Wednesday, February 24, 2010

Government, not the insurance industry, is the real enemy.

Reading about how Obama is attempting to make reality illegal over the issue of health care, one commenter made a comment that demanded a response. That the reality is that insurance companies are price gouging and the government is the only way to stop them. To see such ignorance and class warfare hatred, I felt a need to counteract that statement. After all, this person, other then their own prejudice had nothing to back up their claim that the evil insurance industry is colluding in the dark rooms and fixing prices. I however, worked 15 years in the financial industries and had to work on quite a few insurance audits and learned the workings and using my mathematical and statistical talents, to find out if such premiums were reasonable for just plain outrageous (and don't get me wrong, some were, but by far a vast majority weren't). Allow me to go over what I saw was the main contributor in ascending order of what is the real causes of the costs of insurance premium.

#5) Technology costs. When it comes to health and disability care, we're blessed with having the latest and highest technology in the care of our health and disabilities. Anyone ever watch those crime or forensic shows and how investigators and scientist use all those fancy equipment with so many syllables that it turns the tongue into knots and frankly I'm not going to attempt to spell. Does anyone think these technological advances come cheap? The other side of this double edge sword is that with great advances, comes great costs, especially in their infancy. Now the government wants to penalize medical facilities or manufactures by setting prices or taking away deductions for investing in such technologies. That will only discourage their research and usage.

#4) The abuses by the non-productive. When it comes to the debate that having financial security, whether it be health care, car insurance, etc, the main flaw is rewarding the unproductive at the expense of the productive. Those that refuse to insure their vehicles, who also tend to engage in the riskiest behaviors, or know that hospitals are mandated by law to treat anyone regardless of ability to pay, will abuse the system and use it as a right for free care or that the productive should pay for the action of those that aren't. As times get harder, those that must choose over having that Xbox, drugs, or being financially responsible by having adequate insurance, well, you figure it out. As more and more people abuse this "right", the costs go up and the revenue has to come from somewhere. Unlike leftist that truly believe money grows on trees, it doesn't appear out of thin air.

#3) Illegal Immigrants. Illegal immigrants have more rights when it comes to health care, education, and social services than citizens. Don't give me the malarkey that they live in the shadows or fear deportation. They've been given amnesty twice already, smuggle drugs and if stopped, the border patrol gets prosecuted like Ramos, or the case in AZ and TX where ranchers lost their ranches when illegals "claimed" to be threaten. Go to DMV and see how many, most not able to speak English, are getting license or registering to vote. Go to an ER and see how many are getting care without insurance and for every little sniffle. Tell me this doesn't add to the costs to health care. I got rear ended by an illegal in 2002. Not only did nothing happened to the guy, he had no insurance and his truck took little damaged compared to my car. Guess who had to pay for it? Guess who's insurance, since he had neither insurance or a license and was released and allow to take his truck, had to pay for it and who got a rate increase? Like I said before, money doesn't grow on trees, unless you're a liberal, and the revenue has to come from somewhere. Here, in California, they want to give (and give is the correct word because their standards are going to be far lower than for citizens) driver license to illegals so they can get car insurance. Pleaaaaaaase. If they're not paying for health care, education, social services, or in other words, not taking financial responsibility as it is and having no regard to our laws and lets face it, we're not enforcing the ones we have on the books now, do you really think by giving them licenses, they're going to cough up what little money they have for car, health, disability, etc. insurance? If so, I got swampland to sell you.

#2) Lawyers. Tort law and fraud are even more costly than the abusers and illegals. If anyone thinks the government is the cure and private insurance is the enemy, come to California and take a good hard look at our Worker Compensation Insurance system. Though it's a government "option" where private insurance are allowed to compete, why would they. It's so full of corruption, fraud, and regulations that make it expensive as heck with little to no benefits to the injured party, very few (I only saw 3 companies that were willing) private companies will even participate in the rigged system. John Edwards made millions suing hospitals and doctors for "malpractice" and CP cases claiming that the facilities and employees were to slow to do C sections and that caused the CP. Turned out that it's caused by a viral infection that had nothing to do with the doctors actions, but that didn't stop Edwards from lying and manipulation juries to the tune of hundred of millions of dollars. 1/3 of OB's will be sued in their lifetime having them to pay massive malpractice insurance. Add any little grievance with our victimization mentality we have in our society, and it doesn't take much to have a major lawsuit headache. Lawyers and parasite have no restrains in their reasons and numbers of times they can sue and often do. Many people make a living suing people, mainly professionals and hospitals. Many now aren't going into the profession, my wife included, because they don't want the threat or hassle of a lawsuit by an reasonable or unrealistic person to take everything they've earned. Who, other than a bitter class warfare liberal, doesn't think this doesn't escalate the costs of insurance. Take fake soft tissue lawsuits, scoop and swoops frauds (where a car is boxed in by 3 cars involved in a scam to have the front car slam the breaks and the victim with nowhere to go but into the rear end of the car to make an insurance claim for damages and pain and suffering). And for those that think this "health care" bill will lower costs. The bill has NOTHING to stop these lawsuits. That not only will do nothing to lower costs, but most likely increase scarcity because nobody in their right mind will become doctors or nurses.

#1) Government mandates. All, but #2, wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't for government mandates requiring care and services for the said groups. Obama was quoted, "that for those that fear our medical system will be come socialized, I have news for you. It already is." He's right. What is failed to be presented by the government and their complicated media is that is why health care is in the mess that it is. With "everyone is entitled to health care regardless of their ability to pay" is what allows #5-#3 to proliferate. There's an old saying, make a system that even a fool can use, and only a fool will use it. That's what we're seeing. We allow fools and irresponsible people to use our medical and legal system and it's predominately being used by these fools to escape the consequences of their action. The government mandates they accommodate these fools and suffer the consequences for them. This is why so many hospitals are going bankrupt, why so many drivers drive without insurance, why dumba$$es can put hot coffee between their legs and sue McDonalds for having coffee that's hot. One consequence of a mandate just seems to lead to more. After the coffee incident, the government mandated what temperature coffee can be. When a child gets hurt at a playground, the government mandated what equipment children can play on (which isn't much), when illegals abuse our medical system, they make more mandates to see that the industry doesn't take step to save themselves financially by making more requirements to treat them and giving illegals more legal rights to sue and have interpreters. It's no mystery why the costs go through the roof as the problems progress. As the problems progress, the government make more mandates that makes it worse. It's no mystery why rates go up, because the costs are going up. Medical costs have the highest rate of inflation of any industry. As it become abundantly clear, it's not that the insurance industry is making up numbers and charging more because they can like the banks (that get government money I may add), but because they're responding to the market forces that have been colluded by the government. For anyone that sees private insurance as the enemy and not the government is in for one rude surprise should the government gets what it wants: socialism. Then and only then, will they realize how expensive it is to be ignorant to who the real enemy is and how expensive outlawing and denying reality. Not only in financial costs, but to our liberties. Haven't we paid enough already?

Monday, February 22, 2010

The Federal Courts war against edcation.

I had 2 court rulings that I felt were the bane of making our public education system being functional. The biggest being all children are "entitled" to a free public education, though for those that don't want it, I ask why? More on that later, as well as the ending of silence prayers. Now a federal court has made what has to be one of the stupidest rulings all in the guise of free speech. This ruling could well put the final nail in the coffin of a function, if down right, the survivability of our K12 public education system.

To give background, a student didn't care for a teacher and decided to use her Facebook to slander the said teacher. The Principal, finding out about the rant, suspended the student as being a disruption in the classroom and on the attitude on campus as those that read the rant tended to side with her rebellion. The parent (I love those parent who child refuses to learn, but defend them to rebel) sued the school stating that her free speech was impeded. Two years later, the court ruled that as long as it's opinion and doesn't threaten anyone, it's free speech and the school had no right to suspend or discipline the student. Now the child, who's now an adult, and the parent are suing for financial damages. This completely defies logic and the meaning behind freedom of speech. What's going to results, I fear because I was witness to such indiscretions, is more contempt for education by those that just plain don't want it.

First of all, lets go over what, in my opinion, free speech was meant to protect: political speech. The purpose of which, since I've actually have studied the constitution, more than some in office have, and it was to protect the voting citizens from ramifications from the government. I can go and say, though not for long if this current administration have anything to say about it, Obama sucks. The government doesn't have the constitutional empowerment to come and arrest me or infringe on any of my liberties. However, if I was to go to some dork with an Obama sticker on his car and make such a statement, I'm most likely going to get a few choice words in response. That's free speech as well. You see, the liberties that were laid in the foundation of our constitutional republic was such that you're free to do as you will as long as it doesn't impugned another's freedom. There is no freedom without responsibility. This is what is meant in the brilliant statement of "these inalienable rights as endowed by our creator." We're all endowed to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, as long as we don't take such traits from others. Minors, which are under the jurisdiction of their parents, though the government have been assaulting that for the last 50 years, aren't under such freedom. They're young, inexperience, immature, make rash and silly decisions. That's why we have laws making parents responsible for them. If said minor commits transgressions, then they, if they're mature enough to know better, or the parents are held accountable. Now to claim that a high school student, as defined by our laws, is mature enough to appreciate the power and the responsibility to exercise free speech is down right silly. Just listen to the kids on the street and it's enough to make you shake your head. Now we're giving those minors a "right" to undermine a person that has been authorized to educate them as mandated by law just makes no sense. Especially for someone that, by law, isn't mature enough to fully appreciate the very right the court has just given them over the authority of an educator.

What this means now, if a student doesn't like what a teacher is educating, he has the right to talk back. If a teacher, one of their duties is to provide a safe and learning environment, is exercising what is one of his responsibilities, the student has a right to state otherwise and refuse. This freedom without responsibility completely undermines the teacher, as well as the administration's, job to provide that safe and learning environment, because a CHILD that can't appreciate the right they have now can use it to undermine that goal and incur no consequences. Teachers now are going to have to watch what they say or do because now the children have the right to make statements undermining it. If they don't like the lesson, they can talk trash because it's now free speech. Don't like history as it's written, you can make up your own and claim free speech, if a student thinks 2+2 is 5, it's now free speech. If you want to call him or her a stupid racist fill in expletive here, it's now free speech. I know, because I went through it for a year and got very little support from parents and administration as it was over the threats, racists statements, and down right disinterment of the subject matters. The argument now is they only have the right to do so on social sites like Facebook. I say they're wrong because it's going to grow and believe me, those that hate education aren't stupid. What's to stop them from going to test the waters and start texting in class out in the open and scream free speech? What's to stop them from going to speak out profanities to teachers and administrators and cry free speech? What's to have them advertise drug sales, ok, I know it's illegal, but to make the claim? Free speech? I've witnessed such transgression and with this ruling, it's going to get worse because when Vallejo went Bankrupt, the gangs knew they had advantage with law enforcement being undermined by the financial constraints and just went crazy knowing they're likely to get away with their crimes and they did.

Freedom without responsibility is the definition of anarchy. Now with minors now given the gift of having power over the authorities to use free speech in their defiance of educational goals can lead to nothing but more problem in a system that's already dysfunctional. When silent prayers were taken out, that took out values and we ended up with a valueless education system. The moral reletivism that has lead to not even being able to call a terrorist a terrorist or a mass murderer a murderer and we have political correctness to the point we can't even defend ourselves from the most exgregious threats. When the courts ruled that everyone was entitled to a public education, that allowed those that hated or didn't want to be educated to ruined it for those that do. Now with the power to shut down the education system with the power of free speech, or basically giving the students the right to shout down or filibuster teachers should such rulings allow them to exercise their right during school hours, what is a teacher or educator going to do? Teaching is a difficult enough job as it. Most don't realize how hard or even dangerous it is. Most think it's a part time job at 30 hours a week (never mind the hours of non-class time work involved) with 3 months off with holidays (never mind we still have to take extra classes to maintain our credentials) and they just stand and talk (while half the class is on their own tangent and/or threatening each other). They don't see the contempt or the fighting to maintain the safe and learning environment which often is futile. You can't educate an unwilling subject. They don't see the threats, the chaos, or how those that have disdain for education just reap the energy and ability for those that want to teach or learn or how much work they make for them. Or how they have to tip toe over issue worrying about a lawsuit or physical harm (two teachers were assaulted while I was in Vallejo as well as 3 cars of teachers were stolen and nothing was done to the students involved). Now the courts just gave the students the right to have speech over them. How are they suppose to educate now? I know one thing, I sure don't want to teach in this environment. Perhaps if we had judges be required to do the job for just one week or if these same punks were allowed to make slanderous statements about them, perhaps they would wake up. Preserving civil rights of children is one thing. Giving them freedoms without responsibilities, because this is what this ruling does, gives them speech without incurring any consequences for anything said, is only going to lead to anarchy. Given by how many adults support this ruling (about 2 out of 3), not many adults appreciate or have the maturity as well. Perhaps its because they too were publicly educated.

Friday, February 19, 2010

The IRS plane bomber and the leftist media.

As I stated in an earlier blog, the left doesn't believe in absolute truth and defines any moral imperative with anything they want. One of the subject was terrorism by believing they've combat it by defining it as something else. It seems now that one lone nut job may demonstrate this truth while derailing everything the "Tea Party" has fought to expose over the corruption that has engulfed our republic. Now one man, who reached his breaking point, and goes out and does an act of insanity, will drive the leftist slander machine to a consequence that this "person" never even considered would be a variable in the equation.

Unless someone has been cave exploring the last 24 hours or totally isolated themselves from civilisation and its medias like Tom Hanks character in the movie Castaway, it's well known that a man that had a beef with the IRS decided to take matters into his own hand and decided to take his own life and as many of agents of the IRS with him. What I find predictable and at the same time worrisome is the leftist media reaction to the whole incident. That it's a right wing terrorist plot.

First of all, I agree that this was an act of terrorism by one lone nut job. Anyone that intends to fly a plane into a building for the sole purpose to murder them over a political objective is, by definition, a terrorist. Though all the evidence so far has shown that it was the act of one man frustrated and riled up over years with his disdain over the tax code and its enforcement, it isn't stopping the media to slander the Tea Party and their supporters. A media that refuses to call 9-11 an act of terrorism by Islamic Fanatics and still are making claims that it was an inside job by the Bush Administration, that still refuses to call the Fort Hood massacre that was committed by a radical Muslim shouting Allahu Ackbar (God is Greatest) while murdering "his" fellow soldiers, an act of terrorism but a mental illness that sounds made up (most likely because it is) of pretrumatic stress disorder, and refuse to call the Christmas day Fruit of Kaboom attempted bomber a terrorist, but a lone criminal act with all the rights and privileges under the constitution, but at the same time will call Mr. Randolph (the abortionist bomber), Tim McVeigh, and now this lone man a terrorist. Well, it's clear as to why, the first group are colored Muslims, while the latter are white. Now the media are saying they're all right wingers and Christians with the exception of Randolph, is completely false. Randolph was a radical Christian right winger, he was, unlike the Muslim counterparts, condemned and disfellowship for his high crimes.

Now the media, following either Axelrod or Emmanuel, I forget which, policy of not letting a good crisis go to waste are going to use this to smear and slander the Tea Party. They're now associating this man as a representative of all those who are followers of the Tea Party: White, racists, crazy, anti-government, anti-tax, murderous. The left has been looking for a reason to be able to hammer down the Tea Party as a terrorist threat so the government can crack down on them because they were not only making too much noise, but were starting to expose the corruption involved with our current political climate. Health Care is going down, ACORN has been exposed as the criminal enterprise that it is, more conservative candidates were breaking the chain of the amour as Brown's election has demonstrated as well as a mass exodus of democrats willing to quit than go through the embarrassment and humiliation of a lopsided defeat that is coming in so many district and state. The Tea Party had been breaking a lot of ground against the leftist movement of the liberal and statist Democratic and RINO machine. Now this terrorist act is done by none less than an insane anti-tax and government lunatic and now the left has what it needs to paint the group that has given them so much trouble and was becoming a real and major threat. Given history's lesson, it's going to work. Look at McVeigh who still branded as an example of Christian extremism though the man wasn't a Christian and never claimed to be a Christian (He was a panist). Look at what happened at Waco when the government using military equipment, a blantant violation of the constitution, when they went against the Branch Davidians and they had committed no criminal act other than they owned too many guns by the Clinton Administration's view. Or even how 1/3rd of Americans don't believe that 9-11 was even committed by Islamic extremist but by the Bush Administration. The media still has a great influence on the weak minded and ignorant and there are still plenty of them.

In the Terminator series, the main premise is how one man can completely turn the course of humanity. In this series, it's the salvation of humanity in its war against the machines. Now one man can change the course of events because now one man has given a radical party and movement the crisis it needs to paint their political enemies as "terrorists". Though they won't call real terrorists as such, they can successfully paint truly concerned and patriotic Americans as such because of this one said incident, then one man can derail the entire progress and movement of the Tea Party. The only movement that is having any real consequence against a radical and destructive movement in the breakdown the liberties and constitutionalism of our republic. Nothing will please the left more than to have this one man become the savior of their socialist and statist goals and thus we will see the media do all they can to define, paint, and slander the said conservative group. Time will tell if indeed this one lone nut job will succeed. Then perhaps we'll learn that what we may perceive as an insufficient act, may end up having major consequences that we couldn't conceive.

Monday, February 15, 2010

Drawing dead: the exodus of the Democrats.

I remember when I was playing online poker and how one player was having a tirade about how stupid and inept we were and that's why he was losing chips. Because we didn't know how to bet. The truth was we did, it was that this man's "tell" was so obvious, that even bad players could read it and called his bluffs. Now we have democrat after democrat either staying away as far as possible from the poison of Obama, or just can see how bad their hand is and folding away the losing hand.

Obama after just one year is such a dismal failure, that it's resonating throughout the political spectrum. Those who got elected on the "anybody but Bush" mentality are realizing that people are having voter remorse and aren't going to make the same mistake again by allowing him to have his "friendly" and super majority congress. Especially in those that won in historically conservative district. This tell is obvious because if a Republican can win in a ultra liberal state like MA, then who's really safe? Unless you have the "nuts" as we say in poker (the cards to make the strongest possible hand), well, unless you live in a district of nuts (fanatically loyal party voters) like San Fransisco that most likely will return us the dunce known as Poloski, each and every Democrat in a conservative, and perhaps not so conservative, district is drawing dead (a hand with no possibility of winning) and folding their cards instead of wasting any more political capital investing in what's is egregiously a bad hand.

However, there are those "steamers" still out there. A steamer is a person after getting burned on a miracle hand wanting to regain the loss that "shouldn't" had happen, will make insane bets hoping to gain either their losses back or gain the miracle hand themselves. These are the "fish" that pros like to seek out knowing they'll make losing bets and gain more money for them. It seems that there are some so determined to believe that they know better than the people that elected them, or just plain don't care (there are some that don't care if they lose the bank, rare as it is), that they're going to push ahead with their losing propositions. So much so, that some are willing to let the constitution be damned and do so by force or just plain change to the rules like stating this hand we're playing low ball now, as Obama has stated by using executive orders. This is akin to the scene in Maverick where Maverick wins his hand but the gunfighter thinks that hand shouldn't count and he's willing to use brute force (until he finds out that Maverick is a better draw than he is).

The overall hand is this. The American people have seen that they have a losing bet with Obama, especially with the economy and national security. The smart democrats are seeing this and folding. The steamers are trying to have the rules changed so their losing hand is the winning one. Now the big question is will the conservatives take advantage and call their bluff or will they fold or create a worse hand for themselves by joining in with the Dems or worse, nominate Palin who says what conservatives like to hear, but has shown not to have the experience, skills, or even temperament to be electable (just like McCain wasn't). The pot is there for conservatives to win, the question is will they make the right move to gain it. Or will they just fold, like they have in the past, and play with a losing hand as well.

Monday, February 8, 2010

Troubling sign from England.

A little known story from the Mail Online News has one that we should take note of since we're about two steps behind England when it comes to our policies regarding the practices of Islamics. The story, that can found here: Basically stated at teacher, who was Christian, was fired from is teaching position because he was too intolerant of his Muslims bigotry. Seems, and keep in mind, these are 4th graders, we're praising the 9-11 attackers as heroes and myrtars. When he complained, his principal sided with the little terrorist and basically told me to shut up. After 3 more times, he needed to instill more discipline. When they protested that he needed to be killed because he was a Brit and Christian, it was the last straw. England is an ultratolerent nation and for it they're starting to die out as a nation as the radical immigrants from the Northern African countries are pouring in, they are importing their hatreds, bigotry, and 3rd world mentality with them. As having been a teacher myself, this kind of attitude, by both the students and the administration, should be intolerable, but instead are running rampage.

Why I make the statement that we're just a couple of steps behind. First of all, having a year under my belt in the public education system, I can tell you such apathy towards teachers that don't toe the PC line are treated with such contempt and disdain. I can't count the times that I received such indignation's. I remember when it finally hit me and realize how futile instilling discipline and educating my student were as the gangs were the ones running the school and they knew it was when the Assistant Principal demanded that I stop sending trouble student to them. You see, they were giving them detention, but they were refusing to show up and the parents refuse to intervene. Well, heck, what am I suppose to do? As we import more 3rd worlders (1/3 of my students were ESL's), they were bringing their gang and contempt against America with them. Add the PC of minority racism, like the overwhelming times I was being accused to oppose them because they were acting "too black" or "too Latino" or fill in the blank. The treats I would get if I dare to intervene or prevent violence should they decide someone offended their "honor (what honor they had is beyond me), it left many teacher paralyzed. Nobody wanted to confront or oppose the gangs or their mentality. Now think would be going on if the pluralists were Muslims. I can tell you, it would be exactly as this man is telling. Just change Islamic mentality and prejudice with the black, Latino, etc and it is a repeat of what I and other teachers went through.

This incident should be troubling because now we have an administration that not only would agree with these students, though I doubt they would admit it in public, but don't believe that Islamic terrorism even exists. They man made disasters. A skunk by any other name will still stink as badly, and so will this delusion of the facts. Any such resistance will be met with government intervention to protect the rights of the minority. I've seen it too many times. Add that this administration wants to have a lottery to issue out "diversity" vista and to mainly terrorist sponsoring countries, well, I'm speechless, but what results do they really expect from this program? What? We don't have enough deversity or is it that one whitie is one too many? Given that they seen Christians and Conservatives as the real terrorist threats, not the Islamics, who do you think the government will defend?

There are troubling signs in England and we're heading down the same path. How soon will be so appeasing to our enemies that they will become open and brazen like they are in England? What does this say about a culture that breed children that want to kill and have such hatred for people and a race at the age of 8? What does this say about the future of the West? I fear we're going to find out if we continue down this worn and broken path. As for I, it has made me more relieved that I no longer teach and grateful my ex-wife grew a brain and got our two children out of public education.

Friday, February 5, 2010

Why the founding fathers distrusted political parties.

Retard: cause to move more slowly or operate at a slower rate. I've decided to look up the word "retard" in the dictionary. For those of you who don't know what a dictionary is, as it seems apparent by the latest conservancy brewing with Palin and Emmanual, it a book that defines word. Sarcasm aside, it also is a history book of sorts as the definition appear in order of their evolution. In other words, the definitions listed first are the oldest use of the word. The one stated in the opening line is the oldest use of the word "retard". The reference of the handicap is listed 6th, so there are 5 other reference that were in use long before it was used to define someone of a mental handicap. In my physic class, we refer to the word when a force is opposing another saying the one force retards the effect of the other. According to Palin, I just committed a bigoted act.

I don't care for the current Administration and the cabinet members. I think they're one of the most evil people ever to occupy the executive branch of our government, if not the most evil. However, Emmanual's comment, though stupid, had nothing to do with Palin's son Tig. I seriously doubt as this Chief of Staff was making his exclamation of frustration that he had her son in mind and was making comparison. For Palin to take it as a dig on her son just demonstrate why I don't like the woman: she's just as arrogant as Poloski and just as Narcassitic as Obama in this case. Only an Narcissist would think that statement was directed at her and her family. Now this woman is going on the warpath to have the word banned in government. Uh, I thought conservatives were all about free speech (as long as it doesn't infringe on another person's rights) not censorship. How is this different than when Obama and company wanted to "restrict" the speech against gays or their administration? If anyone has the answer, please tell me because I don't see it. Are we in Physics not going to be allow to use retard when discussing opposing forces? Seems Palin is taking a page out of the liberal's playbook: claiming hate speech over an offense. Well, the first amendment was ratified to protect offended speech because non offensive speech would need no protection. She's just shown me to be no different than the current occupant of the White House.

Now with Rush Limbaugh, rightfully so, defending the fool to make a fool of himself has put Palin in a rather awkward position: attacking the opposition party while embracing one of the conservatives most recognized icons. The fact that many conservatives are confused and ambivalent about whom to side with shows a fact about why the founding fathers distrusted political parties. If anyone remembers when Cheney used the F word during a Private conversation with an opposing party member of congress how the media just went ballistic? They wanted the Cheney removed and many found such a statement unsuited for the office of the VP. Conservatives were all defending him while the left went on their tirade of hate speech. Now that the tables are turned, it seem its the conservatives that want to enact an enforcement of hate speech while the left is doing the defending of free speech. This is the double edge sword that lead the founding father's to hate and distrust political parties: nepotism. We're all for or against an issue based on what a member of a party who is in power thinks. To give a prime example, take the medicaid prescription drug program. When Bill Clinton tried to enacted it, the Republicans stopped it cold. When Bush enacted it 6 years later, all the Republicans voted for it. Same bill, Same idea, same financial disaster in the making, but the difference was now there was a Republican (actually a RINO, but that's for another day) in the White House. Parties tend to think what's right or wrong based on who's in office. How is this much different than the Islamic world where they fight for what thug is in charge other than we don't kill each other?

Now Palin wants to lead the Tea Party. Fellow Tea Partiers, if we let this woman take the lead, then we're slipping right into the same mentality that got us the corrupt two parties we have now. The mentality of we're good, they're bad and whatever we do is always good and what they do is always bad. To let a woman that has this diatomic thinking will do us no good, and will just bring the apathy that has infected the two parties to our cause. Frankly, why would we want a woman that gets so easily offended to lead us. After all, she now wants to ban certain speech which is what we've been fighting the current administration over. To let this woman get away with this and become our leader, well, I dare to say it, that would be beeping retarded.