Sunday, November 27, 2011


   Did you hear on "This Week" on ABC today where Colin Powell said that the politicians in Washington really needs to compromise?  He said the Congress failed because the Tea Party refuses to compromise.  His words were, "But the Tea Party point of view of no compromise whatsoever is not a point of view that will eventually produce a presidential candidate who will win."  I have to wonder about the amnesia that this Four Star General and former Secretary of State is suffering from.
   For the first two years of President Obama's reign, there was absolutely no compromise in Washington.  The Democratic leaders in both houses of Congress vowed that they would push through their agenda "one way or another".  They would not consult the Republicans on anything.  Often, they would sneak behind closed doors and shut the Republicans totally out!  Compromise!?!  Are you kidding me?
   And where are you and your neighbors today?  Have they soooo improved your life and mine that we bow down to them and praise them for aaaaall they have done?  Wake up America!  Stop listening to the mainstream media!
   Then the topic of illegal immigration was also discussed.  The mainstream media wants all of these criminals to be given amnesty.  Well, why would we do that for foreigners and not grant amnesty for our home grown criminals?  They talk about "splitting up families" of these criminals.  Well, our American families are split up when some Thug gets prison time for the crimes they have committed.  Let's open our prisons open and re-unite our American families!
   What am I missing?  Leave a comment and let's get this conversation going.  Obviously, I need help to understand!

You can also follow me at, where we read The Bible;, where we discuss health issues, and, where I just rant about daily life.  Just click the links.

Monday, November 21, 2011


  Russian warships are in "Syrian waters" outside the port of Tarsus in the Mediterranean Sea as reported by in response to the continued Syrian unrest.  Three Russian warships will reportedly not dock at the port, but will on operational duty along the Syrian coast to resist any foreign interference in the Syrian civil unrest.
   The U.S. has two carriers:  the USS Stenis and USS Bush presently opposite Iran in the Persian Gulf.  They arrived on Nov. 12, 2011.  On that date, there was an explosion at the Revolutionary Guard's base near Tehran that wiped out the entire leadership of Iran's ballistic missile program, according to THE TOTAL COLLAPSE.
   I reported on September 3rd, that Israel and Iran both had warships in the Red Sea.  This was prompted due to Iran's nuclear program.  You are welcomed to go back and read that post.
   So, we have war ships, nuclear submarines, and carriers in the Mediterranean Sea, Persian Gulf, and the Red Sea from the U.S., Iran, Israel, and Russia. 
   China is also playing naval show.  They have ships in the Indian Ocean.  They are strutting for India.
   Interesting, huh?

Sunday, November 20, 2011


   It is coming down to the wire on the Congressional budget cuts.  Although the liberals had two years without restraint just after we sent Barack Hussein Obama to the White House, they deny responsibility for the state of our government.  Oh, yes, it is G.W. Bush's fault.  Oh, dear!
   The liberals continue to say nothing is their fault.  They just want to be "fair" through government.  O.K., then, let's be fair:  I have been paying taxes ALL of my life.  I will never collect my social security that I paid for.  The liberals want to raise taxes on "the rich".  Well, if we are going to be "fair", let's stop funding welfare recipients with my money.  Let's stop supporting ILLEGAL immigrants.  Let's stop base line budgeting.  Let's stop Congress from making money in a way that would be ILLEGAL for the American Public.  In fact, let's take that money away from them, that is ill-gotten gains, and apply that to the deficit!  If we are taking other people's money, let us also confiscate money from those who are working to destroy this country and apply that money to the deficit.  Hello George Soros, SEIU, etc.  Let's have Egypt pay the millions of debt our President has forgiven since the militant Muslems took over that country.  Let's cancel the milllions our President promised Brazil to drill oil.  Let's stop funding abortion!
   No, the Liberals want to gut our military.  We asked them to CUT spending.  The Liberals can't hear us.  They want to INCREASE taxes.  What is the meaning of the word "is"?  How stupid can you be? 
   What are your thoughts?  Leave a comment to tell Washington how to CUT spending.

Saturday, November 19, 2011


   Are we still on the Jerry Sandusky kick?  Why?  The mainstream media is making the situation out to be something abhorrent.  I just don't understand why.
   Elton John has a son and is "married" to a man.  We give credence to Ellen Degeneres, Rosey O'Donnell, and Jane Lynch.  We tout Chaz Bono as if there is something magical about him/her.  Wake up, America!  If there is nothing wrong with any of these, there is nothing wrong with Jerry Sandusky.  What are you doing?  Let sleeping dogs lie.  Give him the right to marry these young boys.  Won't that make it right? 
   "Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman;  that is detestable."  Leviticus 18:21  "Do not have sexual relations with an animal and defile yourself with it.  A woman must not present herself to an animal to have sexual relations with it;  that is a perversion."  Leviticus 18:23  "Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled.  Leviticus 18:24  "But you must keep my decrees and my laws.  The native-born and the aliens living among you must not do any of these detestable things, for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled.  And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you."

You can also follow me at,, and  Just click the links.

Thursday, November 17, 2011


   Who has the time to invest in trying to find out what the main stream media is not telling us about the President they love so much?  The following piece was obtained from the Jerusalem Post.
Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak was quoted as saying today, that Jerusalem was engaged in an "intensive world struggle to enlist the world leaders" to support strict sanctions against Iran.   He was unable to convince the world to implement crippling sanctions against Iran that would convince it to jettison its military nuclear program.
   On Thursday, a resolution was agreed upon in Vienna by the five permanent members of the Security Counsil, plus Germany, to slam Iran for its defiance (regarding nuclear weapons) but stopped short of sending the matter back to the UN Security Counsil for another round of sanctions.  The resolution is expected to be passed by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) board of governors meeting on Friday.

   Israel's Strategic Affairs Minister Moshe Ya'alon picked up on the universality of the threat Iran imposes during a speech Thursday at the Institute for National Security Studies in Tel Aviv, saying Tehran's fingerprints can be seen in every area of conflict in the region.
   "It is forbidden for that nonconventional regime to obtain nonconventional weapons, and one way or another Iran has to be prevented from acquiring a nuclear capability", Ya'alon said. "The challange is not only on our doorstep, and it is before the whole free world, led by the U.S."
   Ya'alon said that these were "critical hours" in determining where the world would go with its Iranian policy.    "Our assessment is that it is possible to stop the military nuclear project in Iran if all will cooperate and the Iranians will be faced with the following dillema:  nuclear weapons or survival.
   "Those making decisions in Iran were still not convinced ot the West's determination to stop it", he said.

The bottom line here is that Israel is pleading, unsuccessfully,  with the world to stop Iran from progressing on their nuclear weapons plans.

We are having a fund raising to bring my Mother home.  Any donation of $48.50 or more to will receive a New Your style cherry cheesecake sent to your choice of receipient within the Continental United States of America.  Honoring our parents is the only Commandment with a blessing attatched to it.  God bless you for your help.  E-mail me with the address of where to send the cheesecake at

Monday, November 14, 2011


   In March of 2004, Martha Stewart was convicted of obstructing justice and lying to the government about superbly timed stock sale.  The charges centered on why Stewart dumped $228,000.00 of ImClone Systems stock on December 27, 2001, just a day before it was announced that the Federal Drug and Administration (FDA) had rejected ImClone's application for approval of a cancer drug.  The rejection sent ImClone's stock plummeting.  Anyway,the story goes that her stock broker heard that the CEO of the company was looking to dump his stock, he alerted Ms Stewart, and she said to sell.  She ended up saving over $51,000.00 by the sell.  (This was obtained from AP via Fox News.)
   So, why are we discussing Martha Stewart now since her ordeal was seven years ago?  Did you miss the point that she was convicted of lying to the government about her stock trades?  The CEO of ImClone was convicted of insider trading.  James B Comey, the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York was quoted as saying that lying to the FBI and the SEC will not be tolerated.  Ms Stewart was not convicted of insider trading. 

   We are talking about Martha Stewart today, because of the 60 Minute show this past weekend that discovered all the insider trading that our elected officials and all of the lobbyists in Washington are doing.......legally.  Because they own the reigns of the law and they exempt themselves from the same laws they say we have to obey!  These Occupy Wall Streeters have the wrong target:  They should be marching on Nancy Pelosi and the others in D.C. who have made millions from insider trading.
   The person being interviewed by Steve Kroft was Peter Schweizer, who wrote a book about the corruption in D.C., titled "Throw Them All Out".  We all need to read this book and contact our representatives in D.C. and put a stop to all this garbage.   What do you think?  Although with less than 6% of the eligible voters in Texas voting in this past election, how far do you think we will get?  Get involved, everybody!  We are loosing our country!

You can also follow me at,, and  Just click the links.


Saturday, November 12, 2011


    In the State of Texas, the Attorney General has the following posted:

"We all have the responsibility to protect our children from harm.  If you suspect the abuse or neglect of a child, it is YOUR DUTY to report it IMMEDIATELY.

Anyone having cause to believe that a child's physical or mental health or welfare has been or may be adversely affected by abuse or neglect MUST report the case immediately to a state or local law enforcement agency or the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (DFPS).

DFPS has a toll-free Family Violence Hotline:  1-800-252-5400.

Your legal obligation

Current law requires that professionals such as teachers, doctors, nurses, or child daycare workers must make a verbal report within 48 hours.  Failure to report SUSPECTED child abuse or neglect is a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment of up to 180 days and/or a fine of up to $2000.00 ( Texas Family Code, Chapter 261).

Reporting suspected child abuse to your principal, school counselor or superintendent will NOT satisfy your obligation under this law.  Local school district policy cannot conflict with or supersede the state law requiring you to report child abuse to a law enforcement agency or DFPS.

Your legal Protection

Your report of child abuse or neglect is confidential and immune from civil or criminal liability as long as the report is made in "good faith" and "without malice."

In good faith means that the person making the report took reasonable steps to learn facts that were readily available and at hand.  Without malice means that the person did not intend to injure or violate the rights of another person.  Provided these two conditions are met, you will also be immune from liability if you are asked to participate in any judicial proceedings that might result from your report.
If you suspect abuse:
   DON'T try to investigate
   DON'T  confront the abuser
   DO report your reasonable suspicions

It is not up to you to determine whether your suspicions are true.  A trained investigator will evaluate the child's situation.  Even if your report does not bring decisive action, it may help establish a pattern that will eventually be clear enough to help the child."

The bottom line is that it is a crime to ignore child abuse, whether you are in Texas or Pennsylvania.

Sunday, November 6, 2011


  Voting for this amendment honors the sacrifice of the surviving spouse of our totaly disabled veteran.
  This is a power grab.  I'm voting no.
  This is no time to increase state debt.  I'm voting no.
  This is another power grab.  I'm voting no.
  Our government officials need to be accountable to the voters.  I'm voting no.
  Our government officials need to cut spending, not shift money around to cover out of control spending.  I'm voting no.
  Voting no gives officials time to obtain more information before authorizing growing the government.
  This is a duplication of services.  I'm voting no.
  Voting for this proposition gives more equality to people who receive deferred adjudication with those who are convicted of crimes.
  Voting for this proposition reconciles the law with the intent of the law.

  You can also follow me at

NOV. 8, 2011 PROPOSITIONS 6-10

Official Ballot Language
The constitutional amendment clarifying references to the permanent school fund, allowing the General Land Office to distrubute revenue from permanent school fund land or other properties to the available school fund to provide additional funding to public education, and providing for an increase in the market value of the permanent school fund for the purpose of allowing increased distributions from the available school fund.
The Permanent School Fund (PSF) was established in the Texas Constitution of 1876, which set aside half of Texas' remaining public lands to help finance public schools.  Several different terms are used in the Constitution to refer to this fund, and Proposition 6 would replace other terms with the single term,"Permanent School Fund" in all references.
The proposed amendment also provides for potential increases in distribution from the PSF to the Available School Fund (ASF) , which provides funding to school districts on a per-student basis and supports classroom instructional materials and technology.
  Currently the General Land Office is responsible for managing the public school lands; proceeds from the land and mineral rights are held in the PSF.  The State Board of Education (SBOE) manages the investment of the PSF and, if the fund's investment performance permits, makes distributions from the PSF to the ASF.  Only interest or revenue income from the PSF can be spent; the principle amount remains intact and will contine to benefit the public schools of Texas.
  The proposed amendment would permit the distribution of some revenue derived from the public school lands directly to the ASF.  The GLO, or another entity other than the SBOE with the responsibility of management of public school fund land or other properties, would be permitted to transfer up to $300 million per year of revenues derived from the public lands that year.  This provision addresses problems found by the Attorney General in a previous statute allowing such distributions.
  The proposed amendment would also change the way the market value of the PSF is calculated by including additional assets that are currently not included (i.e. discretionary real estate investments and cash in the state treasury derived from PSF property).  At the beginning of each legislative session, the SBOE determines the rate (up to a maximum rate specified in the Constitution) of the market value of the PSF that will go to the ASF.  Given the current value of the PSF and the rate determined by the SBOE at the beginning of the last legislative session, this proposed amendment might provide approximately $75 million more to the ASF in FY 2011-2012 and 2012-2013.
Arguments for:
Increased distributions to the Available School Fund would provide support for public schools at a time when additional funding for schools is needed.
Arguments against:
Instead of transferring additional revenue to schools now, the revenue should be used to grow the Permanent School Fund to provide support for public schools in future years.
Official Ballot Language
The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit conservation and reclamation districts in El Paso County to issue bonds supported by ad valorem taxes to fund the development and maintenance of parks and recreation facilities.
Under the Texas Constitution, the legislature can authorize specific counties or water districts to create conservation and reclamation districts that would issue bonds and levy taxes to develop parks and recreational facilities that were not so authorized before September 13, 2003.  Currently 10 counties are specified; Proposition 7 would add El Paso County to that list.
If the proposed amendment passes, voters in the district would have to approve or deny creation of a combined city/county tax district in El Paso County in order for the legislature to authorize a district to issue bonds or incur indebtedness.
Argument for
  The City of El Paso's park system is bearing the brunt of tremendous growth in the county, not only from migration but also the relocation of military families to Fort Bliss.  The proposed amendment would enable the city and county to work together to develop a comprehensive regional parks system, which would not only attract development but also could leverage resources of both the city and county and operate more efficiently than either entity could on its own.
  Passage of this proposed constitutional amendment would not automatically raise taxes.  It is just the first step in the process of allowing the district voters to decide on the creation of an El Paso County parks district.  If approved, city and county officials would begin working on legislation for consideration for the 83rd Texas Legislature beginning January 2013.
Argument against
  If the proposition is approved, taxpayers in the county, which is not affluent, could be subject to yet another taxing entity.  Establishing a recreational parks district is a quality of life issue rather than an economic development issue.  Sustaining the economy is a more important focus for community leaders at this time.
   City and county leaders need to have more information about the exact financing, leadership, functions, and authority of the proposed park district before this constitutional amendment is presented to the voters.
Official Ballot Language
The constitutional amendment providing for the appraisal for ad valorem tax purposes of open-spaced land devoted to water stewardship purposes on the basis of its productive capacity.
  Property that is appraised for open land use (currently for agriculture, ranching, and/or wildlife preservation) is taxed on the basis of its productive capacity, rather than at full market value.  This proposed amendment would add a new water conservation option, called a "water stewardship valuation," to land already appraised for open land use.  This would not decrease property taxes on the land, but would give open-space landowners another option to engage in activities on their property that benefit both water quality and quantity.
  Management plans for individual water stewardship would be created in association with The Texas Parks and Wildlife Department and could include brush control to increase stream flow and ground water storage, land management that would enhance infiltration into soil around playas, water reuse projects in wetlands to clean water naturally, and erosion control to impede silting of reservoirs.
Arguments against
  This valuation is unneccesary because it would duplicate options that are already available under the wildlife management valuation.
Official Ballot Language
  The constitutional amendment authorizing the governor to grant a pardon to a person who successfully completes a term of deferred adjudication community supervision.
  In some criminal cases, if a defendant pleads guilty or no contest, a judge may defer adjudication of guilt and place the defendant on probation with community supervision.  If the defendant successfully completes probation, the judge must dismiss the charges.
   Under the current law, the judge can grant pardons after conviction, but not after deferred adjudication.  The proposed amendment would add the authority to grant pardons after deferred adjudication as well.  All other requirements for pardons would remain the same.
  When a pardon is granted, the criminal record may be expunged.  A person who has completed deferred adjudication still has a criminal record in the public domain.
Arguments for
  Proposition 9 would result in a more equitable policy on pardons and expunction of criminal records by offering the same opportunity to persons who have completed deferred adjudication as to persons who have been convicted.  The governor would still have the discretion about whether to grant a pardon.
  Even though charges are dismissed after successful adjudication, the criminal history remains and may be a barrier in obtaining employment, housing, or admission to schools.
Official Ballot Language
The constitutional amendment to change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation of certain elected county or district officeholders if they become candidates for another office.
  Under current law, if certain district or county office holders with more than one year left on their current terms announce for or become candidates for another office, they automatically resign from their current office.  This "resign-to-run" provision was added to the Constitution in 1958 after the terms for certain officials were changed from two to four years.  With a one year unexpired term, it provided a window for elected officials to file for office by January 2 for an election within the same calendar year without resigning their offices.
  Because Senate Bill 100 changed the filing deadline for offices from January 2 of the primary election year to the second Monday in December of the preceeding year, the one-year unexpired term no longer allowed the same opportunity for the office holders to continue in their current office while running for a new office.  Proposition 10 would change the length of the unexpired term that causes the automatic resignation from one year to one year and 30 days, thus preserving the original intent of the provision.
Argument for
  Most candidates for elected office need to have paid employment.  Proposition 10 would allow them to maintain their income while running for office, and would allow the current office to be covered with an experienced person during that time, eliminating unnecessary vacancies and the need for temporary appointments to complete the term.

You can also follow me at

Saturday, November 5, 2011

NOV. 8, 2011 PROPOSITION 1-5

Official Ballot Language:
The Constitutional Amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of 100% or totally disabled veteran.
Currently the Tax Code fully exempts residential homesteads of totally disabled veterans from property taxes.
   Proposition 1 would let the legislature give a property tax exemption to the surviving spouse of a totally disabled veteran a) if the property had been exempted from property taxes under the disabled veteran's tax exemption, b) if it was the residence of the surviving spouse when the veteran died, c) and remained the surviving spouse's residence homestead thereafter, and d) if the surviving spouse had not remarried.   (Note:  it gives no time limit on the "not remarrying").
   This exemption would follow the surviving spouse if a new homestead were purchased and the surviving spouse had not remarried.  The exemption would be limited to the dollar amount of the exemption of the previous qualifying homestead.
   If passed, this exemption would apply to tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2012.

Official Ballot Language
The Constitutional Amendment providing for the issuance of additional obligation bonds by the Texas Water Development Board in an amount not to exceed $6 billion at any time outstanding.
   The Texas Water Development Board (TWDB) makes loans at very low interest rates to cities, towns, water supply corporations and various other political sub-divisions across the state.  These loans are used to fund a variety of local water projects , including infrastructure improvement or water treatment plants.   The TWDB current capacity of bonding of $2 billion is not sufficient to meet the needs of local governments that are upgrading infrastructure to meet the growing demand.  The proposed amendment would authorize the TWDB to issue additional bonds as long as the aggregate amount did not exceed $6 billion.  This ongoing authority is known as "evergreen" authority.
   These bonds, if approved, would be self-supporting and not a detriment to the state budget, would not cost the state any money from the general revenue fund, and would not count toward the state's constitutional debt limit.  The principle and debt limits on the loans would be paid by the political subdivisions.  The interest paid on the loans funds the agency.
   The jump from $2 billion to $6 billion is too large.  The ceiling should be raised in smaller increments, with periodic review from the legislature and voters.
   It is not clear how much development and economic growth our water supply can sustain.  We should determine first how much we should expand our water infrastructure.
   The "evergreen" authority would reauthorize the issuance of bonds previously approved and since paid off and retired.  The legislature and the voters should maintain accountability for the administration of the funds by retaining their authority to approve the issuance of state bonds periodically.
  It seems to me that the government keeps grabbing for more power and no one is ever responsible for the government's actions.
Official Ballot Language
    The constitutional amendment providing for the issuance of general obligation bonds of the State of Texas to finance educational loans to students.
   The Hinson-Hazelwood College Student Loan Program provides low- interest loans to Texas residents who attend public or private higher education institutions in Texas and who have insufficient resources to finance a college education.  The loan program uses general education bonds to finance the loans, which generally must be authorized by constitutional amendment.  Since 1965 Texas voters have approved seven constitutional amendments authorizing $1.86 billion in bonds for the HH loan program.  It is projected that the remaining bonds will be exhausted in 1013.
Arguments against
   This is not a good time to increase state debt.  Even though the program is self-supporting, the bonds are considered an obligation of the state, and the state is ultimately responsible for repaying the money borrowed.
   The current poor economy could increase the rate of default on the loans, affecting the programs ability to be self-supporting.
   The evergreen authority would re-authorize the issuance of bonds originally approved as long as 40 years ago and since paid off and retired.  The legislatures and the voters should maintain accountability of the administration of the funds by retaining their authority to approve the issuance of state bonds periodically.
Official Ballot Language
The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to permit a county to issue bonds or notes to finance the development or redevelopment of an unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted area and to pledge for repayment of the bonds or notes increases for ad valorem taxes imposed by the county on property in the area.  The amendment does not provide authority for increasing ad valorem taxes.
  Currently the Texas Constitution authorizes the legislature to authorize incorporated cities and towns to use a mechanism called "tax increment financing" to finance the development or redevelopment of unproductive, underdeveloped, or blighted areas.  Under this mechanism the bonds or notes to finance the development are repaid using increases in revenues on the property in the area.  The revenue increases comes from increases in property values in the development area, not from an increased tax rate, which is not authorized.
Proposition 4 would expand the authority to include counties, so that tax increment financing could be used in unincorporated areas.
Argument against:
   Property taxes should not be used to fund transportation and other re-development projects.
   Tax increment financing could create an incentive to increase property appraisals in reinvestment zones to repay the bonds and notes and thus divert funds from other pressing needs.  Because the criteria for the zones are not well-defined, influential developers could get an area designated as a reinvestment zone, and existing businesses in the zone could end up paying higher taxes for development that does not benefit them, or may even benefit their competitors.
Official Ballot Language
The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to allow cities or counties to enter into interlocal contracts with other cities or counties without the imposition of a tax or a provision of a sinking fund.
Currently under the Texas Constitution, cities with a population greater than 5000 and all counties and cities bordering on the coast of the Gulf of Mexico may not create any debt without levying a tax sufficient to pay the interest and provide a sinking fund of at least two percent.  A contract longer than one year between local governments has been interpreted as a debt under certain circumstances, requiring the tax assessment and creation of a sinking fund.
  Proposition 5, along with its enabling legislation would authorize those cities and counties to enter into interlocal contracts longer than one year with other cities or counties without meeting the tax and sinking fund requirement.
Argument for:
 This proposition would give local governments more flexibility to consolidate projects and services over a term longer one year in order to improve efficiency and reduce cost to the taxpayers.
Argument against:
 There may be some cases where multi-year interlocal contracts do constitute a debt and should require a tax and sinking fund; removing this constraint gives too much flexibility to local governments.  And I agree.

You can also follow me at

Tuesday, November 1, 2011


   This is going to be short and sweet:  The main stream media is reporting that Herman Cain was  ACCUSED of sexual harassment in the 1990's.  He was accused.  He was not convicted.  As far as I can discover, there was no trial.  He was accessed, not convicted.
   Let me try to explain:  I was involved in an incident where my truck's back tire allegedly ran over a guy's foot while the truck was on private property.  No ticket was given.  My insurance was notified.  That was all I heard of the issue.  It was months later, when I was talking with my agent that I asked about the case.  I was informed that the insurance co. denied damages.  The guy who was allegedly ran over was involved in several such cases.  I was not contacted about the resolution of the case, so had I not asked, I would not have known. 
   Herman Cain says he did not know the resolution of the so called victims of his sexual harassment.  Some companies would rather settle than go through a lengthy trial and have their names smeared in the public domain.  Whether they are innocent or not, they are still labeled in the mind of the public.
   Now, with all the hype of the liberal media and the current administration in the White House, let's talk discrimination:  Karen Finney is a typical liberal.  She is a democratic strategist and an MSMBC analyst.  Did you hear what she said?  "....they think he is a black man who knows his place.", referring to Mr. Cain.   What place is his?  What happened to Martin Luther King, Jr. who wanted all Americans to be judged by their character and not the color of their skin.  So, it is set in stone that Ms. Finney is racist.  Who else would make such a statement?  This shows how racist the liberals are every time they accuse the conservatives or the Tea Party of being racist.  Why can't we talk about issues rather than color of someone's skin?  It sure appears that the liberals don't want to discuss issues because they just want to destroy this great country.