Great news!  This blog has moved to vegasgeorge.com.  See you all there!

You Republicans responsible for picking John McCain to be our (yes, I'm a Republican too) candidate for president ought to be taken out and shot.  We needed a candidate who knows how to take prisoners, not one who knows how to be one.  And, that's just what McCain turned out to be in tonight's debate; Obama's prisoner.

I don't know how its possible for an educated, experienced man like McCain to miss every single opportunity to score points in a debate.  But, tonight he did it.  We Republicans, and especially we conservative Republicans, have strong arguments and points to make on every issue discussed in the debate.  We have strong positions, supported by confirmed facts which impugn Obama's ethical and moral qualifications to be president.  We have strong social and economic arguments, supported by historical precedent to discredit Obama's stated plans and goals.  And John McCain failed us utterly.

I don't know McCain personally.  However, I have gotten the impression that he is just too nice a guy.  He's so nice he can't get tough with Obama.  Either that, or he really agrees with everything about Obama, and is struggling just to stay in character as Obama's opponent.  I guess it would be tough to run effectively against someone you agree with on all the issues.

I knew this was going to turn out this way.  I was so disillusioned following our convention.  I couldn't understand how we Republicans could have made such a bad mistake.  Then, after Sarah Palin was chosen I experienced a brief resurgence of enthusiasm.  She certainly hasn't done anything to let me down.  But, McCain's lack luster performance, culminating in tonight's gawd-awful debate, has me throughly depressed.

It's just not possible that a radical left Marxist socialist will be elected President of the United States, is it?

I'm looking at our currency and other indices of national identification.  How does "USSA," the "United Socialist States of America" sound?  I think there's probably room for it if we just make the fonts a little smaller.

PS: Don't get me wrong, I'm voting for McCain.  But, believe me when I say my vote is not based on his performance as a candidate.

Let's see what this is all about.

Say I pay cash for a house, and two years later the market has slumped, and the house isn't worth nearly as much as I paid for it.  I've lost money!  Does that mean the government should rush in and "bail me out?"  Of course not!

OK, say I'm a mortgage company, and loan money for the purchase of a house.  Two years later the market has slumped, and the loan is in default.  The security on the loan (the house) is no longer sufficient to pay off the loan.  I've lost money!  Does that mean the government should rush in and "bail me out?"  Of course not!

OK, say I'm some kind of financial institution that buys up mortgage loans.  I slap them together in a pool of assets, and use those assets to collateralize securities I sell to investors.  Two years later the housing market has slumped, too many of the loans are in default, and the houses are no longer worth enough to redeem the securities I've sold to my investors.  This reflects very poorly on my balance sheet.  I've lost money!  Does that mean the government should rush in and "bail me out?"  Of course not!

OK, say I'm an investor.  I buy some of those securities collateralized by the pool of assets including those mortgage loans.  When the housing market slumps, the loans go in default, and the houses are no longer worth enough to redeem the securities I bought.  The financial institution stops sending the payments.  I've lost money!  Does that mean the government should rush in and "bail me out?"  Of course not!

And finally, say I'm an insurance company.  I insure the securities collateralized by the pool of assets including those mortgage loans, guaranteeing payment to the investors.  Two years later, the housing market slumps, the loans go in default, and the houses are no longer worth enough to redeem the securities.  The investors are no longer getting paid.  Claims are made against the insurance I wrote.  I've lost money!  Does that mean the government should rush in and "bail me out?"  Of course not!

My point:  All of this is nothing more than smoke and mirrors.  It doesn't make any difference how complicated the transactions are.  It doesn't make any difference that the fellow who bought the house in the first place is just a poor working stiff, and the others involved are wealthy important Harvard educated MBAs.  The basic fact is the same.  They all bought high, and are having to sell low.  They all made bad deals and have lost money.

Where is it written that the USA has an obligation to make sure that everyone makes money, or at least breaks even, on their deals?  Nowhere.  Where is it written that the full faith and credit of the USA backs private business transactions?  Nowhere.  Where is it written that the USA will not allow companies to fail?  Nowhere.

This bailout scheme is nothing more than crudely disguised socialism.  In the end, there is no difference between government paying for housing, and government paying for housing market failure.  The price of the housing is being paid by the government either way.

I want a return to capitalism and the free market economy.  That is what made America strong.  That is why people all over the world dream of coming here.  The unpleasant consequences of failure is the greatest teacher.  How can we expect to maintain a strong economy and a strong country, if we reward stupidity and failure with government bailouts?  The markets will correct themselves, and the lessons learned from the housing market failure will be a source of strength in the future.  But that will not happen if the government bails us out.

When the inmates run the asylum, they end up nominating Barack Obama for president.

I have come to the realization that Liberals, which include most Democrats, are criminally insane. This is a shocking conclusion, but one I've come to after careful deliberation. You may not believe that. So, let me explain why it's true.

The most widely accepted, and historically applied definition of "insanity" in the criminal law is the inability to distinguish between right and wrong. This is very different from the civil notion of insanity which is vaguely defined by the various pathologies recognized by the American Psychological Association. In the civil arena, there is no clear cut, single definition of insanity. It's all quite mysterious.

But the criminal courts require a sanity test that even lay jurors can understand. And so, criminal insanity is narrowly and simply defined. Let me share an illuminating example that was told to me many years ago. A psychopath kills a small child, and eats the body. If he sits down in the roadway where everyone can see him eat, he's criminally insane. However, if he carries the body to the side of the road, and sits down to eat behind some bushes, he's sane. He's sane because the act of hiding behind the bushes demonstrates that he understands the difference between right and wrong, and that what he is doing is wrong. Simple, huh?

As I see it, most liberals are eating the child in the middle of the road. In other words, they have no idea that what they are doing is wrong. They cannot distinguish between right and wrong. Please note that I am not saying that liberals are criminals, only that they are insane under criminal law standards. Not everything that is wrong is against the law.

I do not believe that most liberals are bad people. I doubt if they get up in the morning thinking "What evil can I do today." In fact, judged only by their intentions, most liberals seem like very decent people. Just look at their stated goals: to feed the hungry, heal the sick, educate the masses, eliminate discrimination, and provide higher living standards for everyone. Who can argue with all that? I approve of those goals. But, I cannot approve of their methods in trying to reach those goals.

Liberals tell lies to support their views. I need not cite individual examples because the practice is so wide spread and continuous that everyone knows about it. Liberals know about it. The point is, that liberals think it's OK because the lies are told in furtherance of achieving their lofty goals. They think it's OK to besmirch a conservative candidate's character with a scurrilous lie, because they need to defeat that candidate as a means toward achieving their ends. They think it's OK to lie about their own candidate's qualifications and character for the same reason.

Now, we all know that a lie is a lie, and that no amount of lipstick is going to turn that pig into the truth. And, we all know that lies and lying are wrong. Nevertheless, liberals sit in the middle of the road telling lies to whoever will listen. They feel good about it. In fact, they are proud of their lies, and congratulate each other for having told them. Once told, their lies are joyfully repeated as often as possible. Eventually, most of their lies are revealed as untrue by developing circumstances or conservative investigations. Then, that particular lie dies down. But rarely is a retraction or apology given. They simply go on to the next lie.

I want to reemphasize here that liberals think this is OK. My whole point is that they can't appreciate the difference between right and wrong. In their world, they are doing the right thing by doing something that is wrong. They are eating the child while sitting in the middle of the road.

And, it's not just lying that demonstrates their insanity. Just look at their basic social policies. They want the government to provide all kinds of benefits. That is how they want to achieve their lofty goals. And, to pay for those benefits, they want the government to forcibly take money away from wealthier citizens, and give it to poorer citizens. That's called redistribution of wealth. That's really just a euphemism for stealing. Of course, every citizen should pay his share for necessary services. For example, if five men crowd into a taxi for a trip to the airport, and the fair is $100.00, each man should pay $20.00. But what if three of the men pull out guns, and demand that the entire fair be paid by the remaining two on the grounds that they are wealthier, and can therefore afford to pay $50.00 each more comfortably than the three could afford to pay their $20.00? I think we can all agree that would be stealing, and that stealing is wrong. But, the way the liberals propose to fund their social programs is no different. A liberal would force a wealthier man to pay for benefits for a poorer man. The liberals sit in the middle of the road holding their guns on the wealthy. That's stealing. Obviously, they don't know right from wrong. It's insanity.

Now, I don't mean to say that there aren't crafty, disingenuous liberals who are intentionally spreading lies or stealing with malicious intent. Such individuals exist. When confronted, they usually fall back on some form of relativistic intellectualism such as "It depends on what the definition of "is" is." Or, "Well nothing is black and white, so it depends on the circumstances." That's merely evasive nonsense. Telling a lie or stealing is always wrong, and those individuals are not insane, but evil.

But, the majority of liberals are followers, not leaders, and they are blissfully unaware of the wrongful nature of their acts. Even some liberal leaders are so deluded as to truly believe they are doing right by doing wrong. Despite protestations to the contrary, their actions prove that they do not know the difference between right and wrong. They are criminally insane.

First, all of us Americans are "immigrants."  Even Native Americans are derived from immigrant peoples who came to North America in the not too distant past.  Compared to the peoples of Asia, Africa, and the Mediterranean, we Americans are all new comers.  So, don't claim any special status because you just got off the boat.  America is still very much the "New World."

I suppose that most of you have heard about America, the great "melting pot."  I want to point out that the important part of that description has to do with "melting."  As an immigrant, you are expected to "melt" into American society.  That means you are supposed to assimilate, which involves publicly giving up appearances, attitudes, language, and other characteristics peculiar to the land from which you came.  Privately, you are welcome, even encouraged, to keep your country of origin traditions alive.  But, for day to day living in America, you are expected to act, look, and speak like Americans.  You are not being singled out for this treatment.  All of us, or our ancestors, went through this process of assimilation.  Now, it's your turn.

Lesson Number One for immigrants should be learning the difference between right(s) and wrong.  Here in America we have rights.  Our wonderful Constitution guarantees our rights.  But, just because as an American you have the right to do something, doesn't mean that it's the right thing to do.  In America, you often have the "right" to do the wrong thing.  But, it's still wrong, even if you have the right to do it.  Let me explain

It's wrong to show disrespect for your new country and it's leaders.  I'm sure you came here because America is better than where you came from.  Otherwise, you would have stayed put.  So, assimilate first, before you start to criticize the way things are here.

It's wrong to try and bring your old country with you to America.  If you try to create a little copy of where you came from by grouping together and participating in an ethnic enclave, you are defeating the purpose of coming to America.  Speak English.  Wear western style clothing.  Conform to American standards.  Think of yourself as an American first.

America is a country of civil law, and religious tolerance.  How you want to live your personal life is your business, provided that you obey our laws.  But, you should respect our system, and not try to change it.  For you Muslims, I have a special word.  The law in America is roughly based on Jewish/Christian precepts, but it is not controlled by any religion or religious teaching.  Our religious leaders have no say in the administration of our laws.  There is no place for Sharia law in America.

Finally, be on guard against the less respectable elements of American society.  Lots of Americans fail to live up to the high standards that made this country great.  Do not let them drag you down.  If you came here with higher standards of morality, honesty, and spirituality than you see around you, then be strong.  Keep your standards high.  American needs you, and many more just like you.  

I really love this Al Sharpton character.  What a dufus!  Here is an article on his threat to shut down New York City because of the killing of Sean Bell.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20080426/D909P8SG0.html

I've got a news flash for Al and anyone else who's interested in this case.  If you go out late at night drinking and drugging, or to places where drinking and drugging take place, or to places where illegal activities such as prostitution take place, you are putting yourself at risk.  If, at such a place and time, you get drunk and belligerent, fail to follow the directions of police officers, and get into your car and try to run away, you are likely to get shot and killed.  That's the just the way it is.  That's the way its always been.  I suspect that's the way it will always be.

You have the choice of how you are going to behave, where you are going to be, and who you are going to be with.  If you make poor choices, then you are likely to suffer poor results.

This has nothing whatsoever to do with the color of your skin.  The exact same rules and risks apply to me, a white guy.  That's why I would never go to such a place, or act that way.  I know better.

So, maybe Mr. Bell and his friends were just acting stupidly.  All I can say is, "that explains it."  Being stupid is no defense, no justification, and certainly no protection.  Being stupid is like "having the right of way."  You're still just as dead when the truck hits you.

Al and his ilk ought to give it up.  They are never going to help anyone as long as they insist on blaming the police, or society, or the government for individual and personal failures like this.

"More than One in 100 Adults Are Behind Bars, Pew Study Finds," is the title of the article.  Please read it so you will know what I'm talking about.

http://www.pewtrusts.org/news_room_ektid35890.aspx

I'm mad as hell, and just not going to take it anymore!  At least, I'm not going to take it without speaking out about it.  And, I'm going to speak about it to everyone who will listen.

There are a couple of things wrong here.

First, you and I are paying for this.  Forget the cost of being a victim of crime.  That could cost you anywhere from a few dollars to your life.  I mean the cost of law enforcement, the courts, prisons, and supporting an immense adult population, many of them for decades or the rest of their miserable lives.  Don't discount this.  The law requires all of the essentials and many of the niceties of life be afforded these prisoners, at your expense.  They get better medical care than you do.  They get more balanced diets and nutritious food than you do.  They get, and get, and get, and ALL at your expense.  From the moment one of them pulls a gun on a store clerk, until his sorry a__ is buried at age 97, you are paying all his bills.  How do you like that?  I don't!

Second, the article on the Pew Study, only looks at data concerning current prison and jail populations.  Our prisons and jails have revolving doors.  We all know that.  It doesn't matter exactly what the recidivism rate is, we all know it's high.  So, when Pew looks at the current population, it doesn't include all of those other criminals out there that haven't been caught (again) yet.  So, for every current prisoner, we can safely figure that at least one or more additional criminals are out and actively preying on society.  So, when the Pew Study cites that 1 out of every 9 young black males between the ages of 20 and 34 are behind bars, just how many more do you figure are free, and committing crimes?  I pick the black statistic simply because it is the worst statistic.  My comments apply equally to the others cited by Pew.

Now, I have another two things to say about all this.

First, I want to dispel the notion that some of you have that most of this is due to "mistakes" made by underprivileged, or neglected youths.

We are talking about adults here.  Ages 20 to 34.  These are not kids.  A "mistake," when that concept is applied to a choice, means the accidental selection of a wrong choice.  Which shell is the pea under?  Oops, you made a "mistake," you picked the wrong shell.  That's a "mistake."  Deciding to commit a crime is a choice.  But, it is not an accidental choice.  It is a deliberate choice made with full knowledge that it is a wrong choice.  None of the 1 out of 9 blacks is in prison because he made a mistake.  He's there because he intentionally did wrong.

Sure, I know how horrifyingly sad and disillusioning the childhoods of many of these young men must have been.  I know about absentee fathers, drug crazed mothers, gangs, peer pressures, lousy public education, and all that.  But, I didn't do that, and I don't want to pay for it.  The inescapable truth is, that regardless of their previous circumstances, by the time these young men reached age 20, they knew the difference between right and wrong.  And, they knew that it is wrong to murder, rape, and rob.  Yet, those were the choices they made.

Second, it should be obvious to everyone that not only our society, but also our justice system is badly broken.  We not only allow children to be raised into a culture of crime, but we do almost nothing to punish those who commit those crimes.  The fact is that a life behind bars is in many ways a better quality life than those inmates experienced on the outside.  Rehabilitation in prison is a joke, and where is the punishment?

Here is what I suggest be done about all this.

We need to standardize the criminal laws across this country.  It makes no sense at all for the States to have different criminal laws and punishments, when criminals and victims travel freely across all their borders.

1.  We should decriminalize all so called "victimless crimes."  That includes drug offenses, and consenting adult sex offenses.

2.  We should narrow down the category of felony offenses to include only those violent crimes such as murder, rape, armed robbery, burglary of buildings, etc.  These should only include crimes where there is a reasonable likelihood that an innocent victim may be injured or killed.  For example, I would include third offense DUI (drugs or alcohol) in this category.

3.  All other offenses, such as embezzlement, forgery, simple assaults (fist fights), public disturbances, etc., should be regarded as civil rather than criminal offenses.

4.  Now for the tough part.  Felons, under number 2 above, should be executed.  Perhaps there should be provisions for a jury to allow some 2nd chances.  But, that is a slippery slope that could easily bring us back to where we are now.  Execution should take place at once following a mandatory appeal.  There should be only one appeal allowed.  The appeal should be heard as soon as possible, but the maximum allowed appeal period should be no longer than 6 months from the date of the conviction.

5.  The civil offenses under number 3 above should be determined by judge or jury, much like we do today.  Accused persons should be presumed innocent, and released on their own recognizance.  Failure to appear (skipping out) should be a felony under number 2 above, due to the risk it creates to officers who have to chase the accused down.  On a determination of liability (much like a conviction today), a liable person would be assigned public service work, and required to make restitution to the victims, including immediate forfeiture of assets.  Public service work camps would be established which would pay for themselves through the services of the workers.  Again, running away would be treated as a felony under number two above.

If this plan were instituted, the violent crime rate would plummet.  We could tear down all these stupid prisons.  We could save Billions of dollars (your money), and have a much needed public work force to help maintain our aging infrastructure and build new public facilities.

If I can sit here at my computer and formulate this in an hour, our politicians could get something like this accomplished in a term or two.  Why won't they?

The time was when this country knew what the accolade, "war hero," meant.  To be sure, those were times of great men and great deeds, a time of triumphs and tragedies, a time of dedication to purpose and principle.  In short, not now.

Our whole concept of "hero" has changed.  Sports figures are openly referred to as "heroes."  Popular entertainers, many of whom have done nothing notable, are thought of as "heroes."  And politicians who just happened to have been in the military go about proffering their hero status.  All of this is as phony as a three dollar bill.

So, what, exactly, is a "hero?"  I want to offer the following thoughts:

1.  A hero must have intentionally done something extraordinary.
2.  That which was done must have exhibited an unusual degree of courage.
3.  That which was done must have been unselfish and for the greater good.
4.  A true hero must maintain an appropriate amount of humility.

It can be seen that a wide range of persons would qualify as heroes.  And, it should be equally obvious that a wide range would not.  For example, a firefighter who puts himself in harms way to rescue victims would clearly fit into this definition.  But, a football quarter back would not, regardless of how talented he is on the gridiron.

And, what about the "war hero?"  We certainly have had many true war heroes.  Audie Murphy occurs to me as a perfect example.  A war hero must be someone who achieved hero status by acts of war, primarily in action against the enemy.  Although it is certainly possible that courageous acts of a chaplain, or corpsman in time of war would qualify.

So, where, exactly, does Senator John McClain fit in this analysis?  I hear him repeatedly referred to as a "war hero."  I have no reason to believe that McCain acted in any way other than as a brave and loyal naval aviator.  I know he was shot down and held prisoner in Hanoi.  And, I know that he was subjected to torture and other suffering there.  But, I have never heard of any particularly heroic act performed by McCain.  I would not fault him for his misadventure, but the time was when being defeated and captured was considered to be a disgrace, not an honor.  All I'm saying here is that being captured, and surviving captivity, is not in itself a heroic act.

I think it's enough that we recognize the Senator's loyal service to his country as we should for every for veteran.  I think that lauding that service, and elevating it to heroic status does a disservice to every true war hero in our history.  And, I think it sends the wrong message to every American.

"Don't Shoot.  I'm Unarmed!"

That's the plan for self defense at the University of Nevada.  Think it will work?

(See: http://www.lasvegassun.com/sunbin/stories/nevada/2007/oct/12/101210801.html)

For those of you who have just come to the party, let me explain.  The community, the University, and actually everyone is concerned about crazies, terrorists, and criminals committing violence with firearms on campus.  It might have something to do with the recent events in Virginia.  So, the University of Nevada Board of Regents has decided that guns just won't be allowed. Simple, huh?

I only have one question.  Where do these idiots come from?

The underlying problem here is that the idiot liberal anti gun crowd doesn't want to see violent criminals, or homicidal maniacs killed. They want to treat these offenders as some kind of victims of society. They want all of us to wear ashes and sack cloth, and flagellate ourselves for having failed these offenders so horribly that they were driven to their desperate acts. You know, child abuse, broken homes, discrimination, and all those other lame excuses used to justify and explain criminal behavior and psychopathology. It's an expression of collective guilt. Their guilt is exposing the rest of us to untold dangers.

The anti gun crowd are afraid that concealed weapon permit holders might actually kill some of their pet offenders. No trial, no appeal, no death penalty protests. Just: "Bang, you're dead. Next case." They find that to be unacceptable. They would actually prefer to see any number of dead innocent victims killed by one of their "victims of society," than a dead criminal or psychopath, killed by an honest citizen with a permitted weapon. Their wussy conscience cannot sanction cold, rational, homicide, even when it is legal and justified and necessary to save the lives of innocents.

They disgust me.

Apparently parts of California, specifically including Los Angeles and San Francisco, are experiencing power shortages.  The article "L.A. Calling for Lights-Out Hour," found at http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lightsout29sep29,0,3411449.story?coll=la-home-center, reports that that L.A. is calling for everyone to turn out the lights, i.e. stop using power for an hour.

Well, in the first place, this kind of feel good token PC nonsense is worthless.  I suppose it's meant to increase public awareness of an energy shortage problem.  But, really, what good does that do?  None.

This article, and the proposed L.A. hour of darkness, are symptomatic of a rampant stupidity that has infected every level of our modern culture.  We periodically face shortages that effect supply and prices.  This has happened with gasoline, heating oil, electric power, fresh water, even toilet paper.  Always and everywhere the cry is the same:  "Use less!"  We've come to believe, and even depend upon using less as a solution to shortage.  That's not just wrong, it's dumb.

When we have a shortage, we need MORE.  That's the solution, getting MORE.  Not using less.  And, in every instance I can think of, the physical, natural resources are available for getting more.  But, we don't.  We don't because of Snail Darters, and Spotted Owls, and the fear of promoting (gasp!) growth, and the pusillanimous pussyfooters in the State Department, and a whole host of other reasons that have nothing whatsoever to do with the facts creating the shortage.  Oh, I can appreciate the sentiments of these do gooder love children and their earth first, let the U.N. do it attitudes.  I just don't want to pay for them.  If recycling costs money instead of saving money, I say bury the crap in landfills.

So, L.A. wake up!  If you need more energy so that your people can use their lights, build a power plant.
 

Well, it has finally come to the all too predictable ending.  Airport police are now killing people.  See the article, "Woman Dies After Airport Arrest," at http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D8RVIP500&show_article=1.

Oh, I know.  Many of you will blame the crazy woman, and will say that this isn't really a police killing.  Well, you're wrong.

When the police take a person into custody, the welfare of the prisoner becomes their responsibility.  This woman was obviously in a state of high emotional anxiety, and acting irrationally.  They should never have left her alone and unobserved.  The fact is that this airport police squad is guilty of negligent homicide.

Of course, this incident is just the latest, predictable result of an overall pattern of irresponsible stupidity foisted on us by Big Brother government under the guise of protecting us at our airports.  The truth is that airport security is a joke.  We have armed and sanctioned complete idiots and fools to guard our airports.   I don't believe that flying is any safer today than it was before 9/11.  But, the degrading, humiliating, and infuriating security procedures at our airports have become so invasive and insulting that I refuse to fly.  I drive myself where I need to go, or I stay home.  In a very real sense, the terrorists have won, and I have lost my freedom.

OK, I don't believe in complaining like this without offering a solution.  So, here it is.

1.  Institute a nationwide American Citizen only security pre-screening procedure that relies on absolute identification such as fingerprints or iris scans, that allows pre-screened individuals to simply walk onto the airplane.

2.  Allow pre-scrrened passengers with valid concealed carry permits from States that allow instant electronic permit verification to carry their personal sidearms with them on the airplane.  And, allow airplane flight crews to arm themselves if they wish.

3.  Require all airport security personnel to have an AA degree or equivalent, pass regular law enforcement security screening for employment, and graduate from a regular police academy course of training.

If these steps were followed, we would have safer airports and flights.  There would be far fewer incidents of  abuse of discretion such as led to the death of the unfortunate woman in the above article.  And, honest citizens could utilize our airports and flights again without being treated like criminals.

The Horror of 9/11

Well, we've all lived through another 9/11.  I don't mean just September 11, 2007.  I mean another TV, radio, and newspaper replay of 9/11, the destruction of the World Trade Center.  I saw and heard hours of coverage, detailing all the minutia of how the buildings fell, how New York firemen bravely died, how air traffic controllers struggled to grasp the unfolding situation, how survivors on the ground described the experience, how desperate passengers on ill fated airplanes called family and friends.  I heard engineers and architects give detailed analyses of how the buildings collapsed.  I heard journalists talk about the images and stories reported by their colleagues.  I heard about the sorrowful, ugly work of searching for survivors, then victims in the massive pile of rubble.

Not once, NOT ONCE, did I hear a condemnation of the enemy that did this.  Not once did I hear that radical Islam is the enemy of America and the free, Western world.  Not once did I hear a renewed call to arms.  Not once did I hear the wrath of a wounded America determined to strike back.

Wimps!  Is that what we have become?  Defeatist, cowed, irresolute wimps?  Did we all wake up one morning during the last 6 years to discover that we are French?  America, land of the free, home of the brave, where are you?  What could you possibly be thinking?

I think all political bribery is monstrous, but this one is a real Frankenstein!

My State's Governor, Jim Gibbons, is in Mexico right now talking to Mexicans about how Nevada might get $$$ from Mexico for medical treatment of illegal aliens.  No kidding!  In fact, according to the article I just read, New York is already getting just such a pay off.  (See: http://www.lvrj.com/news/9146471.html)

This is a real slap in the face for all of us who oppose illegal immigration.  We want to see the border protected, and illegals sent home.  We want to see public services, including health care, denied to illegals in order to discourage them from coming here illegally.  Now, my own Governor is seeking to get a pay off from the Mexicans as an incentive to allow the illegals to stay.

"We don't want'em back.  You keep'em.  Here, we will give you a bribe $$$.  Just don't send'em back!"

Gee, thanks Jim.  You're a swell guy!  Always looking out for our interests this way.

This is one of the worst things I've read about the immigration problem.  Assuming Nevada starts getting  $$$ from Mexico, just how interested do you think the State politicians and officials will be in running down illegals and having them deported?  In fact, won't Nevada accepting $$$ from Mexico "cement the relationship" between Nevada and Mexico, tacitly, if not expressly, approving of the presence of Mexican illegals in the United States?  Since the immigrants we are talking about are here illegally, and should be deported according to the law, isn't accepting $$$ from Mexico for their treatment an agreement in furtherance of their unlawful acts?

This is truly outrageous.

Here in Nevada, classic car enthusiasts have an annual celebration.  It's a gathering called "Hot August Nights," that brings owners and car aficionados together for a week of shows, auctions, and camaraderie in Reno, Nevada.  The event has traditionally ended with a grand parade on the last night.  But this year, the parade was canceled.  Why, because of the threat of gang violence!  (See: http://www.lvrj.com/news/9121521.html)

Isn't it time to stop this destructive gang nonsense?  Why do we live in a society that tolerates gangs?  What value are they?  What do they contribute to the general welfare that warrants giving them the special status to exist above the law?  How are they so powerful as to force a municipality like Reno, NV to cancel scheduled events?

Face it, gangs, that is, every gang, is nothing more than a criminal conspiracy.  At the lowest level, grade school and middle school gangs exist to extort money from fellow students, sell drugs, deface the community with graffiti, drink alcohol, commit burglaries, commit assaults, and otherwise break the law.  And, except for the rare instance where a gang member is actually caught in the act of committing a crime, nothing is done about it.  At higher levels, gangs are engaged in the "business" of murder, prostitution, sex slavery, heavy narcotics trafficking, and other violent crimes.

Isn't it time to stop gangs?

Don't believe those who say it can't be done.  It can.  Convictions and prison are not the answer.  In fact, some of the worst gangs today actually operate out of our prisons.  The way to stop gangs is to attack the groups, not the individuals.  The groups have mostly been identified, so that shouldn't be a problem.  Group meetings should be disrupted, and those in attendance should be forced to perform humiliating public service.  We have plenty of public restrooms that need to be cleaned, trash that needs to be picked up, and graffiti that needs to be removed.  It should be illegal to display any gang colors, emblems, tattoos, etc.  All gang marked items should be confiscated.  All persons with gang tattoos should be forced to have them permanently removed.   Any motor vehicle used in furtherance of gang activity, including going and coming from gang meetings, should be confiscated.  Warrants should be routinely issued to allow searches of gang members' homes and places of business, for evidence of illegal gang activities.  And, gang members in prison should be isolated from all other inmates and denied all privileges, including visitors and outside communications.

These are just a few of the measures I would adopt to stop the gangs.  This isn't rocket science, folks.  This is just plain old common sense.  The gangs can be stopped.  The only question is whether or not we are going to do it.

Well, of course, the political season is bringing out all the dead horses to be beaten again.  And there is no horse deader than the "gay marriage" horse.  The Democrats are hot on the issue, whipping the equine corps with all their might ( See: Six Democrats at Candidate Forum Wear Shades of Gray on Gay Marriage, http://www.nytimes.com/cq/2007/08/10/cq_3261.html)  It makes me sad, bored, and irritated.  I just don't want to hear about it anymore.

This is a first class example of government shooting itself in the foot.  I have never understood why our government should be in the marriage business in the first place.  Marriages should be made in heaven, and sanctified in the church.  The whole concept of civil marriage, that is, marriage by judge, or sea captain, is a great puzzlement to me.  And, I see no reason whatsoever for government, or the law, to discriminate in favor of, or against anyone on the basis of marital status.  All the laws relating to marital rights or privileges ought to be scrapped.  That would solve the problem.  The "gay marriage" horse could be given a decent burial, and we could all forget about it.

The homosexuals who are so desperate to publicly declare their adore for one another could simply line up for ceremonies at the local anglican woo-woo parlor.  It would mean nothing to the rest of us.  Anyone wishing to tie themselves up financially in some sort of property ownership, or support rights, arrangement could simply sign an agreement to that effect.  Divorce lawyers, for the most part, would just have to find some other means of employment.

As for we God fearing, heterosexual citizens; we could be married in a Christian Church, commit ourselves as fully as we do today, and not be forced to participate in a system that degrades the honor and sanctity of our vows before God and man.