leasheryn's Blog

There is a certain four letter word that Obama uses again and again and again in his speeches.  Many people will find this word offensive; many are allegeric to this word and many so badly that they will actually claim to break out in a rash at the mere thought of such a word effecting their lives.  There are people who will certainly not vote for Obama if he continues to disrespect them by using this word over and over.  Many may not vote at all since this word scares them so much and they certainly don't want any thing to do with it or any thought that it might someday be a part of their lives! 

And you might wonder what exactly this four-letter word is that is so offensive and so terrible.  Well, it's WORK!   

Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, Madison, and Monroe feared democracy.

They were educated men. Excepting Franklin (self-educated), each one had the education of an English gentleman. That is, the philosophy and the history of the whole European past had been pounded into his head before he was twelve years old. Therefore, when he was old enough to think for himself, he had thousands of years of human experience with every form of Government, to think about.

This knowledge was then regarded as necessary to every man whose birth entitled him to take any part in the government of his country.

They also knew the meaning of every word they used; they knew its Greek, Latin, or Anglo-Saxon root. Until forty years ago, this knowledge was still considered of first importance in American schools. Every pupil, at thirteen and fourteen, learned etymology as he had learned spelling since the age of six, by dogged repetition until the facts were fixed in his mind.

Today the confusion of the meaning of words in these United States is a danger to the whole world. Few American schools any longer require a pupil to dissect his words to their roots, and to know what he means when he speaks. And for twenty years the disciplined members of the Communist Party in these States have been deliberately following Lenin's instruction, "First confuse the vocabulary."

Thinking can be done only in words. Accurate thinking requires words of precise meaning. Communication between human beings is impossible without words whose precise meaning is generally understood.

Confuse the vocabulary, and people do not know what is happening; they can not communicate an alarm; they can not achieve any common purpose. Confuse the vocabulary, and millions are helpless against a small, disciplined number who know what they mean when they speak. Lenin had brains.

Today, when you hear the word "democracy," what does it mean?

These United States, of course; and England, the British Commonwealth, the British Empire, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium, part of France, Finland when Russians attack the Finns but not when Finns attack Russia; Russia when Russians fight Germans but not when Stalin signs a pact with Hitler; the kingdoms and dictatorships of the Balkans; and economic security and compulsory insurance and the check-off system of collecting labor union dues; and friendliness and neighborliness and the unique American sense of human equality, and a vote for everybody, and socialism and communism and the Spanish cause for which republicans, democrats, socialists, syndicalists, anarchists and Russian and American communists fought, and freedom and human rights and human dignity and common decency.

That is, the word has no meaning. Its meaning has been destroyed.

It was once a sound word. It is a necessary word, because no other has its real meaning. Demo-cracy means, rule by The People; as precisely as monarchy means, rule by one (person).

Demos, The People, was a fantasy imagined by the ancient Greeks, in their search for The Authority that (they imagined) controlled men. To this fantasy they attached the meaning of God, which always attaches to every form of Authority, and there are still persons who believe that "the voice of The People is the voice of God."

The People does not exist. Individual persons compose any group of persons.

So in practice, any attempt to establish democracy is an attempt to make a majority of persons in a group act as the ruler of that group.

Consider this for one moment, not in fantasy, but as applied to your own experience in groups of living persons whom you know, and you will understand why every attempt to establish democracy has failed.

Of course there is no reason to suppose that majority-rule would be desirable, even if it were possible. There is no morality or efficiency in mere numbers. Ninety-nine persons are no more likely to be right than one person is.

In the Federalist Papers, Madison stated the reason why every attempt to establish a democracy quickly creates a tyrant:

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

The gentlemen who took responsibility for saving the American Revolution were fearful that democracy would end it. The unknown Americans, the Ebenezer Foxes, for years had been fighting Authority; each was determined "to do what was right in my own eyes." But they had no Latin or Greek, they knew nothing about all the previous efforts to make democracy work, and they were shouting for democracy.

On the other hand, the large landholders, bankers, rich merchants, and a thick-springing crop of rapacious grafters and land-speculators, led by Alexander Hamilton, the illegitimate adventurer from the West Indies who was also a genius, were demanding an American monarchy.

The real revolutionists, when they signed the Declaration of Independence and of individual freedom, were undertaking not only to win a war against impossible odds, but to create an entirely new kind of Government.

They faced the armed power of the British Empire, with thirteen disorganized, quarreling colonies at their backs, and two dangers threatening them: monarchy, and democracy.

They said nothing about The People. They repeated no nonsense about Science and Natural Law and the Age of Reason. They did not gush about the noble nature of Natural Man. They knew men. They were realists. They had no illusions about men, but they did know that all men are free.

They stood against both monarchy and democracy, because they knew that when men set up an imaginary Authority armed with force, they destroy all opportunity to exercise their natural freedom.

Educated men, they had studied the many attempts to establish democracy. The results were known twenty-five hundred years ago in Greece. Democracy does not work. It can not work, because every man is free. He cannot transfer his inalienable life and liberty to anyone or anything outside himself. When he tries to do this, he tries to obey an Authority that does not exist.

It makes no difference what he imagines this Authority to be — Ra or Baal or Zeus or Jupiter; Cleopatra or the Mikado; or Economic Necessity or the Will of the Masses or the Voice of The People; the stubborn fact is that there is no Authority, of any kind, that controls individuals. They control themselves.

Anyone in a free group can decide to give up his own idea and go along with the majority. If he does not want to do this, he can get out of the group. This is a use of freedom, an exercise of self-controlling responsibility.

But when a large number of individuals falsely believe that the majority is an Authority that has a right to control individuals, they must let a majority choose one man (or a few men) to act as Government. They will believe that the majority has transferred to those men the Majority-Right to control all individuals living under that Government. But Government is not a controlling Authority; Government is a use of force, it is the police, the army; it cannot control anyone, it can only hinder, restrict, or stop anyone's use of his energy.

As Madison says, some common passion or interest will sway a majority. And because a majority supports the ruler whom a majority chooses, nothing checks his use of force against the minority. So the ruler of a democracy quickly becomes a tyrant. And that is the swift and violent death of the democracy.

This always occurs, invariably. It is as certain as death and taxes. It occurred in Athens twenty-five centuries ago. It occurred in France in 1804, when an overwhelming majority elected the Emperor Napoleon. It occurred in Germany in 1932, when a majority of Germans — swayed by a common passion for food and social order — elected Hitler.

Madison stated the historic fact: in democracy there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. There is no protection for liberty. Hence it is, that democracies always destroy personal security (the Gestapo, the concentration camps) and the rights of property (what rights of property ownership are there in Europe, now?) and are as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.

I have had it up to my eyebrows with Hillary.  She has treated her campaign as a joke and furthermore hasn't had anything serious to say since she began her run for the White House.  It seems as though everyone is telling you to give up, get out, quit.  And yet you are still going on as though you are oblivious of what is going on around you. 

So let's think a minute about the brilliant things you have brought to the table in the last year, year and a half. 

There was the Woodstock museum

And the crying incident

Not the mention the sniper shooting incident that never occurred 

The audicity of stating that only uneducated people are going to vote for you

Your flipping and flopping about the Florida and Michigan delegates (you flipped when you heard Florida and Michigan were voting early and now you're flopped back to wanting the delegates because you think you deserve it).

Your statement that you are campaigning in June because Bobby Kennedy as assisignated in June.

And now by some muddled math, you are claiming to have more delegates than Obama and that you are winning.

More like whining, Hillary, and to be honest, there is nothing worse than listening to a woman whining on and on and on and on.  You should introduce yourself to Florida District 13 incumbent, Christine Jennings, next time you're in Washington, if you can find her.  Chances are you won't because not only isn't she in Washington but she's also not the District 13 incumbent.  But try telling her that...

You claim your mother didn't raise any quitters but the truth is your mother raised a loser.  Only your mother raised someone who is the reason why kids are no longer allowed to play dodgeball in school.  You don't understand competitiveness and can't cope with the idea that you are a loser.  A big person is able to admit defeat and bow out gracefully but not you.  You have to keep in going and going and going and you have to keep flipping and flopping in an inadequate attempt to fit in, to win people to your side and to prove above and beyond all esle that you are right, you are always right and even if you are wrong, you are still right. 

No matter what you have to say about it, YOU DON'T DESERVE TO BE PRESIDENT!!  You don't deserve it just because you are Hillary Clinton or because you are living on planet earth and think for some reason you're entitled.  YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED EITHER!

If you think you want to be President, you have to do it the old-fashioned way: you have to EARN IT.  And you haven't done anything to earn it nor even tried. 

Well, now you are going to have to admit that you've flopped. IN A VERY BIG WAY!

And I'm sick of you pulling to "woman card".  If you're so interested in being a woman and proving that your a woman, go home, call your daugther, get out the flour, eggs, sugar and peanut butter and whip yourself up a big batch of cookies.  Then pull out the "woman card"   It's about time you connected with what being a woman is really about. 

It's about time you  86'd your campaign, Hillary, and rode off into the sunset; hopefully never to be heard of again.

Goodbye, Farewell and Amen 

Hillary Clinton proclaimed that she will stay in the race through June because Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June.  She has yet again recanted that statement saying that she meant to say Bobby Kennedy was still campaigning in June. 

What is the problem with this woman.  She has recanted just about everything she's says.  Does she mean what she says or doesn't she?  What is her message, exactly?  Or doesn't she know? 

If she's following in Bobby Kennedy's footsteps by campaigning in June, does she expect to be assassinated also?  What a stupid statement to make particularly so quickly after the announcement of Ted Kennedy's brain tumor. 

She has to be the most insensitive person on the face of the earth. 

If she can't think of anything descent or practical or interesting to say, it's time she gave up and went back to Arkansas.  (If they'll have her, that is.)   

Before anyone starts to howl, the writer realizes there is very little reality in the scenario she is about to present and the likelihood of anything similiar to this ever happening falls in at just about slim to none.  However she begs the opportunity to expand upon your thoughts concerning this scenario for a moment.  Also that she had no previous idea of what the topic of My Turn was going to be this afternoon. 

It seems there are a few points that have come across during this Presidential campaign.  The first point being a call for change and the second point being an on going argument concerning who of the Republican candidates is the most conservative. 

The first point is fair enough; change seems to be something that is necessary to any upcoming administration.  There is very little point in standing still or continuing to do the same thing the same way year upon year upon year.  If we don't change, we will never move forward and will remain constantly trodding a treadmill. 

The second point is ridiculous and why it continues is beyond reason.  I admit to being a conservative Republican but I hope I have the ability to think beyond my personal expectations concerning this country and to look further towards what is the best thing for this country at this time. 

We have spent quite a number of years with quite a few interesting personalities in the forefront of the leadership of our country.  One is a stubborn old mule who is unmovable in his convictions towards which direction the country should move in.  Another is an old battleax who has her own ideas towards the direction the country should move in.  Her views and his views are in direct opposition leading to a "marriage" not made in heaven.       

A continual pulling against the right and the left hardly seems to be the right direction for the country and does not move us towards change.  It puts us on that perpetual treadmill with no motion forward and no expectation of anything ever being any different or for that matter, interesting. 

Now it seems as though we have moved towards three choices for the highest office in the land.  We have John McCain who seems to be not quite conservative enough for the Republican party; Hillary Clinton who is another old battlaax and Barack Obama, who seems to be able to communicate in a clear tone and to express himself fluidly. 

Hillary Clinton will never change her attitude or her viewpoint and will never shift her ideas or consider a compromise.  Barack Obama seems a likely candidate to bring change and to help advance the country; he might have the ability to reach across party lines and understand compromise.  The same for John McCain; his asset to the party being that he is not so conservative to block out the point of view of the "other side".

What we need is a new leadership which is willing to listen, to compromise and bring each party into a working relationship to achieve goals important to the people of this country.  And we seem to have two men who each have a strong ability to achieve this possibility, which leads directly to the Golden Ticket.

Why not link both sides and bring us all together as one party that works together, each bringing ideas and possiblities to the table other than two parties playing a tug of war over party lines.

My suggestion (and, recall please, there is very little reality in the scenario...and the likelihood of anything similiar to this ever happening falls in at just about slim to none) is a McCain/Obama ticket.  (Or an Obama/McCain ticket.)

To be honest, I don't know if this have ever been done before but if change is what the country truly wants, this would certainly be a real big one.   

Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, John Adams, Madison, and Monroe feared democracy.

They were educated men. Excepting Franklin (self-educated), each one had the education of an English gentleman. That is, the philosophy and the history of the whole European past had been pounded into his head before he was twelve years old. Therefore, when he was old enough to think for himself, he had thousands of years of human experience with every form of Government, to think about.

This knowledge was then regarded as necessary to every man whose birth entitled him to take any part in the government of his country.

They also knew the meaning of every word they used; they knew its Greek, Latin, or Anglo-Saxon root. Until forty years ago, this knowledge was still considered of first importance in American schools. Every pupil, at thirteen and fourteen, learned etymology as he had learned spelling since the age of six, by dogged repetition until the facts were fixed in his mind.

Today the confusion of the meaning of words in these United States is a danger to the whole world. Few American schools any longer require a pupil to dissect his words to their roots, and to know what he means when he speaks. And for twenty years the disciplined members of the Communist Party in these States have been deliberately following Lenin's instruction, "First confuse the vocabulary."

Thinking can be done only in words. Accurate thinking requires words of precise meaning. Communication between human beings is impossible without words whose precise meaning is generally understood.

Confuse the vocabulary, and people do not know what is happening; they can not communicate an alarm; they can not achieve any common purpose. Confuse the vocabulary, and millions are helpless against a small, disciplined number who know what they mean when they speak. Lenin had brains.

Today, when you hear the word "democracy," what does it mean?

These United States, of course; and England, the British Commonwealth, the British Empire, Norway, Sweden, Denmark and Belgium, part of France, Finland when Russians attack the Finns but not when Finns attack Russia; Russia when Russians fight Germans but not when Stalin signs a pact with Hitler; the kingdoms and dictatorships of the Balkans; and economic security and compulsory insurance and the check-off system of collecting labor union dues; and friendliness and neighborliness and the unique American sense of human equality, and a vote for everybody, and socialism and communism and the Spanish cause for which republicans, democrats, socialists, syndicalists, anarchists and Russian and American communists fought, and freedom and human rights and human dignity and common decency.

That is, the word has no meaning. Its meaning has been destroyed.

It was once a sound word. It is a necessary word, because no other has its real meaning. Demo-cracy means, rule by The People; as precisely as monarchy means, rule by one (person).

Demos, The People, was a fantasy imagined by the ancient Greeks, in their search for The Authority that (they imagined) controlled men. To this fantasy they attached the meaning of God, which always attaches to every form of Authority, and there are still persons who believe that "the voice of The People is the voice of God."

The People does not exist. Individual persons compose any group of persons.

So in practice, any attempt to establish democracy is an attempt to make a majority of persons in a group act as the ruler of that group.

Consider this for one moment, not in fantasy, but as applied to your own experience in groups of living persons whom you know, and you will understand why every attempt to establish democracy has failed.

Of course there is no reason to suppose that majority-rule would be desirable, even if it were possible. There is no morality or efficiency in mere numbers. Ninety-nine persons are no more likely to be right than one person is.

In the Federalist Papers, Madison stated the reason why every attempt to establish a democracy quickly creates a tyrant:

"A pure democracy can admit no cure for the mischiefs of faction. A common passion or interest will be felt by a majority, and there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. Hence it is, that democracies have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have, in general, been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths."

The gentlemen who took responsibility for saving the American Revolution were fearful that democracy would end it. The unknown Americans, the Ebenezer Foxes, for years had been fighting Authority; each was determined "to do what was right in my own eyes." But they had no Latin or Greek, they knew nothing about all the previous efforts to make democracy work, and they were shouting for democracy.

On the other hand, the large landholders, bankers, rich merchants, and a thick-springing crop of rapacious grafters and land-speculators, led by Alexander Hamilton, the illegitimate adventurer from the West Indies who was also a genius, were demanding an American monarchy.

The real revolutionists, when they signed the Declaration of Independence and of individual freedom, were undertaking not only to win a war against impossible odds, but to create an entirely new kind of Government.

They faced the armed power of the British Empire, with thirteen disorganized, quarreling colonies at their backs, and two dangers threatening them: monarchy, and democracy.

They said nothing about The People. They repeated no nonsense about Science and Natural Law and the Age of Reason. They did not gush about the noble nature of Natural Man. They knew men. They were realists. They had no illusions about men, but they did know that all men are free.

They stood against both monarchy and democracy, because they knew that when men set up an imaginary Authority armed with force, they destroy all opportunity to exercise their natural freedom.

Educated men, they had studied the many attempts to establish democracy. The results were known twenty-five hundred years ago in Greece. Democracy does not work. It can not work, because every man is free. He cannot transfer his inalienable life and liberty to anyone or anything outside himself. When he tries to do this, he tries to obey an Authority that does not exist.

It makes no difference what he imagines this Authority to be — Ra or Baal or Zeus or Jupiter; Cleopatra or the Mikado; or Economic Necessity or the Will of the Masses or the Voice of The People; the stubborn fact is that there is no Authority, of any kind, that controls individuals. They control themselves.

Anyone in a free group can decide to give up his own idea and go along with the majority. If he does not want to do this, he can get out of the group. This is a use of freedom, an exercise of self-controlling responsibility.

But when a large number of individuals falsely believe that the majority is an Authority that has a right to control individuals, they must let a majority choose one man (or a few men) to act as Government. They will believe that the majority has transferred to those men the Majority-Right to control all individuals living under that Government. But Government is not a controlling Authority; Government is a use of force, it is the police, the army; it cannot control anyone, it can only hinder, restrict, or stop anyone's use of his energy.

As Madison says, some common passion or interest will sway a majority. And because a majority supports the ruler whom a majority chooses, nothing checks his use of force against the minority. So the ruler of a democracy quickly becomes a tyrant. And that is the swift and violent death of the democracy.

This always occurs, invariably. It is as certain as death and taxes. It occurred in Athens twenty-five centuries ago. It occurred in France in 1804, when an overwhelming majority elected the Emperor Napoleon. It occurred in Germany in 1932, when a majority of Germans — swayed by a common passion for food and social order — elected Hitler.

Madison stated the historic fact: in democracy there is nothing to check the inducements to sacrifice the weaker party. There is no protection for liberty. Hence it is, that democracies always destroy personal security (the Gestapo, the concentration camps) and the rights of property (what rights of property ownership are there in Europe, now?) and are as short in their lives as they are violent in their deaths.

There has been a lot of discussion amongst the US Presidential candidates concerning change.  Hillary Clinton for one is calling for change, yet if she is elected into office, she will not promote change but instead be a throw back to times gone by.  Hillary Clinton is not a progressive candidate; she will bring nothing but regression and draw us all back to a repeat of the dysfunction, the transparency and the embarrassment caused to this country by the actions of the Clinton's during THEIR Presidency. 

There has to be change in the country in order for us to move forward and to get away from the past.  The only change Hillary is interested in is the change that will jingle in her pockets when she sells us out to big business, big insurance and to China.  She is not interested in the people of this country nor is she interested in promoting what We, The People are interested in bringing to the world. 

If we want change is this country, We, the People must change our attitudes and make changes in the way we live our lives and in the way we make decisions.  If there is going to be change in this country, women have to stand up and declare their abitity to lead,.to make decisions and to guide.  

If we are interested in change, we have to declare that we are going to change our attitudes toward what we find important to US.  We have to change our attitudes toward our families, our children and our country.  If we are going to lead and to decide and to guide, we are going to have to change the way we approach what we are doing.  We have to take control of our homes, our families, our children and lead them toward a better life.  If we regain control, we will be able to better ourselves and become the foundation upon which our families stand. 

The last thing Hillary Clinton wants women to do is change.  She knows that it is the women of this country who are the cornerstones of the nation BUT she is against women regaining the strength they once held in the nation and in their families.  She wants to make sure women have no control and no voice in their own homes.  She wants women to spend the majority of their time away from home, away from family and most particularly away from their own children.  She wants women to live under the repression of a boss and to be afraid to make open decisions concerning their lives and their families.       

Hillary Clinton not only wants to remove children from the care of their mothers but she wants to medicate our children.  She wants to make sure all children have the ability to receive medication because she understands that people who are medicated are easy to control.  The sooner medication is given to children, the quicker the child will be controlled.  A child who is mediated early in life will become an adult dependant not only on medication but an adult who will be easily controlled. 

Women must not allow this to happen.  Women must not allow their children to fall victims to what Hillary has planned for them by promoting a healthcare scheme which will put all of us under governmental control and scrutiny.  She will be in control of our lives and she will be making decisions for women that are not in the best interests of anybody, men, women or children.  She will in fact move to dictate all that we do, all that we think and in all ways that we act. 

Don't be fooled by her rhetoric and not be fooled by her wishy-washy concern meant to control and to deceive the populace.  Hillary Clinton has a well defined agenda and once she gains control over OUR COUNTRY, it will no longer be OUR COUNTRY but HER country.  

BE CAREFUL, BE DILIGENT, BE CONCERNED but most of all BE AFRAID.  This woman is a danger to one and all.   

Politics is not a game to be played for the fun of it.  It's a tough job which requires one to have the stamina to go the distance without flinching and without showing any sign of fault or failure.  It is a serious job in which a politician comes into contact with many people of many walks of life and one has to be prepared to look, listen and to be aware of the feelings of the people and most of all to be in touch with what the people are looking for in the future. 

There are politics that are played out in this country and politics that are played out upon the stage of the world.  How a politician reacts in the face of diversity or in the face of conflict depends upon the strength of the person and their willingness to stand strong in their beliefs and ideas in concern of the running of this country.  A good politician faces the world upon such strengths and in this gains the confidence in the people for whom they are elected to represent. 

A show of weakness is a sure sign that such a person is not dependable and has no confidence in themselves.  Crying is such a sign of weakness and one that must be avoided at all costs if a politician is serious about the manner in which the people are expected to view them.

Crying is a trick used only by weak-minded women who wish to gain pity, never influence.  It is oftentimes used as a last ditch effort in order to receive sympathy in order to bend a weak-minded man to relent when no other way seems to be working. 

There is no crying in politics but someone should certainly hand Hillary Clinton an Oscar for her preformance in New Hampshire.  However, I remain otherwise unmoved and unsympathic towards her career in acting (or is that the political arena?)   

There has to be nothing worse than a whining woman who insists upon being the victim at every turn of the screw so why should we be intent upon putting one in the White House in 2008?

By the tone of her voice, Hillary Clinton shows a persistant lack of conviction and sincerity each and every time she opens her mouth. She is irrelevant to the times and has  never shown a true grasp of reality during anytime of her campaign for the office of President. 

Hillary Clinton plays upon her weaknesses and her dysfunction as though they are prizes to be gained within the sympathy of all who look upon her delusions of womanhood.  She shows no strength, no ability and no leadership, only empty promises that she has no expectation to fulfill and doesn't hide the fact that she knows her proposals to be impossible.

Hillary Clinton proves herself unaware of world events and choses to ignore events that are to her unpleasant and unnecessary to her agenda.  She believes she can discuss the objectives with our enemies and come to a successful conclusion, ignoring the fact that our enemies only speak with vioience on their tongues and laugh with scorn in their tone at her feeble attempt at discussion.

Hillary Clinton is a weak woman who plays upon her weakness to gain sympathy in the eyes of the voters.  She is not interested in promoting the best interests of women but wants women to live within the servitude she has meekly accepted for herself.  She is no leader and no advocate for women but instead promotes the degradation of woman until we are all living in servitude without the ablilty to think or act for ourselves but to grow weaker and weaker until we are little more than grunts answering always to a constant overseer.

Hillary Clinton is against womanhood, motherhood, family values, morals and good high standards.  She doesn't want us to interact with our children; she wants us to give our children into the hands of government agencies and to regulate the amount of quality time we spend with our families and loved ones.  She wants us to live like mules and to be BLEEP in her exact image. 

People are happy and productive while they are living positive lives that promote growth, strength and ability.  A people who are beaten down and repressed, unable to think or act on their own live in regression, depression and negativity; they tend to whine and cry alot and never progress to a better life.

The last thing we need is a whining woman in Washington, making decisions aimed to repression and weakness.  This country can only grow strong under clear determined leadership under the direction of a focused individual who has the best interests of the people at heart.

This person is most definitely not whining, moaning, whimpering Hillary Clinton.

Wanted: One good man or woman to fill leadership position.  Must be capable of making good diplomatic decisions for the good of all, whether or not all agree with said decisions.  Must be able to travel, whether here or abroad, meeting with many others in leadership capasities, must be diplomatic yet keep a firm stand upon the well-being of the company.  Must be able to deal with situations on a democratic, governmental, judical, military and even religious stance.  Must maintain, evenly, the rights of all.

Must do well under stress and be able to deal with criticism from those he/she is there to serve.  Must maintain a good position, good morals and strong leadership.  Must be an upstanding representive of the company and never cause reason to call negative attention to the company or him/herself.  Must remember that the whole world is watching what he/she is doing and how it might reflect upon the company.  Must remember that such stated requirements include his/her family also. 

Lastly, must approach situations with a seriousness necessary to making quick, well-thought out, clear cut decisions.  Must have a good sense of humor because he/she will never know what is coming at them next and often will find the need of a good laugh.

Who would be President of the United States?  It is a tough and thankless job, filled with four years of long hours, tough decisions and with little love but lots of criticism from all sides. 

It would take a strong individual to take on such a position with very little thanks (and very little glory) from the people who select such an individual for such a daunting task. 

Never has there been known such contradictions of terms and such a focus so far removed from reality as the rhetoric the democrats are dishing out since Lewis Carroll penned his infamous stories of a girl who fell down a rabbit hole and discovered such a fantastic wonderland. 

This question has to be answered, do the democrats wish for a withdraw from Iraq or don't they?  We have heard again and again that they do and yet now that General Petraeus has returned with his report on the military progress in Iraq and has stated that the troops can begin to draw down to pre-surge levels, the democrats are now against it.  Did they change their minds or do they not like the idea that there has been success due to the advance of the troop surge?  One would think, logically, that success would be a good thing.  Most people work all their lives toward success and yet the democrats shrink from such a word. 

I am sure Dubya is responsible for this success and it is all his fault.  Darn him, how dare he be successful!  Surely success is going in the wrong direction; according to the democrats it is a bad thing and I am sure punishable by death.

And now we hear that Hillary is itching to get her fingers back into the health care scheme, a scheme she attacked before with very little success.  One has to wonder how much more damage she could possibly wish to do to a system that has already been declared a failure.  Ah, but I regress since success is not on the democratic agenda. 

Furthermore Hillary has an eye on joining the members of the Supreme Court.  Someone who wouldn't know or understand the truth if it reached up and slapped her in the face?  Good Heavens, we are going down that rabbit hole at full speed, aren't we???  

Since Lewis Carroll, in fact, based his famous characters on political personage of the time, we should bring the idea into the 21st century:

Hillary Clinton as the Queen of Hearts

Bill Clinton as, naturally, the Knave of Hearts

Al Gore and John Kerry as the Mad Hatter and the March Hare

Ted Kennedy and Jimmy Carter as the Walrus and the Carpenter

Barack Obama as the Cheshire Cat

Nancy Pelosi as the Mad Hatter

John Edwards as the Caterpillar

Christine Jennings as Humpty Dumpty

And introducing:

We the People as Alice

While we are all concerned over who we, as individuals, will vote for in the 2008 Presidential elections, I  have begun to wonder who Osama bin Laden would vote for if the decision were up to him instead of all of us. 

The Great U-Tube debate of 2007 is now behind us and apparently it was great fun for some and in the view of others was in very poor taste.  The internet is opening up a great avenue for the candidates to use to put themselves out there in the public eye and to make the people of this country interested in them, in their campaigns and in their hopes to become the next president.  

Although this is true, we have to remember that the internet does not just belong to the US and we are not the only ones who are able to view these missives that are aimed towards the American voter.  The internet is used all over the world and countless numbers of people are able to log in and view our thoughts and ideas at will.

We also know that Al Qaeda uses the internet to put across their own propaganda missives.  They threaten us and attempt to intimidate us and they show us their horrible executions of innocent people.  Not only are they using the internet for their own devises but they are watching our every movement and are finding out what sort of people we are, what we find to be interesting and what we find to be funny.  They do this to find our weaknesses and to figure out how they can hurt us.

When we show activities such as the U-Tube debate, we are giving Al Qaeda an insight into what sort of people we are and we are telling them that we do not take political debate seriously and as such do not take politics seriously.  We are also showing them that our politicians do not take politics seriously. 

Our Republican candidates are backing out of their chance at a U-Tube debate claiming that it is not a direction they wish to go or that it is demeaning for them or for their causes to be put to the question by a snowman or a talking chicken or any other ridiculous notion that might come across the mind of a Let's Make a Deal reject.  Our Republican candidates want a forum which will be taken seriously not only by this country but by the world and not only by the world but by Osama bin Laden and his Al Qaeda network. 

Our Democratic candidates took on the U-Tube debate as a way not to answer the questions but a way to put themselves into the limelight.  They took it as a time for fun and games and showed the world their collective weakness.  They weren't interested in debate for the sake of debate or for the sake of putting the issues on the table for discussion.  It was their 15 minutes of shame.  

Knowing that this debate was watched around the world and watched very closely by Al Qaeda, ask yourself who Osama bin Laden would wish to see as our next President.  Which side would give him the best advantage in the US?  The ones who take the positionof President seriously and who will work to see the end of Al Qaeda or the ones who are worried about winning a popularity contest and not interested in the well being of this country and the citizens therein.