Text of Senate Bill 5
This bill deals with Collective Bargaining in the State of Ohio which has not changed significantly since it was enacted in 1983.
First let me explain what Collective Bargaining is: Collective bargaining is a type of negotiation used by employees to work with their employers. During a collective bargaining period, workers' representatives approach the employer and attempt to negotiate a contract which both sides can agree with. Typical issues covered in a labor contract are hours, wages, benefits, working conditions, and the rules of the workplace. Once both sides have reached a contract that they find agreeable, it is signed and kept in place for a set period of time, most commonly three years. The final contract is called a collective bargaining agreement, to reflect the fact that it is the result of a collective bargaining effort. (Wisegeek.com)
Let me also explain that I am not a fan of unions due to a variety of reasons least of which is that they will protect the perpetually unemployed or as with the car industry, will force companies to pay for workers who just sit around all day waiting to be called in for work. These are of course extreme examples but they are valid examples which affect the bottom line for everyone not just the companies or the state.
I certainly understand that at one point unions were great entities; they brought us the 40 hour work week, safe working conditions and decent pay for decent work. For that I will be grateful. The unions of the early 20th century were effective organizations that actually looked out for the worker while also negotiating fair packages with businesses so that their members would continue to have work.
However, unions have failed to live up to this brilliant start, they have become nothing more than greedy organizations with leaders who bully their members rather than represent them. As well they have become intimidating bullies for the far left as was evidence in St. Louis last year.
As such, I do believe Senate Bill 5 is a good sound bill that will change the face of government as well as schools. Under this bill, pay is based on merit – which means that pay is based on performance as it should be and as it is in the private sector. Per Senator Jones “Under the bill, pay for state employees is based on merit, and statutory salary schedules and step increases are eliminated.”
Furthermore, it changes the way layoffs are done so seniority is not the only factor. Other factors such as performance and efficiency will be considered which in the case of teachers a good thing is. Just because one teacher has more seniority does not mean they are a better teacher than one who has only a few years on the job and vice versa. We certainly cannot layoff people because they are old but we should not keep them either based on seniority alone.
This bill does not affect local government workers and effectively changes the way pensions and healthcare are handled.
Folks let’s be clear about this, government workers are essential but lazy government workers are not. We as taxpayers should not foot the bill for those who do not want to perform the services required. As well, lazy workers in the private sector who utilize collective bargaining are just as inefficient and detrimental to this state because they can cause companies to move out resulting in loss jobs, lost tax revenue, lower property values and increased rates of crime. One only has to look at Detroit to see how incompetent government and greedy union members have taken a once prosperous city and turned it into a war zone.
While this bill focuses on state employees, I believe that it should also focus on private sector employee unions as well. I certainly understand that people need to make a decent wage especially in this country that has a high standard of living but at some point we have to say enough is enough. We cannot drive business away just because we need that extra buck or milk in our lunch (yes that really happened in Houston, TX at a Shell Oil plant). This is only one step in bring back our country to its roots of self sufficiency but it is an important step and I encourage all of you to read up about Senate Bill 5 and call your State Senator to voice your support or opposition to it.
Thursday, February 17, 2011
Wednesday, November 26, 2008
Happy Thanksgiving
The Thanksgiving holiday is a uniquely American Holiday. Let us all reflect on the courage and the wisdom of those early Americans. The Pilgrims survived a harsh and sometimes deadly 9 week voyage across the Atlantic to be free. Once here they nearly died from sickness and near starvation and yet they persevered. They peacefully negotiated with the local Indians - The Wampanoag people, they worked hard and learned through trial and error what would make their settlement successful. William Bradford noted in Of Plimouth Plantation that the community model which had been set up (today we know it as socialism or collectivism) did not work. He found that when people were given their own property to work and manage, the entire community began to prosper. Thus the first lessons of capitalism were sown and this country never looked back until recently.
Today we have a small group of people in this country that believe the rest of us need to carry them. We have politicians who believe that Government is the solution. As well as an entire world that believes we (USA) are their security force, bank and charitable organization. It would do us well to learn the lessons of the Pilgrims. Collectivism does not work, self sufficiency does.
May you and yours have a blessed Thanksgiving.
Today we have a small group of people in this country that believe the rest of us need to carry them. We have politicians who believe that Government is the solution. As well as an entire world that believes we (USA) are their security force, bank and charitable organization. It would do us well to learn the lessons of the Pilgrims. Collectivism does not work, self sufficiency does.
May you and yours have a blessed Thanksgiving.
Monday, November 24, 2008
Downfall of the Big 3
Last week I read an article that Mitt Romney wrote in regards to bailing out the Big 3 Automakers. Today I read another article on why the Big 3 failed by Pat Buchanan. Both articles are op ed's but both are dead on. The biggest problem we have in this country with regards to manufacturing is government and unions.
Government puts excessive amounts of regulations on all of our industries instead of reasonable ones. Safety is paramount there is no question about it but why not let the market dictate fuel mileage or other factors that contribute the sale of goods and services? The consumers will let a company know when they need to make a better product by buying from a competitor. There is no question about that it is a basic tenet of the law of economics. When a company produces an inferior product at a high price consumers buy less. The company then tweaks their product to improve it versus the cost and the consumers will come back. The other thing that government does which is harmful to all industries is excessively taxation. It seems that government has not figured out that companies do not pay taxes consumers do. Why is it necessary to have a 35%+ corporate tax rate. This rate is second only to Japan whose rate is roughly 39.5%. If government really wanted to create jobs it would do away with the corporate income tax and would soften many unnecessary regulations. The only regulations that I believe should be in place are workplace safety which is necessary for the general welfare of this country.
The unions are also contributing to the elimination of manufacturing in this country. Their outrageous demands for salary, health care and retirement benefits are killing the very jobs they claim to be protecting. Many auto workers make well above the average wage for most Americans and a lot of them sit on their bottoms doing nothing and collecting a pay check. Furthermore the unions will perpetually protect the unemployable ie: the drug addict or alcoholic. The unions do nothing at this point to advance the cause of the American worker who actually wants to work. In their heyday they were necessary their is no doubt about that. They brought us the 40 hour workweek, safety measures and a sense of security. However, they are no longer your grandfather's union. Greed and political motivation is what they are all about. My advise to the unions is instead of higher wages why not profit sharing - when a company does well then it's employees are rewarded and when it does not then the employees know they have to work harder the next year. Make work at will and not contract based. Better quality people will be hired thus making your job easier. It is much easier to defend a good employee who slipped up versus a bad employee who is constantly in trouble. Unions need to work for their workers not for the political interest of the union.
Unfortunately neither the government nor the unions seem to want to listen to "We the People". They better soon or we could see some of the greatest turmoil since the Civil War.
Government puts excessive amounts of regulations on all of our industries instead of reasonable ones. Safety is paramount there is no question about it but why not let the market dictate fuel mileage or other factors that contribute the sale of goods and services? The consumers will let a company know when they need to make a better product by buying from a competitor. There is no question about that it is a basic tenet of the law of economics. When a company produces an inferior product at a high price consumers buy less. The company then tweaks their product to improve it versus the cost and the consumers will come back. The other thing that government does which is harmful to all industries is excessively taxation. It seems that government has not figured out that companies do not pay taxes consumers do. Why is it necessary to have a 35%+ corporate tax rate. This rate is second only to Japan whose rate is roughly 39.5%. If government really wanted to create jobs it would do away with the corporate income tax and would soften many unnecessary regulations. The only regulations that I believe should be in place are workplace safety which is necessary for the general welfare of this country.
The unions are also contributing to the elimination of manufacturing in this country. Their outrageous demands for salary, health care and retirement benefits are killing the very jobs they claim to be protecting. Many auto workers make well above the average wage for most Americans and a lot of them sit on their bottoms doing nothing and collecting a pay check. Furthermore the unions will perpetually protect the unemployable ie: the drug addict or alcoholic. The unions do nothing at this point to advance the cause of the American worker who actually wants to work. In their heyday they were necessary their is no doubt about that. They brought us the 40 hour workweek, safety measures and a sense of security. However, they are no longer your grandfather's union. Greed and political motivation is what they are all about. My advise to the unions is instead of higher wages why not profit sharing - when a company does well then it's employees are rewarded and when it does not then the employees know they have to work harder the next year. Make work at will and not contract based. Better quality people will be hired thus making your job easier. It is much easier to defend a good employee who slipped up versus a bad employee who is constantly in trouble. Unions need to work for their workers not for the political interest of the union.
Unfortunately neither the government nor the unions seem to want to listen to "We the People". They better soon or we could see some of the greatest turmoil since the Civil War.
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Wal-Mart's Success
Why is Wal-Mart succeeding in these tough economic times. Simple there is no unionization and they offer a quality product at a low price while paying their workers a decent wage. All companies should look at the Wal-Mart model and copy it to a certain extent. Wal-Mart does one thing that other companies should do and that is profit sharing. When a company shares the profit with their employees it makes for better employees. The employees will work harder and are more likely to stay with a company over a long period of time.
But I think the one thing that is helping Wal-Mart the most is that there are no unions in their stores.(that helps them keep prices low) Unions while not all bad have come to symbolize bad economic choices. Unions are for the lazy and the perpetually unemployable greedy person who cannot sustain themselves through hard work. One only has to look at the Big Three and see unionization at it's finest. A good portion of the cost of a car is tied up in health care and retirement benefits for union members. The health care cost is for both active and retired employees. We have all heard of people who go to work only to sit in a cafeteria until they get called in to work. They are getting paid to sit around. Wow wish I could find a job like that - oh what I could just go up to Detroit and sign up with a union.
But I think the one thing that is helping Wal-Mart the most is that there are no unions in their stores.(that helps them keep prices low) Unions while not all bad have come to symbolize bad economic choices. Unions are for the lazy and the perpetually unemployable greedy person who cannot sustain themselves through hard work. One only has to look at the Big Three and see unionization at it's finest. A good portion of the cost of a car is tied up in health care and retirement benefits for union members. The health care cost is for both active and retired employees. We have all heard of people who go to work only to sit in a cafeteria until they get called in to work. They are getting paid to sit around. Wow wish I could find a job like that - oh what I could just go up to Detroit and sign up with a union.
Investigation of Bush
Well it appears that the Democrats cannot let the elections of 00 and 04 go. Now they are steaming ahead with plans to investigate the Bush administration. Democrats it is time to let go. There is all kinds of information about what the Federal government and different administration do that should not be made public otherwise it would cause chaos. Now is the time for our nation to heal not become further divided. All this would do is cause harm to our political system. But then again it appears that the Democrats want to destroy our system. It should come as no surprise that they would do this.
I am including an article from the Washington Times in regard to this - it was found on Drudge. Please share your comments on whether or not there should be an investigation of the Bush administration.
Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: November 12, 2008
WASHINGTON — When a Congressional committee subpoenaed Harry S. Truman in 1953, nearly a year after he left office, he made a startling claim: Even though he was no longer president, the Constitution still empowered him to block subpoenas.
“If the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired,” Truman wrote to the committee.
Congress backed down, establishing a precedent suggesting that former presidents wield lingering powers to keep matters from their administration secret. Now, as Congressional Democrats prepare to move forward with investigations of the Bush administration, they wonder whether that claim may be invoked again.
“The Bush administration overstepped in its exertion of executive privilege, and may very well try to continue to shield information from the American people after it leaves office,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on two committees, Judiciary and Intelligence, that are examining aspects of Mr. Bush’s policies.
Topics of open investigations include the harsh interrogation of detainees, the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and the role of the former White House aides Karl Rove and Harriet E. Miers in the firing of federal prosecutors.
Mr. Bush has used his executive powers to block Congressional requests for executive branch documents and testimony from former aides. But investigators hope that the Obama administration will open the filing cabinets and withdraw assertions of executive privilege that Bush officials have invoked to keep from testifying.
“I intend to ensure that our outstanding subpoenas and document requests relating to the U.S. attorneys matter are enforced,” said Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “I am hopeful that progress can be made with the coming of the new administration.”
Also, two advocacy groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, have prepared detailed reports for the new administration calling for criminal investigations into accusations of abuse of detainees.
It is not clear, though, how a President Barack Obama will handle such requests. Legal specialists said the pressure to investigate the Bush years would raise tough political and legal questions.
Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor’s tenure. Mr. Bush used executive privilege for the first time in 2001, to block a subpoena by Congressional Republicans investigating the Clinton administration.
In addition, Mr. Obama has expressed worries about too many investigations. In April, he told The Philadelphia Daily News that people needed to distinguish “between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.”
“If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” Mr. Obama said, but added, “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”
But even if his administration rejects the calls for investigations, Mr. Obama cannot control what the courts or Congress do. Several lawsuits are seeking information about Bush policies, including an Islamic charity’s claim that it was illegally spied on by Mr. Bush’s program on wiretapping without warrants.
And Congressional Democrats say that they are determined to pursue their investigations — and that they expect career officials to disclose other issues after the Bush administration leaves. “We could spend the entire next four years investigating the Bush years,” Mr. Whitehouse said.
But if Mr. Obama decides to release information about his predecessor’s tenure, Mr. Bush could try to invoke executive privilege by filing a lawsuit, said Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University.
In that case, an injunction would most likely be sought ordering the Obama administration not to release the Bush administration’s papers or enjoining Mr. Bush’s former aides from testifying. The dispute would probably go to the Supreme Court, Mr. Shane said.
The idea that ex-presidents may possess residual constitutional powers to keep information secret traces back to Truman.
In November 1953, after Dwight D. Eisenhower became president, the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed Truman to testify about why he had appointed a suspected Communist to the International Monetary Fund.
Truman decided not to comply and asked his lawyer, Samuel I. Rosenman, for help. But there was little time for research.
Edward M. Cramer, a young associate at Mr. Rosenman’s law firm, recalled being summoned with two colleagues to their boss’s office at 6 p.m. and told to come up with something. The next morning, they helped dictate Truman’s letter telling the panel he did not have to testify — or even appear at the hearing.
“I think, legally, we were wrong” about whether Truman had to show up, Mr. Cramer, now 83, said in a phone interview from his home in New York.
But the committee did not call the former president’s bluff. It dropped the matter, and Truman’s hastily devised legal claim became a historical precedent.
In 1973, President Nixon cited Truman’s letter when he refused to testify or give documents to the committee investigating the Watergate scandal.
Mr. Cramer recalled, “Nixon used it, and we said ‘Oh, Jesus, what have we done?’ ”
The first judicial backing for the idea that former presidents wield executive privilege powers came in 1977, as part of a Supreme Court ruling in a case over who controlled Nixon’s White House files. The decision suggested that Nixon might be able to block the release of papers in the future. But it offered few details, and Nixon never sought to do so.
In 1989 and 1990, judges presiding over criminal trials related to the Iran-contra affair blocked requests by defendants to make former President Ronald Reagan testify and release his diaries.
But the Supreme Court has never made clear how far a former president may go in trying to block Congressional demands for documents and testimony — or what happens if a president disagrees with a predecessor about making information public.
“There is no relevant precedent on the books,” Mr. Shane said.
I am including an article from the Washington Times in regard to this - it was found on Drudge. Please share your comments on whether or not there should be an investigation of the Bush administration.
Bush, Out of Office, Could Oppose Inquiries
By CHARLIE SAVAGE
Published: November 12, 2008
WASHINGTON — When a Congressional committee subpoenaed Harry S. Truman in 1953, nearly a year after he left office, he made a startling claim: Even though he was no longer president, the Constitution still empowered him to block subpoenas.
“If the doctrine of separation of powers and the independence of the presidency is to have any validity at all, it must be equally applicable to a president after his term of office has expired,” Truman wrote to the committee.
Congress backed down, establishing a precedent suggesting that former presidents wield lingering powers to keep matters from their administration secret. Now, as Congressional Democrats prepare to move forward with investigations of the Bush administration, they wonder whether that claim may be invoked again.
“The Bush administration overstepped in its exertion of executive privilege, and may very well try to continue to shield information from the American people after it leaves office,” said Senator Sheldon Whitehouse, Democrat of Rhode Island, who sits on two committees, Judiciary and Intelligence, that are examining aspects of Mr. Bush’s policies.
Topics of open investigations include the harsh interrogation of detainees, the prosecution of former Gov. Don Siegelman of Alabama, secret legal memorandums from the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel and the role of the former White House aides Karl Rove and Harriet E. Miers in the firing of federal prosecutors.
Mr. Bush has used his executive powers to block Congressional requests for executive branch documents and testimony from former aides. But investigators hope that the Obama administration will open the filing cabinets and withdraw assertions of executive privilege that Bush officials have invoked to keep from testifying.
“I intend to ensure that our outstanding subpoenas and document requests relating to the U.S. attorneys matter are enforced,” said Representative John Conyers Jr., Democrat of Michigan and chairman of the House Judiciary Committee. “I am hopeful that progress can be made with the coming of the new administration.”
Also, two advocacy groups, the American Civil Liberties Union and Human Rights First, have prepared detailed reports for the new administration calling for criminal investigations into accusations of abuse of detainees.
It is not clear, though, how a President Barack Obama will handle such requests. Legal specialists said the pressure to investigate the Bush years would raise tough political and legal questions.
Because every president eventually leaves office, incoming chief executives have an incentive to quash investigations into their predecessor’s tenure. Mr. Bush used executive privilege for the first time in 2001, to block a subpoena by Congressional Republicans investigating the Clinton administration.
In addition, Mr. Obama has expressed worries about too many investigations. In April, he told The Philadelphia Daily News that people needed to distinguish “between really dumb policies and policies that rise to the level of criminal activity.”
“If crimes have been committed, they should be investigated,” Mr. Obama said, but added, “I would not want my first term consumed by what was perceived on the part of Republicans as a partisan witch hunt, because I think we’ve got too many problems we’ve got to solve.”
But even if his administration rejects the calls for investigations, Mr. Obama cannot control what the courts or Congress do. Several lawsuits are seeking information about Bush policies, including an Islamic charity’s claim that it was illegally spied on by Mr. Bush’s program on wiretapping without warrants.
And Congressional Democrats say that they are determined to pursue their investigations — and that they expect career officials to disclose other issues after the Bush administration leaves. “We could spend the entire next four years investigating the Bush years,” Mr. Whitehouse said.
But if Mr. Obama decides to release information about his predecessor’s tenure, Mr. Bush could try to invoke executive privilege by filing a lawsuit, said Peter Shane, a law professor at Ohio State University.
In that case, an injunction would most likely be sought ordering the Obama administration not to release the Bush administration’s papers or enjoining Mr. Bush’s former aides from testifying. The dispute would probably go to the Supreme Court, Mr. Shane said.
The idea that ex-presidents may possess residual constitutional powers to keep information secret traces back to Truman.
In November 1953, after Dwight D. Eisenhower became president, the House Un-American Activities Committee subpoenaed Truman to testify about why he had appointed a suspected Communist to the International Monetary Fund.
Truman decided not to comply and asked his lawyer, Samuel I. Rosenman, for help. But there was little time for research.
Edward M. Cramer, a young associate at Mr. Rosenman’s law firm, recalled being summoned with two colleagues to their boss’s office at 6 p.m. and told to come up with something. The next morning, they helped dictate Truman’s letter telling the panel he did not have to testify — or even appear at the hearing.
“I think, legally, we were wrong” about whether Truman had to show up, Mr. Cramer, now 83, said in a phone interview from his home in New York.
But the committee did not call the former president’s bluff. It dropped the matter, and Truman’s hastily devised legal claim became a historical precedent.
In 1973, President Nixon cited Truman’s letter when he refused to testify or give documents to the committee investigating the Watergate scandal.
Mr. Cramer recalled, “Nixon used it, and we said ‘Oh, Jesus, what have we done?’ ”
The first judicial backing for the idea that former presidents wield executive privilege powers came in 1977, as part of a Supreme Court ruling in a case over who controlled Nixon’s White House files. The decision suggested that Nixon might be able to block the release of papers in the future. But it offered few details, and Nixon never sought to do so.
In 1989 and 1990, judges presiding over criminal trials related to the Iran-contra affair blocked requests by defendants to make former President Ronald Reagan testify and release his diaries.
But the Supreme Court has never made clear how far a former president may go in trying to block Congressional demands for documents and testimony — or what happens if a president disagrees with a predecessor about making information public.
“There is no relevant precedent on the books,” Mr. Shane said.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
Black Achievement
We as a country have just been through a historic election. I am white and think it is fantastic that a black man has been elected President of the US. However, I do have some concerns that his election may not be just a repudiation of the Bush administration but also race based. If it proves to be race based then it is a slap in the face to all people. Dr. King stated "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character." To many times I have heard or read that people were voting for him because he was black. I read today that this proves that blacks can succeed. This statement is truly ignorant. There are a great many people in the black community that have reached great heights of success, to say that becoming the President of the US means blacks can succeed is ignorant. Let me just list a few people whose accomplishments have now been belittled - Thurgood Marshall 1st black Supreme Court Justice, Clarence Thomas Supreme Court Justice, Dr. King who successfully lead the civil rights movement, Bill Cosby, Halle Berry, and Denzel Washington successful black entertainers, Robert L Johnson - founder of BET, George Washington Carver an agricultural chemist during a time when it was hard for a black man to do this, Frederick Douglas great black leader and orator, Various musical artist and sports stars, Colin Powell - a general and first black chairman of the joint chiefs of state as well as the first black Secretary of State, Condoleeza Rice current secretary of state and accomplished pianist, JC Watts - noted OK congressman, Ken Blackwell former Secretary of State for OH and current commentator for FoxNews, Michael Steele former Lt. Gov of Maryland, Juan Williams NPR correspondent and noted journalist. I could go on and on but blacks in this country especially since the Civil Rights movement have been succeeding because they chose to work hard and they did not let their skin color hamper their ambition. Did they face discrimination along the way - I am sure they did but everyone including whites face some form of discrimination. Please don't say that a black man becoming President proves that the black community can succeed - you were successful long before this moment.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
President Elect Obama
Congratulations to the Barrack Obama for becoming the first black President of the United States.
I would say that this reflects the dreams of Martin Luther King but it does not because a majority of people did vote based only on skin color. This is wrong - I would be more apt to say that this is a victory for equal rights if 53% of the population had voted on the content of his character. However we had far to many indications that this election was solely about race which is of course a national disgrace.
I might add that I did vote but I voted for a 3rd party candidate who most reflected my values. If either party had had a good candidate I might have voted for a major party candidate but alas they did not.
Senator Obama represents redistributive government also known as socialism/communism. He represents a reduced standard of living and safety for this country. When any candidate actively campaigns for more government he is a danger for country.
Senator McCain also represented big government which is contrary to the principles that our country was founded on. Although he did favor cutting taxes for everyone and he did favor opening health care up to the free market. Senator McCain like Senator Obama favors illegal immigrants over Americans.
I could list several more arguments against either candidate but at this time it is a moot point. For anyone who wants to call me a racist go ahead but you only prove my point.
Once again congratulations Senator Obama and hopefully you will realize that this is a center right country and we do not want a liberal agenda. This was not a referendum on conservatism but a referendum on a supposedly bad President
I would say that this reflects the dreams of Martin Luther King but it does not because a majority of people did vote based only on skin color. This is wrong - I would be more apt to say that this is a victory for equal rights if 53% of the population had voted on the content of his character. However we had far to many indications that this election was solely about race which is of course a national disgrace.
I might add that I did vote but I voted for a 3rd party candidate who most reflected my values. If either party had had a good candidate I might have voted for a major party candidate but alas they did not.
Senator Obama represents redistributive government also known as socialism/communism. He represents a reduced standard of living and safety for this country. When any candidate actively campaigns for more government he is a danger for country.
Senator McCain also represented big government which is contrary to the principles that our country was founded on. Although he did favor cutting taxes for everyone and he did favor opening health care up to the free market. Senator McCain like Senator Obama favors illegal immigrants over Americans.
I could list several more arguments against either candidate but at this time it is a moot point. For anyone who wants to call me a racist go ahead but you only prove my point.
Once again congratulations Senator Obama and hopefully you will realize that this is a center right country and we do not want a liberal agenda. This was not a referendum on conservatism but a referendum on a supposedly bad President
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)