Democrats and George Orwell: Embracing "1984"

See my previous two articles. Then consider the "new" Democrat argument against repealing ObamaCare (an argument treated seriouslly by Fox News, because the INCOMPETENT people of Fox News will bite on AP/mainstream media propaganda, and are DISHONEST because they are mainly interested in "controversy" rather than facts)?

Democrats, in a move that would inspire George Orwell to write a sequel to "1984" , if Orwell were still alive) are trying to say that the Obama health care bill is a DEFICT REDUCTION BILL, and that therefore Republicans have to "pay for" any bill repealing ObamaCare.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

These people are comic geniuses, if only they were not serious.

The Obama health care bill is a ONE TRILLION DOLLAR spending bill by which our entire health care system is put under the control of Fedreal bureaucrats. See next article. The idea that ObamaCare represented a deficit reduction bill is more far fetched than George Orwell would have dared include in his fiction. Even the "Big Brother" of "1984" would probably have hesitated to assert something that far fetched.

Take one illustration. The Obama health care bill includes 500 BILLION dollars in "savings" from MEDICARE. IF those "savings" (which no one believes will really happen) can be achieved, and are a good idea, why not KEEP the "savings" (in a separate bill, after repeal), and APPLY THE $500 BILLION TO THE DEFICIT? Nope. I will not go further. The American people generally undrstand this one. The Obama health care bill is NOT a "dseficit reduction" bill, despite the multiple games played with assumptions that Congrress required to be accepted by the CBO. The American people understand this. Democrats have this problem. They think they are in the positin of "Big Brother" in "1984", jsut because they have complete control of the mainstream media. Not ture.

"1948" exists, in the mind of the Democratic Party. Republicans should go on the ATTACK on this kind of absurdity. If they do not, then the Republican Party deserves to DIE.

Why did I write the previous paragraph, about the possible death of the Republican Party? Because, alreay, Republicans are talking about repeal of ObamaCare being too "extreme", and about how "defunding" of ObamaCare will merely hurt the country. If Repuplicans wimp out on this, then they will deserve what they will get. What they will get is the DEATH of the Republican Party, and I have no hesitation in saying so at the every moment when Republicans are riding high.

"Big Brother" was successful only because of the apathy of the people (Orwell's point). The Democrats are trying to crate "1984". If Republicans help them, then Republicans are doomed to live in "1984"--unless we, the people, REJECT THEM ALL.

Fox News: Dishonest and Incompetent

Read my previous post about the Orwellian, fraudulent 9/11 "first responder" bill. Then consider these points, reported by Fox News AFTER the bill passed, but not before (a deliberate incompetence):

1. Attorney's fees were limited to 10%. Say what? WHAT attorney's fees? No one, including the dishonest Fox News, reported anything about attorney's fees before the deal to pass the bill. This is no accident. Tis bill--as I accurately told lyou, IN FORESIGHT--was right out of "11984". The title/propaganda of the bill had little to do with the content of the bill--which was nothing but a PORK EARMARK for New York City and New York politicians. Yes, this illustrates why I would not mourn ANY Republican Senator serving in the last Congress, with the possible exception of Jim Demint. No, I will NOT vote for either of the two Texas Senators, for the rest of my life (not just because of this, but this is consistent with their overall performance). Republican politicians refused to expose this bill for what it was--concentrating again on PROCESS instead of exposing the real objections to the bill (albeit Republicans should have limited the "lame duck" section to no more than 2 or 3 items, and generally exposed themselves as kunable to make the case for democracy and ignoring the vote of the people when the case was handed to them.

2. Fox News reprtted--again AFTER the bill was passed--that only 1.2 billion dollars of the 4 plus BILLIOIN dollar bill had anything to do with health care for ANY "responder"--much less "first responders". See my previoius entry where I told you so. In other words, 25% of this bill was even arguably about the subject upon which the bill was SOLD (propaganda): health care for "first responders". Yes, the DISHONEST Fox News was a part of this propaganda.

3. The overall bill was reduced from an original 7.2 billion, and then 6 billion plus, to 4.2billion, and Democrats assured people there had been no "betrayal" of "first responders". Say what? The bill was reduced almost in half, and there was no "betrayal"? Just how BAD was the original bill? And Republicnas were PROUD of the fact that they "reduced" the PORK in this bill to a mere 75% (at a minimum, since the people who can claim benefits are NOT merely what would ordinarily be in the definition of "first responders"). Tom Coburn (vote AGAINSTR him) was PROUD of this "compromise" which prevented Republicans from having to take an actual stand on princiiple--wherther a principle of "process" or of the fraudulent bill itself. Coburn was PROUD of eliminating "double dipping"--whereby people could claim compensation for the same things that they had already been paid. NO, Coburn did NOT prevent all "double dipping". What about PRIVATE benefits? Waht about private insurance? What about disability payments? What about a hundred other benefits 9/11 "victims" received from any number of sources, including payment for books, etc.? Did Fox News report that the original bill allowed even obvious "double dipping"? Not a chance. Fox News--based in New Yokr--WANTED some version of this bill to pass. Fox News is DISHONEST and INCOMPETENT.

4. Note that--as the attorney's fee provision indicates--this bill was NOT mainly about helath care. It was, and is, about COMPENSATION (taxpayer money paid simplly as a gift, and NOT for "health care"). Did Fox News tell you that BEFORE the passage of the bill. No. That is because Fox News is DISHONEST and INCOMPETENT. WHY do construction workers who helped with the search for bodies and the cleanup--noble as that is, if they did not want to get in the lpockets of the taxpayers--deserve BILLIONS in taxpayer compensation, when SOLDIERS maimed and killed in Afghanistan receive no such compensaton? PORK. Politics. That is the whole reason, and it stinks. And the whole reason Fox News did not report on what was in this bill until it had already passed is that Fox News is based in New York (aside from total incompetence, which may have played a small part). I am morally certain of this.

I could go on, but you get the point. The 9/11 "first responders" was an Orwellian, fraudulent bill. And Fox News willingly participated in the fraud.

No, this is NOT the first time I have said this about Fox News. I have repeatedly said that Fox News is part of the mainstream media problewm, and NOT part of the solution. And Fox keeps proving me right. No, I do NOT "regularly" watch Fox News. In fact, I have reached the point where I surf multiiple "news" sources in an effort to read between the lines of themm all. I am VERY good at that. Fush Limbaugh continues to give a better view of the "news" than ALL of the supposed "news" media, and he is far from perfect (as you would expect, since he is not DISHONEST, like Fox, and does not hide his BIAS).

Yes, I know the rest of the mainstream media was WORSE on the fraudulent 9/11 "first responders" bill. Jon Stewart exposed himself as both an idiotand a partisan ideologue, and he is supposed to be a COMEDIAN. The "news" people were just as bad as Stewart, or worse. But you EXPECAT CNN and MSNBC--not to mention ABC, CBS and NBC--to be nothing more than distributors of "1984" style propaganda. The point of this article--besides "I told you so"--is t expose Fox News as DISHONEST and INCOMOPETNET, in its own way. Nope. This is not even a matter of simple "bias". It is a matter of DISHONESTY, and the media are all DSIHONEST, including Fox News. Thewy are ALL uninterested in the facts, but only in their own agenda. William Randolph Hearst--not to mention Joe McCarthy--is surely smiling in his grave at the raw deal Orson Welles gave him in "Citizen Kane". Hearst was probably a better "news" persaon--damning with faint praise-than ANY modern "journalist".

No, it is merely part of the mainstream media propaganda that Fox is not interested in "journalism", while they are. They are WORSE than Fox, wich is at least--as advertised--somewhat "balanced". That is NOT the problem of Fox. The problem of Fox is that Fox rarely appears more interested in the FACTS than the rest of the media. The FACTS are the first responsibility of "journalists"--NOT "interpretation". Every single AP story I read starts off with an INTERPRETIVE pargraph. Whatever facts the AP feels like reorting do not appear until the second paragraph of any AP story, if then.

The mainstream media never reported on the FACDTS of the health care bill (what was actually in it). They neer reported on the FACTDS of the Bush/Democrat TARP bill. Neither did Fox. It is no accident that the TARP bill NEVER was implemented in the way that was DEBATED in Congress (and the media). Instad , the bill was simply a blank check for the Secretary of the Treasury, and the President, to bail out ANYONE in any way they wanted (the very thing that Democratts assured us they would ensujre the bill did not allow).

I stand by what I say above: Fox News is DISHONEST and INCOMPETENT. You should not watch them without taking whatever they say wth large grains of salt. Drudge uses multiple sources for "news"--albeit with outrageous headlines (which I often like).Limbaugh gives multiple points of view, while twisting them all to his own pint of view. The despicable AP can be relied upon--as repoted on the equally despicable Yahoo and multiple other places, including Fox News--to present the LEFTIST pont of view (the "consensus" leftist view) on any matter. Surf them all. Believe none of them.

Who are you to believe? Well, you can believe ME. Sure, I may make a mistake from time to time (rare as that is), but you get HONESTY. I think you generally (not always) get honesty from Limbaugh. You will NOT get it from Fox News, and even less from the mainstream media (excluding Fox). I don't have the time (or eyesight) to do what "journalists" should do: read the bills and rekport the factual DETAILS involved in all of these bills (and political games). But I still get it more right than Fox, because I can figure out what is going on from what IS reported (ignoring what they tell me they are reporting). Again, see the previous entry, and compare it with what Fox reported AFTER the vote (unanimous voice vote) on the 9/11 "compromise".

Note (as usual): Above not proofread, or even spell checked, due to bad eyesight (unless and until this message is deleted). Fox News should be ashamed that I am a better "journalist" with no eyes than any of them are with perfect eyes. The rest of the mainstream media have no shame. "1984" is their model, and they are sticking to it (not as Orwll intended, but as an "how-to" model in how to do "black is white" propaganda).

9/11 "First Responder" Health Bill: Orwell's "1984" Lives On in Our Government

You remember George Orwell's "1984". It was about control: people who want to control you by (among other things) convincing you black is white, perverting the meaning of words so that words mean nothing. They become mere instruments of propaganda, as the government plays on the emotions of people, using repetitive lies, to conceal the truth at all costs. Yes, Orwell was talking about the Communists and the Soviet Union, but he just as well might have been talking about the modern Democratic Party.

Yes, the "Dream Act" (where the only real "dream" involved is Harry Reid's dream of Hispanics--including the newly added citizens--who will vote Democratic). Yes, "comprehensive reform"--used in bill after bill, and often adopted as a phrase by the REPUBLICAN establishment)--is another Orwellian phrase. But the example which is the subject of this article is the "9/11 First Responders Health Act"--sometimes (slightly more accurately) called the "9/11 Responders Health Act". The confusion is deliberately Orwellian, as the bill is by no means limited to people within the ordinary meaning of "first responders". I have heard members of the media refer to the bill both ways, and the public is INTENDED to get the deceptiove idea that this bill only refers to police, firefighters and similar people who responded to the 9/11 attack. Not true.

What, exactly, does this bill--being sold with Orwellian terminology--do? Who knows for sure. Unless you go through the agony of reading every word of the bill (chainging all of the time), you can't know. I can assure you it does NOT refer only to "first responders". Even "responders" is Orwellian, unless you really want to call construction workers and volunteers "responders" who were involved in the cleanup and other non-rescue attempts to deal with the collapse of the Twin Toweers. Now these are surely people who mostly did a noble thing--except, that is, for their unending campaign for more money--but they hardly fit the image of the "heroes" Democrats are trying to use to SELL this bill in the tradition of "1984".

The reason you have no chance of knowing what is really in the bill is that both Democrats and the mainstream media (including--as is often the case--Fox News) do not want you to know. Have you heard the media (any of them) describe WHO gets WHAT benefits from this bill. It was a 7 BILLION dollar bill--now "reduced" to 6 billion. It is obvious that some serious money is involved in this bill, and not just health care for a few "heroes". In fact, the 1 BILLION dollar reduction in the cost of the revised bill tells you how Orwellian this bill has to be. I have not yet heard any media outlet describe what has been CUT from this bill, and why it was there in the first place (much less what is left in the bill). You are ojnly supposed to hear the Orwellian propaganda, all about 9/1 heroe--rather than about what the bill actuallyl does. This is EVIL stuff. No, I am not talking about the idea of providing some kind of health assistance to 9/11 "resp;onders", or even about the provisions of the actual bill. I am talking about the Orwellian propaganda designed to CONCEAL the provisions of the actual bill--including the TITLES of these bills.

My original understanding is that this bill included COMPENSATIOON for people as well as health care benefits. Whether the present bill does is difficult to know, because the media is uninterested in doing its job. What is the main job of the media--Fox News, as well as the despicable rest of the mainstream media? It is to inform you of the FACTS. Nope. The "facts" are not the ASSERTIONS of the political players. The facts are the DETAILS of the bill itself. Reporters need to READ the bill, or at least have a NEUTRAL person summarize the provisions of the bill. If parts of the bill ambiguous, then that is a FACT that needs to be explained. This is the media's main JOB. If they fail to do that, as they have (on this, ObamaCare, and so much else), then they are INCOMPETENT. You should FIRE themm (by not watching or reading, except the minimu necessary to know that the politicians are trying to snow you in the manner of Orwell's "1984"). Yes, I understand that Democrats are making it as hard as possible to know what is in this bill, and many bills, but that is merelyl another reason to vote against this RUSHED bill at the end of a lame duck session. If the media cannot explain to us--coherently--what is in a bill, then we should be AGAINST the bill (and the media, unless they are aggressively fighting the same battle to get the FACTS).

Let us back up. Remember 9/11? Remember all of the DONATIONS. Money has been thrown at New York City, and the people hurt by 9/11. And there is no reason further charitly (it is charity) could not be obtained for deserving heroes--even construction workers. Are these people MORE deserving than the heroes fighting for us in Afghanistan and Iraq? Not a chance. But SOME may be deserving of limited help ()NOT a blank check). How could these relatively few--NOT already being covered--"need" as much as 7BILLION dollars? Not possible. Absurd. Did not New York City police and firefighters have health insurance and other benefits? What about disability? What kind of benefits have these people already received, and what kind are they now receiving? Why cannot the gap be covered by private sources and donations? Where are Bill Gates and Warren Buffet? Why are the taxpayers of the entire nation supposed to take it on trust that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will spend their money wisely, and on the right peopl? I don't believe that. Do you? Then you really are a fool, aren't you?The questions go on and on. This bill merely seems to regard the Federal Government as a source of "free money".

Yes, looked at correctly, this is merely another EARMARK for the political benefit of the polilticians of New York state. I know. Since we are having a vote on this item, it is not technically an "earmark" (earmarks not usually being subject to individual vote, but submerged in a much bigger bill). But the bill contains all of the evils of an earmark, except that one, and adds some evils (including price tag) not in most earmarks. It is simply a misleading bill proposed by New York politicians for their own political benefit--to get some of that "ffee money" for their constituents.

Okay. But what if there really are some people who really need help with the health care they are receiving--help they can't otherwise get--who responded (even if not in the ordinary definition of "first responders") to an emergency which was an attack on the hwole nation? Fine. Those people--a small number--may exist. But they can be handled without a 6 or 7 BILLION dollar bill. Enter my brother's modest proposal.

My brother's modest proposal (really brilliant): Give the peole the SAME health care being given to discharged heroes who have served in combat in Afghanistan and Iraq. Yes, give these peole military and/or VA health care. Give them a card that gives them access to military health facilities--maybe even some of the same health care facilities as active duty service people. As stated, the 9/11 "responders" can hardly be regarded as MORe heroic than our soldiers who have fought in combat. As sateted, they are hardly more deserving of a better taxpayer funded health care system than the military. IF a 9/11 responder has health care needs CONNECTED TO 9/11 (no blank check for all health care needs), then we can give such a person the same access to our military health care system that soldiers with service connected health problems get. What could be fairer than that? This would apply, of course, only to the extent the needed health care is not already being provided lunder either private or public insurance. If the military has no such health care available to meet a particular need, then the 9/11 person would have the same rights to payment for outside services as a soldier in the same situation.(having to go through the same process as the soldier to qualify for going outside the military system).

You suspect that my brother's brilliant idea would not appeal to the Democrats pushing this bill, or to the people expecting to benefit? I agree with you--again exposing the fraud of this bill.

Then there are the Republicnas. It goes without saying that I will vote AGAINST each and every politician who votes for this bill in this lame duck session--Republican or Democrat, for any office and FOREVER. That already applies to a number of other votes in this lame duck session, includng "don't ask, don't tell", the "Dream Act", "food safety", and probably the START treaty. This is not just because of the indivicual bill, but because Repulicans let the lame duck session turn into this total., unconstitutioional farce making a mockery of the attempt to prevent this assault upon democracy supposedly stopped by the 20th Amendment (changing the term of Congress to the end of the year, instead of March, as previously). Yes, I include in this edict those Republicans who voted for the tax compromise--not because I oppposed any compromomise on that truly emergency situuation but because Republicans again let Obama and the Democrats add a "wish list" of "stimuls" items to the extension of the Bush tax cuts which had no business being considered in the lame duck sessio--not to mention that they should have always been voted on separatedly rather than in connection with an unrelated compromise on extending the Bush taxes only two years. Yes, I am sorely tempted to say I will vote against ANY Republican if this 9/11 bill goes through, or because of all of the other bills that have gone through, because Republicans (not just those voting the wrong way) COULD have stopped the 9/11 bill (maybe all of them) with a strong enough push back against this lame duck session. Even as this is written, Republicans CAN "run out the clock" on this particular bill (with enough political courage). On the brink of going that far, I have not chosen to disown the entire Republican Party over the lame duck session. But it is a close thing, and you can see the number of Republicans for whom I will NEVER vote in the future. Tennessee is especailly bad--where my brother lives. I feel like moving there to vote against EVERBODY (especially Corker and Alexander).

Yes, Republicans are not immune from the Orwellian disease--being politicians who have not really gotten the message. They are still willing to talk about "paying for" something like the 9/11 bill. I feel like voting against ANY Republican who talks about "paying for" new spending, as if that is not an Orwellian deception. Yes, I can understand talking about the Democrat HYPOCRISY and dishonesty--led by Obama, as Liar-i-Chief--in passing a PAYGO (pay as you go) bill with great fanfare, when they never had any intention of doing any such thing. That bill was an Orwellian lie from the beginning, and a lie even if Democrats really intended to pass NEW funding for every new spending bill.

Why is the 9/11 bill not fully "paid for", even if new taxes cover it? Easy. Say you hae a maxed out credit card with a $10,000 balance. But you are unemployed, and can't pay for it. Then you apply for a NEW credit card, and assure the bank your proposed credit limit (the new one) is "paid for" because you expect a new job (new revenue) that will be just enough to cover the new credit card. Have you arranged to "pay for" the new credit card? Of course not. You would not have paid the old credit card, and you needed EVERY new dollar of revenue you got to be applied to pay off the old card. We are not paying for the prsent government programs. Therefore, until we are, it is a LIE (objective--not a matter of opinion) to say that ANY new government spending is "paid for" unless and until we pay for the OLD spending. Republicans join in this lie every time they suggest that the problem with a Democrat bill is that it is not "paid for". Every single dollar of new revenue is needed to be applied to our deficit. Otherwise, how does the deficit ever go down? If every dollar raised in revenue is available for NEW spending, then we NEVER pay for the OLD spending. Orwell never even imagined a lie this obvious, and yet so universally accepted. The ONLYL reason I do not promise to vote against every Republican who is complicit in this lie is that it basically includes lthem ALL. And I am not yet willing to abandon Michelle Bockman (plus a very few others now in office and more coming into office). I have heard Michelle Bockman go along with this "paying for" lie with regard to this very same 9/11 bill. Shame. But Michelle Bockman is still my heroine, and you have to allow some blind spots for the good guys. Need I tell you that most Republicans now in office are NOT "good guys" (and gals)?

Orwell's "1984" lives on, in the Democratic Party, and too much of the Republican Party. .

Note: Above neither proofread nor spell checked, due to my bad eyesight.--unless/until this note disappears.

Republicans and Democrats: Why You Can't Believe Your Eyes--and Ears--on the Tax Compromise, and Know It (the Tactics of Making the Other Bastard Die

What is the best TACTIC for both Republicans and Democrats in approaching this Obama?Republican tax deal (the deal which would avoid INCREASES in tax rates rather than cut any tax rates)?

Easy. The best tactic is what Democrats are already doing. Be RELUCTANT to vote for the bill. Let the maximum number of your party vote against the bill without actually sinking the bill. For Republicans, this even has the benefit of stopping anything else from happening before the end of the year--stopping the attempt by Democrats to use the lame duck Congress to push through a lnog list of "wish" items in the last hurrah of a defated group and weakened "establishment" of both parties.

Ino other wods, as many Republicans should vote AGAINST this bill as possible to FORCE as many Demorats (playing the same game) to vote FOR this bill as possible. This also prevents Democrats from CHANGING the bill for their political purposes, as the whole bill seems at risk (assuming Republicans engaging in this game of chicken really don't want a "Christmas tree" bill--a dangerous assumptioin). In other words, make "negotiaters" deal with REPUBLICAN holdouts as well as Democrats, meaning that the original deal will be the only hope of passagfe. Further, the more pressure Republicans can put on Democrats to force them to make an apparently real choice between passing this bill and being responsible for it failing, the better off Republicans will be.

What is the risk here? None, if it works. The real risk is that people will miscalculate, and that the bill will fail to pass without a chance to resurrect it before the end of the year. If I were a Republican in the House or Senate, this would not be a real risk, since I would be willing for this compromise to fail. At best, I would be ambivalent about the billl. As my previous articles make clear, I would probably vote against the bill for real. But Republicans should not really LIKE this bill, except as the least of evils. Thus, they should be willing to RISK the bill failing, whilte perhaps plotting to reluctantly let it pass at the last minute.

Do Republicans have the cojones to play this kind of game (which they, like Democrats, are used to pllaying for political purposes, which is why I give individual politicians so little credit for "courage" n o :iooisubg: tgeur keadersguo ub a fauked attenot ti stp[ a bo;;_

I doubt if Republicans have the cojones to really pllay this game as it needs to be played--much less to really STOP this compromise। I am sure of one thing. You should NOT believe those professing "reluctance" to support this bill unless they actually not only vote against the bill but CAMPAIGN (publicly) against the bill on substantive grounds. Even then, they may be merely playing politics. See why we need to get away from "politics as usual"? It is making everyone totally cynical--especailly about politicians. Okay, I was born that way, but the rest of the public is catching up with me--fast reaching the conclusing that the only good "term limit" is ONE TERM (if we cant get rid of them faster than that).

Note: Not proofread. The title is not a proofreading failure at the end. Ran out of room, where the end was meant to say "....making the other bastard die for his vote" (a takeoff on "Patton"). Did you get it? If not, you may not be up to reading this blog--which leaves lyou in a lot of company. How can you handle

Tax Code, Stanley Johanson, Certainty and Simplicity: Republican Betrayals Go On and On

You say that Republicans (politician kind) don't really believe in small government: that they only believe in their kind of Big Government? You say that Republicans don't really believe in lower spending by the Federal Government: that they believe in spending, but in their kind of spending? You say that Republicans dont realy believe in true control of our debt or our deficit: that they only blieve in the kind of debt and deficit that they want, which may end up just as large as the kind of debt and deficit that Democrats want? Well, you are right, and the way so many Republicns have embraced the Bush tax cut compromise proves it. But you are leaving out a primary Republican betrayal. Republicans (politicians, except for a few True Believers) do NOT believe in a simple tax code. This is shown not only by the embrace of this tax cut "compromise", but by the "alternatives" Republicans have proposed ever since Obama took office.

No, general income tax rate reductioins--much less failing to INCREASE such rates, as the present Bush tax cut debate is about--do NOT represent "spending" which needs to be "paid for". Indeed, an increase of taxes is unlikely to raise government revenue (especially now), while a decrease in taxes (general income tax rates) may actually RAISE REVENUE. Ronald Reagan proved that, and a thought experiment will show you it is true.

Do you agree with leftist Democrats that no one should make over $250,000 (or $500,000 or a million dollars or whatever)? Ujbiw tget dib;t put it hat way, but they are clearly saying that all money a person makes beyond a certain amouint belongs to the GOVERNMENT, which the government allows a person to keep only as a matter of grace. The dirty little secret, of course, is that ALL money people make, and have, belongs to the government, but let us stay with the present thought experiment. Okay. let us accept that all money people make over a million dollars (with higher rates up to a million) is there for the government to use if the government NEEDS it. You are certainlly being told that people don't NEED to earn more than a million dollars to have a nice life. In fact,you are being told that there is something obscene about people earning more than that--so much more than others---and that those people should certainly not object to "sharing" (in the manner of Robin Hood) with the rest of us when we are in need. And why should people be able to pass on more than a million dollars to their children, when the rest of us NEED it?

Okay. We have established no one needs more than a million dollars. In better times, maybe we could let Alex Rodriquez keep all of that extra money (wel, some of it), and Steve Jobs (Apple). But these are not normal times. Let us, therefore, confiscate (condemn--as in eminent domain) all of that money. We NEED it, and the rich can afford to lose it. It is their civic duty. Plus, let us confiscate ALL of every estate--to the extent the estate exceeds one million dollars and is not given to the spouse. Does not the logic of the present Democrat position lead to the conclusion that this is perfectly all right, as a means of reducing our debtg and deficit? After all, we are DESPERATE, and this source of funds is there for the taking (not needed for the peoiple who have it to live well). Think of the STIMULUS, as we redistr\ibute all of that money to people who will actually spend it, and don't rluin our future by borrowing from China!!!!! What is wrong with this picture?

How much money (revenue) will a 100% tax on all income above one million dollars raise? On all estates (death tax) over one million dollars? Remember, one million dollars is more money, or at least about as much, as people earning minimum wage will earn in their entire working LIFETIME!!!! And we NEED the money. No brainer, right? Well, it is a no brainer. Such a tax will raise NO revenue. The government will LOSE revenue (no matter what the CBO says). The government will LOSE a LOT of revenue. This is not even an opinion. It is an absolute fact.

In our hypothetical perfectly fair tax world (from the leftist point of view), no one will earn over a million dollars (as soon as they can arrange it, and it will be soon). no one will die with over a millioin dollars, and they won't pay it in gift tax either. How will they do it? Taking it easy is one way. Why kill yourself, for the government? Moving out of the country is another way. Maybe the "rich" will recreate the United States of America (now dead) in another place. If only, of course, the "rich" had not already mainly lost the principles upon which this country became great. It would not be possible for me to even itemie all of the ways in which the rich will make certain they do not pay this confiscatory tax to the government. Elizabeth Barrett Browning could not count the ways ("How do I love thee; let me count the ways"). But you know, and I know, that NO ONE will pay these taxes (no one who is sane, which may leave Warren Buffet out). The government revenue from the rich will approach ZERO, and the OTHER taxes on EVERYBODY will have to go up (a vicioous cycle which represents a death spiral for what used to be the United States of America). One way or another, even if they have to make their life a non-stop party, NO ONE will die with over a million dollars. And, in a significant way, the left will not care, because (as Obama told Joe the Plumber,), for the left it is not really about government revenue. It is about redistributioin of the weath and the leftist idea of "fairness". Of course, the country will be destroyed, but you often get the feelig that the left would prefer that to giving up their own power and control. We will end up with full scale economic fascism ("state capitalism"--the state totally determining the winners and losers) before the final collapse. We are already way down that road.

This concludes our thought experiment, where we have PROVED that a confiscatory tax ratre LOSES revenue. "But", you say (fool that you are), no one really proposes a 100% tax rate." That does not change the principle involved once you take the positiion that the government owns all of a person's money--even if you limit that to money above a certain amount (a limit true leftists do not recognize). What about a 90% tax rate? Believe it or not, we actually tried that. No one paid the rate, because there were so many loopholes that all but the terminallyu stupid avoided the rate. Why do you think JFK (yes, a DEMOCRAT) got rid of that rate? 80%? Remember state and local taxes also have to be considered. 70%? People will NOT pay any of those rates. They will avoid them.

Further, and leftists will never understand this one, the OPPORTUHNITY to earn more than a millioin dollars a lyear, even if most people will never do it, is part of the essence of the United States of America. It is more than undermining the economy, and destroying the very revenue we profess to be trying to raise for the government. The idea that it is all about what the government "needs", and taking it form the "rich", is contrary to the very founding principles of this country. If we accept that idea, as leftists do, then we are no longer the United States of America--the democratic republic more successful than any in history, and which has come to dominate the world. The attitude seeps down to every person, and we are lost. What is funny is that I think more ordinary PEOPLE are able to understand this--lby instinct, and especailly if it is explained to them--than politicans are willing to accept this (Republican and Democrat). Politicans want CONTROL.

Butawe are talking about tax rates of 40^ at the top, are we not? Too high. Especially when you consider all of the other taxes, and the monster the tax code has become. We--even most Republican politicians--are approaching taxes from the wrong direction. As I began this article, I told you that income tax reductions are NOT "spending", and do not need to be "apid for". That is partly because income tax reductions--and refusal to raise tax rates--often RAISE revenue. Further, income tax increases REDUCE revenue. However, the main reason tax rates are NOT "spending" is that it is absurdly wrong to talk about tax rates that way. The FIRST thing we need to decide is the appropriate tax rate (and structure). If you don't understand that from the thought expermient above, then yuou have missed the point. What is the maximum the Federal Government should take out of an individual's income (and estate), both to maximize revenue and limit the government to an appropriate amount of intrusion inoto a person's personal life? I put that at no more than approximately 25%--slightly lower than where Ronald Reagan put it. But that is the decision that has to be made FIRST--or the decision to change the tax structure entirely, which I don't see as necessary if we limit the top rate and go back tto the Reagan idea of a SIMPLE tax system. Once we determine what the appropriate tax rates/system shoud be, THEN we must limit our spending to the revenue produced by that system and rates.

You see--or should--where this is going. The tax rates, and system, SHOULD NOT CHANGE (once it is appropriately set). A goood part of our problems come from the fact that we have continued to tinker with the Reagan revolutioin--NOT to simplify the system while keeping the tax rates constant, but by RAISING tax rates and COMPLICATING the tax system to let the politicians determine winners and losers (economic fascism). CERTAINTY in the tax system is almost as important as the appropriate rates and system.

That is where Stanley Johanson comes in. He was one of the nation's leading authorities on estate planning when I was a student at the University of Texas Schoool of Law (although I had him as a teacher of a class called Low Income Housing--believe it or not). Over the years, Stanley Johanson (I have not checked his current life status) remained one of the top estate planning experts. In that capacity, he used to give a yearly seminar in El Paso on estate planning--a one day seminar that was better than most week long deminars on the subject I attended. For a number of years--until I quit doing estate planning and headed toward retirement--I attended Johanson's seminar every year. What was one of Johanson's main messages, year after year? It was about the STUIDSITY of Congress tinkering with the estate tax system year after year. I can't even imaine what Johanson would say about the STUPIDITY of reducing the estate tax over an entire decade to ZERO (what it is now), and then proposing to put back the entire complicated law at a tax rate of 55% (or 35% under the "compromise", or whatever_/ Kpjamspms [pomt was tjat cpmstamt cjamges om tje tax ;aws==eer ,pre cp,[;ocated==,ade [;ammomg O<{PSSOB:E/ What he said about estate planning applied to the entire tax system. Tinkering constantly with the tax system is merely a way for politicians to assert CONTROL for their own political benefit.

Yes, if you understtod the above, you realize that we need to arrive at a SIMPLE system with taxes low enough to avoid government domination and low enough to avoid excessive interference in the lives of people--and excessive government interference in the economy. We need to have a system that AVOIDS encouraging people from making decisions for tax reasons--either economic decisioins because of government subsidies or to avoid taxes. Then we need to STOP. Simple and PERMANENT, that is what we really need. That is the opposite of what we are getting, and the opposite of what Stanley Johanson correctly preached all of those years.

What if we have a deficit? What if we have a recession? What if...... Forget it. We need to let the tax system alone (once a simple system is in place). No gimmicks. No "temporary" increases. No "temporary reductions. No tax credits. No "temporary" tax holidays. This idea that government can CONTROL the economy is theoretically impossible, and historically absurd. If you think lyou have to spend in a recession to help people, as FDR did in the Great Depression, do it. History says it will not work, and that correct long-term olicies are better. But, whateverf you do, LEAVE THE TAX CODE ALONE. Yes, the problem is that ALL politicians thknk exactly the opposite. The tax code is the FIRST place they look to TINKER and CONTROL. That may yet destroy us.

Ywes, the new, proposed 2% "tax holiday" on the payroll tax IS the equivalent of spending-nothing more than welfare payments trgeted at taxpayers where politicans think the votes are. Tax credits are SPENDING (as the Debt Commission correctly said). This is not true of general tax rates. But it is true of these TAX GIMMICKS. Part 2 of this article will explain why . For now, you can surely see that Republicans--who keep proposing complex gimick aftrer complex tax gimmick themselve, falsely in the name of tax reduction--have totally BETRAYED the idea of a SIMPLE tax system they have often purported to support. You can see why so many Republicans have jumped at this compromise with Obama. Far from giving up anything, they are gloating that Obama has embtaced their traitorous (to conservatives) idea that the TAX CODE is the way to "solve" all of our problems--with politicians coming to the rescue with tax incentives targeted at specific groups and specific problems. This is a BETRAYAL by Republicans of the basic principle of a simple tax system wehere the government does not assert the power to determine winners and losers in the economy.

Part 2 of this article will expand on the reasons "targeted" tax relief is spending--no different than welfare spending--including an analysis of this payroll tax holiday. Remember that a variation of that "tax holiday" was proposed by Republicans as a STIMULS in place of Obama's failed "stimulus". It is, in fact, a better simulus idea than the Obama stimulus, because it merely gives people money to spend the way they want, but it is merely a variation of the Bush/Democrtat $600 "stimuls" that FAILED in the summer of 2008. These games--as represented by this new Bush tax cut compromise--may cause ou to despair. That is often my reaction. All we can do is refuse to accept them--the purpose of these articles condemning politicians of both parties and explaining why they are all so bad. The only "sollution" is to KEEP voting these people out until they get the message, and to keep telling them why we are not voting for them.

Note: Part 2 will appear sometime this week. In the meantime, please note that the above is not proofread in any way, due to my eyesight, and that the only articles you can assume are proofread will not contain this note. I am trying to retroactively get articles proofread, but who knows how well it will work.

Bush Tax Cut Betrayals: Republican Betrayals and Other Liews

Did you know that it is a LIE that the proposed tax cut compromise will add 1% to growh in 2f011? Yes, I am talking about the very economist Obama says he listens to ("Zandy", or some such name--doesn't matter as economists are always wrong, and amonmng The Stupidest People on Earth--as an occupational group, and this point is obvious except in that Obama's favorite economist admitted that public discourse and opinion on the Bush tax cut compromise is being distorted by misleading propaganda).. Yes, there is some excuse for the Obama lie--when you take into account he has no idea what he is doing, but no excuse at all for the mainstream media (which also does not know what it is doing, but is dam well supposed to know how to find out, which could also be said of Obama, except that they all are only interested in agenda).

What one of Obama's favorite economists, who Obama quoted on this very thing, said was this (on the Bush tax cut compromise): "When I said that the Bush tax cut compromise announced by Obama would add add a full percentage poijt to the growth of the economy in 2011, I was NOT saying that the bill would add a full percentage point in growth from this year's level. I was comparing the expected growth rate if the compromise is passsed with the expected grwoth rate if we RAISE TAXES by letting the Bush tax cuts expire. Since the Bush rates are the rates currently in effect, and are scheduled to expire, doing nothing will have the effect of raising taxes. But passing the compromise will NOT have the same stimuls effect as reducing taxes, since the main tax rates will remain exactly the same as they presently are. In fact, there will be a 35% INCREASE in the 'death tax' 'for the rich'."

You will note that the above is not an exact quote from Obama's favorite economist. The terminology is basically mine. But the substance is his, as well as being obvious (except to Obama supporters and the mainstream media--a redundancy). It is impossible to get a "stimulus" from keepng the taxes the same (except for a minor, and incalculable, psychological effect destroyed by the two year limit of the proposed extension). Now it is true that this economist said the bill would have a "stimulus" effect, bt he based that entirely on the SPENDING and "tax gimmick" parts of the bill (really welfare payments targeted at specific taxpayers, as the government continues to pick winners and losers in the nature of what Daniel Silva ("Moscow Rules") and I call ECONOMIC FASCISM (state capitalism, or "socialism with a capitalist veneer"). Daniel Silva used the term to apply to today's new Russia. I use it to apply to our Democrat AND Republican politicians. (I really am THAT close to f final vow never to vote for ANY Republican again, except those totally on the outs with the establishment of the Republican Party--which would mean I would not vote for, for example, Paul Ryan, Rick Perry, Mike Pence, Governor Pawlenty, and so many other conservatives. It is already true, as it was true of John McCain, that Hell can frfeeze over and I still will not vote for Newt Gingrich. As stated in my last two articles, I have not yet made that decision based on the initial terms of this disgraceful, "politics-as-usual"", compromise, but any change in the terms or new betrayals by Republicans over the next two years are going to push me over the edge. It will be one of the disappointments of my life if I never vote against Obama in my life, even as I will never have voted for him. Right now, I think it is more likely than not that such will be the cross I have to bear--almost as shameful as having helped raise TWO feminist lawyer daughters.)

The question the Obama favored economist answered, by the way, was from Chris Wallace on Fox News. What is interesting, but not surprising, is that Wallace--a mainstream journalist at heart--immediately forgot all about the answer he had got, and was talking on his Sunday afternoon broadcast as if he had gotten the opposite answer. Why is it so important to realize that the only reason that extending the Bush tax cuts was/is so important is that you simply do not raise taxes during a deep recession, or trying to come out of one. FDR once said it was the single biggest mistake he made in his political life durng the Great Depression (where FDR FAILED to get us out of the Great Depression with massive government action--instead having to wit almost a decade for World War II)?

It is important because the minor "siimulus" parts of this bill--nowhere near 900 billion dollars because most of that represents tax rates that are remaining the SAME) has alreaedy proven a FAILURE. Need I remind you of the Obama?Pelosi?Reid "stimlulus" of more than 800 billion dollars over about two years--much more than the ADDITIONAL spending and tax cuts in this proposed compromise. That Obama "stimulus", as he keeps reminding you (while lying about the details of the situation), was a combination of tax gimmicks (welfare for taxpayers our economic fascists have decided to make winners) and spending. How do you know that the 2 percent welfare payments disguised as payroll tax cuts will not work. Remember the Bush/Obama/Democrat "stimulus" of the spring/summer of 2998? The $600 checks? Well, I remember, even if Obama, the Democrats who controlled Congress at the time, and the mainstream media have forgotten. That "stimulus" FAILED, even though the money WAS spent by the people who received it. The money did them no good, because it did nothing to get the economy and job market--not to metntion financial markets-on a solid, long-term footing. We have extended unemployment benefits all of these two years. It has not helped. It especially has not helped people get jobs. It has mainly benefitted those who--and I know several personally--who do not really intend to get a job. That includes one attorney who went to China, and still collected Massachusetts unemployment benefits using a Florida address. This kind of absurd policy merely promotes fraud and abuse, and bad habits by those (probably a majority, although a declining one the longer the extensions continue) who are really looking for work.

By now, you know Einstein's definition of insanity: "doing the same thing again and again with the confident expectatiion of a different result." This idea that government can SPEND its way out of problems by directing the free market, and regulating it with ever more control, is simply insane. It has not worked--ever. It cannot work (because no human being is infallible enough to make it work--certainly not Ben Bernanke, who did NOTHING to stop the financial collapse in the first place). You can see why Republican politicians have gone way past annoying me. They refuse to make these points. Even Jim Dement--one of those handful who I will excuse from the edict I am likely to place on each and every Republican--refused to really take on this absurd indefinite extension of two years of unempoyment benefits--talking about "paying for it", as if we are paying for ANYTHING. Until we get to an acceptable deficit, we are not paying for ANY new program. It is a LIE to say otherwise. Note how Obama--after saying that "PAYGO" ensured "pay as you go"--no longer mentions it. But he will--wometime in the future--as if that were one of the successes of his first two years ("solving" that problem). Obama will act like he--in his role as Liar-in-Chief) had not shown, by his own actions, that the PAYGO bill was a total fraud (as I said at the time). Republicans arfe going to do the same thing on debt and the deficit. Thjey are going to act as if they had not been TRAITORS to those principles--not years ago, but this December. The new Speaker of the House--come January--has already promised to not put togeteher "Christmas tree" bils, and back door deals. But he is in the process of facilitating one.

That is why I will blame ALL Republicans in Congress if Democrats manage to further "change" this bill (already bad), like TARP. The dirty little secret is that Republican leaders--not to mention potential "establishment" Presidential candidates--can STOP this compromise if they want to. Assuming they really believe it is good for the country, they could also be making it clear that ANY changes in the bill will guarantee its defeat (in private telling people who dont want to go along that they will pay a HEAVY prive for it). As I said in my previous article, Republicans also CAN stop the rest of the "wish list" that Democrats decided to get through in this lame duck Congress for totally political reasons (theirs, and Republicans who wuld not let them then, but may let lthem now, when they can run out the clock). Nope. I have had it. As I said in my previous article, I am at the Rublicon. I may not have Caesar's legions behind me--maybe the tea party does--but I am ready to cross. Once I do--and I will stick to it, as I stuck to not voting for John McCain, despite full knowledge of what Barack Obama was. Once I cross this Rubicon, the Republican Party will be totally dead to me--unless fully taken over by someone like Sarah Palin.

Note: Because of eyesight problems, this article is not even minimally proofread (and I type fairly badly, especially when I have trouble even seeing the result of what I type). I am tryig to arrange after-th-fact proofreading. You will know it has been done when this note is deleted on any article.

Republicans and the Tax Cut Compromise: Sellout

Republicans--the kind who betrayed both conservatives and the American people for a decade--came up with a "Christmas tree" compromise on not increasing taxes (extending the Bush tax cuts). That compromise alone reveals that the current bunch of Republicans has learned NOTHING--absolutely nothing--from their previous mistakes, other than the lesson Obama has learned: that they need to do better at fooling the people.

My initial reaction was to vote against every single Republican--for the rest of my life--who votes for this compromise. No, we should not raise taxes. The present tax rates should be extended. Maybe it was worthwhile making a compromise on that issue alone, such as by limiting the extension to two years (terrible as that kind of temporary tax bill is--a major defect in the original Bush bill imposing a better ten year limit, although still terrible economics, in a similar compromise/procedural device to gain passage of the original Bush bill), but this hardly justifies giving up principle in other areas (the Christmas tree effect where lots of politicians get what they want, so long as the Federal Government is Santa and the deficit is INCREASED). That is partly how the original TARP bill turned into a prok bill (especially as the Senate originally passed it), and a bill that really gave the President/Secretary of the Treasury a blank check to spend money to bail out Wall Street and General Motors in a way not even debated. It is how the original "simulus" bill became nothign more than a Christtmas tree of pork and political wish granting. It was how the health bill became the absolute monnstrocity it became (beyond the flawed concept of putting the entire health care system under the control of Federal bureaucrats).

Thus, this "compromise" on the Bush tax cuts shows that the "old" Republicans (many of them also being in the "new" Congress) have learned no lesson at all. They are Big Government guys who believe the American people want to be BRIBED, and who believe in the "Christmas tree" approach to legistlation.
It is NOT correct for Obama to say that Republicans held Democrats "hostage", or the American people hostage, on unemployment benefits unless you also admit that Democrats held Republicans hostage, and the American people hostage, on tax cuts for everyone. Both concepts represent "politics as usual" that the people supposedly voted against. They are separate issues that should not be linked (and for which there was no reason for linkage except Republicans did not want--wanting to fool the people who thought they had voted for "change"--a separate vote on this stupidity of indefinite extensions of unemployment benefits as some sort of new welfare program). Unemployment benefits were an entirely separate issue from extending the current tax rates, and there should have been a SEPARATE compromise (like a final three month extensioin to enable people to prepare for the cutoff) on that SEPARATE issue. Similarly, the NEW (although a substitue for the FAILEAILED welfare payments masquerading as a tax "simulus" in the original Obam "stimulus) represents a SEPARATE issue--completely new "stimuls" spending adding directly to the deficit rather than avoiding a tax increase).

Raising the Bush tax rates, by the way, would be no different than INCREASING TAXES if the Bush tax rates had been made permanent (as almost all of the original proponents of those rates wanted). The tax rates now in effect are the same tax rates that have been in effect for almost a decade. An INCREASE of those rates is the SAME as increasing rates which did not have an expiration date. It would be a TAX INCREWASE, just like any other tax increase (not ture, for example, of the Bush?Democrat $600--failed--tax cut in the srping/summer of 2008 or the "stimulus" tax cuts in the original Obama "stimulus" bill, since those were REPRESENTED to be short-tem, one-time payments which would NOT be extended, as well as being gimmicks instead of real, long-term tax rates).

If I believe Republicans have revealed why they have learned--at least the present group--NO lesson from the electioiin, and the past decade of Republican betrayals, why did I not maintain my resolve to vote against EVERY Republican who supported this Obama/Republican compromise? Easy. Too many Republicans, and even conservatives, are so invested in the Bush tax rates AND tax gimmicks that I would end up condemning (totally) too manyu people who--it can be argued--reasonably believe that this compromise is best for the American people. Yes, they are being disingenuous, and I think they are wrong (as I would vote against the compromise), but should the new Republican leadership, and so many potential Republican Presidential candidates), be condemned before I (and you) even see where the Republicans will go once they have more power in Congress--and more control over the agenda and the debate? Should I really condemn somone like Michell Bockman (one of my real heroines) if she chooses to vote for this compromise? I realized I just can't go that far.

But the Republican Party is AT RISK here. People like me are on the edge already of deserting the Republican Party for good. It would not take much. And the news today was that REPUBLICAN SENATORES (not to mention Democrats in the House and Senate) were adding "goodies" to this bill (shades of the "Louisiana Purchase" and Cornhusker Kickback" in the health care bill).

No. If Republicans add further things to this bill, or allow Democrats to "change" a bill I already don't like, Hell will freeze over before I ever vote for any Republican who votes for such a bill, for any office.

Further, Republicans are now in a position to STOP the lame duck Democrats who have been DEFEATED from adding ANY more leftist legislation into law after they did not get that legislation into law before the election. That cynical assault on democracy and fair play is something for which I will hold ALL of the Republican Party responsible, and not just the few Republicans who might vote to pass specific bills (like Scott Brown, Susan Collins, etc.). Time has run out. Repubicns can MAKE time run out. If they don't, it is because they don't have the guts to "run out the clock". Yes, I am talking about the fraudulent "Dream Act" (a DECEPTIVE amnesty bill on illegal immigration) and "Don't Ask, Don't Tell". I am even talking about the START treaty, upon which I have no strong positioin but don't think it should be rammed through in a lame duck Congress when there is no reason for the rush other than fear the new Senate will not pass it. I am talking about any other bills on the leftist Democrat "wish list" that they can get traitor "establishment" Repubicans to let them ram through in a rush to passs as much as possible before they lose power.
Already, Reupblicans have let Democrats push through a "magic wand" ("magic wand theory of government": wave a magic wand and say you have "solved" a problem) Food Safety Bill which basically turns the entire food industry over to the mercy of anything Federal bureaucrats want to do to them. If your food prices go up, you will know why. It is this bill, AND the unrestrained spending and deficits.

As I say, Republicans are in the process of proving that this is still "politics as usual", and that they are the same Republicans who betrayed us over the past decade. If they continue down this path, the Republican Party will destroy itself--just when it is gloating over one of its greatest victories. Sad to say, it will be no great loss if we can expect nothing more than more of the same. This Obama/Republican compromise is both the last chance Republicans will get from me, and the Rubicon for me. I am at the Rubicon. If Republicans go beyond the compromise that Obama announced, and let other things go through (with the POSSIBLE exception only of START), then I am done with the Republican Party. I am crossing the Rubicon, like Julius Caesar, and not looking back. Unfortunately, I do not have the power of Julius Caesar, but Republicans should realize that their are many out here like me (and I am not even part of the "tea party" movement).
Note: The above article is not proofred, due to my eyesight problems. I am trying to arrange for my brother to proofread at least some of these articles--which I cannot even spell check. If this note appears, you will know the article has not been proofread. If I am able to substitute a proofread version, I will delete this note. This is the policy I will follow from now on, at least until further notice.

Mothers and Depression: Depressing ME

It is sad when even "public service" announcements make it clear that our country has lost all moorings in reality---lost in the "magic wand" theory of government, and everything else.

Yes, I heard a "public service" announcement that EVERY new mother--and maybe dad, although dads seemed to be thrown in as an afterthought--should receive "screening" for "depression". In fact, the assertion was that new mothers ("new" in the sense of having just given birth) should receive FOUR "screening's" (whatever in the Hell that means) in the year after giving birth. HOGWASH. I swear we are becoming certifiably insane, as a society.

Yes, "post-partum depression" is a well known "problem". It exists, for SOME women. But I will go out on a limb here: This is NOT one of the great problems of our time. Mothers somehow have had babies for thousands of years without being "screened" for "depression". Sure, if a mother DOES have depression she can't handle, she should seek help. But automatic "screening" for it is absurd. For DADS to worry about it is beyond absurd (worry about their own depression).

What is the absurd BOOTSTRAPPING going on here? You should be able to guess. There is a "study", or "findings", that parents with "depression" don't make good parents, and that therefore this absurd overreaction is FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE POO OR CHILDREN. I want a study about how bad off the "poor children" are if their parents drive them to distraction with all of these absurd worries (unless--obviously--the mother suffers symptoms she is having trouble handling). Nope. I do NOT think the mother is EVER excused by post-partum depression for KILLING her baby (don't laugh--this almost seems where we are headed--where if a mother kills her baby, it is OUR FAULT for not making sure she got help).

By the way, what happens if the "screening" shows "depression"(which you would guess would happen in about 3 out of every one real case of depress on, if not more than that)? Do we really know how to "cure" depression"? Do we really know the difference between "depression" caused by lack of sleep, and other real problems, and irrational depression? Yes, I am fully aware there IS a difference--in obvious cases--but there are enormous gray areas. Do we have a study showing how much better off the "poor children" are when their parents are under treatment, and when they are not? 40,000 people still die in automobile accidents each year. 16,0000 or so are murdered each year in the United States. Is "depression" really a bigger problem than parents with drug problems, money problems, personality problems, pre-existing mental problems, or any number of other outside problems ms? I don't think so. And just how worried are we about the "poor children" when we are reaching the point that a child is equally as likely--with all other things being approximately equal, or even slanted a little toward the heterosexual parent--to be given to a normal heterosexual parent as to a homosexual parent (in a custody battle--my nephew is in one with a wife how has "discovered" she is homosexual)? And we won't even discuss adoption by homosexual parents.

No. "Depressed" mothers are just NOT a big problem. Remember, we are not talking about the normal "depression" that we all can handle (like new BRIDES seem to often experience right before the wedding, and even right after, or as normal WOMEN may suffer during their period, or other hormone imbalances). We HAVE to get over the idea that every single "problem" requires professional mental health care. Se just can't go there, as a society.

What is the "magic wand" theory? It is that all government--or medical people, in combination with government, in this case--have to do is wave a magic wand and the "problem" is SOLVED. It is simply not true, and absurd. In this case, I would hope doctors warn pregnant women about the possibility of post-partum depression, and the need for help if it gets severe. But I reject the idea that we need to turn ourselves into a SICK society over "problems" that have existed--and been dealt with--since the beginning of time. If we do that, then we truly are SICK--although doctors, mothers and even husbands should obviously be aware of the need to take action if something is truly wrong. Nope again. I REJECT the idea that the only way to know if something is "wrong" is "screening" (government mandated "screening"?).

We won't even get into the amount of mental health care needed because of BULLYING (defined in such a way that f100% of people have been both the victims and "perps" of "bullying").

We have gone NUTS, and it is depressing me. Should I be "screened". lest I "infect" others with my untreated problem?

Harry Reid and Buffy the Vampire Slayer: Saving the World--Stake Through the Heart?

"Buffy y the Vampire Slayer" was one of my favorite TV programs before I pretty much gave up TV "entertainment" programs. I always liked the epitaph on her tombstone at the end of the show's run on its original network (before Buffy was unwisely "resurrected" for another season): "She saved the world--a lot."

I knew Buff. Buffy--you might say--was a friend of mine (paraphrasing Lloyd Bentsen) on JFK and Dan Quayle). Harry Reid is no Buffy.

Yes, an item of news (highlighted on Drudge, with a link to a vido clip) on Thursday and Friday was Harry Reid claiming to have "saved" the world. Jarry Reid:: "But for me, there would have been a worldwide depression.". Harry Reid was talking about the FAILED "stimulus" bill (see my previous article on the jobs failure). Harry Reid obviously wants "credit" for the "stimulus", pork bill that everyone agrees--almost everyone but Reid and Pelosi--did little to help the economy and create jobs. Even President Obama threw his own "selling" of the bill under the bus by saying (recently, to the New York Times): There is no such thing as a shovel-ready job."

Yes, Harry Reid is the one who has called his opponent, Sharon Angle, "crazy". Nothing Sharon Angle has ever said has been even close to as crazy as this statement by Reid. Not only did Reid fail to "save the world", but he DID help put NEVADA in a "depression" (which he may not realize, since he hardly lives there, but is mainly a creature of Washington).

You might well ask: "Where is Buffy when you need her?" Obviously, someone needs to save the world, or at least Nevada and this country, by (figuratively) driving a stake into Harry Reid's heart. Luckily, we have Sharon Angle, and the voters of Nevada have the stake's. It is up to them to be heroes and heroines in November in Nevada. If they fail, they will have only themselves to blame. Their epitaph will read: "We failed to save the world, and Nevada, from Harry Reid, and we are sorry."

Obama Fails Again on Jobs--Loses 927,000 Jobs in Two Weeks: Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics

The Labor Department reported the weekly number of new unemployment claims filed last week on this Thursday morning, leading to the sual LIES in the headlines. Journalists" are both stupid people and dishonest people The headline on Marketwatch.com, and presumably the mainstream media, was how the number of jobless claims had fallen 23,000. By any apples to apples comparison, that was an outright, bald faced, corrupt, disgraceful LIE.

I have been reporting week after week that the weekly jobless claims number is REVISED every week (the revision being reported the following Thursday). That revision has been CONSISTENTLY upward for months now, generally by about 3 or 4 thousand. That means the headlines EVERY WEEK have LIED, because "journalists" do not seem to realize (or are conspiring to lie to you) that they are always comparing the "raw" number this week with the REVISED number for last week. Since the revision is always UP, this means that the number ALWAYS "looks" (and the headlines say so) better than it is. But this week was especially ridiculous--calling into question the HONESTY of the government numbers. No, it does NOT "call into question" the honesty of "journalists". It is already PROVEN that they are DISHONEST.

What was the "raw" number of jobless claims reported last week (for, of course, the previous week)? It was 462,000, and the headline said this was a rise of 13,0000. As I have stated week after week, the headline LIED. The previous week's raw number was 445,0000. Comparing apples to apples, this meant that the number of jobless claims two weeks ago rose 17,000 (not 13,0000 (17,000 being the difference between the "raw" numbers reported in the two weeks--the difference between 445,0000 and 462,0000). Instead, the lying media compared the "raw" 462,000 with the REVISED 449,0000, to get the LIE of a rise of 13,0000.

But it gets worse. What was the actual REVISION of last week's raw number? It was not 3 or 4 thousand this time. It was 13,000!!!!!!!! Yes, last week's reported raw number was revised this week from 462,000 to 475,000--26,000 HIGHER than the previous week's revised number of 449,000. That is how you got a miracle (a miracle created by "creative", LYING "journalists"). The headline last week said that jobless claims rose 13,000. The headline this week says that jobless claims fell 23,000. That means that we "improved" 10,0000 over the two weeks, right? If you agree with that, then you have not been paying attention. We actually LOST ground--to the tune of e,000 more people laid off last week than the 449,000 reported laid off three weeks ago.

This is a test. If you fail, you are a leftist--probably a "journalist". What about the 452,000 jobless claim number reported this Thursday morning? What does it mean? Unless you said "not much", you need to go back and read the above paragraphs again. It certainly does not mean that the job market "improved" 23,000 fewer layoffs last week. The 452,000 is actually the very same raw number reported three weeks ago (the week before the 445,000 was reported--later revised to the 449,000). That 452,000 was revised the next week to 456,000--which is about what you could expect for this week's number. But this week's revision indicates that the number this week COULD be revised to as many as 465,000.

Therefore, you do not get full marks on the test unless you said that what this week's numbers really mean is that either our government is incompetent or dishonest--almost surely both. Is it an accident that the weekly headline n8umbers are ALWAYS revised in such a way as to make the headlines too rosy? I don't think so. I am willing to state flatly: These numbers are being manipulated. Even if the calculating formula results in the reported, and then the revised, numbers, the calculation formula should have been changed by now to account for the CONSISTENT ERROR (that is, consistent until today's ridiculous 13,000 revision from 462,000 new claims reported last Thursday to this Thursday's revision to 475,000).

Okay. The weekly jobless claims number is pretty much useless. Nevertheless, the weekly numbers do reveal a story, OVER TIME. The average, for all of December, was 455,000. The present four-week average is 458,000. That means NO IMPROVEMENT for TEN MONTHS--a complete and utter failure for Obama and the Democrats. The unemployment rate, of coure, has not improved in some 16 months (having been above 9.5% for 14 consecutive months--a new record since the end of World War II. Remember, Democrats have been in control of Congress since January of 2007. Since World War II, no President has failed this badly on jobs, and no Congress.

Christine O'Donnell and the First Amendment: ACLU Lies About Separation of Church and State

This article is not listed as opinion, because it is not. It is absolutely factual, and incontrovertible, including the FACT that the ACLU regularly lies about the First Amendment, except where I specifically tell you it is opinion. And, yes, I am fully qualified to write this article. Not only did I graduate third in my class from the University of Texas School of Law in 1973, and not only did I receive the highest grade in my class in Constitutional Law (from Lino Graglia, my Constitutional Law professor), but Constitutional Law has been a lifelong study of mine. And you can tell just how good I am at studying law, and reading comprehension (back when I had decent eyesight) by the fact that my LSAT score (with not preparation and while in the United States Army out of college more than two years) was 785 out of 8000 (old scoring).

"CONGRESS shall make no law......." That is how the First Amendment read, and that is what the Founders MEANT. The First Amendment was only a limit on the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, and no limit on the states. In fact, the reason the First Amendment was not in the original Constitution ( (hence "Amendment") is that the Federal Government was not supposed to have the power to do any ting to violate the First Amendment in the first place, since the Federal Government was supposed to be a government of specifically enumerated powers (see Rand Paul). The First Amendment was never meant to have anything to do with the states, which could still have a STATE CHURCH (unless the state constitution provided otherwise). Thus, John Adams put in his first version of the Massachusetts Constitution that citizens had a DUTY to worship God. In almost NO state was there a serious effort to keep God and prayer out of the pubic schools until the Supreme Court (the Roosevelt Court) began a Federal power grab, beginning in the late 1930s,to use the 14th Amendment to apply the First Amendment to the states to the same extent it is applied to the Federal Government (despite that embarrassing--to the Supreme Court--language about "CONGRESS shall make no law.....". No, the 14th Amendment does not SAY anything about applying the First Amendment to the states. This LATER (long after the 14th Amendment was passed) action by the Supreme Court was a USURPATION of power (opinion as to this sentence only, as the rest of the paragraph cannot be disputed).

First ACLU LIE: You can see from the above that the "Founders" NEVER established any principle of complete "separation of church and state". States were free to allow religion in state institutions to the extent their own law allowed. I have HEARD spokesmen from the aCLU say time after time that the Framers of the Constitution set up an absolute principle of separation of church and state. That is a bald faced LIE. In fact, the Founders originally thought that the Bill of Rights was unnecessary, because the Federal Government did not have those powers anyway (lol--were those who distrusted the growth of Federal power, and insisted on the Bill of Rights to restrain the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, ever RIGHT).

Well, okay, but did not the Supreme Court eventually use the 14th Amendment to incorporate the First Amendment to the same extent as it applies to the Federal Government--even if you, Skip, have the opinion that was a dictatorial usurpation of power? Yes, but that does not change that the ACLU LIES when it says the Framers set up a complete separation of church and state. Further, even as to the Federal Government, the words "separation of church and state" do NOT appear in the Constitution. Even the Supreme Court has never adopted the idea that there has to be an ACLU-type COMPLETE separation of church and state. The whole idea of "separation of church and state" does come from Supreme Court opinions--NOT from the Constitution. But, even so, the Supreme Court has NEVER adopted the ACLU position--the extreme position--as the law of the land. That is ACLU LIE number two.

Now we come to Christine O'Donnell. O'Donnell evidently suggested that the concept of "separation of church and state" is not in the Constitution. ACLU-type leftists MADE THE PHRASE UP. The most you can say is that the Supreme Court--JUDGES, not the Constitution--has been gradually moving toward the ACLU (ridiculous) position that "God" should be completely removed from pubic life (while still never having said so in those terms).

What the Constitution says, of course, is that CONGRESS shall make no law concerning ESTABLISHMENT of religion, or interfering with the free exercise of religion. It is an incredible stretch to say the "In God We Trust", or "under God" (in the Pledge of Allegiance), or posting the Ten Commandments in a classroom, or Nativity scenes at Christmas, or Christmas itself as a national Holiday, or any number of other things really represent an "establishment" of religion--especially at a local level. In fact, I don't see that even non-denominational "moments of prayer" can reasonably be regarded as an "establishment" of religion (opinion as to this sentence alone, although a rock solid opinion).

Christine O'Donnell is RIGHT (I remain a big FAN of hers). "Separation of church and state" does NOT appear in the Constitution. The ACLU, and leftists--including the mainstream media--LIE when they suggest otherwise.

How did the CORRUPT propagandists at the Associated Press and Yahoo "News" play this story (opinion in this sentence only as to "corrupt propagandists", although that is so close to a fact that I am embarrassed to concede this)? You know. They suggest that Christine O'Donnell is so far out there that "even prominent conservatives" are criticizing her. Criticizing her for what? For CORRECTLY saying that "separation of church and state" is not in the First Amendment? that is what the AP story says O'Donnell said--although I admit that the AP is a very unreliable source. Christine O'Donnell is right. The AP and ACLU are wrong. Not only does "separation of church and state" not appear in the First Amendment, but "complete separation of church and state" is STILL not the "law of the land"--however much we have been moving in that direction, based in part on LIES of the ACLU about the real Constitutional arguments here.

Yes, I am still an agnostic (if you have read previous articles of mine). No, I don't want a state religion, and I think it is a vast mistake to "compose" prayers to be read in the public schools. I do think the latter--on a local level--is Constitutional. It has never bothered me to be at a place where other people pray--even though I have been an agnostic since at least age 12. I simply bow my head and don't pray. It is RUDE to so fanatically want someone else's religion to not even be mentioned. What do you do when you are at a private function, and there is a prayer? Do you jump up and stalk out? No, it is NOT different for these relatively minor recognitions by the state of the EXISTENCE of religious people in the country.

Again, based on the AP story, Christine O'Donnell is RIGHT about "separation of church and state" not being in the Constitution. And the ACLU--not to mention the AP--consistently LIES about the First Amendment, and how it has developed over time.

What do I think of "prominent conservatives" who are "criticizing" O'Donnell? Well, in the first place ANY conservative who criticizes O'Donnell automatically becomes Prominent for the AP and mainstream media. Conservatives are almost never quoted as "prominent" unless they are being quoted to support the AP/Yahoo/CNN/MSNBC/mainstream media agenda. To the extent there are some "real" conservatives criticizing O'Donnell, I have nothing but CONTEMPT for them (if they are criticizing her for refusing to use the "separation of church and state" as really being in the Constitution).

The very BEST reason for voting for Christine O'Donnell--beyond the fact that I become more impressed with her every single day--is that the ESTABLISHMENT of both parties--and even the conservative "establishment"--HATES her. If you want to shake these people up--and why should you want anything else?--the very best way to do that is to vote for Christine O'Donnell.

P.S. Yes, there is some obvious opinion in the last few paragraphs, but hardly as much as in the ordinary AP article, including the one referenced above. As to MSNBC, forget it. MSNBC would not know a real fact if it were jammed up you know where.

You have heard by now that the United States Government/State Department has issued a warning to tourists travelling anywhere in Europe to be "vigilant" and careful, because there is a significant risk of a terrorist attack. Tourists have also been warned that "infrastructure", including subways, trains and airlines, are especially at risk. Some tourist spots, like Notre Dame (kin Paris) have been named as possible targets. But he U.S. Government is taking no chances, and has warned tourists to look out for their own safety in all of Europe. President Obama has said that The U.S. Government will do whatever is necessary to protect Americans. Okay. What does all of this mean? Well, this author has obtained exclusive access to plans to help tourists meet the threat, from classified sources (Bob Woodward, eat lyour heart out!!!!):

1. Tourists are not going to be allowed to travel to Europe--war zone that we expect it to be--without a six week BASIC TRAINING course. The author went through basic training in the United States Army in 1968 designed to prepare us to deal with the terrorist Viet Cong, and every tourist obviously needs this kind of training. Now, unlike Richard Blumenthal in Connecticut, the author has never claimed to have actually served in Vietnam, but the author received the same basic training as those who did (including, of course, many who died there). The author's younger daughter is scheduled to go to Spain in late October, and the author is glad she will have to undergo basic training first. In fact, the author wishes she could have the same experience the author did--having basic training in Ft. Bliss, Teas (El Paso, whete the author still lives) in a summer where it reached 100 degrees 23 consecutive days (talk about "global warming")--maybe still a record, especially for August-September.

2. Tourists will then travel to Europe in escorted, World War II type convoys. Airplanes are obviously too risky, per the alert. Zig-zagging may be employed to avoid al-Qaida pirate attacks.

3. Tourists will embark at special, secure beaches, which United States Marines will have secured, after amphibious landings. Tourists will then be transported by military helicopter to secure landing zones (LZs) near their intended destinations.

4. Each tourist will be armed with the assault weapon of his choice: Uzi, AK,-47, M-16, etc. This is another reason not to travel by air, as tourists would never get through the security. Tourists will be provided with modern body armor, and travel by military convoy from each LZ--primarily by APC (Armored Personnel Carrier).

5. When visiting a place like Notre Dame, or the Eiffel Tower, tourists will first make sure they set up a secure perimeter. Since Notre Dame has those massive cement columns, and numerous alcoves, every tourist group will first send in an advance assault team, with bomb sniffing dogs, to make sure the interior is clear before the main body of tourists eneter. Each tourist group will have at least one tourist trained in bomb disposal/defusing techniques.

6. After completing their fun vacation in Europe, tourists will return by the same methods. If the worst happens, and any tourists are involved in firefights, tourists will have access to military hospitals, medics, helicopters, etc. for the wounded. Those killed will be buried with full military honors.

"Skip, you are despicable."

"Huh, who is that?"

Tis is your Newsvine monitor. Because of your past posts, we monitor every post as you type it. Your typing, by the way, is truly terrible. And your proofreading is worse. Even for a blind man, you are a disgrace."

"What is your problem now?"

"This article is ridiculous. You made it up. The United States Government is not doing any of the things you describe."

"Are you saying that the U.S. Government has not told tourists to be 'vigilant', and to be careful of their own safety? Are you saying the U.S. Government is not giving tourists what they need? It seems to me that is like not giving proper body armor to troops in Iraq."

"Skip, you are even further off the beam than usual. What you suggest is insanity. You know our government would never be that insane."

"Are you saying that the U.S,. Government did NOT tell tourists to be 'vigilant' and look out for their own safety?"

"You know they didn't mean that nutty stuff you made up."

"How do you know what they meant. Didn't Obama say that he would 'protect' Americans?"

"Look, Skip, we are part of MSNBC. We are part of the Obama TEAM. We know all about everything he is doing, even when we lie to protect him."

"Oh? Then what does it MEAN when tourists are told to be "vigilant", and that Americans will be protected?"

"It doesn't mean what you said, Skip. It is just something you SAY, as a CYA thing. But you know that, Skip. You are just trying to be mean and provocative. The Bush Administration did the same thing."

"Yep. And I RIDICULED the Bush Administration for it. Duct tape. "Color" threat levels. It is all absurd. What are Americans really supposed to do to 'protect' themselves in Europe? Are they supposed to avoid ALL of Europe? Backpack to avoid all public transportation? Beg rooms at night from locals, so as to avoid luxury hotels, or use 'hostels' catering to backpackers?"

You know damn well it is CYA stuff. But Americans can do things like take cabs, or rent cars."

"I thought Fox News was kidding when they said our government was suggesting that people rent cars and take cabs, instead of trains, subways and airlines. My older daughter recently travelled to Spain, and then by train into France. You mean that our government really thinks it is SAFER for a tourist who has never driven in Europe to rent a car? Is our government NUTS?"

"Skip, there you go again. No one expects people to DO this stuff. It is just something you SAY."

"It is true that I said I was sorry for anyone who actually went out and bought duct tape because our government said to do it. I am just as sorry for any tourist who pays any attention to these overblown warnings about all of Europe. My friend Sylvia was within two blocks of that train bombing in Spain. My daughters and I were in Britain and France when that "plot" was discovered about using 'gel' to get past security and blow up airplanes. Neither Sylvia nor my family was phased. In fact, I STILL think the OVERREACTION to liquids going on planes has been absurd. It was all a major pain on that European trip of ours. We almost could not get out of France to get home. You just can't live your life in FEAR, and yet that is what our government, and our media, seems to think we should do. Former U.N. Ambassador Bolton understates it when he says that this kind of broad 'warning' 'devalues' terrorist threat warnings. This kid of absurdity merely makes the government a laughing stock. If there is a country we should really stay out of--like Iran--fine. These INSANE 'warnings' merely raise anxiety for no reason. Sure, we should try to make sure security is heightened if we have knowledge of possible attacks, but this idea to 'warn' tourists to be 'vigilant' in Europe is beyond NUTS. It is PSYCHOTIC."

"See, there you go again, Skip, overreacting. Our Messiah--oops!, we mean President--is just trying to look out for everybody."

"I thought Obama believes that we can "absorb" several more terrorist attacks."

"Skip, you have been reading Bob Woodward's book again. We at MSNBC know a lot more about what Obama is doing and thinking than Bob Woodward ever knew."

"Is it true that Keith Olbermann sends a memo to President Obama every day instructing him on what to do, and actually foams at the mouth when Obama doesn't do what he says as well as Olbermann thinks he should have?"

"Skip. Now you are just being mean. This is your last warning You are on borrowed time here on Newsvine. sWe have warned you before, and we get more complaints abut you than anyone else on Newsvine. Be warned. Tourists in Europe are not in nearly as much danger as you are."

"What can I say? I think I am going to Europe. It is safer there. Some people there actually believe in free speech, and the governments seem to be getting SMALLER. A few terrorist attacks are a small price to pay. When even Vladimir Putin, of Russia, has lectured us on too mcch spending and too much government, al-Qaida may not be nearly as much an enemy as American leftists. I know leftists feel that way: that the real enemy of the United States is not al-Qaida, but the tea party people and other conservatives."

Newsvine Note: This author has a habit of inventing conversations with Newsvine personnel that never happened. The above is another example. The author, except in his own mind, is not that important. We presume it is an attempt to be funny, although the humor escapes us.

If Christine O'Donnell commits suicide, I trust BIAS CHARGES to be filed against the corrupt and biased Associated Press, CNN, MSNBC, and all of the rest of the mainstream media. You think that is ridiculous? Maybe such charges should be filed whether she commits suicide or not. What am I talking about? I am talking about this headline now "featured" on the corrupt Yahoo "News"--a story from the corrupt AP, as is always true of "news" stories featured n the Yahoo "News" "welcome" page. Here is the headline:

"Bias Crime Charges Weighed in N.J. Teen's Suicide"

Say what? Have we gone NUTS? Is it illegal in New Jersey (and maybe Delaware) to be BIASED? Does Governor Christie know that? Can we expect charges against NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, Yahoo, MSNBC, and the Associated Press to be filed shortly? They are clearly biased against conservatives.

Nope. This is ridiculous. It is what is EVIL about "hate crimes" legislation. Such legislation is also stupid. In case you have missed it, this is the case where two teens allegedly "drove" another teen to suicide with a sex video. Let us stipulate that is terrible behavior. But how is the behavior "better" or "worse" based on whether the video posting was the result of "bias" or not? I am serious here. "Bias" against a conservative? If not, why is on kind of bias wore than another? And why is ANY bias worse than simple hate? In other words, say the teens posted the video just because they DISLIKED the teen in the sex video? Does that make the conduct better than if they had some politically correct "bias" against him? No, this is NUTS.

You see what is going on here, and what the very purpose of "hate crime" legislation is? The prosecutors are looking for an excuse to GET these teens because of the publicity involved in this case, and the result (suicide). Yes, I am telling you it would be a massive injustice to charge these teens with--in effect--murder (death from criminal "bias"). What about Paris Hilton? If she committed suicide over that sex video, would it have been murder? I admit it. I am"biased" against Paris Hilton. If I had posted her sex video, and she committed suicide, would that make me a murderer? Yes, I think it would make me a despicable human being, but would it be a crime? Should it be a crime? Well, I can see a crime of "invasion of privacy", but BIAS? Give me a break. This is absurd. Its only purpose is to give authorities a way to GET people when they want to "get" them, and to pander to leftists out there who think they can use this irrational kind of law to build up favor with their constituencies/ As President Bush once said, as to the "hate crime" of dragging " I can only execute them once."

Criminal conduct should be criminal conduct, whether directed against gays, conservatives, or just someone a person dislikes. No other position is even really defensible. The only reason these laws are so "popular" is that they seem to have no downside (a mistake leftists make in trying to vigorously assert the "rights" of terrorists and Islamic extremists--most people don't care much whether such "rights" are violated). No one really defends "picking on" people. So they think: "What is the harm in letting these crazy leftists have their way. Maybe the governor of Texas CAN figure out a way to execute people twice. He is, after all, a TEXAN.". What people don't understand is that this kind of law allows prosecutors to "get" people for mainly POLITICAL reasons (or because of public pressure and outrage, which amounts to the same thing).

Say Christine O'Donnell loses in Delaware, which would be a permanent stain on the reputation of Delaware--but might happen. She could then perform a public service. She could move to New Jersey and commit suicide (bear with me here). Of course, she would have to leave a suicide note blaming MSNBC, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, and all of the rest for their BIAS toward her, including the replaying of all of those irrelevant videos about masturbation, witchcraft, etc.

Would Governor Christie then have the cojones to PROSECUTE the members of the mainstream media for MURDER? I think so. Governor Christie has shown he has pretty big cojones. Yes, O'Donnell should accuse the mainstream media os SEXISM as well--noting the difference in treatment of her and her MALE opponent.

I know this is a big sacrifice to ask of Christine. But look at the sacrifice she has made already--exposing herself to the ridicule of the establishments of both parties, and of the mainstream media. Hell, KARL ROVE could be a defendant in this "bias" trial of the century (message to Rove: BITE ME). I think the sacrifice would be worth it (admittedly easy for me to say). Christine O'Donnell would go down in history for producing the murder trial of not just the century, but of all centuries. She would be a martyr (albeit a dead one, like most martyrs). Joan of Arc would be a piker in comparison.

I am to tender hearted to suggest this to Christine O'Donnell myself. Will one of you do it for me, IF she loses n Delaware? Thanks.

am an agnostic. Sharon Angle is a Christian (really is, as distinguished from Nancy Pelosi, for example, who does not believe in her religion). How can it be that Sharon Angle and I share the very same view of the way Reid, Pelosi,, Obama and most leftists look at the Federal Government? Let me explain.

I just heard the First Commandment clip that the most corrupt parts of the mainstream media have been trying to use against Sharon Angle. Contrary to the way it has been portrayed, and to the way Chris Matthews portrayed it right after playing it (how can you get more dishonest than that?), Sharon Angle did not say that the Federal Government violated the First Commandment (presumably the Commandment that there is One True God, and that you are to worship only that God and not any false gods and idols--it having been a LONG time since my Presbyterian Bible class where I memorized the 10 Commandments). What Sharon Angle said is that Reid and Pelosi have tried to make a ("false" being implied God out of the Federal Government--something essentially to be worshiped (although she did not expressly say that). She went on to say that could be considered a violation of the First Commandment. Now the terminology is different than I use, as an agnostic, but that happens to be exactly my position (merely expressed in the terminology of a Christian rather than the terminology of an agnostic).

My articles have regularly explained the "magic wand" theory of government advocated by Reid, Pelosi, Obama, and the rest on the left. That is the theory that all the Federal Government has to do is wave a magic wand, and solve any and all of our problems. I have also--correctly--asserted that, for leftists, this is a RELIGION--their main religion, instead of Christianity or any other recognized religion. Is this not the very thing that Sharon Angle has said? Of course it is, except Sharon Angle has said the same thing from the point of view of a Christian. I have said that leftists have made the Federal Government into a false god, and leftism into a false religion. So has Sharon Angle. Now Sharon Angle believes in One True God, while I am a skeptic (without being sure she is wrong). So Sharon Angle can talk about this raising of the Federal Government to a position of a god to be worshipped as a violation of the First Commandment. I can only say it is a violation of both theory (of economics and government) and of the lessons of all of recorded history.

Just last week, I wrote an article giving my personal opinion that President Obama is not a Christian. That is not because I think he is a Muslim. I don't. It is because his only ral religion is leftism. I can only express my opinion on Obama, based on circumstantial evidence, but I can flatly state that Nancy Pelosi has no religion but leftism. I have PROVEN that in previous articles, using her own words. For example, she said (when asked to rationalize her fanatic pro-abortion position with the position of the Catholic religion in which she supposedly believes) that: "God gave me a brain and free will for a purpose. He must have expected me to use them. I will discuss it with Him when the time comes' (Or words to that effect, which I quoted exactly in the original article). Pelosi's positron happens to be EXACTLY my position--after taking into account that I am a lot smarter than she is. One of the reasons I don't believe in religion is that I refuse to turn my will and brain over to God. It is a horrible thing to realize that Nancy Pelosi and I are soul mates--of a sort. Sharon Angle is right. Nancy Pelosi's only God is Big Government, and her only religion is leftism.

Didn't President Obama convince me he is a Christian in that "back yard" in New Mexico (not far from here in El Paso, where Obama managed to previously speak at Ft. Bliss without hardly mentioning the war zone right across the river in Juarez, Mexico, with stray bullets spraying El Paso from time to time)? Nope. Obama merely further convinced me he believes in no religion but leftism, and no God but the God of Big Government. Did Obama say that he accepted God, and Jesus Christ, into his heart, and felt their touch? Not on your lief. I think he would be EMBARRASSED to say anything like that, while Sharon Angle would not be. What Obama said was that the was "attracted" to the "precepts" of Jesus Christ--mentioning the Golden Rule (nor original or exclusive with Christianity) and "my brother's keeper" (which phrase was not used so much by Jesus Christ as--in a different context--in the Old Testament story of Cain and Abel). But the point is not whether Obama got his scripture right, but that Obama talked about a CHOICE he made as an adult based on whether Christianity agreed with HIM (Obama). You do not choose a religion like Christianity the same way you choose a political party. If you choose to be a Christian because you believe in your view of the message of Jesus Christ on POLICY MATTERS, then you are choosing a religion for the wrong reason. Obama is asserting the right, just like Pelosi, to evaluate whether God is getting it right. I firmly believe that most--not all, but most--leftists think the same way. That is exactly the opposite to the way a true believer looks at religion--where God is supposed to instruct the true believer. As I say, and have said, I agree with Sharon Angle that Obama' true religion is leftism, and that his false god is Big Government directed from an all-powerful Federal Government. As an agnostic, I don't care whether he is "really" a Christian. I do care that his substitute religion is so dangerous, and so destructive of the country and the traditions that made this country great.

Don't you admire that Sharon Angle and I ae able to "reach across the spiritual aisle" and find common ground? You say you would be more impressed if Sharon Angle felt the same way? Well, maybe you are right. Not too many women can stomach me, and I have been told I am going to Hell more than one time (mostly jokingly, I THINK). The problem is that I will share Hell, if it exists, with som many leftists--especially "journalists". I digress. I still think it is rather amazing that Sharon Angle and I--not to mention t Nancy Pelosi and I--can arrive at exactly the same point from very different starting places. Now Angle and I arrived at the same point on matter os this world, while differing on spiritual matters, while Pelosi and I arrive at agreement on spiritual matters, while disagreeing strongly on matters of this world. Agreement nevertheless (although at least Pelosi would probably deny that she agrees with me on the basics of agnostic skepticism, because she is simply too stupid to realize the implications of her own "philosophy").

The evil assumption here is that Sharon Angle is not "allowed" to look at things through the prism of her own religious philosophy, just as much as I am "allowed" to look at things through the prism of my own agnostic/skeptical philosophy. To even raise the question whether Angle has a "right" to refer to religion to make her secular point is an intolerant insult. She clearly has that right, and criticism of such religious references in misplaced. Our Declaration of Independence says that people are "endowed by their Creator..." with inalienable rights. Imagine if Sharon Angle had said THAT!!!!!!!!! As I have stated i a previous article, I believe that is thre reason President Obama (deliberately, in my view) misquoted the Declaration of Independence in a recent speech, leaving out "by their Creator". He was catering to the anti-religious left, and mainstream media, just as his "explanation" of his Christian "faith" in new Mexico was a cynical, and deliberate, attempt to defuse "doubts" about whether he is a Christian. And some on the anti-religious left have criticized Obama for it. They would like all references to God to be deleted from our public discourse--absurd and intolerant as that position is.

Nope. Sharon Angle is NOT saying that God is "on her side" in politics. What she said was that--frm her point of view, stated in terms she expected her audience to understand--leftist Democrats have raised the Federal Government to god-like status. I agree totally with her, even to that terminology, although I would not go on--as an agnostic--and refer to the First Commandment. What is the fundamental characteristic of God? I would say that it is that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and the source of all good in the universe. Is that not the way leftist Democrats look at the Federal Government? I think so, and it is a perfectly reasonable SECULAR position. Indeed, that is the fundamental flaw in the leftist world view. If God exists, He may be all of those things. The Federal Government is not. Politicians and Federal bureaucrats are merely fallible people, incapable of running everything with a magic wand. They do not have infinite knowledge, and their attempt to suggest that they do have a god-like ability to run our entire economy, and all of our lives, is a DELUSION that threatens to destroy us. Yes, I did just say that it is leftist Democrats who are insane, and not Sharon Angle. You say I am also saying that some establishment Republicans are equally insane? I am glad you are finally getting it.