Can We Stop the Insanity?

How many elections have come and gone? How many Presidential candidates have claimed that they will make America great again, yet have failed? How many campaign promises have been made and broken? How many regimes have relied on the same statist principles to run our country, and have made a mess? Are you tired of reading so many questions? Are you tired of answering them? Are you sick and tired of politics yet?

"Insanity [is] doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. " Albert Einstein, (attributed) US (German-born) physicist (1879 - 1955)

Are our leaders guilty of insanity? Or are we, the People, guilty of insanity for choosing the same type of politicians over and over again and expecting different results?

Shouldn't we end the insanity?

How about now? How about right now?

There are two ways to stop the insanity that has become American politics. Either we break the cycle of electing stupid people as leaders by choosing a different politician with different ideas, based on a different mindset that long ago worked for America to make this country great. Or, we should break the cycle of electing stupid people by not voting at all. Stay home and don't cast a vote--any vote. No one. Period.

The second option is not so good. If not one single American voted, somehow, someone would get elected by default, and most likely it would be the same type of stupid politician with the same stupid ideas who upholds the current stupid power structure by perpetuating this stupidity for another four years.

So why don't we try something different for a change? Why don't we elect a different kind of politician--one who understands real economics and wants to go back to doing the time-tested and proven things that once made America the greatest nation in the history of the human race? Shouldn't we at least try to do something different? Shouldn't we all at least try to stop this insanity?

Forget the Republican Party. It is fascist. Fascism is un-American. Forget the Democratic Party. It is socialist. Socialism is un-American. Why don't we give peace and liberty a chance? These are truly American characteristics. Why don't we give capitalism and the free market a chance (and no, we have never been a purely capitalist country. Partial capitalism has made America great. Let's try the full, laissez-faire version to make it better.) Capitalism is an American characteristic. Let's restore the Constitution, which is the only document that keeps us safe from the tyrrany of government. Bring America the great back again, shall we?

Won't you even try something totally different?

Here is how: Vote for Ron Paul for President. The Republicans have failed America. The Democrats have failed America. Let's put a Libertarian in the Oval Office. How much worse off could we be, since we're already scraping the bottom of the barrel?

Vote for Ron Paul for President of the United States of America!

Uh-oh! Is Someone's Party Feeling Threatened?

There is a website called http://ronpaulexposed.com/, which is obviously an anti-Ron Paul site. It's claims are questionable. I have answered these claims myself, but for a more detailed rebuttal, go see the http://ronpaulunexposed.com/ website for a complete refutation. Boy, the lengths some people will go to to cover the asses of their fascist leaders!

Statement: Ron Paul thinks we'd be safer without the CIA

Bill Maher - I would feel pretty naked without the CIA

Ron Paul - You'd feel naked, but you'd be a lot safer because you'd be less likely to be attacked by terrorists.

My Answer: First, Bill Maher is an asshole and a Party line hack, so anything he says is questionable. Second, Ron Paul is correct, and here is why: the CIA is responsible for much of the American-sponsored terrorism around the world, as the arm and the sword of the American Foreign Policy that has resulted in the blowback of 9/11. If it weren't for the CIA, America could not have been able to do all the rotten, unethical, immoral things that have angered the fanatics and provoked them to strike back at us on Tuesday, September 11, 2001. If the owner of RonPaulExposed.com finds Ron Paul's statement appalling, then he needs to stop drinking the government kool-aid and start looking for the truth; unless of course he is a Party line hack, like Bill Maher, in which case he's hopeless because when Big Brother tells him 2+2=5, then 2+2=5.


Statement: Paul has voted against funding our troops while in combat.

My Answer: Ron Paul is a non-interventionist, and as such, he believes that we should keep our nose out of other people's business. This includes the end of unconstitutional warmongering, empire-building, nation-building, etc. Ron Paul supports the troops by vowing to bring them home immediately, and not just the ones in Iraq, but all of them around the world. There is no better support that a President can give to our troops than to bring them home to the safe and loving arms of their families. The RonPaulExposed.com owner would rather keep funding a war the majority of Americans are against, with taxpayer money Americans would be better off pocketing, in order to keep Americans soldiers in harm's way and watch them be maimed, crippled and killed. Maybe the website owner should be the one exposed!


Statement: Ron Paul is a political opportunist.
*In 1988 Ron Paul ran for president as a Libertarian, despite being a life long Republican. Now he's running for president as a Republican. Seems he runs on the side that seems the most expedient at the time.

My Answer: According to this logic, Ron Paul was a lifelong Republican who ran as a Libertarian because the Libertarian Party was the side that was most expedient at the time. Does anyone really believe that the Libertarian Party had a snowball's chance in a furnace of cranking out a Presidential frontrunner? It seems that the website owner doesn't have enough facts about history to be making such bold statements. Ron Paul is a lifelong Libertarian who did indeed run on the Libertarian platform. Paul has a better chance of being elected as a Republican, because America is not very familiar with the Libertarian Party or its philosophy, thanks to the propaganda against it by the two major Parties. What matters is that Ron Paul holds the same beliefs as a Republican as he has held as a Libertarian. As a matter of fact, Ron Paul's philosophy about politics and economics run diammetrically contrary to the views held by the Neocons, who have adopted the same Statist mindset as their Socialist Democrat counterparts. Ron paul today is the Ron Paul of yesterday. There is no flip-flopping here.


Statement: Ron Paul believes in conspiracy theories.
*Paul believes Bush is determined to impose martial law through a bird-flu scare.
"They're determined to have martial law."
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/may2007/240507ontherecord.htm

*Paul believes Bush will concoct something to scare the American people.
"I think freedom's been sliding for a long time and it got a lot worse after 9/11 and I'm always afraid of some concocted event that will scare the American people"http://educate-yourself.org/cn/ronpaulwarnsofUSdictatorship11apr07.shtml

My Answer: The phrase "Conspiracy Theory" has aquired an undeserved negative connotation. This negative connotation works in favor of the government, because it can be used to discredit anyone who holds a view different from the Party propaganda. A conspiracy is nothing more than the act of several individuals in unison planning or conspiring to attain a specific goal. A conspiracy theorist is an observant person who sees through the government imposed blinders to the truth and states his beliefs about it. The term "conspiracy theorist" does not mean crazy, insane or lunatic. This is something the government wants everyone to believe. If the government says 2+2=5, and I believe otherwise, I am a "conspiracy nut." The website owner seems to believe that our dear Leader would never impose martial law on America. Time will tell, now won't it? I'd like to hear him explain why he believes the government would be against having ultimate power and control.

Statement: Paul leads Houston area in Pork\Earmark spending
http://chip91.wordpress.com/2007/08/19/ron-pauls-personal-pork-projects/

My Answer: The name of the blog is "Conservatives and Libertarians United Against Ron Paul - Watching what Ron Paul does. Not what he says." Obviously, Ron Paul's Libertarian philosophy goes against the statist-minded insanity of the Neocon website owner. I may be wrong but I didn't see any comments from Libertarians on the page. Go see the blog, read the main post and the 16 replies, and judge for yourself if Ron Paul is wrong.

The Great Distraction

The left/right dichotomy is designed to limit the scope of choice in the public awareness. The State embraces and promulgates the ideological contradiction to create the illusion of actual competition by different means for different ends, yet the ends of both poles are equivalent, and are to the benefit and the liking of the State.

And now for a commercial:

A man and his one-trick pony perform a song and dance. They groove to the rhythm of "The Hustle", while singing the "Star-Spangled Banner."

And now, back to our show:

The greater the contradiction, the more believable the illusion of potentially different ends by the different means, and the greater the illusion of freedom of dissenting views. It is the great distraction, which rivets all eyes on the play, to avoid the viewing of the bigger picture, where the ends are shown to be harmoniously in sync. The illusion flitters away before the eyes like an evaporating dream upon awakening, when one notices that any other ideology not similarly labeled as the wings produces clearly different ends by totally different means. Then one sees the distraction clearly, and the commercial's true meaning shows itself.

And now for another commercial:

Two hands cover a mouth, and the voice of reason is muffled.

Ah, yes. This one now looks familiar.

Did the Iranian President Cause "Hate Crimes" in New York City?

Another New York Post article on 10/21/2007, entitled, “Hate crime vs. Jews on rise in city,” links the rise in “hate crimes” against Jews to Iranian President Ahmadinejad’s visit to Columbia University. Interestingly, the author, Angela Montefinise, did not give a reason for the spike in crimes.

Joel Levy, New York director of the anti-Defamation League, was quoted in the article as saying, “We have certainly noticed a surge in the number of such incidents recently.” Mr. Levy also said, “I don’t think it’s a coincidence that may of the incidents in the recent surge occurred immediately after the visit from Ahmadinejad. We had a hater, a Holocaust denier, a man who has said he wants to destroy the state of Israel and has built a nuclear weapon for that purpose, visit the city. I think that brought out some of the hate.”

Exactly how much accuracy is in Mr. Levy’s statement? First, how would Ahmadinejad’s visit incite Americans to spray paint swastikas and other anti-Jewish graffiti? Might it be because these Americans found a grain or two of truth in the Iranian’s statements about America’s imperialistic foreign policy and Israel’s oppressive treatment of Palestinians?

Second, though violating another person’s property is a crime, hating is not. Being a hater is not a crime. Might the Iranian have a good reason to hate Israel’s role in the oppression of Palestinians? So calling him a hater is irrelevant.

Third, is it a crime to deny the holocaust? Since when is it a crime to have a contradicting opinion? Thousands of people have questions about the holocaust for which there are no sufficient answers. Must they all accept everything they’re told unquestioningly as gospel and follow the herd blindly? If those who question the holocaust are wrong, then wouldn't they end up with their foot in their mouth by the truth alone? Is it really necessary to silence these people of dissenting opinion through public shaming by name-calling and emotional outbursts? Is this really the American way?

Fourth, the current government mantra that Ahmadinejad said he wants to wipe Israel off the map--this current catalyst used to stir up anti-Iranian sentiment to sway public opinion in favor of an attack on Iran--has been shown to be a mistranslation from the Persian language. The reason this is nothing more than State propaganda is because no one in the media seems interested in getting to the truth about what the Iranian President really said. It’s what our government says it is, period. Is this the American way?

Fifth, the claim that Iran has already built a nuclear bomb makes no sense, since the current hoopla is about Iran’s pursuance of the means to build a nuclear reactor. If the whole brouhaha is about stopping Iran from acquiring the means to build a bomb, then how have they already built one? Should Americans also blindly believe this man’s statements too?

The New York Post's articles seem to be a bit one-sided. Is this good journalism?

Bill Maher and the "moron"

A New York Post article on 10/21/2007, entitled, “Maher muzzles moron,” describes how Bill Maher personally helped security remove a rowdy protester from his talk show audience during Friday’s “Real Time with Bill Maher.” The unidentified man from the audience stood up and held up a sign that read, “9/11 is a cover-up fraud” and shouted. When Maher tried, unsuccessfully, to shout him down, he called security. Maher was quoted as saying, “do we have some f---ing security in this building, or do I have to come down there and kick his ass?” When security forcefully removed the man from his seat, Maher ran into the man’s aisle and helped shove the man out the door, while shouting, “Out! Out! Out!” After this, other protesters stood up and began shouting, whereby Maher shouted into his microphone, “This isn’t the Iowa caucus, OK? We’re not here to debate!”

Imagine the anger that prompted Maher to first use expletives, and then to threaten the man with violence? And for what reason? Because the audience member vocalized a point of view that was contrary to the official government story, which Bill Maher so dearly embraces! And, as he said, this was not a debate. Rather the topic of 9/11 is not open to debate. As far as Maher is concerned, what the government says is true, and anyone who contradicts it is a kook, a nutcase, a loony and a conspiracy nut. If Maher had any credibility, he would debate that audience member, and let reason and logic show what the truth really is. After all, if the man is wrong, he would put his own foot in his mouth, right? But, no. That might open up a can of worms.

What does it mean to be an American?

The other day, I overheard two people, obviously strangers, talking about politics. The older gentleman called the younger man a "subversive." He said that since the young man was against the so-called "War on Terror," that he was for the terrorists and against America. He is therefore un-American, a traitor to his country, and that he should be arrested and sent to one of the many U.S. concentration camps around the globe like Abu-Ghraib or Guantanamo Bay.
This is what we've come to in America today. If an American doesn't believe in the government's propaganda, he is "un-American," and should be tortured, without due-process, without being found guilty, without any contact with family and loved ones for an indefinite amount of time or forever, whichever comes first. Does this sound "American" to you?

I thought the younger man's point of view was valid, and that the older gentleman should have known better, being supposedly wiser in his years. I believe that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. I believe that every good American citizen, including every elected official in the political sphere, has a duty, as an American, to uphold the Constitution. To uphold the Constitution, by the way for those who aren't fully aware, means to protect and obey the Constitution. Every American in a position of power and influence must protect and obey the Constitution, and that includes the members of the House of Representatives, The Senate, Congress and the President of the United States of America. The Constitution must be followed, obeyed, and adhered to no matter what the circumstances, no matter what, no ifs, ands or buts. Period.

More Americans have died on the battlefields of foreign lands in the so-called "War on Terror" than at Ground Zero on that horrible day of Tuesday, September 11, 2001. The reasons given for war against Iraq were false and based on lies. 9/11 has been used as an excuse to attack this defenseless country which had no WMD's and had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. We've all but forgotten the so-called mastermind of 9/11--Osama...who? Have we found him yet?

How am I, as a free-thinking American, supposed to support a war that was planned and executed in ways that the Constitution (the Supreme Law of America) expressly forbids? How am I expected to support the President when he blatantly ignores the Supreme Law of America?

If the older man knew my view, he would probably lump me into the same category as his younger fellow American. Am I a "subversive" too? As an American, I love America and what it has always stood for since its birth: Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

How, then, am I a good American? Because I want, not the destruction of America, as this foolish man would most likely claim, but the prosperity of America. I want the wars to end, so the lives of American soldiers will be spared, so their injuries will stop. I want the troops to be home with their families and loved ones. I want America to go back to a gold standard so that we will never see inflation again. I want America to give up its adherence to Marxism, Socialism and Keynesian false economics, which make the rich poor, and the poor poorer. I want America to eliminate both its Nanny Welfare-State and its Daddy Warfare-State. I want the government to stop becoming Big Brother and stop trying to usurp the constitution and destroy all our liberties. I want the government to stop its obvious drive towards tyrranical one-world government, which would destroy America as we know it by crumbling our sovereignty. I want America to stay out of the affairs of other nations so we can stop being hated all over the world.

I want America to once again become the greatest nation in the history of the human race, the America that is not hated but loved and adored because it sets an example for the rest of the world to emulate. Now, how does this make me unpatriotic, un-American and a "subversive"? If anyone is subversive, it's the current fascist regime that is destroying the only document that protects us from the tyrrany of government gone wild. It's important that Americans stop following the herd like mindless cattle, and start analyzing what's going on around them. That is the American way!

Ron Paul is NOT an Isolationist.

The Republican Presidential candidates have been trying to exclude Ron Paul from the running, as they consider him a black sheep or pariah in the Republican Party. Well, of course he's a black sheep, in the sense that he is the only one who wears a different color philosophy than the other Party-Line-Towers. And of course he's a pariah. Ron Paul is a Libertarian, an Old-Right Republican instead of a Neocon, and is therefore an outcast in the Elephant herd.

In their feeble efforts to shut up and shut down Ron Paul, they've disparaged him by calling him, among other things, an "isolationist." This comes from the mouths of career politicians, who are supposed to be knowledgable experts on the subjects of politics, economics and philosophy. Exactly how knowledgable are these people when they can't tell the difference between an isolationist and a non-interventionist?

In a nut shell, an isolationist is one who wants to cut himself, or rather his nation off and isolate it from the rest of the world. Isolationism includes the end of trade as well. But how does Ron Paul feel about trade? He has repeatedly stated that he believes in Free Trade. And by this he means, completely and utterly free, uninterrupted, unmanaged, uninhibited, unmolested, unregulated, unfettered, uncompromised free trade with anyone and everyone, without any government interference. This is the basis of laissez-faire capitalism. Ron Paul believes that the only Fair Trade is Free Trade. This fact alone shows that Ron Paul is not an isolationist. RON PAUL IS A NON-INTERVENTIONIST.

The fact that the other Republicans have described him incorrectly means that they either do not know Ron Paul--which means they haven't done their homework, haven't paid attention, and don't care, which is a bad quality to have in a President. Or, they are simply trying to gang up on Ron Paul and smear him with lies, which is a very bad quality in a President. I mean, haven't we had enough of lying Presidents already? Or, they know him very well and are telling Americans, indirectly, that they don't believe in keeping America out of the affairs of other nations, that we should keep causing trouble around the globe which leads to blowback and backlash against the U.S.A. in the form of terrorism, and that America should keep itself in a perpetual state of war until we go bankrupt and can never recover.

None of the current candidates for the Presidency are worthy of the Office, neither from the Right nor from the Left. They are all inept, inadequate, greedy, self-serving and completely and utterly economically stupid. Ron Paul is the only candidate that makes sense, and he is not a flip-flopper. He says what he means and he means what he says. We've tried both Parties, and they've all made a mess of things.

It's been said that insanity is repeating the same failing action over and over again and expecting that next time it will somehow work. It's time to stop the insanity! We're scraping the bottom of the global barrel. Why don't we try something new? Vote for Ron Paul for President of the United States of America!

Liberty vs Security - It's either, or.

Below are a few pearls of wisdom on the topic of liberty vs security:

"Quote[On ancient Athens]: In the end, more than freedom, they wanted security. They wanted a comfortable life, and they lost it all – security, comfort, and freedom. When the Athenians finally wanted not to give to society but for society to give to them, when the freedom they wished for most was freedom from responsibility, then Athens ceased to be free and was never free again." – Edward Gibbon

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." – Second Amendment to the Constitution

"Those who trade liberty for security have neither. " - Anonymous

"For those looking for security, be forewarned that there's nothing more insecure than a political promise." – Harry Browne

"Most people want security in this world, not liberty." – H.L. Mencken (1880-1956)

"Few of us seem to want to keep government out of our personal affairs and responsibilities. Many of us seem to favor various types of government guaranteed and compulsory 'security.' We say that we want personal freedom, but we demand government housing, government price controls, government-guaranteed jobs and wages. We boast that we are responsible persons, but we vote for candidates who promise us special privileges, government pensions, government subsidies, and government electricity." – Dean Russell

"Freedom is not a luxury that we can indulge in when at last we have security and prosperity and enlightenment; it is, rather, antecedent to all of these, for without it we can have neither security nor prosperity nor enlightenment." – Henry Steele Commager (1902-1998), Freedom, Loyalty and Dissent, 1954

"F x S=k. The product of freedom and security is a constant." – Anonymous

"As the state grows, one's sense of self-ownership is destroyed, liberty is traded for 'security,' the human spirit diminishes, and the citizenry increasingly thinks and behaves like dependent children." – Eric Englund in Income Taxes, Obesity, and Other Maladies of Nanny Statism 2/28/05.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin

"A personal note to the Founding Fathers: We're sorry. We blew it. You made it possible for us to live free and we blew it. We've given up nearly every personal liberty in the name of a false sense of security sold to the masses by the same type of maniacal government about which you warned us and against which you fought so bravely. We now have to ask permission to take a leak on an airline flight. We never deserved you." – Phil Murphy 7/4/02

Liberty or Security? Your choice, but for how long?

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." – Benjamin Franklin

It amazes me to see how so many people, both politicians and ordinary citizens, respect Benjamin Franklin for his brilliance and genius, and for his major acomplishments, yet somehow are unwilling to follow the genius of his words concerning liberty and security. Since the 9/11 massacre, we've all been hyped up on the government's ecstatic cocktail of Nationalism-Patriotism-Fear, and we're not thinking straight. Below, is the beginning portion of Wikipedia's article on Benjamin Franklin'. And below the excerpt is the link you can follow to read the rest of the article. But, before you go ahead, look up at Benjamin Franklin's famous quote one more time and try to comprehend it. It has a universal truth to it, that never fades with time.

Benjamin Franklin (January 17 [O.S. January 6] 1706 – April 17, 1790) was one of the most important Founding Fathers of the United States. He was a leading author, political theorist, politician, printer, scientist, inventor, civic activist, and diplomat. As a scientist he was a major figure in the history of physics for his discoveries and theories regarding electricity. As a political writer and activist he, more than anyone, invented the idea of an American nation,[1] and as a diplomat during the American Revolution, he secured the French alliance that helped to make independence possible.

Franklin was famous for his curiosity, his writings (popular, political and scientific), his inventions, and his diversity of interests. As a leader of the Enlightenment, he gained the recognition of scientists and intellectuals across Europe. An agent in London before the Revolution, and Minister to France during the war, he, more than anyone else, defined the new nation in the minds of Europe. His success in securing French military and financial aid was a great contributor to the American victory over Britain. He invented the lightning rod, bifocals, the iron furnace stove (also known as the Franklin stove), a carriage odometer and a musical instrument known as the armonica. He was an early proponent of colonial unity. Many historians hail him as the "First American."

Continue to the rest of the article:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin

Know Your Role!

Here is what I consider to be common sense, and this, to me, is logical. The President, as well as every other politician who is elected into office by a vote of the people, is an elected representative of the voters. An elected representative is a person who is elected or chosen to represent the people, their needs and wishes. This is a politician's job, to serve the voters who've elected him. The elected representative must then do what is necessary to fulfill the promises he has made to those who have elected him. So, if the Iraq war is overwhelmingly unpopular, and if the majority of the people demand that our troops be brought home immediately, and without delay, then our chief elected representative, also known as the President of the United states of America, must comply with the demands of the people who have elected him to represent their needs and desires. In other words, despite what our politicians may believe, and despite their delusions of grandeur, they are our public servants and we, the public, are their masters. We, the People of the United States of America are the boss, and not the government. We are the rulers of the politicians, and not the other way around. We are the boss, and what we say goes. If the People say jump, the government must say, "Yes master, how high would you like us to jump, and may we also add a somersault and a double twist for your pleasure?" Why then, does the government think it is the boss of us? America is not a democracy, and it never was. This country has always been a Democratic Republic, which differs from the straight Democracy, as originated by the ancient Greeks. Why, then, are we trying to shove this form of government down the throats of other sovereign nations? Even if one could argue that, yes, indeed we truly are a democracy, how is it that the government is the ruler, and we, the people are the slaves? We have no democracy to export, so what is it that we are trying to shove down everyone's throat?

Condoleeza's Hypocrisy

In an article on freerepublic.com (http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1910798/posts), "Condaleeza pledges support to Russian activists," Secretary of State Condaleezza Rice said she thinks "that there is too much concentration of power in the Kremlin." How nice that she has the ability to spot Statism abroad. Now, if only someone could be kind enough to draw her gaze to her own homeland, so she could see how much power the President and the Executive branch now wield.

Condi has told human rights activists that she wanted to hear about their efforts to protect freedoms in Russia. It's interesting that Condi is so interested in the freedoms of Russian citizens, yet she has not brought up this subject here at home, in the land of the free and the home of the brave, where the unconstitutional and un-American "Patriot Act" is usurping the only document that protects the freedoms of all Americans--the Constitution.

"I am quite confident that your goal is to build institutions that are indigenous to Russia -- that are Russian institutions -- but that are also respectful of what we all know to be universal values," Rice told the activists. Is Condi promoting these same institutions here in the good old U.S. of A.? If she has, no one I know has ever mentioned it.

'Rice said there was too much concentration of power in the Kremlin and spoke of the need for independent institutions to counter-balance the Russian presidency,' the article stated. "There are questions about the independence of the judiciary. There are clearly questions about the independence of electronic media and there are, I think, questions about the strength of the Duma (lower house of parliament)." Condi, what about the independence of the State-run media here in the U.S.A.? How about making a statement here about how Congress has abdicated its powers of declaration of war to the President? Why does Congress cower before the President, and bow to him at his every beck and call? What about upholding the Constitution of the United States of America?

There is great hypocrisy here. "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye." (Matthew 7:3-5, KJV)

The reason is simple. She won't bite the hand that feeds her.