The chances of a viable third political party

A lot of people are disgusted and fed up with Washington. Many of us didn’t believe a word of Barak Obama’s promises that things would no longer be “business as usual in Washington” if he became president. And when he did, many of us didn’t believe a word of then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi’s pledge that the Obama Administration and her Democrat-controlled Congress would be “the most transparent administration in history.”

A lot of people were fed up with the Washingtonian way of doing things (or not) a long time ago. One of the best descriptions I ever heard of the headquarters of the federal government’s bureaucracy machine was that Washington is a “work free drug zone.” Meaning, that damned little real work is going to get done in Washington and the social decay that is rampant in the District just keeps on keeping on.

Thus, many of those jaded beforehand and the naïve who actually believed Obama, Reid and Pelosi would really be the breath of fresh air and integrity so long overdue in the Puzzle Palace but who now are completely pissed off that their Fairy Godmothers turned out to be even more corrupt than their predecessors ever dreamed of being are calling for a 3^rd party to rise up and right government back from its corrupt and impotent ways. Disgusted Republicans and now jilted Democrats are calling for something new, workable and viable and truly representative of their views to come along and upset the complacent, and some would say ineffective, 2-party system.

All I can say is…good luck with that. I ain’t holdin’ my breath.

It’s not that I’m loyal to my dying breath to either party. Rather, I’m realist to know that people in cushy jobs get comfortable. They get used to the power, prestige and, bluntly speaking, the gravy that comes with certain positions and standings in society. And let’s face it; both sides of the aisle have become plenty comfortable with their positions. And they ain’t about to give them up willingly.

So, what are the chances of a viable 3^rd party coming along and upsetting their applecarts? Slim to none would be my bet. I think that should the Tea Party, the Libertarians or something completely out of the blue like the Barking Spider Fifth Column Idealist party really truly rise up and infringe on the cushy little country club we know as Congress, the Republican and Democrat parties, both current parties will link up arm-in-arm and march in lockstep to stomp the life out of the new contender.

Perhaps I will be proven wrong. But, I’m not holding my breath.

Hypocrisy in the first degree

They began by calling the Tea Party racists. Why? Apparently because the Tea Party's members had the gall to object to the policies and conduct of America's first black president. Mind you, they never objected to Obama's race. Never even mentioned it. Rather they cited parts of the U.S. Constitution they felt he acted in contradiction with. They pointed out the contradictions in his statements. But to Barak Obama's supporters, it could only be the evil of racism that could lead someone, anyone, to object to anything about the "annointed one."

Then,came the tragic Tucson shooting perpetrated against a Democrat congresswoman last January. Her attacker was an insane nutjob who was obsessed with the ruination of grammer and other demonstrations of how ignorant the general public has become. He wasn't motivated by any political animosities though God knows the media tried their utmost to attribute something - anything - Republican, Tea Party or even conservative talk radio to his motives. But to no avail. Nonetheless, afterward Barak Obama lectured America seemingly nonstop about how “We may not be able to stop all evil in the world, but I know that how we treat one another - that's entirely up to us.” He went on to scold us and lecture us about “returning civility to political discourse” and using words in “ways that heal, not in a way that wounds.”

Really? Seriously? Careful, there, Barry; your actions - as usual - are not consistent with your words.

Now, what he isn’t saying is that he seems to only want to scold certain people in political discourse and further restrict only one side in what they say – his detractors. Oh, he’s quite quick to condemn conservative talk radio, those who criticize his out-of-control spending, his contradicting policies that he purports will “create jobs” all the while he full knows that they do nothing of the sort other than create an ever-larger dependent class.

And what he isn’t saying is that with his supporters, his excuse-makers and those special interests he is so obviously sold out to, well, then… it’s all good, no matter what hateful filth and bile they may spew. For example;

He doesn't condemn Steven Rattner and Chris Matthews of MSNBC, Margaret Carlson w/Bloomberg all whom likened the Tea Party to terrorist suicide bombers. Their phrases like “They’re Strapped With Dynamite Sitting in Middle of Times Square at Rush Hour" all went completely unchallenged by Obama and his administration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhRc6kVnCTo

Similarly, Obama's Vice President Joe Biden (who has, since Day 1 of the administration, had chronic

diarrhea of the mouth) and other top Democrats called Tea Party members “terrorists,” “hostage takers” and accuse Tea Party of conducting “jihad” in their recent lobbying efforts to try and contain America's "debt ceiling." Where was Obama with his emphasis on "toning down the rhetoric?"  Where was the "annointed one" with admonition to use "words that heal not wound?" The granite faces carved into Mount Rushmore have been more vocal over the past century about life in general than Obama has been about condemning such inflammatory and hurtful rhetoric out of his side's key players the past three years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33SK78BT7FM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33SK78BT7FM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWgF80cD3xE&feature=related

And over the Labor Day weekend, Teamster Union boss Jimmy Hoffa calls Tea Partiers “Sonsofbitches”, calls workers “Obama’s army” and encourages everyone to “Let’s take these sons of bitches out.” And where was Obama's righteous indignation then? Was he trying to "tone down" the rhetoric? Was he encouraging, "Can't we all just get along?" Nowhere to be found. Far from commanding that his footsoldier army return "civility to such political discourse," he was stone silent.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LlbKaPdacLE&feature=player_embedded

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45991

“Hostage takers?” “Terrorists?” “Suicide bombers?” Really? Seriously? Your side is raising an "army" to "take out" anyone who criticizes the abuses of the Obama Administration, its policies and you have the unmitigated gall to lecture your detractors and opponents about being civil and soothing? Your silence on and lack of condemnation about such blatant, outrageous and inflammatory - nay, violent - slander by your supporters and excuse makers is, Mr. President,  hypocrisy in the first degree with premeditation and malice aforethought.

If INS can't find the illegal aliens, they must not be looking very hard.

As the pandering for votes in this country has reached the absolutely corrupt stage, politicians have attempted to capitalize on the additional votes they could garner if they were to be able to secure amnesty for the millions of illegal aliens currently in our country. Doing so would be a complete slap in the face to law-abiding native citizens to say nothing of what it would be to those who legally went through the process to become an American citizen.

Anyway, one of the rationales for giving amnesty to illegal aliens is that the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) can't possibly locate them all to deport them. Really, INS? Let me locate them for you. I know where a lot of them are or will be. And if you don't, you can't be looking seriously for them. Perhaps you don't want to find them. Otherwise, you couldn't help but see them. I mean, for starters try going to the local Wal-Mart Super Store. Lately most times I'm in the parking lot and the main aisles of the store, I feel like I'm south of the border because I'm not hearing a whole lotta Espanola and not very much English. And they seem to arrive in groups of 5 or more, so you could bust dozens of 'em at one store. Each day. All you'd have to do is walk around and ask for their driver's licenses, passports or social security cards to prove their legal residency or not.

 Speaking of driver's licenses, what with all these idiot, suck-up politicians wanting to give illegals driver's licenses, all you'd have to do to bust hundreds more is hang out at the local DMV office. And even if ya missed 'em there, all you'd have to do to find 'em is either drive out to the house they've registered on the DL or put out a warrant for that DL # and the next cop to pull them over has done your locating job for you. Still other dimwit politicians want to give illegals in-state tuition rates so they can attend universities in their states. Seems to me like hanging out at enrollment and then cruising the campus would net you hundreds more illegal aliens each semester.

 So, if you can find 'em to suck up to 'em for votes, seems to me like you can find 'em to capture 'em too. This ain't rocket science.

If we can't even be profitable selling sex and booze....

Received this on the internet, author unknown. Thought it worth sharing. 

Maxine should run for President. I’ll bet she wouldn’t need a teleprompter.

"BAIL'EM   OUT!!! ????   Hell,  back in 1990, the Government seized the Mustang Ranch, a brothel  in Nevada , for tax evasion and, as required by law, tried  to run it.. They failed and it closed.

"Now, we are trusting the  economy of our country, our banking system, our auto industry  and possibly our health plans to the same nit-wits who couldn't  make money running a whore house and selling whiskey?!

"What  the Hell are  we thinking" 

Treasury Secretary (& tax cheat) Tim Geithner " no risk of downgrade"

Guess you missed this one by a million miles, Mr. Secretary.

S & P Downgrades US Credit Rating to AA-Plus

Published: Saturday, 6 Aug 2011 | 12:36 AM ET

By: CNBC with wires

The United States lost its top-notch triple-A credit rating from Standard & Poor's Friday, in a dramatic reversal of fortune for the world's largest economy.

Michele Constantini | PhotoAlto | Getty Images

S&P cut the long-term U.S. credit rating by one notch to AA-plus on concerns about growing budget deficits.

"The downgrade reflects our opinion that the fiscal consolidation plan that Congress and the administration recently agreed to falls short of what, in our view, would be necessary to stabilize the government's medium-term debt dynamics," S&P said in a statement.

"More broadly, the downgrade reflects our view that the effectiveness, stability, and predictability of American policymaking and political institutions have weakened at a time of ongoing fiscal and economic challenges to a degree more than we envisioned when we assigned a negative outlook to the rating on April 18, 2011," the statement said.

The outlook on the new U.S. credit rating is negative, the S&P said in its statement, a sign that another downgrade is possible in the next 12 to 18 months.

On Aug. 2, President Barack Obama signed legislation designed to reduce the fiscal deficit by $2.1 trillion over 10 years. But that was well short of the $4 trillion in savings S&P had called for as a good "down payment" on fixing America's finances.

The political gridlock in Washington and the failure to seriously address U.S. long-term fiscal problems came against the backdrop of slowing U.S. economic growth and led to the worst week in the U.S. stock market in two years.

"I did not expect this to happen this soon. This is something they gave the criteria on and I guess they stuck to it," said George Goncalves, chief Treasury strategist for Nomura Americas. "I really thought they'd take the two-stage approach and see how further cuts would come along."

This came after a confusing day of reports: Standard & Poor's told the U.S. government early Friday afternoon that it was preparing to downgrade the U.S.'s triple-A credit rating but U.S. officials notified S&P that it had made a $2 trillion mathematical error.

The error was in the calculation of the U.S. debt-to-GDP ratio over time and was based on a misreading of what the correct congressional baseline was, government sources indicated. They said that once informed of the error S&P revised its rate-cut rationale to emphasize the political aspects of the country's debt situation.

"A judgment flawed by a $2 trillion error speaks for itself," a Treasury spokesperson said.

Throughout Friday, markets were rife with speculation that S&P, which has had a negative outlook on the U.S. since April 18, would downgrade the country’s credit from its current triple-A level and that it could come as early as Friday night.

Goncalves said the downgrade could hit market confidence.

U.S. Treasurys, once undisputedly seen as the safest investment in the world, are now rated lower than bonds issued by countries such as the UK, Germany, France or Canada.

On July 14, S&P put the government on a credit watch with negative implications, meaning there was at least a one in two chance the U.S.’s long-term debt would be downgraded within 90 days.

Earlier Friday an S&P spokesman declined to comment on any possible plans for a downgrade or statement.

On Tuesday, both Fitch and Moody's backed their triple-A rating on the U.S.—but with caveats.

Fitch warned that the U.S. rating "will remain under pressure for some time," while Moody's [MCO  30.45    -2.43  (-7.39%)   ] went so far as to slap the U.S. with a negative outlook.

— John Harwood, Patti Domm, Allen Wastler and Kate Kelly contributed to this report.


Taken August 8, 2011 from http://www.cnbc.com/id/44039103

 

Dateline: August 1, 2011. The headlines read: “Washington to vote on historic debt deal,” * and “…announced historic agreement….”** just to quote a few. 

Yeah, right; who writes Obama's press releases? The former employees of Pravda?

When I was younger, the Soviet Union was the other superpower in the world. Whenever its propaganda arm, Pravda, gave commentary on something tragic occurring in the Western world, they would blame it on “right wing extremists,” “Western Imperialism, “the ideology of greed that is capitalism” and so on. Whenever a dissident came up missing or was executed, it was always “for crimes against the State.” And the general human condition was blamed on the “continual class struggle” and blahblahblahblahblah.

Soviet propaganda was laughably predictable. So much so that anyone in the world familiar with the template phrases could’ve written the official Soviet opinion on anything that had happened or could possibly happen in the world.

Have you noticed the same templating going on in America today? Have you noticed that everything Barak Obama always calls any issue he wants to focus on a “crisis?” And have you noticed that his leftwing lackeys in the press also quickly label as “historic” anything that he can even remotely claim as an accomplishment? And have you noticed the predictable buzzwords “tea party members,” “tea baggers,” “right wing’ers,” “neo-cons” being parroted continually by his puppets?

Seems to me the Obama propaganda machine, like that of the former Soviet Union before him, is laughably predictable.

*Yahoo News headline for Reuters article by Andy Sullivan and Laura MacInnis, Lawmakers to vote on last-minute debt deal, taken from http://news.yahoo.com/lawmakers-close-deal-avoid-default-004006145.html, August 1, 2011

**Espo, David Associated Press, Obama, Congressional leaders announce deal on debt, taken from http://www.kansas.com/2011/07/31/1956459/obama-says-he-congress-leaders.html, August 1, 2011.

Insanity....

Einstein defined Insanity as doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.  Renowned economist and author Walter E. Williams notes federal revenue has stayed at close to 20% of the GDP almost annually since 1960. But the federal government has annually evermore outspent revenue. This out of control federal spending way more than it takes in that has resulted in today's massive deficit.

With all the “news” about the debt ceiling right now, it seems to me that raising the debt ceiling is an insane solution to solving a debt problem. When has there ever been a case where someone borrowed themselves out of debt? That’s “half the distance to the goal line” thinking. We’ll never get out of debt thinking like that.

And where has there ever been a country that taxed itself into prosperity? Can we provide any specific examples of 1) any such countries, 2) specifically how they did it and 3) how long the "prosperity" lasted and how widespread it was?

If anyone can provide specific examples of such in history, I’m all ears. It seems to me that our government does not have a revenues problem. Rather it has a spending problem.

Why socialism and the Marxist idea of "redistributing the wealth" doesn't work.

This is a story Ronald Reagan told as a radio commentary back in 1976. I thought some people would find it interesting. It helps to know the original "Little Red Hen" fable, but it can be appreciated whether you know it or not.


November 16, 1976

A modern day little Red Hen may not appear to be a quotable authority on economics but some authorities on economics aren't worth quoting. I'll be right back.

[commercial break]

This is a little treatise on basic economics called "The Modern Little Red Hen".

Once upon a time there was a little red hen who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered some grains of wheat. She called her neighbors and said 'If we plant this wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?'

"Not I, " said the cow.
"Not I," said the duck.
"Not I," said the pig.
"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen. And she did. The wheat grew tall and ripened into golden grain. "Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.
"Out of my classification," said the pig.
"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.
"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen, and she did.

At last it came time to bake the bread. "Who will help me bake bread?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.
"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.
"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.
"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will," said the little red hen.

She baked five loaves and held them up for her neighbors to see.

They all wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen said, "No, I can eat the five loaves myself."

"Excess profits," cried the cow.
"Capitalist leech," screamed the duck.
"I demand equal rights," yelled the goose.
And the pig just grunted.

And they painted "unfair" picket signs and marched round and round the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

When the government agent came, he said to the little red hen,

"You must not be greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That's the wonderful free enterprise system. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as he wants. But under our modern government regulations the productive workers must divide their product with the idle."

And they lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, I am grateful."

But her neighbors wondered why she never again baked any more bread.

This is Ronald Reagan, thanks for listening.

"Yewwww WITCH!"

During the summer and early fall of 1692 in Salem, Massachusetts, in a hysteria that came to be known as "the Salem Witch Trials," 20 people were accused of and executed for being "witches." Accusations were based on no solid evidence, science or black letter legal tests. Instead, what started out a child's fairy tale fed on irrational fears, hatred, political infighting and eventually became a rabid, phobic hysteria. All it took to have someone tossed in jail and the key tossed away or even killed during that terrifying time was to be accused of being a "witch" - whatever that was. The hysteria was so out of control that the legal test for establishing witchery was - for some - to be tossed in a pond of water and, if you saved yourself you were, indeed, a witch. To drown, however, would "conclusively" prove your mortalness and your innocence. What a wonderful system of justice. (Said, mind you, with all the intended dripping sarcasm possible.) An accusation from someone based on no credible fact or weighing of rational evidence was enough to convict and even execute. Oh, those silly, ridiculous, stupid ignorant pagans of Puritan America, you say?. Why, such idiocy would never happen today. Not with our oh-so-educated, intellectual and let's not forget tolerant - society with all its wonderful science, justice,enlightenment and arrogance, right? Wrong! Recently, I heard someone just absolutely chastised for being - allegedly - a "homophobe." All it took to get labeled such by their self-righteous (and grammatically ignorant) accuser was to say in passing they believed homosexuality to be wrong. Wrong as in immoral. Wrong as in contradiction with their Judeo-Christian belief system. You know the one, the one that says in numerous places in its holy book that "Do not have sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman; that is detestable."** It’s important to note that the accused did not say that they feared homosexuals would harm them. Or that they would somehow "catch it" from them. Nor did that person advocate that said morally-offensive individuals should be drug behind a car until dead or anything of the sort. They merely said they found homosexual behavior morally offensive and they believed it to be wrong. No more was their position calmly stated and out it came from the accuser. You could almost feel the Salemese hysteria as they leveled the politically-correct, viciously intolerant near-screeching, finger-pointing 21st-century equivalent accusation of "YEWWWW WITCH!" heaped upon them in the hatefully hissed out accusation of "homophobe." For God’s sake. If people going to go around leveling such vicious accusatory responses, at least get the vocabulary right! Dictionary.com defines a "-phobe" to be "comb. form meaning 'fearing,' from Fr. -phobe, from L. -phobus, from Gk. -phobos 'fearing,' from phobos 'fear, panic, flight,' phobein 'put to flight, frighten' (see phobia)."* So, apparently, according to the dictionary, a 'homophobe' is one who has an irrational fear, a panic, a phobia of homosexuals. That's odd. I know plenty of people who disagree with the lifestyle of homosexuality for moral reasons, but I would in no way say they have an irrational fear, a panic, about the existence or presence of homosexuals. Rather, they find it morally-offensive and do not want it rubbed in their face or forced to say or otherwise act as if they agree with it. But, to apply the same misguided but politically-correct logic of the accuser, is one a 'burglarphobe' because one thinks it is wrong to break, enter and steal? Are they burlarphobic because they choose not to associate with known or suspected burglars? I suppose one would fit that label if they had an irrational fear of burglars. Nobody likes burglars, but only the mentally ill worry themselves sick over them. Is one an 'incestophobe'because one thinks it wrong to have sex with one's mother or sister? Or what about someone who thinks it immoral to have sex with animals? Should they be screechingly labeled a "zoophiliaphobe?" (see the previous handful of verses in Leviticus for prohibitions of those behaviors.)? See how stupid the misuse of the suffix is and what is misuse says? Again, if one is going to level such accusations one should at least use the correct terminology. More importantly, do you see where this illogic is going? But if one chooses – on moral grounds - not to associate with known burglars or people who have sex with their siblings or animals, that’s still considered socially-acceptable and prudent. But if one chooses not to agree with or associate with known homosexuals who find such conduct morally repugnant, then all of a sudden such choice is evil, mean-spirited and unacceptable? But, even more concerning, is where exactly does this slippery slope of hysteria stop? I don't know. But the name-calling and attitude that comes from those wielding the term "homophobe" starts as soon as one objects to the (im)morality of homosexuality, And also very intriguing - nay, it's frightening. The foaming at the mouth intensity of this outcry is almost reminiscent of the irrational accusations shouted during the Salem Witch Trials. *Dictionary.com, Definition of -phobe. Taken from http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/phobe, June 14, 2011 **Leviticus 18:22, taken from biblegateway New International Version (NIV), taken from http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Leviticus%2018&version=NIV, June 14, 2011.

Why is htis so hard for some people to understand?

Gun Ownership Skyrockets, While Violent Crime Drops…Again Friday, May 27, 2011 This week, the FBI estimated that the number of violent crimes decreased 5.5 percent from 2009 to 2010, including a 4.4 percent decrease in the number of murders. Because the U.S. population increased during the period, the figures imply that the total violent crime per capita rate and the murder rate decreased more than six percent and five percent, respectively. Based upon the preliminary data, it appears that violent crime fell to a 37-year low and murder fell to a 47-year low. The FBI will report final figures for 2010 later this year. We’re repeating ourselves, but, as has been the case for quite a while, the decrease in crime coincided with an increase in the number of privately owned guns—particularly handguns and detachable magazine semi-automatic rifles. For example, Americans bought over 400,000 AR-15s in 2009, and trends in AR-15 sales over the last few years suggest a similar number for 2010. Those who have followed the gun control issue for a few years probably have noticed that with crime declining and gun numbers rising year after year, gun control groups have all but abandoned their previously perennial claims that more guns equal more crime. Even their friends in the news media don’t believe it anymore. The Violence Policy Center and, breaking with past habit, the Brady Campaign didn’t even try to claim that the decrease in crime in 2010 was attributable to gun control. Neither did Mayors Against Illegal Guns, headed by New York City’s gun control activist mayor, Michael Bloomberg. Bloomberg’s rare and welcomed silence is to be expected in this instance, however. New York City’s murder rate rose 15 percent despite its severe gun laws, while Bloomberg dedicated himself and lots of money to criticizing the less restrictive laws that are in place in other parts of the country. Speaking of cities with less restrictive gun laws, El Paso had the greatest decrease in murder—58 percent— among cities of over 500,000 population in 2010. For those who are counting, El Paso’s estimated murder rate was 0.8 per 100,000 population, while New York City’s was eight times higher at 6.4. Across the border from El Paso, in Juarez, where the gun laws are more to Bloomberg’s liking, the murder rate is over 100 per 100,000. Adding to the bad news for gun control supporters, the District of Columbia and Chicago—the handgun bans of which were repealed following the Supreme Court’s decisions in the Heller and McDonald cases in 2008 and 2010—experienced decreases in murder of eight percent and six percent, respectively. Source: NRA-ILA :: Gun Ownership Skyrockets, While Violent Crime Drops…Again

I'm sorry, but this is just too ludicrous and hypocritical NOT to ridicule.

Democrat National Committee Chairwoman, Debbie Wasserman Schultz: "Republicans don't think that they can win elections in a fair fight, so they need to go systematically state by state rigging it so that it makes it much more difficult for all voters, regardless of political party affiliation or philosophical approach can get to the polls. What is rampant is the intimidation tactics that have been used by Republican supervisors of elections, Republican secretaries of state, and that the policies that have been used across the country by Republicans overseeing elections has really been outrageous in terms of getting in the way of voters who simply want to go to the polls." And when her host Rachel Maddow said, "What about the Democrat Party institutionally sorta taking the other side of this fight?" SCHULTZ: "Oh, gosh. No, institutionally the Democrat Party has been very aggressive. Look at what's going on in the Middle East and North Africa right now. You have literally, you know, hundreds of thousands of people who are risking their lives and dying to be able to have the franchise, to be able to actually vote and choose their leaders, and here we are, we have people who pull the levers of power in the Republican Party who are trying to do the opposite and disenfranchise Americans because they don't like the outcome of an election in a fair fight." Oh, brother.... Democrats found a pet concept and mantra when they invented that Republican George W. Bush "stole the election" from Al Gore in 2000. Of course, that was proven more with each recount they demanded to be an ever bigger lie, but like some urban legends, it just refuses to die. Or they refuse to let it. Adolph Hitler and Joseph Goebbels proved in 1930s Germany that if you tell the same lie often enough, to some it will become the truth. And our Democrat friends liked their New Millennium myth so much they tried it again in 2004 when Bush won yet again. But, after it had been proven such a paranoid fairy tale in 2000, it died a pretty quick death in wake of the '04 election and no recounts were demanded that time. Of course, there wasn't a peep about ballot inaccuracy or voter fraud out of the Democrats in 2008 when they got Barak Hussein Obama elected president. But now they're back at it again - this time BEFORE the election has even been started, let alone finished and results tallied. Florida Democrat Congresswoman and Democrat National Committee Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz is advocating that Republicans are stealing the election of 2012 (presently over a year and a half away mind you) by requiring photo ID and proof of citizenship to vote. That kind of paranoid conspiracy fantasy - I hate to dignify such idiocy with the term "theory" - has arose again. And is just far to ludicrous and hypocritical NOT to ridicule - particularly when she goes on to say that Republicans are doing it because "they can't win in a 'fair' fight." Really? Seriously? That's what you guys are going with? You'd seriously have any thinking American - nay, anyone short of someone who's had a frontal lobotomy - believe that allowing illegal aliens, felons and anyone constitutionally barred from voting to vote in elections anyway is a 'fair' fight merely because they tend to vote for YOUR candidates who continue to create, care and feed for the "dumbed down handout culture." Even more galling, you'd consider having legal citizens who are constitutionally and legally entitled to vote - once - in an election provide proof of their citizenship and legal voter status to vote and vote only once is somehow not playing fair? Really? Seriously? That's what you guys are going with? If so, then that is just far too ludicrous, hypocritical and downright galling NOT to ridicule.