Vote for a person not on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character.

Vote for a person not on the color of his skin, but on the content of his character.

If a person supports liberty, freedom, entrepreneurship, self-responsibility, free enterprise, small business, less intrusive government - support that person.

If a person supports bigger government, more regulation, less choice, and uses thinly-veiled Marxist Socialist terms like "social justice," "compassion," "fairness," "change," "racist," "greed," and "hate," do everything within your power to see that person is not elected or else is removed from office at the next legal opportunity.

Presidential Primary: Anti-Mitt means vote Ron Paul for now

It's Presidential Primary Election Day. I don't really care for Mitt Romney - way too liberal, health care being only one issue where I disagree. In the Primary, I'm going to vote for Ron Paul, just so someone else can have a chance.

I prefer Newt Gingrich, but he's not on the ballot in VA (neither is anyone else but Romney and Paul). I think Gingrich has the best shot at taking out Obama in the debates. If Mitt Romney doesn't have a majority in the primary, anybody can win at the convention.

That's Just Not Right

We are in the middle of a Congressional election campaign between a 28-year incumbent Democrat, Rick Boucher, and a challenging Republican, Morgan Griffith.

Somebody is sending out political text messages, without any identification, that are considered "smear attacks" against the Democrat.

Problem is, these messages seem to be sent BY the Democrat's campaign and his supporters, and Rick Boucher's Congressional office -- in official capacity -- is then claiming the Republican's campaign sent them. What is clear is that the Republican, Morgan Griffith, has categorically denied knowing anything about these messages or being involved with them in any way.

It's one thing to point out your opponent's bad actions.

It's quite another to do them yourself solely to blame him for them.

Judge Sonia Sotomayor Confirmed for Supreme Court

I have said before that "race", someone's culture, heritage and background, are a person's flavor, a seasoning of life.

If someone is from Georgia, grown up with fried chicken and grits, that person is no more inherently "right" or "wrong" than someone from Washington State with their apples and cherries. Do you like New York foldable pizza better than Chicago's thick-crust pizza? Fine. Do you like Texas spicy baked beans better than Boston's sweet baked beans? OK. Neither is right or wrong, just personal preference, and someone should be neither qualified nor disqualified from public office on the basis of such personal culture.

Similarly, is not voting for someone exclusively because of skin color or gender the very definition of racism or sexism? I have no problem with a person being elected (or "confirmed", as the case may be) to office, who may happen to be of a particular heritage or gender, but nobody should be elected or confirmed primarily because of such bias.

Voting for such a person in large part because of a bias is just as bad as voting against the person because of a bias.

A Senator who confirmed Judge Sonia Sotomayor primarily because she has a Latina heritage is just as bad as someone who voted against Barack Obama just because he's black. There is no difference.

Ahmadinejad Reelected?!?

So, Iran's "president" Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the man often referred to as "Hitler in a head scarf", was reelected in a landslide, despite polling that showed him tied with the other candidate.

Who'd have thunk it?

On another note, there are people protesting the election results. If I were them, I'd stop - now. And either get out of Iran or distance myself from the protests, and quickly. Especially if they have families to think of. Because, one way or another, there probably won't be any of these protesters left in another month or so.