Thursday, July 30, 2009

Left Wing Loons Still At It

Left Wing Loons Still at It.

Joan Walsh in her piece titled "Right-wing racism on the rise" over at, is trying her best to destroy some folks whose views are different from her's. You know, for a group of people who claim to care about the other guy and claim the high ground by being liberal minded, they sure can pile on those who don't think in lockstep with their own ideas. Ms. Walsh gives perfect examples.

She starts with her version of trying to get along with others,
"First, credit where it's due: A few lonely Republican leaders are belatedly trying to clean up the party's mess of crazy, from the racially tinged character attacks on Sonia Sotomayor to the unhinged rhetoric of the Birthers to the overall vicious and fact-free spew of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck."
She indulges her fantasy world by claiming she's giving a little credit to the other side, then immediately attempts a give childlike pounding to her perceived enemies. I would certainly like to know what "racially tinged character attack on Ms. Sotomayor" has occurred. The only discussion of racially biased quotes I have heard are Ms. Sotomayor's own remarks, e.g.,
"I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." - Sonia Sotomayor
Please say again, who is the racist?

For evidence that Rush Limbaugh is a racist, gives us this quote,
"Here you have a black president trying to destroy a white policeman,"
Note: (This remark was made in response to the president's remark characterizing the police as acting "stupidly" in the disorderly conduct arrest of his friend Prof. Gates in Cambridge earlier in the week.)

I see nothing racist about his remark. Mr. Limbaugh's opinion may be incorrect, but "racists"? Uh, no.

While we can't know what the president was thinking, we can make our own judgments on his remarks ("acted stupidly"). It was a statement he had planned to make and it is very racial. Ms. Walsh is using the same tactic the Obama crowd used to get him elected: Throw in race card to shut them up.

The left, Democrats and Democrat supporters tried to intimidate anyone who spoke against candidate Obama's vague policies by claiming some inference to his race. Of course, that never happened, nut the facts have never stopped them from trying to leverage the situation.

My proof? Continue to read her words, where she offers exactly zero to back up her attempts to shut the opposition down.

Joanie gives Mr. Graham a thumbs up (sort of).
"Sen. Lindsey Graham tried to kick off a new GOP flirtation with decency when he announced his vote to confirm Sotomayor last week. "
I fail to understand how Mr. Graham's surrender can be moralized. Confirming or not confirming the judge has zero to do with her race, as it is considered Caucasian anyway.

In the following example, her primary targets are Limbaugh (again) & Glenn Beck.
"These two racists are projecting their own racial feelings onto Obama. Increasingly, the ranks of the racially blinkered (and I include MSNBC's Pat Buchanan here) are playing victim, insisting Obama's modest moves -- appointing a Latina justice, using the Gates case to speak out against racial profiling -- are reversing the racial order wholesale, and putting white men on the bottom of the pile." (emphasis mine)
Ms. Walsh, much like many other leftist writers, seems to have the power to read minds, and she is a psychoanalyst to boot. She knows their feelings and in her professional opinion, recognizes that they are projecting.

Well don't that beat all. The folks who have been projecting their own guilt, failings and weaknesses onto others, recognize the syndrome and accuse the opposition of doing that which they do. (it seems she must have read some of posts at the Huff)

By the way: I am not a psychoanalyst either, but I play one on the web.

Continuing... She has no proof of that any Republican or conservative in a position of power in the United States has ever claimed that the Obama appointments are racist in nature. I happen to believe that his appointments reflect a willingness to appease his base, but racist? Uh, no. Did he appoint people who if not for their political connections would be fined thousands of dollars or in prison? Yes, he did. That would be my complaint about Mr. Obama's "transparent" White House.

She rambles on,
"One look at Congress, the Supreme Court, Fortune 500 CEOs -- or conversely, at prison cells across America -- tells you how delusional the Beck-Limbaugh-Buchanan view is, but that doesn't make it irrelevant. It's likely to get worse, as persistent economic hardship plus a spike in right-wing racist rhetoric increases the appeal of scapegoat strategies." (emphasis mine)

Quite frankly, I do not see anything in her remark that proves anything racial. I can't even see her examples as explaining anything. I guess it's more than adequate for some that she merely used those words to describe people that her people dislike anyway. Yes, it looks irrational to us. But they just cannot help it. If you were a slow learner and you only half read it, you might think it says something important. If you do, then it's back to school for you. And she doesn't identify any "scapegoat strategies."

The only scapegoating I've seen is the whole of the Democratic Party, their surrogates and especially the president himself repeatedly claiming they "inherited this mess", this "crisis". The truth be known the president, the elected Democrats in congress and hope for their kind of change and childlike intellects, are at the bottom of the current financial crisis. And it is their inability to understand basic human nature (or simply disregard it) that motivates them to attack anyone that comes in opposition to their grandiose, but terminally flawed, plans for America.

"It's time for more decent Republicans to take a stand against the vicious anti-Obama racism of the party fringe and their broadcast fuhrers. On Monday Ohio Sen. George Voinovich blasted the dominance of his party's Southern fringe, and its outdated Southern Strategy with its emphasis on racial division. Like Voinovich, I think GOP racism and race-baiting will consign the party to a long time in the political minority. But it could claim a lot of other victims along the way." (emphasis mine)
Again, she demonizes Republicans by implying that they need to be less vicious, racist, fringy, and to stop race baiting. As previously mentioned, it is she that is doing the race baiting.

If any Republican follows her advice, he/she should resign immediately. Her entire article is based on her hyper-partisan hate for any anyone questioning of her idol's policies. Furthermore, it is designed to make Republicans look inward for fault where no fault exists. It's a shame that many will take her words to heart.

Broadcast fuhrers. Too funny.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Healthcare Reform: Ban rescissions

While at a left wing blog site, I was reminded of the premise that private sector insurance companies employ a profit protecting methodology called "rescission". A link to an article saying as much was his proof.

I just have to ask Democratic Party supporters; Why is there no law banning rescissions?

Consider this: The Democratic Party have set themselves up as the protector of the little guy in America, the "blue collar" party whose members "feel your pain" and are only in government to look after your best interests have allowed this practice to go on while they were and are in a position to stop it. The US Congress, House and Senate, have been under Democratic Party control for almost all of the last 6 decades. Additionally, they had Democratic presidents for 20 of those years.

Is this how they show their selfless service? Could they have done something about it?

I'm going to say yes, this is how they show their service and that they could have banned this practice. But they didn't.

Next question: Why not?

My first guess would be lobbyists. Our politicians live and breath for lobbyists. Lobbyists have access to real money that their representatives need to maintain their elected offices. You know, so they can help you.

If that sounds cynical, how about this: The US Congress passed a law in 2008 to try to prevent insurance companies (AIG), banks and other Wall Street investors from filing for bankruptcy, while telling you that they were going to save the mortgage industry so you could continue to own your home. They passed out hundreds of billions of federal tax dollars to these companies with no strings attached. Did it stop any foreclosures? (no.)

I wonder how much of that they expected to get back in the form of campaign contributions or maybe special treatment on home or business financing at some time in the future?

Going back a few years to 2001, I wonder if there was some relation between the fact that we taxpayer gave tens of billions of dollars to the airline industry and the fact that Senator Tom Daschle's wife was a high paid lobbyist for the airline industry?
Note: Senator Tom Daschle 22nd United States Senate Majority Leader June 6, 2001 – January 3, 2003

So again, why haven't our representatives banned the egregious practice of rescission?

Oh, I don't know. Why don't you ask their lobbyists?

Wednesday, July 15, 2009

Government Mandated Health Care Passes the Senate Health Committee

It's not too late to call or write your senators to register your opposition to this country killer.

Reuters is reporting that the Senate Health Committee passed their version of the the Obama health care plan in a party-line 13-10 vote. The albatross is to be combined with the Senate Finance Committee's input, which they have not written yet. Then it will be passed through 4 more senate committees before it comes to the florr.

The bill ostensibly will insure the 46 million people in America that do not have health care insurance. Of course, opponents say that it will insure only about one quarter of that 46M at a cost of $1.5 Trillion.

Additionally, it will add:
- A government-run health care program (will destroy competition and nationalize health care)

- Require most Americans to obtain health insurance (who are they leaving out? Whose insurance plan? ANS: The government's plan)

- Mandate most employers to provide it to their workers. (to reduce job opportunities for middle America, after piling on income and other tax increases on them)

- The legislation also would seek to reduce costs in the $2.5 trillion U.S. health care industry. (by lowering doctors' and hospital fees, thus reducing the number of doctors and hospitals and other emergency services and by cutting Medicare and Medicaid)

Translated this all means the government is going to further tell individual Americans what is best for us and make you pay extra to for arousing their attention.

President Obama has promised to reduce Medicare and Medicaid spending by over $500 Billion to make it whither on the vine.

I this what you want?

Sign the petition at

Monday, July 13, 2009

Free Our Health Care Now Online Petition

You'll be a better person for it. This issue is not about partisan politics, it's about who is going to make your medical decisions for you and for your family.

The current proposed government solution to health care in America will drive up the cost, while congress dismantles Medicare and Medicaid. It will spend over a TRILLION dollars that the government does not have, and will only cover a small percentage of those it is supposed to include.

So, add your name to the 300, 000 who have already agreed that we need to take back health care from the government and put it back into the hands of those can best make decisions for themselves. This includes you.

Thursday, July 9, 2009

Orwell Would be Aghast or How the President is Faking You Out.

President Obama embodies the spirit and soul of author George Orwell's vision of the future. When speaking he introduces a little truth, never fills in with details, sprinkles in some double-speak, misinformation, using his winning form of propaganda and seems to be mired in doublethink. The legacy media's news programing uses a burgeoning form of newspeak by slavishly catering to his agenda, not asking the hard questions or reporting the details of his proposals and plans.

Put the fear in them

President Obama has based his presidency in crisis management to gain public support for his government's helping all Americans. He makes speeches ensuring a fearful electorate that he is looking out for our welfare and then uses the various monetary crises to obligate trillions of dollars that we do not have. (Why he would want to bankrupt the United States is beyond me, but it seems to be the goal. If not, then he is getting horrible advice from his advisers and will continue to borrow, print and spend this country into a hole that could become beyond correcting.)


The president says that current government spending trends "cannot be sustained". OK, so he has one right. But he said that the day after signing a $420 Billion budget for half of the fiscal year. It seemed he came to his senses as if he believed we had obligated too much already. That was a few short weeks after he signed $787 Billion "stimulus Package". Throughout this time, he has been saying that he would not allow any so-called "earmarks" (read as "pork barrel projects). All of this massive spending was on the heels of TARP, $700 billion that he supported and voted on in the US Senate.

Of course, this president has done nothing wrong because he inherited all of this mess.

Does it get any more Orwellian than this?

Why, yes it does. In nearly all of his speeches he will say one thing while urging congress to do the opposite.

Consider that he claimed that there is no room in his administration for lobbyists, then he hired at least twelve lobbyists to work in the White House and chose former Senator Tom Daschle to join his cabinet.

Candidate Obama emphatically and repeatedly claimed that he would put an end to earmarks. (An earmark is a type of "pork barrel" project) Then, at his very first opportunity to sign a a spending bill, he sells and signs a bill (the Stimulus Package) that is exclusively earmarks. Thousands and thousands of earmarks.

And, he still wants to spend another $1.4 Trillion for a government takeover of health care insurance in the United States. He wants it now, before congress breaks in August.

He then said if you want to keep your current insurance plan, you can have the same coverage you have now. But he can produce no documents or study to show where private or employer paid health care insurance will be unaffected by his "competitive Public" plan. But we are all aware of what happened when Hawaii decided to provide insurance to cover everyone.

He claims that the stimulus package has saved or created over 150,000 jobs, but cannot point to any of them. All the while, unemployment continues to raise well beyond his predictions. We lost another 467,000 in June alone.

While campaigning, he and his minions lambasted Senator McCain for suggesting that employer paid health care insurance might be taxed as income (along with a tax deduction for paying for it). Now, the president wants to tax the same benefit with no suggestion of an offsetting tax deduction.

He said no one making under $250,000.00 annually would have their taxes raised. That 95% of Americans would receive a tax cut. What was the first thing newly inaugurated President Obama did? Raised taxes on cigarettes by 67 cents per pack. The vast majority of cigarette smokers are poor to middle class in America (that's under way under $250K per year). Then comes the Cap & Trade bill that introduces over $800 billion in new taxes on everyone that exhales.

In the automobile industry bailouts, he said that he did not want to run the car companies and followed that by firing General Motors' CEO, then telling GM that they weren't building cars that way he liked and if they didn't change their evil ways, he was going to pull the bailout funding from them.


Showing his ever increasing control over the media, the president declared that we are no longer fighting a "global War on Terror". It has been replaced with the more correct term "Overseas Contingency Operation"

During his campaign the media and Obama supporters would ostracize anyone mentioning his middle name, Hussein. Furthermore, only African Americans and his other supporters could talk about race. Unless, of course, they were gloating over the possibility of America's first black president.

Through out this presidency, the media have only told one side side of the story. Barack H. Obama's side, and they are just getting started.

Orwellian or not?

Saturday, July 4, 2009

Huffing on Palin

The Huffington Post, always a paragon of virtuous reporting, is dumping on Governor Sarah Palin like a gang twelve year olds slamming the new kid on the block.

As everyone in the known universe knows, yesterday Gov. Palin announced her intent to resign the Governorship of Alaska at the end of July. This has brought on an avalanche of debate on the whys and what fors of this decision. Never mind what she said, just make up what you'd like and post it at the Huff. Once written, it must be true, right? (uh, no) Bloggers at the Huffington Post are a particularly nasty as group and individually. Here is a list of Palin bashing stories where the headline makes their positions crystal clear.

Starting with Palin's Lamest Excuse, then Palin Resigns to Accept Post as Lunatic Laureate, along with: Sarah Palin -- What a Schmuck, and my favorite, Woman to Woman: Advice to Gov. Sarah Palin on Running for the Presidency in 2012. Nice people, ay?

In Palin's Lamest Excuse, John R. Bohrer says she is trying to play the part of "martyr" and "was going after all the GOP soft spots. His claim is based on her statement that she wants to save Alaska's budget from millions of dollars in ethics investigations. How ethics is a GOP soft spot is beyond me.

In recent history, I'd have to give the DNC the title in the ethics arena. Can you say "tax cheating Secretary of the US Treasury"? Can you say lobbyists "won't work in my White House" ? Can you say "no tax increase on Americans making under $250K"? ("the bill would slap the equivalent of a $4,609 tax on a family of four by 2035".)

OK, talk to me about ethics Mr. Bohrer.

Then there is Palin Resigns to Accept Post as Lunatic Laureate, where Evan Handler imparts his wisdom. His argument is that the Governor was "having fun all the while insisting they're doing it for someone else's benefit".

He goes on to say, "It's easy to criticize, I know. But today I feel qualified. Because this is the identical excuse I gave to every girlfriend I broke up with in my twenties and thirties."

OK, I see. Due to your confessed lying and, well, everyone is just like you. Because, you know, you are not a lunatic, are you?

I don't know if she ran for governor for "fun" or not, but I cannot read minds. Apparently Mr. Handler can.

Hey, Mr. Handler. Has the CIA approached you use your special powers?

Ah, Ms. Krautter with, Sarah Palin -- What a Schmuck, who says, "If I were a citizen of Alaska, and especially if I had voted for her, I'd be pissed off."

You would? I always find it a little surprising when liberals advise conservatives to be wary of "this flighty fowl from above the 48th parallel". Yes, yes, we will be wary of what: Sarah Palin? Or should we be wary of liberals who want to help conservatives? I pick door number two.

In Woman to Woman: Advice to Gov. Sarah Palin on Running for the Presidency in 2012, Sophia A. Nelson describes herself as a "lifelong moderate-centrist Republican woman" and she has some advice for Governor Palin. Ms. Nelson knows about these things because she is "someone who has followed politics for the past 20 years or so." She "can tell you it (Gov. Palin's reason for resigning) is a "bogus" statement which is simply code for "I'm running for president."

After portraying the governor as a liar, Ms. Nelson wants to help her run for president. (go figure) She, being the friendly sort of 'moderate centrist Republican, just wants "offer the soon-to-be former governor and presumed GOP nominee hopeful in 2012 some unsolicited, but hopefully useful political counsel:"

That's right, I'm questioning her motives. And why not? Isn't she a self proclaimed lifelong moderate-centrist Republican, who just happens to support the wildly left leaning Huffington Post? Just reading a few of these hit pieces reveals that you'd be hard pressed to find anyone Huffing around who sincerely cares about Sarah Palin, her family or her future in national politics.

Anyway, some of her friendly advice.

1. "Surround yourself with political advisors who have real life experience"

Uh maybe not. Current politicians and their advisors are nothing more than marketing agents who will spin any truth to promote themselves. Gov. Palin represents a welcome change to the norm in national politics.

My sincere advice to the Governor would be to stay away form these empire builders at all costs. They are exactly why Republicans lost in 2006 and 2008. Avergae moderate-centrist Republicans wabt people who represent us. Most of our current batch of public servants are serving the publics earnings to themselves.

2. "Reach out to the bigger GOP tent"

I'm afraid we all will have to battle the legacy media and leftists, such as those who linger around the Huffington Post, to broaden party appeal. The reason is that according to those sources all Republicans are right wing religious extremists who want to grab your benefits and make it an offering to their rich friends.

Be confident in the fact that most Americans live their lives as conservatives, are "moderate" in all political issues and want a real person to lead them, not some empty suit of a cardboard commercial.

3. "Build coalitions." Well, one in a row. She says, Palin cannot get the nomination "as the 'old boys' do it."

No kidding. Governor Plain became Mayor, governor, and nominated for McCain's VP by going outside the good old boys system.

4. "Take time to learn and educate yourself about world affairs -- go get a degree from the Kennedy School of Government"

Do you mean the way VP Joe "McGaff" Biden has? Or maybe President Obama? Well, that's not going to work unless the legacy media is fawning over you or your running mate. Mr. Biden may have many years of experience on foreign relations committees, but from what I've seen, he didn't learn very much. Moreover, the President had even less foreign affairs experience than Governor Palin. In fact, Mr. Obama had no experience at anything other than Teleprompter 101 and Advanced Teleprompter. Even the President's earned degree constitutional law seems to be a long lost memory to him.

5. "Be a woman of conviction."

This helpful hint reveals a very large gap in Ms. Nelson's understanding of the Sarah Palin the rest of America has met. I'm shocked and amazed that anyone would even suggest that to her. She is the one giving other politicians lessons on advancing themselves by sticking to her principles. Her principles are what brought her to the national scene. I would go so far as to say that if more Republicans stuck to their conservative principles, they would not be the minority party today.

Finally, as for the actual reason why Governor Palin announced her resignation, only she knows for sure. But what her actions have revealed is the rabid fear of the perception of honest and selfless public servants that the left in America harbor. So much so that they cannot help but try to drag down anyone who they perceive as having these traits. Governor Palin is just the most recent target in a long line of personal assassinations delusional leftists.

Thursday, July 2, 2009

Healthcare Reform: The Public Option w/A View From the Huff

Bob Cesca, A Huffington Post Blogger, opines that the opposition to the Obama healthcare insurance reform is from the "crazy wing nuts" who are lying and exaggerating the situation. He had no real defense for the public option plan. Just your typical leftist insults on subjects he does not understand.

"Political race-baiter (and, somehow, CNN contributor) Alex Castellanos"
"random "Republican analyst" on MSNBC: But this DMV crap on a stick is only one of many crazy attacks against the president's healthcare reform agenda and the public option."
"Predictably, as healthcare reform grows larger in the window, the claims from the far-right are becoming increasingly bizarre and ridiculous, topping, in some cases, the psychotic claims of, say, the Obama birthers."
He includes Sean Hannity, Representative Michelle Bachmann and Glenn Beck in his citing of "crazy wing nuts".

Then there is his absurd claims, while never once backing up anything he writes. (I've just read "True Patriot" by Eric Liu & Nick Hanauer. It has about the same in the lack of any evidence. So, this seems to be the way of the left.)

He states,
"First, no one in the government would mandate this switch."
(to the public option in lieu of their private sector plans)

What he simply doesn't know is the fact that there is no need to mandate it. The public option would put private sector providers out of business. Just as it almost did in Hawaii (an emergency session repealed the "public option" within 7 months of its creation to undo the damage)
"In non-wingnut reality, of course, the public option would function similarly to Medicare, which is hardly a spooky or unfamiliar program, and I challenge anyone to produce a single human being who would willingly give up his or her Medicare coverage."
Of course, this challenge is ridiculous as, except for the the very wealthy, no senior could afford the cost of private sector insurance. And there are reasons for that.

1. There aren't enough customers to spread the risk due to the government's unfair business tactics, which drives up the costs for everyone.

2. Seventy five percent (75%) of all Medicare part B payouts come from the federal government's general revenue. A small percentage comes from the participant's monthly payments (currently $96.40), their co-pays and payroll (FICA) taxes.

As for being reliable, the Trustees Summary Report for 2009 also says Medicare is unsustainable. Besides, President Obama is calling for reducing Medicare and Medicaid spending by $509 Billion annually. So, where is the money coming from?

He continues with,
"Hannity deliberately inflated the number to 20 million and overlooked how and why people would leave their private plans. But I don't think he expected Tom Arnold to be the one to call him on his lies."
Well, all I have to say is, 'Hannity is a piker in the exaggeration department.

President Obama and all of his foot soldiers in the legacy media are claiming that they will cover 47,000,000 uninsured Americans. This is a huge exaggeration of the facts. According to the US Census Bureau the total of 45.65 million uninsured in 2007 included 9.73 million foreigners, bringing the total down to 35.92 million. Of those there were about 9 million who made over $75K per year and chose not to buy insurance, bringing the total down to 27 million Americans who were uninsured in 2007. Moreover, those numbers of uninsured was down in each category.

47 million vs. 27 million

Tell me again, Mr. Cesca, who is exaggerating?

Then, flailing about at Rep. Bachmann, he misconstrues this way...
"As I was researching the topic of crazy wingnut healthcare arguments, I thought perhaps Michele Bachmann would have an insane healthcare quote on the record for me to exploit and debunk. I was wrong. It turns out that Bachmann's most recent healthcare reform attack accidentally underscored the leading argument in favor of the public option."
And what caused that unfortunate circumstance for him? Rep. Bachmann had said,
"Approximately 114 million Americans are expected to leave private health insurance. Why? Their employers will drop the insurance because the taxpayer-subsidized plan will be 30 to 40 percent cheaper."
To which he responds...
"Up to 40 percent cheaper? That's amazing. I've heard estimates of around 30 percent, but 40 percent is even better. Make sure to tell your Republican friends that The Michele Bachmann Unit says that the public option will be 40 percent less expensive than private health insurance."
On the very thin surface, it may look like an endorsement of the public option. When you know a little more, you realize that, once again, this will usurp the private sector's customer base and move huge numbers of Americans to the only plan available, the public option.

And will it cost less overall? Will it be better for individuals needing health care?

According to the CBO, probably not.

But, this is typical of your self-centered leftist blogger. He is way too busy raking the muck looking for insults rather than spending some time trying to dig out the truth. The president has also spent too much time on, well, I don't know what, because he simply has no idea of what is in this healthcare reform that he wants, he just wants it. And this example is typical of his supporters. They also have no clue of the consequences of too much government intruding into private sector free market economies (this explains, in part, how they can support Mr. Obama's policies.

ObamaCare or DemoCare is going to break the bank, if it isn't already beyond repair.

Wednesday, July 1, 2009

Send in the Clowns; Never mind They’re Here

Well don’t that beat all? Al Franken, former comedian and hate spewing liberal ex-talk radio failure, has been awarded a US Senate seat by the Minnesota State Supreme Court after eight months of recounts and court challenges between Mr. Franken and incumbent Senator Norm Coleman.

Originally, Mr. Franken lost the election by about 350 votes or so, and then demanded a recount. They recounted and recounted until he had the lead by 300 or so votes.

Close enough: Take ‘em to court.

In court we learned that Mr. Franken’s cronies had many absentee votes rejected due to what they call improperly filled out forms. This would include voted from service persons serving in combat zones and registered voters who file absentee because they cannot get to the polls on Election Day.

Democrats take full advantage of this very important feature of election law. They know that they can take congressional seats by whining & crying, complaining & filing lawsuits, and making sure everyone knows how badly they are treated. Treated badly mostly by those people who insist that voters are legal voters and that all the legal votes get counted. Commonly referred to as either Republicans or conservatives.

Minnesota is the state that gave us Governor Jesse Ventura in 1998, so it's no surprise that this vote, between a moderate Republican and a whacked out self-serving ex-comedian would be so close. I believe I'll check around and see how many novelty toy factories are in Minnesota as well.

After getting past the lunacy of that whole circus, you find that now, the economy crushing liberal left now have a super majority in the US Senate. This may mean that there is very little to prevent Democrats in congress and the White House from bankrupting the entire country, government, private industry, and individual Americans in record time.

By the way: The state bird of Minnesota is the Common Loon. Go figure