QUESTIONS?

• Would we want ANY man or woman in the Oval Office for 48 years? Would we allow it?
• Would we give any thug the authority to execute hundreds of political opponents at will, without any review or court orders?
• Would we approve of long prison sentences for those who simply exercise their right of free speech, freedom of the press and freedom to assemble peaceably?
• Would we allow our government to "own" our children and control every aspect of their lives?
• Would we allow our government to take control over every job in the country, and discharge those from work who object to government policies?
• Would we willingly give up title to our homes and businesses to the government so that the government owns everything and the average citizen nothing?
• Would we allow the government to control our churches?

Now, if you have exceedingly Liberal friends, ask them these questions.

Then, ask them how they can sanction and approve of fidel castro and the Cuban government in Havana? How they can approve of the socialistic-slave society as is imposed upon the citizens of Cuba, and now being imposed upon the citizens of Venezuela? This, without a vote, without their consent!

There isn't any logic to it. It does not make sense. A dictator. A lunatic. An evil doer. A tyrant. A murderer. An executioner. A thief of major proportions. An international criminal in all aspects, by any definition, yet most Liberals, supporters of the largely group of criminals who make up theUnited Nations with its holy proclamations, these Liberals support a man, castro, who has violated just about every law set forth by this group. How, how, how can Liberal justify their support of this thug who took over a country by force and maintains control by force? It makes no sense, but do Liberals ever make sense? Every day in every way they prove the wisdom of Ann Coulter.

Please note that Ann Coulter's latest book has 19 pages of "where" she used other sources, hundreds of references, yet there is a Liberal attempt to discredit her and prove that she plagarizes others. Now, with hundreds of references to source material, does it make any sense to accuse her of plagarism? If they do find uncredited material, would it appear as intentionally dishonest or merely a mistake to you? What would be the trying to honestly give proper credit in hundreds of cases and then deliberately lying in a few others? After all, she isn't working for the NY Times, is she? If they had hired her, one might expect it.