Monday, October 25, 2010

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?

Friday, October 22, 2010

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, 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.

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

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.

Tuesday, October 5, 2010

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.

Friday, October 1, 2010

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.