Angie Comics

Spinning Equality

2011-03-14T14:32:00.000-04:00

Rep. Peter King started his radical Islamic hearings to discuss home grown Islamic terrorism. Opponents cry inequality, singling out one group, Muslim Americans, casting a pox on all for the actions of a few. Immediately, before the hearings started, opposing leftist arguments cite as many non-Muslim threats as possible drawing up reminders of the Oklahoma city bombing as if piling on more rhetoric is the answer to a balanced argument, equality or even structured arguing.

It's reminiscent of discussing the existence of God and being chided the statistics of pedophile priests. The goal of the discussion is to reach truth, which may insult your opponent if it clashes with his position, not to directly insult your opponent.

Bobby Kennedy held hearings on organized crime, not Italian Americans. As it turned out, most of the hearing detailed criminals who were Italian American. To keep consistent with his escaping a delicate issue unscathed remaining a liberal icon, King only needs to call his hearings an expose on home grown terrorism, not Muslim threats.

Morgan Freedman once said to Mike Wallace the way to get rid of racism and for this agreement, bigotry, is to simply stop talking about it. Leftists need only to ignore the issue of inequality and bigotry to make it go away.

The good news is that the US has terrorism on the run. They need to recruit local terrorists because they cannot outsource soldiers overseas. The US, in the middle of a great recession and with socialistic ideals gaining ground, still can provide a standard of living high enough to discourage the hopeless act of strapping on a bomb to kill infidels. But some, already disturbed and close to causing damage anyway, are manipulated into doing so in the name of Islam.

The numbers are low, but the threat is real is we continue the argument of inequality and bigotry. Ironically, leftists holds the key, but refuse to use it as doing so would weaken party platforms. It's not the problem that's the problem. Its the solution. Without inequality, what would we argue over?

The Middle East Seed

2011-03-07T10:29:00.002-05:00

George W. Bush vowed to destroy terrorism and dreamed of a free middle east. The recent explosion of the middle east casting off totalitarianism is a great first step toward it's destruction. Only in a world where men are promised a life of tyranny and oppression may violence grow to be crafted into a weapon used against the foes of Islam, a seed of terrorism. But this first step of freedom is not the embrace of individualism.

The question is if the middle east will pursue free will. In America, free will is the basis of Judeo-Christian faith; that God gives us the choice between good and evil. Choose well and be rewarded. Choose poorly and be punished. No one may claim your reward and no one may bear the burden of your error. God is simply there to ensure our free choice. The US government is based on that notion. Both a powerful entity which simply and only enables free choice. Like God, government does not force or mandate choice, even knowing the better of the two. Like God, if government pushes direction, freedom gives way to oppression.

Since the middle east is primarily Islamic, not Judeo-Christian, many believe free will is impossible, that Islam is a religion of oppression. Others point to Muslims living as peaceful a state as any other religious individual crying fear and bigotry. Is Islam a freedom embracing religion? Or is Islam being welded to craft the hopelessly oppressed into a weapon against the west?

The dream of George W. Bush was of a free middle east. While we can't destroy Islam or agree on whether it supports true freedom, we do agree and could destroy oppression, without which, the weapon against the west fades.

So the next question is how do we assist a free middle east? Full blown war? Covert actions of select commandos? But is this America's purpose? To police the world, enabling freedom by force? Or do we serve as a beacon of freedom through example and leadership? Could it be as simple as the leader of the free world using obviously God given powers of speech to sell freedom and free choice… what all humans innately crave? The wheels are already greased. Mankind only needs a great leader to give it a little push. A near impossible feat when our own leaders need the push to comprehend the true definition of freedom.

Collective Reasoning

2011-03-01T09:33:00.000-05:00

Wisconsin is ground zero of the union debate. States are broke and unions, drawing nice pensions and salaries during a great recession, are the target for savings. Once one broke state sees this debate, they may all follow suit, much like they are in finding Obamacare unconstitutional. Unions have agreed to one time paybacks, but the real issue is over union strongholds to prevent future financial burdens stopping the bleeding, not just putting a band aid over it.

In the private sector, the boss has finite wiggle room. Ultimately he can give only so much to union demands before he prices the business out of the market and puts both parties out of work. (Some argue we are already there with many American jobs going overseas.) But in the public sector, that firewall is non-existent. Politicians negotiate money that's not theirs. And the more they please the unions, the more re-election backing they get. When the bill comes due, they are often long out of office. The real issue is not temporary cuts, but the power a union has over politics.

Governor Scott Walker's proposed bill makes union dues voluntary, giving individual members choice where their money goes. The idea spurs calling proponents "Hitler" and that "freedom" is being taken away, for if today it's collective bargaining, what will be taken tomorrow? But the message of freedom is being perverted. The debate is less about individual rights as it is about the power it gives an individual party, for freedom cannot exist for the collective. Freedom can only serve the individual.

Teaching Egypt Freedom

2011-02-03T14:10:00.000-05:00

The protests in Egypt against President Mubarak, a strategic ally for the last 30 years in the Middle East presents a quagmire for President Obama. Should he have supported a tyrant for selfish US interests? Or does he support freedom under the fear Egypt falls to the Muslim Brotherhood. While the Brotherhood does not directly support Al-Queda, they've taken anti-West positions.

Rajab Hilal Hamida, a member of the Brotherhood in Egypt’s parliament, has said of the 911 attacks, ‘From my point of view, Bin Ladin, al-Zawahiri and al-Zarqawi are not terrorists in the sense accepted by some. I support all their activities, since they are a thorn in the side of the Americans and the Zionists.…[but] he who kills Muslim citizens is neither a jihad fighter nor a terrorist, but a criminal murderer. We must call things by their proper names!’ (While The Brotherhood issued an apology for this statement, it does reflect the Brotherhoods' prominent non-favorable view of us.)

Mohammed el Baradei, who may replace Mubarak plans on putting the Brotherhood in key government positions. Oddly, he's considered a moderate by some newscasters. Glenn Beck, at times a chicken little, hints economic unrest only leads to socialism and collectivist thinking. Further added to the seriousness is that Egypt is a key gateway of the export of oil, all of which could cause trouble if put in the hands of anti-western ideologues.

The good news is that Twitter and Facebook broadcasting a ground view of the chaos is a good thing. While it was shut off, it was quickly turned back on broadcasting the revolutions. (Makes you think twice about having government control over the internet, even if it is for "our own good.") More information can never be a bad thing. (A lthough once President Obama said it was , while giving a speech to graduates.) When the world is watching, injustice is harder to pull off.

Getting rid of a tyrant is also a good thing. Supporting one for self-interest can never put the US in a good light. Often America's freedom is not hated, rather her meddling is.

Speaking of which, it's always good to see people scream for freedom.

What's needed now is freedom education. Only the idea of self-governance and free trade may increase Egypt's employment, the initial cause of the protests, strengthen global oil trade, our biggest fear and provide a better way of life there, what pundits argue about. Freedom is good, but Egypt will need help to stay on the right track. So who may lead or teach such ideas?

President Bush pushed freedom in Iraq and was called an arrogant cowboy. How dare the US force Western ideals and values there. The thing to realize is that true freedom IS a Western value and way of life. And history has proved freedom cannot be achieved through socialistic or Islamic extremist ideals… that is non-Western ways.

Unfortunately, President Obama may not be the best choice to sell freedom. Sadly, America needs a bit of education herself. What's at stake is Egypt may use this crisis to grow more West intolerant, both through Islam and possibly collectivism.

Rewriting History

2011-02-01T09:01:00.000-05:00

Anderson Cooper of CNN bashes Barbara Bachman for warping American history during her Tea Party rebuttal to President Obama's SOTU Address. She said of people arriving to America, "it didn't matter the color of their skin...their language...their economic status...once you got here, we were all the same." Coopers response was "As good as that sounds, that's simply not true, " citing Irish immigrants finding signs that read "No Irish need not apply", Japanese Americans placed in internment camps during World War II and enslaved Africans. Which lead to pointing out Washington and other founding fathers owning slaves and concluding with "we believe facts matter."

Progressives use the "Well Washington had slaves!" note to selective negate any important idea of a Founding Father and justify Leftist policy. The best reasoning came from Leftist Janeane Garofalo explaining that America was based on a sham. That rich white guys were in one room talking about freedom while they had domestic slaves, (wives) in the kitchen and societal slaves (blacks) in the field. Thus America and it's policy of small government is bad. Thus bigger government and changing what America stands for is good. Thus lumping any pro American with a slave owner is justified.

The fact is that America was founded on the idea of individual freedom. Of self-governance. Of small unobtrusive government. Her only role is to ensure individual freedom to self-govern and that no other force becomes obtrusive in civilian life.

While America was more free any other place, she still didn't have all her cards together as slavery existed at that time. But what was put in place was not just freedom, but also the idea that we the people can change, or "progress" our government to ensure freedom. Clearly slavery inhibits freedom. So in time we "progressed" and eliminated it.

That never justify health care for everyone at everyone's expense. How would a mandate be less obtrusive? How would government control promote self-governance? Equal outcome destroys freedom of choice. If all outcomes are the same, then there is no point in choosing one over the other. With choice eliminated, you have no freedom to chose your own path specific to your individual needs or even creative whims.

So we may "progress" but only in terms individualism never collectivism.

Perhaps Ms. Bachman should have said "America was founded on and stands for freedom. While we were and never are perfect, we find ourselves always in a constant struggle to preserve those principles. Our Founding Father's ideas are facts which matter. Ideas that it shouldn't matter the color of your skin, language or economic status. We are all the same." Even Anderson Cooper says this idea "sounds good." So let's "make it true". Or are progressives selective about the facts that matter?

Our Sputnik Moment

2011-01-27T13:13:00.002-05:00

No one can argue this is an important moment in US history. President Obama elegantly called it our "Sputnik" moment in his SOTU address.

But if this is our Sputnik moment, who is Russia in this comparison? In other words, who are we competing against? What's at stake? Who are the bad guys? China perhaps? Are we to beat China through better education and innovation? China has it's share of problems. They are also unsure of their educational system, which is regarded as too militarist in style. And they do not encourage any innovation. In fact, so starved, China's been known to steal innovation.

In our Sputnik moment, the key issues just may be education and innovation. We need to be educated and reminded who we are as Americans and what we as Americans stand for in the world. We're not just another country or participant in the global economy, but one who perpetuates the idea of self-governance. Of independence. Of freedom. Should our education system be one of strong union holds or of open competition that weeds out inefficiencies? Should our innovation come from subsidy and government favoritism often controlled by special interests and specific agendas or through a near chaotic free market, where ideas reap rewards but also the burden of failure on their own merits? Or do continually march away from our founding principles as Francis does here?

This is certainly our Sputnik moment, but this time the Reds are much closer than Cuba.

Missing the Target

2011-01-25T09:19:00.000-05:00

Leftists want to ban 15 shot clips, thinking far less damage would have resulted if Jared Lee Loughner had fewer bullets. The reality is a person who wants to kill humans will practice switching clips faster or simply shooting more accurately, aiming for the chest or part of the head responsible for basic functions like breathing not higher functions which often can be reprogrammed. Or the next killer could learn karate to fend off good samaritans while changing clips. Why not use 2 guns, dropping the spent one to continue on your rampage "leave(ing) the gun… take(ing) the cannoli". Lastly, the potential killer would do what any Islamic terrorist who never experienced 2nd Amendment freedom and use home made bombs from everyday material to do real damage.

Legislation is never pro-active. They come after the fact. First someone tries to kill using a shoe bomb, then we remove shoes for travel. First someone breaks into the cabin of a plane to take down all souls on board, then we use better locks on the cockpit door. When one door closes, another opens. Legislation will never solve future problems accomplishing the mission to keep us safe. But legislation will make the political author look good. He did something, constituents would say. Yes… he fed his ego and bought votes from those who don't have a clue how to stop evil.

So what are we to do against such evil? What stopped Loughner, the Ft. Hood shooter, 911's Flight 93, or the shoe and underwear bomber? What stopped any horror we face? The nude scanners? Police? The Feds? Homeland Security? Government legislation? No. Ultimately we stopped them. Us. Regular people. Individuals who took responsibility to protect themselves and self-less enough to protect each other. The true meaning of the 2nd Amendment is not to preserve hunting or shooting ranges, but to "bear arms", to protect yourself, to always keep your guard up. That doesn't mean everyone needs to pack heat. But it does mean for everyone to rely more on looking out for yourself than expecting government to do it for you and to pay attention to each other's needs rather than looking away.

If leaders want to sure up our defenses, they would remind us that being American is to be brave and stop injustices. It does happen. We tell our kids if they see a classmate being bullied, they are to not stand idly by, defend the weak or at least run to get help. We shake stranger's hands in church to make ourselves known to each other, making it awkward to drive by when the other has a flat tire or in need of help. From helping an elderly woman across the street while another slows to give them time to cross, to pulling her off subway tracks, while another grabs the conductor's attention, we do what we are capable of to help one another and ultimately ourselves.

Just as God has given us free will, the government ensures we keep it. Regulating kindness effectively is to destroy free will and freedom. We are Americans. Land of the free and home of the brave. Our leaders should be reminding us from time to time instead of us reminding them.

Do I wish Jared Lee Loughner had a 8 clip rather than 30? No. I wish he found love 2 days before his rampage.

Hope And Change?

2011-01-20T09:09:00.000-05:00

President Obama is fixing to deregulate to strengthen the economy. Wasn't that a bad thing like extending the Bush Tax rates so rates wouldn't increase this year, in effect creating the largest tax hike in US history? Leftists like Keith Olbermann will spew vial rhetoric if this novel "Regan-esque" deregulation and lowering taxes scheme takes effect.

Does our President mean business with this business? Or is his radical change just an inflection point? Sounds more like a typical middle of the road political approach to mean everything to everybody. What do you think?

Who's A Liberal?

2011-01-18T09:52:00.000-05:00

This is a tribute to Patrick McDonnell's Mutt's character Mooch, who has a lisp and a rebuttal to my friend and political adversary Xeth Feinberg in his cartoon exclaiming a conservative doesn't believe in conservation

"Conservative" in terms of environment means to conserve our resources. Don't cut down all our trees and such. In terms of politics, it is to not use government as a solution to every problem we face.

The other reference is to George Orwell's "1984" term "Newspeak", which is to pervert the meaning of words to better control people's ideas. What you thought meant one thing, now means another. It's a way of changing history to better back an argument. It's the equivalent to saying Martin Luther King taught us we are all equal. Actually his message is for us to treat each other according to our character not color. That our actions define us not a pre-determined social standing, whether detrimental OR corrective.

Somewhere along the way, Conservative became Newspeak for war monger and Evangelicalism. It's causing me to re-think the title of Angie's 1st book… Perhaps the title should have been "Angie: A Liberty Loving Libertarian Lost in the Progressive Sea of Leftist Liberals, Statist Socialists and Relative Reds!" Perhaps for the next printing...

Government Colored Goggles

2011-01-14T08:56:00.000-05:00

Former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum commented on the AZ shooting best by saying, "The left always looks at things through the prism of government, so they are saying: Where was the state, where was the school? I would say: Where were the parents, the friends, the neighbors?". One way grants power to the individual and family to solve the ills of society. The other the state and government. Only one way embraces freedom. And only one represents America's calling in the world. As the President mentioned, which would Christina Taylor Green want?

Convenient Collective Responsibility

2011-01-11T09:23:00.000-05:00

For the past month I've turned off politics to finish a non-political cartoon called Family Pants' The Holiday Hedging Horror, celebrate Christmas and complain about rising gasoline prices. I somehow found a political undercurrent in the cartoon about limited government and anarchy and added a line or two about it in my post. Afterward I turned on the TV to find the Arizona shooting horror involving killer Jared Lee Loughner, with some bizarre wording similar to "limited government", "anarchy" and "the Tea Party".

Understanding today's vitriol, some of which I embrace for political humor, I did not want my intent misconstrued where I describe my lead character Frank Mueller as an anarchist. It was in the context of his wanting smaller government by means of simply refusing government and societal help and taking it upon himself to correct his situation on his own. It was a stretch since the cartoon was pure silliness so I decided to remove the political paragraph.

Never less it stressed individualism over collectivism and smaller government over intrusive government. This is always the undercurrent to conservatism. But never should anyone embrace the "anarchy" of smaller government through the killing government officials or anyone for that matter. Nor should people worry about Sarah Palin's chance or running in 2012 over the murder of innocents or use any tragedy as a tool to better silence opponents.

Name calling and even threatening remarks in today's politics are the result of heated debates in the age of the power of anonymity thanks to internet facelessness. Much like the ability to curse out a 6 foot 7 inch jerk who cut you off in traffic but saying thank you to the same Frankenstein as he steps on your foot in person on the train.

These threats are never literal, whether from the right or left. Like high school coaches telling the football team to "kill" the other team, no mentally stable kid thinks the coach means for you to actually kill them. If one player does so and cites the coach's command, we arrest the kid, not blame the coach. Unfortunately politically correct squads will try to regulate the aggressiveness of coach's future half time speeches only to the jeers of normal people who realize that kid was unstable long before he suited up that day as is the case with Loughner, who stalked his victim before the existence of the Tea Party. If it wasn't the coach's speech, Palin's "targets" or gun reference, it would have been a "Beavis and Butthead" cartoon or rap artist Eminem to take the fall.

Rather than focus on individual and personal responsibility, the coach's rhetoric gets the blame and unfortunately becomes a tool to advance the politically correct squad's agenda such as we should watch soccer rather than football.

The blame game abandons individuality.

The only evil here is Jared Lee Loughner, whose insane ramblings contain the words "anarchy" and "smaller government", but also left leaning subjects as pot smoking. We can no more pass off blame to Sarah Palin, the Tea Party or current political vitriol than we could blame the woman who wears a short skirt for being attacked on the street. The attacker is always the villain. If anything, the girl is displaying poor taste, losing her respect in some circles but oddly championed in others. Palin's target reference is subject to her own personal verbiage and judged by her audience and not to be the blame of violent acts of madmen.

The abandonment of individuality is common for the Left. In the Arizona shooting, such abandonment of individuality is actually a means to support collectivism; perhaps calling for a future regulation of political discourse, especially if it opposes Leftist ends. Maybe a banning of talk radio or town halls where voters can address concerns directly to politicians who are seemingly isolated from their constitutes' needs. Ironically rapper Eminem supports individualism and personal responsibility as he raps, "Just what damage can the pen do?" in "Who Knew" off his Marshal Mathers CD. And we all know Mr. Slim Shady is not a Sarah Palin supporting Tea Party enthusiast...

The Loss of Personal Finance

2010-12-16T09:16:00.001-05:00

Could maintaining the current tax rate increase the deficit as the Leftists claim? Depending on rhetoric, yes, if non-existent money the government never had was already planned on being spent and counted as a loss. That's like purchasing a $1000 TV on sale, 50% off from $2000. You wouldn't tell your wife you made $1000 and got a free TV. In truth, you lost $1000 but got a TV. What's worse, you already have a TV. You only made the purchase because there was a sale!

Ultimately, increased taxes won't decrease deficits as government will always find a way to spend any new money coming in. Often they spend it before it's even there! It's cutting spending which reduces deficits. Careful of Leftist rhetoric. Reducing taxes is not the process of taking money from government, the pile of taxes we paid last year, and giving it to rich people. Taxes aren't trouble… spending is.

Economic Academics

2010-12-15T09:34:00.003-05:00

The Left is playing mathematical semantics. The argument is hiking tax rates versus maintaining them. There is no tax cut. No one is giving money to the rich. Forget class warfare. Take a person who can barely make ends meet every month. Come the new year, hike his taxes and he cannot make ends meet at all. This is bad. But keep his taxes the same and he continues to barely make ends meet. His situation does not improve. It is sustained.

If Congress does nothing, taxes go up. If Congress acts, taxes are maintained. Nothing changes, but hopefully things won't get worse. However to actually cut taxes by lowering current rates, would free up money. That person who barely makes ends meet every month can now meet his ends and perhaps pay off a loan, go on vacation or buy a Wii for everyone on his Christmas list. Cut taxes and the economy may improve.

President Obama is doing something very clever. By calling sustaining of the present tax rate a cut, he positions himself so when nothing improves he can say, "You see? I told you cutting taxes won't work! It makes things worse!" Just remember… there are no tax cuts.

JFK... The Tea-Bagger?

2010-12-14T09:07:00.002-05:00

This guy would make a pretty good Conservative.
http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/jfkeconomicclubaddress.html

China-Gates

2010-12-07T08:40:00.002-05:00

Earlier this year Secretary Gates stopped production of the F/A 22 Raptor at 187 aircraft. The replacement, the F/A-35 Joint Strike Fighter is mediocre at best, relative to a Raptor, but must save money. Recently China succeeds in reverse engineering Russian technology, the Sukhoi-27 fighter, in cheaper form, as China does with many technologies.

You may argue China steals technology and can't innovate it's own. You may argue China is doing what China does best; make products affordable using a cheaper and abused labor force. But China is doing what's best for China, making money. (Strange how communism is doing capitalism better than capitalists.) The same goes for Russia selling it's technology to turn a buck. But aside from an intellectual property discussion this gives way to bigger issues on US national defense.

In a world where weaponry is being globalized, the US will soon no longer rely on superior weapon technology. This will make US military encounters much more costly in both in budget and lives as fighting terrorists driving jeeps is easier than flying fighters. With US's resolve for war fading, here's where it gets dicey.

Thanks in part to the left, the US is spending with two hands, while China is spending with one hand and profiting with another. For the US to compete, we need to either ensure our war endeavors benefit us ten fold, which will create an even more imperialistic view of the US, something the left won't like. Or we innovate war such as disabling fighters from the ground using a viral tactic Mike uses like Jeff Goldblum used on alien invaders in "Independence Day". Note cyber-attacks are also being explored by China.

Exploration of creating new weaponry such as this increases spending, and defense is an area the left spends conservatively. If we are we looking at Regan-esque military spending in the near future, there's even more call for tightening of the government belt and stabilizing the economy through less intervention.

Wiki-Whacked

2010-12-03T09:55:00.001-05:00

For some strange reason the Leftists praise WikiLeaks and founder Julian Assange as a great journalist. One of Assange's self proclaimed purposes is to expose what he believes to be an unjust War. It's one thing to report and comment on news. Another to compromise America's interest abroad. While this may satisfy him, it should land him in jail for treason. In the end, Assange is simply a thief.

The Nanny State of Love

2010-12-02T09:07:00.002-05:00

Why is the Left the loving hippy and the right a cold calculated sack of greed? Look carefully at language, particularly the words, "special" versus "unique" for it is the equivalent of "collectivist" versus "individualist".

Every Leftist cause touts theirs as more special than the other. But if everyone is special, then no one is. Is there a Leftist chart that grades one over another? People are defined by classes and groups. Needs are blanketed to entire groups and classes, often by those outside of those groups and classes, in a kind of cold scientific categorization.

The right describes people as unique not special. Everyone can be unique, without taking away from another. Being unique creates self appreciation as you are essentially the only one of your kind, and creates appreciation of others as they are the only one of their kind. People are defined by their unique individual character, not by their collective class. Justice is based on each unique individual case, not whose side is a more deprived or higher ranking class of the week.

As God said to His children as well as all Moms asked by their youngest which child they love the most, everyone is unique, no one is better than the other and all are loved equally. If hippies were really looking for love over control, it was under their noses all along.

Virtual Communism

2010-12-01T08:48:00.002-05:00

Finished with "fixing" health care, the government is now moving online. Starting out with good intentions, to save us from big evil companies, will turn to old fashioned government regulatory hell. A quote emailed to me from a technology expert: "You have people like me that are pros at making sure internet traffic is NOT handled the same, so that end-user experience is optimized. [Government regulations will] level the playing field, and these customizations are flushed down the toilet, along with technology like Cisco's content switches that are designed to handle traffic differently to optimize Quality of Service (QoS) ~ all into the shredder!

Think about what happened to AT&T's network when all those smart phones were added to it ~ massive bandwidth consumption when people started tethering devices, streaming live video, teleconferencing, etc. [AT&T's] net was not designed to handle it, and [their] scalability was wiped out. Now, take this example, and think about what's going to happen when 300 million people are on the internet."

As with health care... the same question begs answer. What has the government touched that's become more efficient and affordable without subsidy? The function of government is to ensure businesses aren't gaming the system, preserving open and near chaotic competition. This requires congress to know very little about the internet or any industry. Instead, stiff regulatory control requires congress to seek expert consultation, often coming from the very deep pocket companies we need protection from. Regulation will be written favoring business models of the consultants. Instead of big business, we get big business AND government. While both sides of the isle are guilty of this, one side's ideology leans toward getting out of the way more often thus becoming the lesser of two evils. There needs to be a return to true competition.

Thanksgiving Thanks

2010-11-25T09:17:00.001-05:00

This bit of news is old regarding Judge Crabb proclaiming National Prayer Day is unconstitutional, but appropriate in revealing the true meaning of Thanksgiving. (With limited comic strip space, I butchered the actual October 3rd 1789 speech by George Washington.)

Francis's retort does bring up the fundamental difference between the Left and Right. The Left often squirm upon mention of America's greatness and our Founding Father's importance. Summed up in short by the wonderful Janeane Garofalo that America is a sham… built on a lie. While men in one room proclaim equality, their wives treated as domestic slaves toil away in the room adjacent and men of another color slave in the field outside. So flag waving is a bad thing, dressing up as a patriot is akin to wearing a white sheet and justice is served socially through constant and aggressive progressing of the Constitution.
No doubt many aspects of the colonial way of life was wrong. But today's times are different. We've fixed many issues and men even stopped wearing white wigs. But it's not the details that made America. It's the simple but powerful idea that men may govern themselves. America is the idea of individualism.

Looking at the back of a dollar bill, on the flip side of Washington himself, you'll see a pyramid, not because we come from Egypt, but because it is a symbol of greatness.The pyramid is incomplete because we are incomplete; ever growing and maturing. Men own their own fate, the right to change and alter ourselves. So in a way, Leftists are correct, in that we can and should progress.

Do we change everything? Is this the change we can believe in? Do we transform America? Or do we build on our Founding Fathers idea, progressing that which protects and encourages individualism; the broad concept of America.

But most importantly, never… never… wear white wigs again.

Happy Thanksgiving!

BTW, here's Washington's speech in it's entirety:

George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation
"Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best."

Puzzling Air Security

2010-11-24T08:38:00.002-05:00

Trial for ALL the Marbles

2010-11-19T09:35:00.001-05:00

Former Guantanamo Bay detainee Ahmed Ghailani was convicted of only 1 of the 285 charges against him in civilian court. While the White House says they only need one to put him behind bars, it raises the question if a civilian trial is appropriate for handling terrorists in the first place. Terrorism by it's very definition is not a civilian crime. It's a military tactic. Civilian criminals commit crimes against society, which may cause fear as a byproduct. When caught they claim innocence and deny responsibility of their actions. Terrorists seek to destroy society itself often using fear as a tool. When caught they proclaim responsibility of their actions. Form must follow function. Civilian courts serve the purpose of many great things, but not ridding us of terrorists.

Behavior Kills, Not Bombs

2010-11-18T08:43:00.000-05:00

Israel has no crazy contraptions that scan your innards or sniffs your crotch. They profile behavior, not confiscate liquids. As we say, guns don't kill people, people kill people. It's the person who is dangerous, not a sharp "spork". Their lines are shorter and boarding planes efficient. Their safety is perhaps unmatched or at the very least as good as ours. But here, bureaucrats are squeamish at the idea that people can be evil and singling out one person could raise eyebrows. Instead we, as Angie here, must all share the wealth of discomfort rather than adopt an efficient and effective "Israelification" of our airports.

Funny Money

2010-11-17T08:51:00.000-05:00

What is quantitative easing? In short, it's kind of like printing money. The Federal Reserve buys government bonds and some financial securities from big New York City banks and pays for them with "electronic money", simply changing the bank records on the Fed's computer records. In some cases, they print tangible bills for the banks. In theory quantitative easing (QE2) should lower interest rates, which will increase investment spending, which will increase employment and that will help the economy. In reality, creating money that doesn't exist, creates bubbles by distorting markets and lowers the value of the dollar. Add a weak dollar to low interest rates and you get a bad time for savers and safe investing. So people move to risky investments. Toss in that bubble and we get some really rich people and some really unfortunate people… the very kind of thing Leftists claim to take 8 years to produce and need 8 years to fix. Funny money can't grow an economy. Government can create a predictable and stable tax structure through promising lower taxes and balanced budgets, encourage hiring through tax adjustments and encourage innovation through simplifying regulations encouraging open and fair competition.

The other thing to do is wait. What goes down, comes up, faster than climbing out of recessions.

TSA or T & A?

2010-11-15T09:17:00.000-05:00

Socialistic Darwinism

2010-11-12T09:22:00.000-05:00

Want a quick lesson why socialism will never succeed? Look at nature. It's amazing humans are the top of the food chain with "solutions" like socialism floating about. Government shouldn't concentrate on making things equal as much as making competition fair. Equal rules, not equal results. If you're God fearing, every Sunday you'll hear the message to find what your strengths are. These are gifts from God to escape that lion. If you're God-less, nature tells you the exact same message... just not as romantic. Surprisingly, Angie and Francis, Theists and Atheists should be on the exact page. A staunch conservative and Atheist friend of mine suggested the reason some liberals lean secular is simply to childishly egg the right. This also suggests, these particular liberals also recently co-opted Islam, not to support freedom of religion, but to also simply anger the right.

Capitalism Sale

2010-11-11T08:48:00.000-05:00

What a bizarre topsy-turvy economy we have. Fidel Castro criticizes socialism, communist China exemplifies capitalism and America has a growing number of proud Democrats proclaiming to be out right socialists. Capitalism is what made us great, provided we remember to stick to making something. That's not to say we can't outsource anything, as long as the innovation and executive production stays here. And we have to enjoy making some THING not just money. Somewhere along the way we became famous by being famous and rich by being rich. Instead of "Get Rich or Die Trying" we need to "Make Something, or Die Trying."

Sci-Fi Sense

2010-11-10T09:41:00.004-05:00

I wanted to comment on Avatar a while ago, but never got around to it. After seeing Star Wars on Spike, it came to me. Star Wars touches on deep iconic virtues of humanity. If you look carefully you'll see it in our Founding Father beliefs as well. Regardless of the political affiliation of the creator's of these movies, humanity (Star Wars) or anti-humanity (Avatar) is evident.

The Mid-Term Meaning

2010-11-05T08:40:00.004-04:00

After listening to Obama's morbid speech on the election results the other day I have to say I think Mr. Obama was born not in another country, but on another planet! Truly he believes people voted the way they did because they were ill informed, that the White House failed in getting the message to the people, that Fox News is evil, that the government didn't spend enough money, or that Jupiter wasn't aligned with Uranus.

These elections are clearly a repudiation of Obama and Liberal policy. We may like him as a person, but we do not like his policy. Period. It can't be said enough. Or more simply.

Furthermore, the mere existence of the Tea Party is a repudiation on the old Republican party. America has always preferred policies of smaller government and individual freedom. In fact such view was the sole purpose of her coming into existence. These election results are not an across the board acceptance of Republican policy.

Of all the networks, Fox News seems to be the only outlet that somewhat understands the message. Jon Stewart Rally (or The Viacom Kings of Comedy Tour) blind assessment is that Fox is successful in telling a better NARRATIVE. Stewart actually said those words on Bill O'Reilly... "you've been successful in your narrative". Liberal supporters complain that Mr. Obama "lost the narrative."

Cable news networks don't tell narratives to the American people. Comedians, comedy writers and entertainment networks like Viacom do. Cable news networks REFLECT the American narrative.

Mr. Obama said being in the White House is alienating. That the more he leaves the White House the more he sees the American people, hears their stories and justifies his inflation of government muscle to help the classes. For such big ears our President can't hear very well. The American stories are confirmations of needing less government muscle. Of needing more government leadership. Simply, of needing more encouragement not mandates.

Volunteer charity is a virtue. Forced charity is theft. If the President can't hear and see that narrative, perhaps in 2 years he could spend ALL his time outside of the White House.

Selective Sensitivity

2010-11-01T09:00:00.000-04:00

Historic Elections

2010-10-29T08:27:00.001-04:00

Constitutional Compromise?

2010-10-28T09:04:00.003-04:00

The Left views the Tea Party as fiscal whiners, but recent issues; bailouts, ObamaCare, federal control of private industry, collectively paying the mortgage of another, weren't just fiscal issues but questions of Constitutionality. What's Constitutional? Do we take our contract with the government literally? Or do we base it on case laws and precedents? This crystalizes the stark differences between the current Left and Right political landscape. What is a contract if the contract is subject to change at the whim of another?

As Lando Calrissian said under breath, "This deal is getting worse all the time." The Tea Party is simply praying it's not altered any further.

When You're Right...

2010-10-26T09:22:00.000-04:00

Inspired by this story:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/10/22/AR2010102201280.html

The funny part of this gag is that some of my liberal friends didn't see what the problem was. I guess if you're as angry as Angie, then you're Right. If you're as oblivious as Francis, you're Left. And if you're frustrated like Mike, you're... what?

Separation of Comprehension

2010-10-22T08:20:00.000-04:00

Today's strip has little playfulness, seeing the gag wrote itself. Tea Party candidate Christine O'Donnel was laughed at recently during a debate with established Democrat Chris Coons in front of a room filled with lawyers after her simple question asking where in the Constitution is separation of church and state mentioned. The above explanation was provided by Mark Levin who apparently read the Constitution unlike the room of young lawyers. I would have thought it was there myself, but I have the excuse of being a dumb cartoonist not dedicated law as lawyers and established politicians are. It's strange how general knowledge like this is warped into something totally different if it suits your needs. And it's a shame most think O'Donnel is an idiot, when she knew better than the room filled with lawyers. Maybe the cable newscasters will explain such facts objectively for us... That way we wouldn't have to rely on dumb cartoonists.

Waking Up The Economy

2010-10-20T09:15:00.001-04:00

Liberal Religious Resolve

2010-10-18T08:35:00.002-04:00

Our New Reality?

2010-10-15T08:53:00.000-04:00

Crazy Care

2010-10-13T08:50:00.000-04:00

Just a friendly reminder a 2700 page bill without a single page addressing tort reform is virtually meaningless in changing the how our health care business is done.

Teacher's Unions Teach Failure

2010-10-11T08:48:00.000-04:00

What's the underlying lesson taught here? Work hard, don't get rewarded. Work average get the same rewards as those who work hard. Be so cemented into the workforce that practically no matter what you do, you'll never be let go. What if teacher's taught the same way as Unions work?

The Glutenous UnHappy Meal

2010-10-07T08:35:00.001-04:00

Here come the food police! First stop, beautiful (and liberal) San Fran. First causality... some kid's toy. Who are the glutenous ones here?

http://tinyurl.com/268euto

Excerpt:
McDonald's vice president for nutrition and menu strategy, Karen Wells, said that denying a toy to a child would undermine the authority of parents to decide what their children should eat and would be difficult to execute.

Cynthia Goody, McDonald's nutrition director, said there was no evidence that childhood obesity would be reduced by requiring a fruit or vegetable with all meals.

In response, a supervisor asked what mix of foods would lower childhood obesity. Goody said she would need to conduct more research to provide an answer.

The Happy Meal ordinance is not all surprising given San Francisco's famously liberal leanings.

"San Francisco has a reputation — and it's well deserved — of being a very progressive city," said Alex Clemens, founder of Barbary Coast Consulting, a local political communications firm. "With that comes naturally, hand in hand, a reliance on government to encourage thoughtful change — that's just tradition."

Classless War is Fair

2010-10-06T08:23:00.001-04:00

Hiding in the Open

2010-10-05T08:41:00.000-04:00

Usually communist supporters at Progressive gatherings are covert enough to make the accuser look like a foaming anti-liberal madman. But at Saturday's "One Nation" rally in Washington, it was blatant and out in the open. The event even supported by the Communist Party USA. They have every right to rally and speak their mind. But wouldn't this be a sign that the current direction the country is headed is kind of incorrect? How could the Left say in light of it looking like a duck, walking like a duck and quacking like a duck... it must be right wing media bias of bigots and misinformation?

The Hail Mary

2010-10-01T08:53:00.000-04:00

Atheists claim hope is a kind of schizophrenia or mental illness. Belief in God is an abandonment of reason they say. And it's true. Faith is not reasonable. It is an illogical belief in the impossible. An oddity that separates man from animal.

We hold ourselves to such high standards that we cannot possibly hold true to them. But, it's that illogical reaching for the impossible that drives us. It's what dreams are made of. How we play the last 10 seconds of a seemingly hopeless game is what defines us. Do we run away? Do we go through the motions, wondering how illogically silly the attempt is? Or do we believe something truly amazing can happen, with a little faith? If you can believe in Him, all things become possible.

With separation of church and state, government cannot favor one religion over another. But Theism is not a specific belief, not specifically Christian, Judaism or Muslim, but rather a general belief in the Creator, God. Our Founding Fathers knew our rights came from God and that faith, along with facts are necessary for mankind's and our country's survival. Why then would the Left push Atheism and the complete absence of any notion of God in public life? For power. Faith gives us each individual freedom and power to pursue our interests not the specific interests of the collective. Faith gives us that "umph" to complete the task. There's a reason socialistic and communist societies removed God as it competed with the one true power, the government and collective thought.

The New American Dream

2010-09-29T08:50:00.002-04:00

Way back the Left claimed the Bush tax cuts were only for the rich. How then could the Left "extend" the tax cuts just for the poor and middle class? Either Bush was correct then, or the Left is lying now.

Danger Seeker

2010-09-28T08:40:00.002-04:00

Somewhat of a silly comic today.
What's worse? El Diario, Mexico's biggest newspaper restricting drug war coverage after the killing of it's second journalist in less than two year by drug cartels or a Seattle cartoonist pulling a Salman Rushdie for drawing Muhammad?

Change What Matters

2010-09-27T08:28:00.000-04:00

The Democrat Party unveiled a new design for their logo. Seems there is truth in advertising.

Running on Fear

2010-09-22T09:27:00.004-04:00

Only a short time ago, the Leftists passed sweeping health care transformation. Now the Leftist campaign strategy is not only to hide from Obamacare, but also other liberal policies like the near $800 billion failed stimulus plan. In some cases, their election ads seem to sell the once righteous Leftists as Independents!

President Obama linked John McCain to George Bush; a vote for McCain was a vote for Bush. Now it seems fitting a vote for a Leftist is a vote for Reid, Pelosi and Obama.

Scary Days Ahead

2010-09-21T09:42:00.000-04:00

Election day for Delaware is a while away, even further than Halloween. While Christine O'Donnells' past transgressions "dabbling in witchcraft" and Chris Coons' describing himself a Marxist is surfacing, simply ask which is scarier in a downturn economy? Witchcraft as a kid or an irresponsible spender as an adult?

The Economic Transportation Jam

2010-09-20T08:59:00.002-04:00

President Obama has been using this analogy over and over during our "summer of recovery." There's been variations on it, where the oppressors who drove the car into the ditch sipped a "Slurpee", drank ice tea, sat on a lawn chair etc. But it always ended in asking for the keys back. The above is my variation on the analogy.

Have the President and liberal congress' policies actually dug the car out? No political party can simply take the keys back. The voters decide that request. Judging on those results we'll see how well dug out the car actually was.

Stuck In Principle

2010-09-17T08:35:00.001-04:00

Many Conservatives including Carl Rove look for a sure win in primary voting. He questioned Christine O'Donnell's recent GOP primary win would result in defeat for the general election. Other Conservatives including Rush Limbaugh look for the candidate with clear principles, focusing on the overall picture.

The best road is never the easy road. The reason America is going in the wrong direction is due to a lack of clearly defined overarching principles. The only way to get on track is to support principle, even in the face of great adversity.

Ironically our president understands this, even saying he'd rather be a one term president than compromise his principles. It's only a shame he's heading in the wrong direction with wrong principles!

Check The Jimmy Z Show. In hour 2, Mr. Z reads some "Angie" 2 cents!

Union Protest

2010-09-15T09:24:00.000-04:00

Unions have done some pretty amazing things; 40 hour work weeks, better pay, better benefits and working conditions that attract millions of immigrants every year. Some would argue that if you follow the progression of that line down, conditions have been slowly improving on their own even without unions. Either way, there's no question union jobs raise production costs. We can share the load during good times, but also during hard times. NJ Governor Chris Christie catches a lot a flack for that.

Transformation Alright

2010-09-14T09:21:00.000-04:00

My Libertarian friends, who promote individualism over collectivism to such an extent, site legalization of dope and hookers could raise so much money, our troubles of broke government could be a thing of the past. Moral society decay not withstanding, the idea faces the same fate of a VAT or Value Added Tax. Such a tax would tax you for spending money, not making it. The IRS would disband and tax dodgers would be forced to pay their share. Plus, you'd be able to control where you spend your taxes by deciding on which products or services to purchase.

However the dream is just that. Leftists wouldn't add a VAT with intention to remove our current tax system, rather to fund ever increasing government spending, they'd keep BOTH! Thus the Pimp and Dope Czar would decay society from within our souls AND wallet.

Domestic Sleeper Cels

2010-09-13T09:10:00.001-04:00

Nine year later, what have we learned from 911? If there was any good to come from that day, it was a reminder that we are all American. I remember neighborhoods which had flags representing various nationalities only having the American flag. That lasted a while. Now we have protests on 911 for and against the Ground Zero Mosque or Community Center near Ground Zero or the completely benign, Park 51. Seems we forgot united we stand. What else have we forgotten?

Bully Program Alright

2010-09-10T08:20:00.000-04:00

Would early teaching of alternate lifestyles to children help bullies understand their victims, thus cease their bullying? What about non-gay victims, say kids who are alternate in other ways because of glasses, braces or just plain overweight? Not every bully victim is homosexual or a minority. While gays are statistically singled out the most, should the solution also single gays out? Or is there a solution for all victims?

The issue here is not sexuality, but low self-esteem. Bullies are often victims themselves of an abusive parent or relative. The resulting abuse fosters self-loathing. But rather than internalize it, they externalize it by victimizing another. The worse they make you feel, the better they feel. The bully misplaces his hatred.

Step one would be to teach the bully self-worth, maybe even jail the abusive relative and you'll stop bullying.

Then there's the victim. Teach the abused self worth to overcome the bully by themselves. Remember the movie "My Bodyguard" with Matt Dillon who plays "Moody" the school bully? Eventually the hero realizes by showing the bully he's not a victim, he stopped becoming one. That and breaking Matt Dillon's nose. (Part two could have been Moody the bully learning self confidence and self worth to overcome his abusive parent.)

Frankly, all kids suffer low self-esteem, even without a bully to instigate. The oppressor to overcome is themselves. Anybody remember growing up? The worst day in your life was getting a pimple! But at some point, you grow up and become so confident with yourself to mow your lawn wearing dress socks like your Dad and scratch himself while yelling over the mower's roar, "Who cares what others think?"

State anti-bully programs, with good intentions, are self affirming for the program creators not the kids themselves. In enforcing their view the bodyguard becomes the bully. Perhaps they could benefit from a little self worth and self confidence class. Self-esteem, like consumer demand or private jobs, is yet something else the government cannot create. It's something you create for yourself. Kids need to be taught how to fish and not handed a fish by the government to deal with Moodys. They'll eventually need that lesson later in life when we start mowing their lawns in dress socks.

Religious Tit for Tat

2010-09-09T08:26:00.003-04:00

I'm trying something new with this cartoon. I'm going to add some explanation below the strip. As a cartoonist, that's called cheating. For if the cartoon can't tell the whole message by itself, then it failed. However, this is not a newspaper, which some call a dieing medium anyway. My 2 favorite online political comics are Hope and Change and DryBones, which have a big "2 cents" added beneath their comic. Sometimes the comic even serves supplementary to the comment below it, almost as an into! So let's see how it goes. Your comments appreciated as well!

Guess what recent news I'm talking about:

Although it's legal, it's wrong. It's divisive. It does nothing to unite Muslims and the Western World. What does this act really mean? Is it truly nefarious? All should oppose it. All should condemn it. Those who don't.... frankly are morally questionable.

Koran burning or the Ground Zero Mosque?

Put me down for almost LIKING what this vile Pastor is doing. He IS a nut-job. A truly disgusting individual. But within his Constitutional rights. (I think of the comical Neo-Nazis in "The Blues Brothers" who had the right to march, holding up the Blues Brother's quest and certainly not winning any popularity award. "I hate Illinois Nazis!") This Pastor is calling to attention Liberal hypocrisy... not that that's some extraordinary feat. NYC Mayor Bloomberg, not a Liberal but certainly acting hypocritical, rightfully calling the Koran burning "distasteful", yet oddly championed the Ground Zero Mosque or the politically benign term "Park 51". (Sounds like a place to bring the kids and have ice cream. Now THAT'S not distasteful.)

BOTH are legal acts. BOTH can't be stopped. But BOTH are vile demonstrations. BOTH call into question their underlying message's significance. Thus BOTH need condemnation by the representative Religion and Constitution supporters.

What say you?

God's Lesson

2010-09-08T08:33:00.001-04:00

The Labor of War

2010-09-06T11:40:00.000-04:00

Getting By Under A Thin Layer Of Skin

2010-09-03T08:41:00.001-04:00

Ideologically Unmatched And Impaired

2010-09-01T08:27:00.001-04:00

Proximity of Peace

2010-08-30T08:33:00.001-04:00

Sharing Sharia

2010-08-20T09:06:00.001-04:00

Anchor Baby Ahoy!

2010-08-18T08:57:00.002-04:00

The Race Bait

2010-08-16T09:03:00.001-04:00

When Collectivism Counts

2010-08-13T09:52:00.002-04:00

The Final Solution Again

2010-08-11T08:56:00.001-04:00

Respect Religion or Religious Respect?

2010-08-09T09:30:00.002-04:00

The Whining Weiner

2010-08-04T09:16:00.001-04:00

Captain Post-America?

2010-08-02T09:27:00.000-04:00

Economic Worry Is A Certainty

2010-07-29T10:43:00.001-04:00

Can't We All Just Get Along? pt. 2

2010-07-28T09:12:00.001-04:00

Census Counts Everyone... Including Illegals!

2010-07-27T09:32:00.001-04:00

Can't We All Just Get Along? pt. 1

2010-07-26T09:01:00.001-04:00

Financial Reform: A Glass Piggy Bank. Part 3

2010-07-23T09:45:00.002-04:00

Financial Reform: A Glass Piggy Bank. Part 2

2010-07-22T13:30:00.001-04:00

Debunking the Stimulus Saving the Economy Claim

2010-07-20T09:31:00.001-04:00

Financial Reform: A Glass Piggy Bank. Part 1

2010-07-19T08:25:00.001-04:00

Privatized Family Education. It's Called Sunday School.

2010-07-16T08:42:00.002-04:00

Condemnation or Condoms For Kids?

2010-07-14T08:50:00.002-04:00

NASA's Been Jettisoned!

2010-07-12T08:46:00.001-04:00

Immigration is Abandoned, Not Broken

2010-07-08T08:20:00.002-04:00

3rd World Is The New Standard

2010-07-07T08:13:00.001-04:00

Happy Birthday America?

2010-07-05T10:55:00.002-04:00

Proof Leftists Think America Is Exceptional

2010-07-02T08:29:00.001-04:00

No One Is Exempt From Oil

2010-07-01T08:56:00.001-04:00

How Would Jesus Vote?

2010-06-30T08:55:00.002-04:00

War Policy Must Favor Afghans not Liberals

2010-06-29T09:12:00.001-04:00

Yet Another Disaster Caused By Oil

2010-06-28T08:30:00.001-04:00

Save the Green

2010-06-24T09:05:00.001-04:00

The Slick Danger

2010-06-23T08:38:00.001-04:00

The Legislation Levy

2010-06-22T08:41:00.001-04:00

What Goes Around

2010-06-21T08:42:00.002-04:00

Something Needs Changing Alright

2010-06-18T08:31:00.001-04:00

We Need Executive Not Legislative

2010-06-17T08:55:00.001-04:00

What We Should Outsource

2010-06-16T08:50:00.001-04:00

Heart Where Your Mouth Is

2010-06-15T08:54:00.002-04:00

Righting the Wrongs

2010-06-14T08:35:00.000-04:00

Accessory to a Crime

2010-06-11T15:30:00.000-04:00

Regulatory Dis-Order

2010-06-10T08:48:00.001-04:00

Dressed to Kill

2010-06-09T08:39:00.001-04:00

The Final Solution

2010-06-08T08:22:00.001-04:00

A Few Good Men

2010-06-07T08:31:00.001-04:00