

Couric was nearly moved to tears by the unmatched brilliance of Biden's brain-damaged remark. She was especially intrigued by Biden's claim that FDR had said the new iPhone was the bomb!

Here is Couric's full response to Biden's bizarre outburst about FDR (a) being president and (b) going on TV in 1929: "Relating to the fears of the average American is one of Biden's strong suits."

I'm sorry, but WHAT THE !@$#%!#$!@#???????????

Another little historical fact for you. In 1973 America was in the middle of the Arab oil embargo and a bill came up for vote in the senate for the first Alaskan Pipeline. The pipeline would deliver 15 Billion barrels of oil, nearly 20% of the nations usage, create tens of thousands of jobs, and bring hundreds of billions of dollars into our economy. The vote passed by an astounding 80-5.

One of those 5? The good Senator Joe Biden. Why? He was worried about the precious Caribou population. In a time when our enemies had us by the short and curlies, most good liberals were telling the Caribou it was time to 'take one for the team'. But not Joe. Joe was busy chanting 'four legs good, two legs bad'...

As for the poor caribou, their population has sextupled from 5000 in 1973 to over 32,000 today. Guess they like a little 'oil and vinegar' with their greens too...

Peace, Love, and GOD,
Tracy

Friday, Oct 10th - Hero: Joy

I have some beautiful silver plaques hanging on the walls of my house; they say things like Believe, Prayer, Family, Faith, and Joy.

The one that says Joy is not the biggest, but it is on the wall directly across from where I sit in the evenings, so I look at it the most.

Joy is one of the most powerful 3 letter words in our vocabulary. It is one of the most used words in the Bible. It's a definition all within itself. I think of it as an emotion that bubbles up from within and it is impossible to be feeling Joy and not show it. We should embrace life and the Joy it can bring.

It's a great big word.

It's also the name of one of the most beautiful women I have ever known, Joy Faye Smith. She is my aunt, through fate not family. She made the journey into God's presence last week, bringing more Joy to Him, but taking a bit of it from our world.

This is hard to talk about, and probably hard to read, but it has been consuming my thoughts and I think there is much to learn from really untimely deaths. After all, reflection is the only way to get a good look at our souls.

Joy was one of 'those' people that, if you are incredibly luckly, come into your life and show you what its like to be selfless. To truly care more about others than yourself. Joy was infinitely interested in other people. She was a great listener and an even better encourager. She just always made me feel worthwhile. I know that I wasn't the only one, either. It was evident at her funeral. The pastor that delivered her eulogy talked about Joy having a PROFOUND effect on his life. That was a great way to describer her. Profound.

She raised two incredible children who loved her in a way that most mothers dream their children will love them. It's the same way my family loves my grandma. It's a protective love, and a 'I can't believe God loved me enough to give me her' love, and a 'How am I supposed to live without her' love. Whew..

But, we can live without them, because of what they give to us while they are here. Lessons through the way they lived their lives, successes and mistakes, strengths and weaknesses. Stories told, values shared, disciplines passed on. We always want more, because we are human. But a divine God knows exactly what we need and how much we need, and that is exactly what we get. That's not much comfort to Joy's children, or especially my uncle. He literally has had the Joy taken out of his life. I know what a tremendous effect she had on me just in the small doses I was with her, so I can't even imagine his loss. They were best friends, peas n carrots, two souls merged into one. Thank God he has the kids and grandkids. They will bring lots of 'joy' to him.

A lot of these thoughts have been swirling around, and as most people do when a person close to us passes on, I have been thinking about legacies. We should aim to have a legacy that speaks more about our love for our families than our love for our work. I have always put so much into my job, and that's not necessarily a bad thing, but I have so many regrets when it comes to my family. I want to be a great mother and grandmother (God willing), and a great wife, and a great friend. I want to leave behind so many great memories that everyone who knew me will have a funny story to tell.

Shouldn't that be everyone's goal? Leave the world a better place than how you found it? Everyone who met Joy came away better off for it. That's a very worthy goal to have. And it is acheivable, really.

Wake up each morning and make the decision to embrace the JOY within you, and banish the sadness, anger, and guilt that can become the norm. I promise you if you do that, not just today and tomorrow, but EACH day. You will be that person. The one that when people say your name, they say it with a smile.

Peace, Love, and GOD,
Tracy

Friday, Sept 26th - Zero: The Bailout

I found some great information on the bailout proposal by going to John Boozman's website. If you are interested, please read this information.

If not - just know this: The bailout is listed at $700 billion. This is on top of $900 billion we have already spent on the bank crises (Bear Stearns, AIG, Freddie and Fanny). Already, that represents $5,666 per person in the United States.

However, you add that number to the current national defecit the number goes up to 53 TRILLION dollars. That is $176,666 per person in total tax burden. Now, since we know that a full 40% of the population pays NO taxes, that means that those of us that do, are stuck with $294,444 each.

Chew on that for a while.

Taxpayer dollars shouldn’t be used to subsidize salaries of executives who have made bad business decisions. We can’t allow company officials to who break consumer confidence and send businesses into turmoil to benefit from bad practices. We owe it to the American people to make these officials accountable for their actions.

This is not the time for hurried legislation. We need a well thought-out approach to solving the problems we are facing. Washington should not be rushed into making such a critical decision that impacts the American economy. Sure, we need to protect the credit system in this country, but not by killing the American taxpayers!

A BACKGROUND ON RECENT BAILOUTS

Until this year, the federal government has never injected so much money into the U.S. financial market since the Great Depression. In addition to using interest rate adjustments to address the looming financial situation, the Federal Reserve and the U.S. Treasury have stepped in to “bail out” large financial institutions that were nearing bankruptcy or facing grave financial distress. The bailouts have raised questions over whether the federal government has a role in staving off consequences of bad business decisions to protect further losses in the market, and whether the economic crisis today is of such grand proportion that it would warrant the federal government to step in on the free market economy.

The following provides a breakdown of each bailout that has occurred this year, and the situations leading up to each bailout.

Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are Government Sponsored Enterprises (GSEs), or privately owned, Congressional chartered financial institutions created for public policy purposes. They were created to increase liquidity and improve distribution of capital available for home mortgage financing. As GSEs, the charters of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac limit them to purchasing single family and multifamily home mortgages. As a result, they lack diversification in the types of mortgages they buy which makes them more susceptible to problems and fluctuations in the home mortgage market.

According to a report by the Heritage Foundation, experts have warned for decades that both Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac lacked sufficient capital to protect against losses. While most banks have $1 of capital for every $12 in assets, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac only have $1 for every $20 in assets. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac hold about 70 percent of the national market share of home mortgages, and they both guarantee mortgages and hold about $5 trillion worth of them in their investment
portfolios. Beginning in 2004, their portfolios began to grow primarily with subprime and alternative-A loans. From 2003 to 2006, subprime and alternative-A originations in the U.S. rose from less than 8% of all mortgages to over 20%.

Between the end of 2007 and August 2008, Fannie Mae's stock lost 72 percent of its value and Freddie Mac lost 77 percent of its values, which many attributed to improper accounting practices and homeowners falling behind on subprime mortgages, putting 70 percent of the home mortgage market share at risk.

On July 30, the President signed into law H.R. 3221, a $800 billion housing aid bill to rescue Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. On September 7, the U.S. Treasury announced the federal government seized control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, arguing if the crisis had continued, lack of cash would have made it more difficult for consumers to obtain home loans.

Cost of the Bailout: $800 Billion

Congressional approval was sought for this bailout. Congressman Boozman did not support the bailout.

Bear Stearns:

At the beginning of the year, Bear Stearns was the nation's fifth largest investment bank. When the housing market took off earlier in the decade, Bear Stearns became actively involved in the residential mortgage market. As a result, it held a large amount of mortgage-backed securities. When the housing market plunged, Bear Stearns began to experience financial trouble. In response, Bear Stearns poured more money into subprime mortgage funds. When the housing market continued to decline, Bear Stearns found itself in an even deeper financial struggle. In March 2008, it was virtually crippled by a liquidity squeeze related to devalued mortgage-backed securities and neared bankruptcy.

In response, the Federal Reserve System announced on March 14 that it would provide a short-term loan to help Bear Stearns. Two days later, JP Morgan Chase, a commercial bank, agreed to buy Bear Stearns, and the Federal Reserve agreed to provide special financing to help with the transaction for up to $30 billion of Bear Stearns’ less liquid assets. After additional negotiations between Bear Stearns and JP Morgan Chase, the transaction ended with the Federal Reserve agreeing to finance $29 billion of Bear Stearns’ less liquid assets. Before this point, the Federal Reserve had never "bailed out" a financial institution that was not a commercial bank.

Cost of the Bailout: $29 Billion

No Congressional approval was sought for this bailout.


Lehman Brothers:

Lehman Brothers is a global financial services firm who, like Bear Stearns, held a large share of mortgage backed securities. When the subprime mortgage market took a hit,the Lehman Brothers faced substantial losses just as Bear Stearns did. In the first half of 2008 alone, Lehman's stock lost 73% of its value.

On September 14, Lehman brothers announced that it would file for bankruptcy protection, subsequently sending the stock market down 500 points on September 15, the largest drop in a single day since the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. Lehman Brothers sought government intervention to no avail. On September 16, Barclays PLC acquired a portion of Lehman brothers and no government bailout was instituted.

Cost of Bailout: None. No government bailout occurred.

AIG:

After Lehman Brothers, investors began looking at national insurance company American International Group’s (AIG) securities and found that they were similar to Lehman Brothers’. AIG’s credit rating was downgraded and it suffered a liquidity crisis because it could no longer access capital. As such, AIG's share prices fell 95% on September 16. At AIG's request, the Federal Reserve loaned money of up to $85 billion to AIG to prevent its collapse, in exchange for a 79.9% equity stake in the company because there was concern that many U.S. banks would fail if AIG did not keep operating.

Cost of the Bailout: $85 Billion

No Congressional approval was sought for this bailout.


THE PROPOSED WALL STREET BAILOUT BILL(The Paulson Plan)

The U.S. Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson is asking for authority from Congress to buy the troubled assets from financial firms that are said to be causing the current financial crisis. Secretary Paulson is asking for $700 billion to buy primarily mortgage-related debt, which will allow financial institutions to raise capital and begin lending and investing again, resulting in a theoretical “jump start” of the economy. The plan is for the government to hold the assets until the market can recover. It then would sell the assets back into the market through a “reverse auction,” where the government sets a minimum price for the asset and financial institutions bid on the asset for purchase.

The proposal is now being considered on Capitol Hill where some lawmakers and interest groups are pushing for additional provisions to allow bankruptcy judges to modify mortgage terms, adding terms to provide plan oversight and market regulation, and provisions to curb executive compensation in companies that participate in the bailout.

Leadership in Congress has suggested that the proposal is likely to be voted on this week.

Who is going to come up with the $700 billion?

American taxpayers will shoulder the cost of the bailout, which could actually be anywhere from $500 billion to $1 trillion, depending on how the assets are priced and how many are sold. The Treasury will attempt to resell them to investors, which some argue could result in profit and, ultimately, a lower price tag. There is no assurance of this profit, however, and many argue that the government is at risk of losing a great deal of taxpayer dollars through the purchase of this mortgage debt. In order to finance this plan, the Treasury will need to borrow money to buy the assets. It has asked for an increase in the debt ceiling, which means we must increase the federal deficit for the second time this year and increase interest payments on our federal debt. In addition, the $700 billion will be on top of the $900 billion tax dollars that have already been obligated for Bear Stearns, Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and AIG.

How long will the government hold these assets?

Ideally, the government should hold assets for the shortest amount of time possible. However, in reality they could end up holding them until maturity. For example, the government could hold a 30-year mortgage for the entire 30 years, or they could sell it at its discretion. With respect to the reverse auction, the number one priority should be to maximize the price for the American taxpayer. While the government may hold these assets at their discretion, the current Paulson plan would allow the government to purchase these assets for only two years.

What is the rationale for acting now?

According to a Congressional Research Service report, a press release from the Treasury stated illiquid mortgage-related assets had clogged the financial system. The combination of the government’s refusal to intervene on behalf of Lehman Brothers the same week that a bridge loan was extended to AIG has led many to believe that a case-by-case approach needs to be replaced with broad intervention. In addition, the sudden spike in interest rate spreads and declines in financial activity following the AIG intervention caused some policymakers to believe that the fragile financial market could worsen if it were not addressed. On the other hand, many argue that while addressing disruptions in the market as soon as possible is preferable, the urgency to address the situation immediately is caused in part by issues unrelated to the financial markets such as congressional schedules and political elections.


Arguments for the Bailout

Proponents for the Wall Street bailout are concerned that the financial crisis is starting to impact historically safe assets like money market accounts, and that retirement savings and investments of middle class Americans may be at risk. While these “safe” assets have no direct reason to suffer financial distress, they may suffer due to lack of market confidence. When this sort of market panic has developed, proponents say the federal government has an important role in calming the markets. As such, Secretary Paulson has created a plan to restore confidence in the financial market, which the Administration argues would address financial market distress and would preserve an individual’s capacity to borrow money to buy a home or to finance a college loan or allow small businesses to obtain credit. Without this government intervention, he argues, we would experience dire economic conditions – tax dollars would provide insurance against economic disaster.


Arguments Against the Bailout


Opponents of the bailout plan argue that buying troubled debt provides the most help to firms who have made the worst investments. According to Douglas W. Elmandorf, Senior Fellow at the Brookings Institute, banks which made responsible decisions to stay clear of bad debt or cut their losses would receive little or no gain from the bailout. Banks with the weakest balance sheet will reap the best rewards. Opponents of the plan argue that this will undermine an important financial principle that companies which have failed should have a smaller role in the market and it sends companies the signal that the government will be there to bail them out when they make bad business decisions. Under this assumption, opponents question what incentive businesses would have to take steps to ensure their own survival, such as voluntarily renegotiating troubled loans. This type of action could put the U.S. on a dangerous and unsustainable path where fundamental market principles gradually disappear to an economy in which the federal government owns significant assets and controls liquidity.

In addition, the bailout is a big risk for taxpayers with little gain. Because the amount the Treasury will use to buy assets must be borrowed, it will raise the federal deficit. This liability, on top of other long-term liabilities for Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, means American taxpayers could be liable for more than $53 trillion, or $455,000 per household in federal debt.


Opponents also argue that much of the problem we now see has been the result of too much, rather than too little, government intervention. They say the current crisis is an example of what happens when politicians - Republicans and Democrats alike - enact policies in order to score political points or as knee-jerk reactions to perceived or real crisis without regard for the possible consequences and foresight as to future implications. Policies legislated in the past that have encouraged or even mandated lending to low-income and under-qualified borrowers may have made for a good sound bite, but they forced private businesses to enter into risky and unwise transactions that they otherwise may not have considered.


Sorry it was so long - but now you can't say you weren't informed!

Peace, Love, and GOD,
Tracy

Wednesday, Sept 24th - Zero: Barak Obama

Been awhile since I used him, so it just felt right...

I have been watching with a bit of fascination, as you can imagine, the media and entertainment world completely go off the deep end over Sarah Palin and the resurgence of the Republican ticket. And rightly so. Palin is kicking their asses!!

The other issue is the Economy. Democrats have a REALLY bad track record with keeping a good economy. Clinton did a decent job of it, but come on, all he had to do was not screw with Reagan's policies too much. Of course, in his last couple of years he just couldn't help himself and made some REALLY, REALLY bad appointments to the Fed and Freddie Mac. Those names sound familiar? Yep, we are getting bit by those lapses of judgement right about now.

So, John McCain has decided to go back to DC and try to do something about the crises we are in. Naturally, that has driven the liberals STARK RAVING MAD. Letterman last night went off, which solidified my opinion that the guy is as stupid as he looks.

I just don't understand why the left-leaning Democrats hate the United States of America so bad.

When Benjamin Franklin was dispatched to France as ambassador of the United States in 1776, he won the hearts of the French through his authenticity. Rather than take on an affected and phony continental style, Franklin rebuffed the powdered wig of the European gentleman and donned the fur cap of an American frontiersman. The original political genius, Franklin understood that the French would see through any false pretension but respect an authenticity that sprang from an unpretentious, genuine, and somewhat naive love of country.

Contrast that to Obama who went to Europe for his rockstar tour. He went as a slick Harvard lawyer who hates what his country stands for. Like most 'entertainers', he's a mile wide and an inch deep. Obama is THE face of Liberals. You know, those people who have plundered the American system, gotten fithly rich off of it, but to 'fit in' and be considered intellectual sits back and berates the very culture and heritage that got them where they are. That's what us bitter americans in flyover country call 'biting the hand that feeds'.

Nothing exemplifies Obama’s hatred for American culture better than his statement that Americans “cling to” religion and guns out of frustration or bitterness. We can only suppose that Obama views religion and firearms as evils that need to be eradicated.

Of course, both guns and religion are essential aspects of our American culture. The United States was founded by people seeking religious freedom. Does the word “Pilgrim” ring a bell with anyone? Our freedom and the right to self-government were won by farmers with guns.

The American Revolution started when the British marched to Concord with the intention of confiscating the colonists' arms. Both the right to “keep and bear arms,” and the right to “free exercise” of religion are cornerstones of the Bill of Rights. We have come a long way when the presidential nominee of a major political party in America thinks of the exercise of these fundamental rights as a mental defect.

What is Barack Obama for? His campaign motto is “change.” But even a small child understands that “change” can be either good or bad. Without specification, the banner of “change” as policy is totally empty. As we watch Obama’s zombies mindlessly endorse the meaningless banner of “change,” it reminds me of the barnyard animals in George Orwell’s “Animal Farm” chanting “four legs good, two legs bad!”

Gives me the chills - how about you?

Obama is a vapid demagogue, a hollow man that despises American culture. He is ill-suited to be president of the United States. As the days pass, hopefully more Americans will come to this realization and elect McCain/Palin in a landslide.

Peace, Love, and GOD,
Tracy

Thursday Sept 11th: Heros: Firefighters and Policemen

I know there are some bad seeds out there, but Wow, I mean really, there are some true heros out there.

Of course, all over the TV today there are tributes and replays of the news from that day. And I have been reminded all over again of the true bravery and heroism of those guys that went back INSIDE of those towers trying to rescue as many civilians as they could. I can't imagine myself doing that. I would like to think that I would, that God would put the courage in my heart if called upon. I do absolutely know without a doubt that I couldn't do it without him. I would fold into a spineless mess. Truly.

It's the same spirit of bravery that military people disply day in and day out. Makes me think of the phrase 'anointed by God'.

Peace, Love, and God,
Tracy

P.S. I hate to spoil the mood with a Zero, but you must know that Matt Damon is a true ZERO in every sense of the word. He gave an interview in which he called Sarah Palin's Vice Presidency an 'absurd Disney movie'. He kept calling her a 'hockey mom' rather than Governor. It was BALTANLY woman hating at its worst. He then made it worse by saying that her Christianity and a belief in Creationism made her so stupid that she couldn't be trusted with the Nuclear codes.

What a moron. Seriously. Complete jackass. If anyone I know ever watches, buys, or rents a Matt Damon movie ever again, you better go to great lengths to hide it from me. I will seriously question your decision making skills.

Zero #2: Gloria Steinem

Remember in one of yesterday's posts, I said that one of the stages of Conservative Female Abuse, was to make her out to be an Enemy of All Women.

Steinem jumped right to this stage today. See, she hates Palin because Palin is not in lock-step with the other FemiNazi's out there.

This part really makes me angry. When did the feminist movement get hijacked by these crazies? Normally, I would consider myself somewhat of a feminist. I do believe that women should be treated fairly in the workplace and everywhere else. I think women are as smart and can work just as hard as men. It makes me crazy when I think of how women are treated in some of the crazy corners of our world. However, I am realist enough to understand that we are different. There are some things that men do that women just shouldn't try. Same as there are lots of things us women are capable of that a man would be disastrous at. God made us DIFFERENT for a reason. If men and women were the same, He wouldn't have bothered making both of us!

Women like Gloria Steinem brings out a nearly homicidal rage in me, though, when they act like being a "woman" is some secret club where, in order to gain membership, you must solemnly swear to:

1)Support abortion on demand. No reason needed, and who cares if the baby is within days of delivery.
2)Support our teenage daughters right to abort their baby without any input from her parents.
3)Be against guns in any LEGAL form. After all, it's only the criminals that know how to use them safely...
4)Understand that Evolution is the only unproven theory acceptable to teach our children.
5)Understand that Global Warming is a fact (if by fact you mean no one can prove it's true) and that only the lowly middle class is responsible for it.
6)Uphold George Clooney and Barbra Striesand as the political GENIUSES they are.
7)Get all your Current Events from Cosmo magazine.
8)Get all your civic lessons from Michael Moore.
9)If you must have children, at least have the decency of having a different father for each, just promise, for the love of Allah, not to ADOPT. That might discourage teenage girls from abortion (see #1 and #2 above).
10)Last, but not least, you must NEVER think for yourself!!! If you feel you are faltering, run to the nearest TV and watch MSNBC until the feeling passes.

That's a good little feminist. Aren't you glad that you belong to a club where we do all the heavy thinking for you? We really saved you from the big, bad, controlling man - didn't we?


Peace, Love, and GOD,
Tracy