Three, that’s how many times the RNC callers are required to ask you for money, before they can hang up. Well, I have received several of these calls over the past year or so and I have given a similar answer every time.

In the fall, I told them that I could never support the RNC if the republicans choose a “pro-choice” candidate. At that time, the caller actually told me (between the second and third attempt) that she didn't think that was going to happen. She said I should just wait and see what happens and then she unsuccessfully went for the third try at the cash.

Tonight, I heard from a young Republican from Minnesota. He was calling on behalf of the RNC and hoping to re-enlist me in the fight against liberalism (that might requrie some friendly fire). Now, I don’t hold any ill will for this guy at all, but at some point you just get sick of telling them the same thing every time. The young man asked me why I would not be supporting them at this, the most critical time in the fight.

I was hoping to get through the call without going into all the details but silly me, I had not reached the magical third attempt yet. So the caller continued, and actually tried to convince me that “while McCain maybe somewhat of a liberal republican, he is still better than the democrats.”

Well, I’m no Zig ziglar, but if that is going to be the RNC’s approach, then good luck. Every time I get one of these calls, I feel like the caller is apologizing while at the same time asking for money. I almost want to ask them if they still give money to the RNC? 

Let me be clear, as I did with each of the callers. I will continue to financially support individual conservative candidates on my own, including some that may be outside of my district or state. The truth is, I’m just not sure the RNC cares about us Bible thumping, homeschooling, conservatives as much as they used too. Hey look, it’s thier party. If that’s the direction they want to go, then rock and roll, but they shouldn't be surprised that it’s going to take more than three attempts to get my money.

 According to most Federal and state law, minors, and adults in some cases are not mature or reasonable enough to make certain decisions. Even when those decisions only effect the person making the "choice." I don't necessarily disagree with all of those laws. However, one must look a little deeper to understand these laws. Lets look at a possible scenario of an average American, 15 year old girl. Maybe it will shed some light on the issue.

So by law,
15 year old Amy can't "choose" to ride without a seat belt in the family SUV.
Amy can't "choose" to ride her scooter without wearing a helmet.
Amy can't "choose" to buy cigarettes or booze.
Amy can't "choose" to have Hank's name tattooed on to her thigh, unless mom or dad approve.
Amy can't "choose" to get medical treatment if her tattoo gets infected, unless mom or dad approve.
Amy can't "choose" to get spikes through her nose, unless mom or dad approve.
Amy can't "choose" to have sexual contact with Hank because he's 21. Although, most states wouldn't legally allow her to have sex with Hank even if he was 15.

So, with no respect for the wise lawmakers of our time, Amy rides her scooter over to Hank's place while not wearing a helmet. Then, she gets in to Hank's '83 Camaro, and cruises town while not wearing a seat belt. Then, Hank stops off at he EZ-Stop to score her some Marlboro's and Bud-Light. After,  Amy gets sloshed, she then decides to take her physical relationship with Hank to a new level. If that wasn't enough for one night, she finds a seedy place to get that tattoo she's always wanted, and don't forget the new oversized diaper pin stuck through her nose. Finally, Amy starts to feel ill from all the booze and Hank is forced to forge the parental consent form at the E.R.

Wow! What a night! The only problem is, Amy has broken seven or eight different laws and Hank is looking at some hard time. To make matters worse, Amy just found out that there's going to be a "little Hank" in nine months.  Not to worry though, the government (or wise lawmakers of our time) has deemed Amy mature and reasonable enough to make some decisions by herself. Besides, it's her body and she should be able to "choose" to do what she wants with it. So she exercises her "God given, Constitutional right" to "choose" to have a medically complex procedure, that will no doubt affect her physically and most certainly emotionally for a long time. Well, there won't be a "little Hank" in nine months. By the way, mom and dad will never know.

So, the next time you see a "pro-choice" rally check for any signs that read "seat belts are for sissys" or "helmets make my hair look bad".

Maybe, just maybe, it's not about "choice " at all.

 So imagine a campaign event where Barrack Obama is being questioned by Fox News' Chris Wallace. After answering the usual questions about current affairs, Obama is hit with this question. Are you white enough? Of course there would be the standard media frenzy. Then would come the calls for Wallace's resignation by Al Sharpton and finally the eternal apologies and reconciliation.

Never mind the issue of insensitivity, let's explore the relevance of a question like that. It wouldn't make much sense. All of our Presidents have been white and they were not loved by all white Americans. If being white enough meant securing the white vote, then that would presume to say that all white people think and vote alike. That would certainly be an ignorant belief and somewhat prejudicial. I mean talk about labeling. Who needs labels like conservative or liberal when we can just go straight to black or white?

This whole discussion is quite childish but some don't seem to think so. Earlier this week A CNN reporter asked Hillary Clinton "are you black enough" . So again let's move past the initial stupidity of asking that question and look at it's relevance.

What does being "black enough" mean. Black like Al sharpton or black like Colin Powell? Black like Michael Jackson or black like Michael Jordan? Black like Jesse Jackson or black like T.D. Jakes? Black like Louis Farakhan or black like Martin Luther King. Black like who?. Now, if you are completely void of any grasp of history or these peoples character then you might not realize that these people are as different as any random group of white Americans.

The idea that being "black enough" has anything to do with one's political perspective is just as absurd and blatantly prejudicial at it's very core. There are many black voices that do not agree with the liberal concept for America. To attempt to deny them that belief while simultaneously being true to their heritage is obscene and un-American.

It's about time that the black community start to ask some questions of it's self appointed leaders. These same leaders that have guided them to vote for the so called "candidates for the black community". For nearly fifty years, black Americans have voted for liberal democrats based on the idea that they had a better plan for low income black families. While the evil conservatives would want to punish the black community even further.

I have spent the last twelve years living and working with young people in black ghettos. I'm still waiting for the white liberal politician to ride in on  their big white horse and make it all better.  I'm reminded of a 1992 presidential ad for Bill Clinton that focused on the last four years of the George H.W. Bush administration. It chronicled all of the so called broken promises that were made and while showing images of destitute american's it asked "So how ya doing?" It was powerful and that argument helped Clinton win the presidency.

The great society has triggered the spending of somewhere between six and ten trillion dollars over the last five decades. Politicians continue to convince us that government should and can fix  the problems. Every four years new promises are made to the black community in order for liberals to get elected. So to those second and third generation Americans living in our ghettos, my question is, How ya doing? 


Jeremy Randolph

 When I was about seventeen or eighteen, I began to notice the "Hollywood message" that seemed to be tucked away in most movies. I would leave the theater and ask if anyone else saw what I saw and  most of the time they would say that I was crazy and over analyzing the film. Many of my friends or family would get sick of me talking about this paranoia. Some still do.

However, this has changed over the past few years due to Hollywood's blatant admission to "inform" or "sway" the audience. Sometimes it is the overall message of a film and at other times it's the one liner or quick scene that might not be noticed. Either way, the intent was usually kept quiet. Not any more.

Well, at least I don't have to convince anyone about Hollywood's intent any longer. Apparently, there are a slew of  anti-war or anti-Bush films set to be released  this year and they are loud and proud about the message. Not to mention all the retread stereo-types in current releases.

I know, I know, you think I'm crazy. Alright, try this simple test. The next time you see a film that involves a dark and sinister government or military "bad guy", check the photos hanging on the wall. I'm willing to bet you a bag of donuts it will be a Republican President. The walls of the "hero" that is fighting for the truth will almost assuredly be adorned with framed photos of Slick Willy or some other Democrat.  

Also, when is Hollywood going to get a new theme. The whole "covert American Govt agency masterminding terror attacks so that they can get more money to fight terror attacks", is old and couldn't be further from the truth. By the way, just for those that still aren't paying attention, the bad guys really are just Muslim extremists that want to cut your head off. Oh!, I'm sorry, was that offensive?  I meant, Muslim extremists that wish you to no longer live. How's that? Nooo...   ...cut your head off was better.

So in regards to all this "war is bad" talk. Are we to believe that all of these Hollywood folks (that are surely more enlightened than the average joe) are simply anti-war or just displeased with the Iraq war. I'm not sure, but all of this "smarter than you" talk about war not being the answer is at best stupid and at worst ignorant. If war was not the answer to some of history's atrocities, what would that answer have been? Which war would you deem worthy. Vietnam, the Korean war, WW1, WW2 or how about the American Revolution. Let me guess, you chose all the wars we won. Big surprise. 

If war is not the answer, then winning  war is.


Jeremy Randolph

You may have heard the news of our planet's looming crisis and the eminent danger ahead. But not to worry my fellow global citizens. There is hope. Hundreds of the music industry’s most talented and wealthiest have answered the call. In an act of heroism, they have disavowed any further actions on their part that may cause excessive damage to the planet. Lavish SUV’s will be recycled and made into hybrids, fuel sucking private jets will be crushed and made into windmills. Concerts will be postponed indefinitely. So as not to cause citizens to drive to an event that is not absolutely essential to ones survival and, lastly, they will turn their mansions over to the government's housing department to better utilize the 8,000 sq feet.

Naah, I’m just pulling your leg. Instead, they flew their private jets around the world (over 220,000 miles in all) to perform for millions of people that drove or rode trains and buses to the concerts. Then they asked us to crank up the juice to millions of televisions sets and computers so they could loudly proclaim, WE'VE GOT TO DO SOMETHING PEOPLE!

So lets assume once again for the sake of peaceful discussion that everything Al Gore would have us believe to be true is exactly as he says. His solution, lower your carbon footprint.

32, that’s right 32. The number of tons of carbon emissions that my family of four produces on an average year. That is according to carbonfootprint.com. What Is a carbon footprint you say? It is the way in which we measure how much of our greedy, overfed, gas guzzling, using too much toilet paper of a life produces carbon emissions or “bad stuff” to further the demise of our planet.

Madonna, on the other hand produces around 1,018 tons, according to John Buckley of carbonfootprint.com. The Live Earth shindig in total produced around 74,000 tons of carbon emissions.

Oh, but they have thought of everything. Live Earth producers claim to be “offsetting” their carbon footprint by planting trees and using other planet friendly modes of operation at each concert venue. However, John Buckley of carbonfootprint.com says "we would have to plant 100,000 trees  to offset the effect of Live earth" But, he added, "if you can reach 2 billion people and raise awareness, that's pretty fantastic.".

Climate Group CEO Steve Howard said "I think that this will be very inspiring and show people that you can put on concerts and tours in a much greener way," he said. "I understand concerns about Madonna's carbon footprint. But nobody's perfect, and at least we are now having an interesting debate about it, which will change behavior."

Nobody’s perfect? 1,018 tons of “ the bad stuff” and she gets a “nobody’s perfect” So in doing nothing different than what I was doing on July 6th and according to my carbon footprint, I'm already more planet friendly than most if not all of the Live Earth performers. I better get a bumper sticker.

So this is an acceptable manner of fighting the great crisis of our time. Rather than actually make a net gain in the fight against global warming, you take a net loss in order to simply raise awareness. This is such an easy target it's almost not fair. It's sounds like Al Gore gathered his team and asked , what would Paris Hilton do?  The bottom line is, either we're being lied to or the elite hypocrisy is at it’s worst.

What if we applied Live Earth logic to solving the global hunger crisis. Rather than providing food to starving nations, we’ll just have a globally televised buffet featuring sitcom stars and large sacks of U.N. grain. That would certainly “raise awareness”

Imagine if wars were fought that way. Well Mr. President, today we ordered thousands of brave men to fight in a battle in which our defeat was certain. We lost all of them sir. Good news though, we took a few hundred of the bad guys with us and most importantly the media’s all over it and it will probably raise public awareness to the war.

Some might say that it's inappropriate to equate Live Earth with starving children and the lives of our soldiers at war. To that I would say... my point exactly.

Jeremy Randolph

Nearly two hundred and thirty one years ago, a coalition of regular people from all walks of life embarked on a journey that would collide with fate. Most could never have imagined the effects their decisions would  have have on the rest of the world for generations to come. Families gave their husbands and young sons to a cause they would never see realized and the visionaries of the time could only hope their lives were not given in vain.
 
In the history of mankind, there are only a select few events that have changed the lives of so many and given hope to even more than the war for independence of the United States of America. I try to imagine the face of the world if the families of the revolution had decided to lay down their arms for the sake of calm and mediocrity. What if the bloodshed and unrest had finally become too great a price to exchange for freedom. 

If that had been the case, the documents that we hold dear such as the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution would be nothing more than artifacts in a British museum and the war would be talked about as little more than a failed uprising of peasants and farmers.  It didn't happen that way and here we stand the greatest nation on the face of this earth. 

All one has to do is trace the landscape of the world and the events that have followed the birthing of this nation to understand how different this world would be in the absence of the USA. I do not make these boasts to add value to my existence as an American. How could I, I was simply born in to the fruits of many better men before me.

On this July Fourth, I am reminded that God expects us to to change the world around us and I can only hope that I fulfill a fraction of that which my forefathers accomplished before me.

Jeremy Randolph   

Recently, Barrack Obama attended the annual convention for the United Church of Christ. He commented on his use of faith regarding politics and how the "Christian right " has used hot button issues to divide us rather than bring us together.

I don't want to beat a dead horse... well, actually I do. For years now we have been told by those on the left to leave our morals out of politics. That we can't shove our faith down other peoples throats and that morality is subjective therefore, it can not be legislated. The popular pro-choice t-shirt that reads "keep your rosaries off my ovaries" comes to mind. Anyway, for years we have argued that our faith  makes us who we are and that our decisions regarding politics will reflect so.

I am certain that people of other religions are influenced by their faith as well, but the question of who's faith is right or wrong should be irrelevant. We live in a representative republic and we can only hope that a greater number of voters feel the same way about issues as we do.   

So if morality is subjective, at least as it relates to religion. How then does the left embrace any presidential candidate that chooses to apply his or her morality in creating policy. If they are accepting that issues should be addressed using the tenets of any one faith or religion, they should have no problem discussing "hot button issues" that are born out of someone else's interpretation of scripture.

If Obama believes that Biblical principles challenge us to implement more social programs, that is his argument to make. If a voter feels compelled by his argument, they will vote for him. So why then is the "Christian right" lampooned  for using  it's own conclusions of how Biblical principles should help shape policy.

If we are finally at a place in this country where people are willing to debate the validity of Biblical principles being used as the foundation of policy, then I would say we've made progress. Obama also said that "faith got hijacked" (nice terrorism analogy) by those on the right and then continued to make the case for social programs based on Biblical principles. So are voters simply to accept his version of morality or do we actually get to debate "WWJD". No need to answer, the media already has.

Obama also said that "so called religious leaders" have us all convinced that religious Americans are only concerned with a few issues such as abortion, gay marriage, intelligent design and school prayer (wow! such petty things). He doesn't address wether or not we should apply scripture in regards to these issues. Does he intend for us to continue to support these petty issues and simply adopt his Biblical interpretation regarding other problems? Or, do we assume that he believes we are wrong on these particular "hot Buttons". If so, this would mean he has read the scriptures and believes that we have incorrectly interpreted the Word of God, which he his entitled to believe. However the thought had occurred to me, all this new Jesus talk is starting sound more like a church debate over Biblical doctrine, which first requires one to actually confirm or deny their belief in the written word of God in it's entirety. I'm not sure the left is wanting that discussion just yet. At least not as long as the top three democratic presidential candidates profess to be Christians.

The truth is, the Bible has some pretty tough literature for most people to swallow and contrary to popular belief Christ actually said he will bring division. The scriptures' context is irrelevant in the sense that those on the left such as Obama, simply act as if faith is just supposed to bring us all together and that should be enough. Translation for homeschooled redneck Christians is as follows, (We abandon any convictions that we have and pick up his beliefs so that we could all be warm, happy and united). Man I'm gettin dizzy.

Anyway, I welcome Obama and those on the left to this radical new concept of merging faith and politics. I think it's always a good thing if politicians are openly willing to talk about their religion and how it affects their policies. I guess this all means we the people can get back to deciding how to apply our own personal faith and morality in the voting booth and feeling good about it as well. Let the debate begin. Good grief! It's about time.

Jeremy Randolph

  I am not quite old enough to remember talk radio during the good old days of the fairness doctrine. For those of you wondering what the “fairness doctrine” is? It is legislation that would require radio stations to allow equal time for opposing views. That may be a simplified description but for the sake of this discussion it will do. I would like respond to some of the discussion that is quickly becoming mainstream for liberal politicians like democrat Dianne Fienstien to silence those on the right. (Or as we still like to call them, Americans )

I started listening to talk radio when I was eighteen years old. Sure I was into music. I even played the drums in a Christian rock band. Okay we only lasted two weeks but we were really cool for two weeks. Anyway, I was fascinated by talk radio because of the back and forth between the host and caller. However, I was not naive enough to think that the ratio of callers agreeing with any one side of a discussion was indicative of the country at large. Even with sports radio the host wants a bit of a fight or it gets boring. So that was the hook but the reason I kept listening was entirely different.

I quickly noticed that most of the talk radio hosts of a political nature seemed to resonate with me and the things that I believed in, or at least had similar opinions on most issues. This was a completely new concept for me. I was a Christian, home-school graduate who grew up watching television and news that always seemed to mock or at best marginalize who I was and what I believed in. So, to find out that there were millions of listeners tuning in to the same programs all across the nation was eye opening. Whether they all agreed with me or not was irrelevant. It was confirming to know that my opinions were at least being heard. Since then I have heard politicians, pundits and friends accuse me of being a robot that just regurgitates what I hear on the radio. The truth is I don’t care why anyone thinks I believe what I believe, and if it were true what difference would it make (being that we live in America and all).

For the sake of argument though, let’s agree that the public broadcast airwaves should be regulated by the federal government in such a way to insure "fairness" to either side of a political debate.

First, who would actually monitor the programs. Who would decide what is actually an opposing view. All we hear anymore is that there are many sides to an issue. Do we get to air them all or just the elephant and donkey versions. Take the immigration bill for example. Since the White House and democrat leadership agree, do we call it a draw? What about politically charged music being played over the “public airways”? I can hear it now, Deep DJ voice says: “we're back with another politically balanced thirty minute music set. Keep it here for the all the hits and your favorites for rap, rock and country. Coming up next, Green Day, Kanye West, and the Dixie Chicks. Unfortunately the last fifteen minutes will be painfully silent because we're still waiting on Toby Keith’s new release.” I know it sounds absurd because it is absurd.

Recently released documents show that when people that work in television or print news give to political candidates or causes they give to democrats by a margin of 2 to 1. I know, no big surprise. My point is that these people tell us they are objective. You would have to be somewhat naive to swallow that. So whether it’s talk radio or cable news editorial shows. When the host clearly defines that it is a opinionated program, conservative programs are hugely successful and liberal shows are not. It’s not even close. So is it “fair” to regulate a free market because elected officials can’t get people to agree with their positions. By the way, If Liberals ever have the success in talk radio that conservatives enjoy, I would fight the fairness doctrine just the same.

We live in a nation where people can gather in the hundreds of thousands to voice an opinion. Al Sharpton can stand behind a podium and make racially incensed claims, Rosie O'Donnell can accuse the president of masterminding 911 and homosexuals can march with seat-less chiffon pants carrying signs that read “I was born this way”. Believe it or not this is a freedom that was given to us by our fathers and brothers before us that believed in a different kind of nation. One where any citizen could stand and speak. Whether it’s on an empty street corner or in front of thousands in protest. It is only in this open forum that ideas will be tested by us, the citizens. Whether we decide to pick up a cause or ignore it is up to us, but singling out the voices of one specific medium because they may resonate with “us the people” is wrong and un-American. I’m quite certain it's not “fair” either.

Jeremy Randolph

 So you come home from vacation late one evening to find your front door cracked open. It's apparent that someone has jimmied the lock in order to get it in. You tell your wife to stay in the car with your children. You start to sweat with a palpable fear and your heart is beating loud enough to break the dark silence. You keep a hand on your cell phone ready to dial 911. As you walk through the house you notice things have been moved around, the tv is on and food is left all over the kitchen. As you head up stairs to check the bedrooms you hear the unmistakable sound of men's voices. The fear rushes back in and now you are trying to dial 911 while looking for something to protect yourself with. You explain the situation to the 911 operator and she assures you someone will be there as soon as possible.
Your thoughts turn to your family so you rush back outside to keep watch until the police arrive.

These men are either oblivious to the fact that you entered the home or they don't care. As you wait for help your observant young daughter starts asking questions. You try to explain the situation as best you can without scaring her. You tell her that someone has broken in to our home and that the police will be here any time to arrest these men. You explain that entering someone's home without permission is against the law and that laws are designed to protect us when we are away from home or when we are sleeping in our beds at night.

Finally the police show up and begin to make a sweep of the house. Your wife is starting to breathe easier now and your heart doesn't seem to be pounding in your chest anymore. Just as you begin to explain to your daughter that everything will be alright, the Police Officers approach your car. You ask if they were able to catch the men that broke in. The officer in charge asks if he could explain the situation.

He tells you that the two men seem to be from a rough neighborhood near downtown. He says that they may have an explanation for being in your home. It appears they could no longer make the rent payment at their apartment. They have also been out of work for some time and have been scrounging for food to avoid going hungry. The two men said they walked from downtown until they found a home that looked like it would take care of all their needs. They assured the officer they had no intention of hurting anybody and are generally nice people.

The officer asks if you have insurance on your home because these men will have no way of paying for any damages. The officer then asks if you want to press charges. Before you can answer, your wife steps in and says "of course we want to press charges these men broke into our home and violated the law". You agree that pressing charges is the right thing to do. However, the officer begins to appeal to your benevolence. He points to all of the hardships these men have had to endure and that someone such as yourself that has been successful should give these guys a break and that you'll feel so much better for it. After a few minutes of soul searching and much debate with your wife, you reluctantly decide not to press charges. 

Now you just want your home back to normal and to get your family safe in bed. You begin to unload the car when you notice the police packing up and beginning to leave. You immediately notice the police cars are empty, other than the officers. In a confused panic you wave the officer down and ask what is going on. He says that the "undocumented strangers" have been spoken to and everything has been taken care of. You ask to him to be more specific. "Okay", he says, "the older man will be staying in the guest bedroom and the bearded fellow says the sofa is fine with him. They asked if you could remove the locks in order for their friends to have easier access to the home. They said locking your home sends a negative signal anyway. They have some photos of their own that they would like to hang so you might have to give up some wall space. Apparently you are out of milk and the old guy prefers skim. Oh, and the bearded fellow needs a ride to the clinic on Thursday."

Jeremy Randolph

 

 

So here we go again. Every media outlet, vote hungry politician and communist leader is praising the new “documentary” by Michael Moore titled “Sicko” and cue the same tired debate over universal health care.

So instead of repeating the old capitalistic argument that should quash any real discussion of government run health care. Let’s look at some new angles.

In one of Moore’s recent interviews he stated that he is now a born again Christian. Fantastic! I hope it’s for real and won’t debate it. However, during the interview he said (paraphrasing) it was his faith that was challenging him to pick this fight. He also posed a question to the audience. Is it Christ-like for the government to abandon the health of millions of Americans? Wait, let me finish my thought before you go gettin all spiritual and actually try to answer his question. In the last few days I have heard several politicians and left leaning pundits repeat the same question, including Hillary Clinton, Barrack Obama and John Edwards. So here’s my question. Are these people along with Moore actually claiming that now we should be using Christ as a model for government programs. Great! let’s do it . We’ll start with Taxpayer funded abortions and gay marriage.

You have to wonder why Christianity is like the black plague until it’s needed to validate their cause. So let me get this straight, I’m a crazy Jesus freak for trying to interject my faith into political decisions I make but, Michael Moore is heralded as a champion for the “least of these” in calling for the government to act Christ-like in it’s health care program. Well praise the Lord.

Also, I am sicko and tired of the “Canada argument”. With all due respect to our friends in the North, and I have many close ones. “They” are not relevant in this discussion. “They” didn't write our constitution. “They” didn't fight for our independence. “They” have less than 33 million residents and “they” are entitled to do what they choose. By the way, as of 2004 the U.S. had over 50 MILLION PEOPLE enrolled in government health care programs, through either Medicaid or Medicare. Not quite apples to apples.

http://www.ancor.org/issues/medicaid/IGTsBarbaraEdwardstestimony.html

Okay, one more thought. Insurance companies go to great lengths to weed out new recipients by testing their blood, checking their weight, smoking habits, lifestyle and pre-existing conditions and that’s just a start. Under “universal” health care you would have to assume that all of those same folks would be covered, other wise the whole Christ-like thing kinda falls apart. So it might make sense to have some guidelines to help prevent health problems that might come from ones choices. Seriously, how long before the government realizes they need to have some “common sense rules” regarding federal money allocated for health care. Ask any faith based charitable program that’s applied for federal money about those “common sense rules”. Bottom line, bye bye popcorn butter.

Wait, forget all of that! If universal health care means that I’m paying for more abortions, count me out! I hope Jesus is okay with that.

Jeremy Randolph

click this link for rebuttal videos and info to "Sicko" and socialized health care
http://www.freemarketcure.com/