If you are a griper, you'd better vote or I Don't want to hear the gripe(s).

 Bush haters, this election isn't for President

Vote for the undeniably good economy, vote against those who wish to normalize bizarre cultural perversions, vote for responsible adults (as faulty as they may be) and not the emotion driven childish jackasses.  Vote for a prayer of immigration and national security.  Vote for people who at least mouth about smaller government and lower spending.   And vote for those who won't let the law expire that actually lets YOU keep more of YOUR OWN money. 

Republicrats are less dangerous than Demonpublicans are.  Hold your nose and don't let the socialist/statist/redistributionists get control of Congress.

Vote libertarian at the State and local level if you have only careerist type lawyer eels to vote for on the Elephant/Jackass slates.

Make the media cheerleaders for the Deaniacs look as stupid as they sound by showing their biased "polls" to be nothing but DNC propoganda

VOTE!!! (just once Demos and your voters are supposed to be alive and unbribed by cigarettes)

CPT

 A part of the "culture war" that doesn't get the play it deserves is the Nanny State (government at all levels) and "public health activists" (or other nice sounding name for a control other people freak) propensity to legislate what is "good for us".  Some simple observations on what isn't the government's or my neighbors business to legislate.

1. Whether or not I allow people to smoke on the premises of MY property.
2. What I choose to eat.
3. What I choose to drink.
4. Whether I choose to wear a helmet on MY motorcycle.
5. Whether I choose to fasten my seat belt in MY car.
6. (and YES) Whether I choose to use a carseat/booster seat for MY children.
7. Taking MY money to give to those deemed (by the nannies) to be "less fortunate".

Here are the Nannies' trite arguments with appropriate responses

1. People who don't smoke shouldn't be forced to be exposed to the second had smoke of others.
Answer: No one "forces" someone to patronize any business.  Frequent business that CHOOSE to prohibit smoking on the premises of THIER property.

2. If you eat poorly and drink too much you "cost society" in higher insurance premiums.  Also, some people just don't know enough to take care of themselves properly
Answer: Mom's have taught their kids (as have schools) what is healthy to eat for generations.  If people choose to stuff their pie holes, it's THIER business, not some lawyer or some "activist" or some neighbor.  If my behavior impacts insurance rates I should be charged a different rate or be refused (yes REFUSED) insurance.  As to what people "know" about taking care of themselves, it's no one else's, besides family, business.

3.  See number #2

4&5. Same insurance/medical costs argument as is used for food and drink.
Answer:  Again, the market can take care of this without any Nanny type assistance.  If people engage in higher risk behaviors then they should be charged higher rates.  NOT everyone charged higher rates.  Or they can be refused insurance.
Aside for you Nannies out there:  Driving a vehicle isn't a "privilege" its just another thing people should be free to do.  Society and others don't grant "privileges" to free people.

6. But your children are precious and should be protected.
Answer: What "should" be doesn't give the state or my neighbors any right to dictate it.  If I'm so stupid and/or uncaring as to endanger my children then I'll (and my family) have to live with the consequences, good or bad.

7. But it's heartless and cruel to deny assistance to those in need.
Answer: No it isn't.  It isn't the government's place or function to redistribute money by confiscating from some and giving it to others.  Families and Churches and VOLUNTARY community organizations can and should be the ONLY mechanisms for such assistance.  That way any/all assistance is FREELY given

I could go on, but I'd rather see you do so.

The Washington Blade is pushing a petition supporting homosexual (same-sex) marriage that reads; "I support the right of every American to marry, including gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, and transgender couples. I believe that marriage and other civil rights protections are essential to making all families safer and more secure."

Some points for people to consider before signing such a silly form.
1. Every American already has the right to marry.  Seems like equal rights to us.
2. Heterosexuals are just as limited in who they may marry as homosexuals are.  Seems like equal rights to us.
3. Marriage is not a "civil rights protection".  It is the union of a man and a woman. THAT is what homosexuals want to CHANGE.
4. Members of "gay", lesbian, "bi-sexual" and "transgender" already have the IDENTICAL rights to marry that all others have.  That isn't good enough, they want to CHANGE what marriage is.

Oppose such silly amendments/petitions and other activism to redefine that which has been commonly defined (correctly) for thousands of years.

A couple of other salient points for the "gay" activists out there.
1.  Opposition to CHANGING the meaning of marriage doesn't indicate "fear" or "hate" of people who prefer to identify themselves as homosexual or to behaviorally act on that preference.
2.  Opposition to CHANGING the meaning of marriage doesn't mean someone is "anti" anything.  Beyond "anti" changing the meaning of marriage.
3.  Any comparison of chosen sexual preference and behaviors can NOT be equated to inherent racial/gender/ethnic make up.  People ARE black or Asian or Jewish or male or female at birth.  Homosexuals have ZERO evidence that their proclivities are innate or genetic in any way.  So homosexual advocacy of special "rights" or new "rights" as a "civil rights" issue comparable to the struggles of racial minorities or women is just fallacious.

Its clear to those who think and are not blinded by PC dogma that the homosexual political activists aren't seeking equality or neutrality in our culture.  They are seeking not only acceptance but ENDORSEMENT of their aberrant preference and behavior as "good" and "right" and a social positive.  It is not.

There is a veritable industry today of people (lawyers) seeking to make free money based on some persons' claims to "be offended" by the speech of others.  This is a dangerous and slippery slope for our culture, society and political institutions.  It has been derived by the maturing of "political correctness" born in the late 60's of last century and is fueled by the popular media.  Our citizens and guests (legal or not) are inculcated non-stop with reinforcement of the false idea that there is some inherent right to not be offended.

No matter how foul, course or politically incorrect an insult (or perceived insult) is, it can not harm a person.  Being "disrespected" isn't harmful in any way except in the minds of fools who *choose* to take offense and/or "feel" harmed.  Remember your Mom telling you about sticks and stones versus names?  Apparently this is inapplicable to members of the bar, special interest/special rights groups like the race hustlers and homosexual acceptance activists.

Yes, this includes racial, gender, ethnic epithets.  It includes groups self-identified by their aberrant preferences (not orientations) and behaviors.  It includes those who are foriegn to the U.S. and those native born or naturalized.  Groupings that commonly *seek* "victim" status simply because they *CHOOSE* to be offended by the words, written or spoken, of others.

This industry of offended victimhood has its own special rules as to what can be said or not said, written and not written.  Driven by the avarice of legal beagles seeking to earn money, not by producing anything of value, but by reinforcing and encouraging the fallacious idea that "being offended" is actionable.

We wish to return to the simpler life when people considered the source of what was said or written.  If someone wants to call me names or say things I may choose to find offensive, they are free to do so.  Their words don't assign their perceptions or values to me unless I *CHOOSE* to accept them and own them as my own.  Regardless of my choice, their liberty is to say what they please.  My behavior is volitional and my person, my family and my property aren't harmed by what others say about me.

So all you professional "victim" representatives, remember this.  "Hate" isn't illegal but disagreeing with you doesn't constitute "hate" or "fear" of you or your opinions.  Words don't harm you.  Consider the source.  If the source is an opponent, who cares what they say?  I am much more likely to *CHOOSE* to be offended by the words of people who's opinion I actually esteem.

It is disconcerting, discouraging and dangerous to understand how the news media in the world and leftists in the U.S. focus on thier emotionally based drive for power and influence at the expense of the security of thier country.

One moment they decry and expose the steps taken by the administration to combat terrorist plans and combinations and in the next breath, just as stridently, complain that the administration isn't taking enough action(s) to combat the same.

It is thier simple lust for power and influence (leftist politicians and leftist media respectively) that drives thier actions and complaints.  They offer no solutions, they only complain, whine and excoriate those trying to keep our country safe.  They will literally say anything is thier selfish quest for power and influence.  They will contradict themselves in the same breath.  They'll even deny the threat of Islamist terror and its intent.

It is shameful.  Do they think Americans are that stupid or unaware? More frightening, ARE a large percentage of Americans that stupid or unaware?  Or even worse, uncaring?