Barack Obama is a racial-minority individual, and he inevitably does not endorse hate crimes committed by George W. Bush.

George W. Bush committed hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism (indicated in my blog).

George W. Bush did in fact commit innumerable hate crimes.

And I do solemnly swear by Almighty God that George W. Bush committed other hate crimes of epic proportions and with the stench of terrorism which I am not at liberty to mention.

Many people know what Bush did.

And many people will know what Bush did—even to the end of the world.

Bush was absolute evil.

Bush is now like a fugitive from justice.

Bush is a psychological prisoner.

Bush has a lot to worry about.

Bush can technically be prosecuted for hate crimes at any time.

In any case, Bush will go down in history in infamy.

Submitted by Andrew Yu-Jen Wang
B.S., Summa Cum Laude, 1996
Messiah College, Grantham, PA
Lower Merion High School, Ardmore, PA, 1993

“GEORGE W. BUSH IS THE WORST PRESIDENT IN U.S. HISTORY” BLOG OF ANDREW YU-JEN WANG
______________________
I am not sure where I had read it before, but anyway, it is a linguistically excellent statement, and it goes kind of like this: “If only it were possible to ban invention that bottled up memories so they never got stale and faded.” Oh wait—off the top of my head—I think the quotation came from my Lower Merion High School yearbook.

If you would like to thank President Obama for anything, check out this site http://www.obamathankyou.com

Most libertarians are pro “born humans”, some are pro the other three too. To me, the well-being of the other three is important but they do not have human rights. Fetus is the least human of them.

It is important, that the limit of humanity is strict. To me, birth and fertilization seem to be the best alternatives, learning to speak would be a limit too easily twisted. My choice is the birth.

Some apes understand so much that they perhaps should, to some extent, be treated, as having limited human rights.

Anyway, the definition of a libertarian does not imply “pro life” or “pro choice” (unless you fix a certain definition of “human”, but most libertarians would not agree with your definition).

On Gitmo: You're right. Nothing.

What does Clinton's policy towards Gitmo have to do with Obama's?

Well, I'm not that pleased: On day three, Obama issued a memorandum allowing to fund abortions not only in the US, but all around the world with taxpayers' money – a move we libertarians should oppose.

As for Guantanamo: It's overdue to shut it down – as John McCain, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee would have done as well had they won the election, representing three important wings in the Republican Party – so that's hardly a partisan issue. And we should never forget that it was the Clinton administration that ran an extralegal detention camp on Guantanamo:

“Clinton's Guantanamo: How the Democratic president set the stage for a land without law.

We sometimes forget that during the Clinton presidency, the United States ran an extralegal detention camp on Guantanamo—and went to federal court to defend its right to do so… Guantanamo under Clinton produced its own share of suffering and abuses—and perhaps most important for today, the court decision that shut it down was eventually wiped off the books, thanks to legal maneuvers by the Clinton Justice Department…

[Clinton's] record on Guantanamo was an ugly one. Despite signals on the campaign trail that he intended to shut down the camp, Clinton changed his mind. As a result, the refugees remained, even after he assumed office, in leaky barracks with poor sanitation, surrounded by razor wire and guard towers. They responded with a hunger strike, and after raucous protests against their confinement, a number were thrown in the naval brig as if they were criminals… Worse still, federal authorities refused to release the sickest Haitians, even though military physicians on Guantanamo lacked the means to treat them.

The Clinton White House justified this atrocious conduct in terms that sound strikingly familiar today. Justice Department attorneys maintained that foreigners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay have absolutely no legal rights, whether under the Constitution, federal statutes, or international law. According to this logic, the Clinton White House was free to treat the detainees however it pleased…”

http://www.slate.com/id/2132979/?nav=ais

As for Guantanamo: It's overdue to shut it down – as John McCain, Ron Paul and Mike Huckabee would have done as well had they won the election, representing three important wings in the Republican Party – so that's hardly a partisan issue. And we should never forget that it was the Clinton administration that ran an <URL=http://www.slate.com/id/2132979/?nav=ais>extralegal detention camp on Guantanamo</URL>:

<QUOTE>”Clinton's Guantanamo: How the Democratic president set the stage for a land without law.

We sometimes forget that during the Clinton presidency, the United States ran an extralegal detention camp on Guantanamo—and went to federal court to defend its right to do so… Guantanamo under Clinton produced its own share of suffering and abuses—and perhaps most important for today, the court decision that shut it down was eventually wiped off the books, thanks to legal maneuvers by the Clinton Justice Department…

[Clinton's] record on Guantanamo was an ugly one. Despite signals on the campaign trail that he intended to shut down the camp, Clinton changed his mind. As a result, the refugees remained, even after he assumed office, in leaky barracks with poor sanitation, surrounded by razor wire and guard towers. They responded with a hunger strike, and after raucous protests against their confinement, a number were thrown in the naval brig as if they were criminals… Worse still, federal authorities refused to release the sickest Haitians, even though military physicians on Guantanamo lacked the means to treat them.

The Clinton White House justified this atrocious conduct in terms that sound strikingly familiar today. Justice Department attorneys maintained that foreigners held by the United States at Guantanamo Bay have absolutely no legal rights, whether under the Constitution, federal statutes, or international law. According to this logic, the Clinton White House was free to treat the detainees however it pleased…”</QUOTE>

Appeals to boring talking points from the election don't get much traction around folks who actually pay attention. Save those for your apathetic relatives – it will work better.

Ah well.