Bob Hayes Online

Well, this turns out to be a hoax. I’m glad. And, the cracks about the obtuseness of those of us who fell for it aside, Ann’s evisceration of this foolish young “artist” is classic, and I endorse every word.

As my blog dwindles into the official Amp-is-wrong blog, another posting from him deserves rebuttal. This time it’s the “Dream Act” - a boondoggle to grant in-state tuition to the children of illegal immigrants.

In-state tuition is a taxpayer-subsidy. Why should the taxpayers be subsidizing the children of people who are violating the law? As a citizen, I cannot move to a new state and receive in-state tuition without spending a period of (often) several years establishing residency. Why should non-citizen children of lawbreakers be given preferential treatment over citizens?

Undoubtedly, those children are innocent, and undoubtedly, it would benefit them to receive this tuition break. Equally undoubtedly, there are billions of other people in the world who would benefit from subsidies.

No. No tuition breaks, no amnesties, no driver’s licenses, no welfare, no food stamps, no Social Security, no nothing. Equal protection of the law when victimized by crime, and a polite escort to the border ANY TIME such a person encounters the apparatus of the state. Out!

This woman impregnated herself using donor sperm, repeatedly, and then induced abortions on herself, repeatedly.

As an art project.

I cannot imagine the level of spiritual deadness and moral blindness that could lead someone to this place. Well, I can imagine it. I just have a hard time accepting it. I also can’t imagine what kind of man would donate sperm to a project like this, unless they were persuaded to donate under false pretenses.

This woman would have horrified the Nazis. Doesn’t it tell you something, that Nazis would freak out at what you are doing? That’s a useful moral test, perhaps, for these new children of liberation. If even Hitler would recoil, you’re doing something that’s wrong.

Ampersand posts the converse. I disagree.

Every person should support the notion that a woman can be President just as a man can, that I can accept.

But Hillary Clinton specifically? She is grossly unqualified to be the chief executive of the country. No executive experience. No military experience. No private-sector leadership experience. A relatively insubstantial legislative career. She has great political experience and contacts - but that isn’t enough. You don’t have to have all of those things to be qualified for the Presidency, but you have to have something. ”Had sex with Bill Clinton at least once” is not a sufficient resume item; if it were, we’d have had a much larger primary field. She’s never fired a shot in anger, never met a payroll, never built a business enterprise, never led men and women in an organizational capacity. My dad is better qualified - and he isn’t even close to being qualified.

She is better qualified than Obama, that I’ll grant you - but whisper-thin-marginally and mostly due to the biographies of other people. She’s got executive experience the way Kerry had money - none of her own, some illusorily reflected by proxy.

McCain by contrast isn’t terribly well qualified for the office, but he at least has military experience and a lengthy legislative history. Historically that’s enough; I can think of decent presidents who had less. I can’t think of ANY modern President with a resume as thin as hers. Bush would be close, but he edges her across the board.

So I’d be leery of supporting Hillary Clinton’s presumptive right to run for the office. Governor, absolutely. VP, a stretch but perhaps if she were yoked to a strong Presidential candidate. The Big Chair? Hell no.

This is just too darn funny. Juvenile and sophomoric, but funny.