Monday, March 30, 2009

All Hail Obama Caesar!

The President has powers granted by the Constitution. That is his source of authority. Other powers are voluntarily granted by those who choose to do what he suggests. Take the former CEO of General Motors, Rick Wagoner. GM has been having problems staying afloat in a free market (with some government involvement). They asked Congress for some monetary help. It wasn't enough. They made it known that they needed more. The President decided that part of the problem was their top management, and suggested that, if they wanted ANY more financial assistance, it would only come after Wagoner's resignation. He gave it.

Now, the President is saying that no amount of help is going to keep GM afloat. They're bankrupt. No use throwing good money after bad. Oh, maybe if GM, the unions, and the pension plan all make a few little concessions, they can talk some more. How idiotic would they have to be??? Wagoner tried that!

Obama, make 'em a deal. Put it in writing. If they do A, B, and C, you will given them $D. Failing that, quit telling them how to run their business!

I would Humbly suggest that what Caesar--er--President Obama is doing is illegal and unconstitutional, except that his commands are voluntary. No obligation to comply. Oh, except for that thing about money needed to stay alive. Hmm. Isn't threatening to withhold lifesaving treatment unless conditions are met called coercion? I'm no lawyer, but our government was never intended to use our tax money to coerce people and companies into complying with their agendas. They have other powers to use to coerce people and businesses.

My own (admittedly Humbly optimistic) opinion is that GM will do whatever is necessary to stay alive, get past this current crisis, and in five years, will be better than ever. Unless they let Barak H. Obama, a man who never ran a for-profit business in his life, be their de facto leader. Some of you actually believe that the President has highly experienced and intelligent advisors. Those of you who believe this aren't using your ears or your brain. They all sound alike. Even Secretary Hillary Clinton, the world's smartest woman, sounds like a mouthpiece for the President.

The Nixon administration was often accused of "groupthink" (a term from Orwell's 1984) because they invariably advised Nixon to do what he wanted to do anyway. Anyone who spoke up and disagreed ended up packing up and leaving. Perhaps the Obama administration is doing the same. It's hard to say for sure. The "most transparent administration ever" isn't exactly letting anyone in on how they do things.

Get out of the business world, Obama. It's not like "community organizing" in Chicago. You have to actually produce.

Or else, people of America, your president is starting to grant himself unlimited power. Get used to saying, "Hail, Obama."

Thursday, March 26, 2009

It's Our Fault, So We'll Punish Ourselves Part II

According to a report in Reuters, U.S. to blame for much of Mexico violence: Clinton, Secretary Clinton shockingly takes blame for the epidemic of drug trafficker violence in Mexico on behalf of our entire nation. I have two primary school aged children, who I am trying to teach to take personal responsibility. When they try to explain to me that they did something wrong, but it was someone else's fault, I put them in the corner. Secretary Clinton, you are not fit to represent this nation. You are not competent to lead the Department of State. You are not as ethical as my four-year-old son. In case you didn't pick up on it, I'm angry.

The problems in Mexico are a result of their lack of an industrial base. Uh, this paragraph really stands on just that one sentence. It's an absolute fact. If Mexico had an industrial base adequate to employ the majority of their workforce, the workforce would not find it necessary to run drugs up to the gringos, or illegally enter this nation to find work.

Secretary Clinton "strongly feels" that the "insatiable demand for drugs" by Americans has made Mexican drug cartels spring into existence. With all due respect, madame Secretary, that is the stupidest thing I've ever heard from you since you blamed the "vast right wing conspiracy" for attacking your skirt-chasing husband. By what authority do you blame the nation that pays your excessive salary for the problems of another???

President Obama, it is time for you to admit that your choices for cabinet officers have demonstrated pretty bad judgment. Your Treasury secretary is a tax-cheat. Your Attorney General is a racist. Your Homeland Defense Secretary doesn't believe in protecting the border. Now your Secretary of State is attacking her own country in defense of another! It was just good luck that your original choices for Commerce Secretary, a Governor with a pending "pay to play" investigation and a senator who himself said the Commerce department was a waste of taxpayer money, both bailed out before they could damage your already crappy reputation still further.

I'm no elected official. I don't even have a college degree. But I can think of three ways to stop this nation's drug demand. Legalize drugs. Enforce current law. Offer effective treatment for addicts. Clearly, enforcing border security will never happen under this administration. Okay, fine. Then the government should take responsibility for allowing drug running as a result of shirking their duty to control the border. That means government sponsored detox. Intelligent readers will say that if it's voluntary, addicts won't go. Fine. Enforce the laws, cut the drug supply (raising the price dramatically), and jail criminals who chose to break laws (to pay those exorbitant prices for junk) rather than go to a detox clinic. Wait a sec! Didn't we just raise taxes on cigarettes to get people to quit? Weren't a bunch of altruistic geniuses telling us that a $2 a pack tax on smokes would encourage people to quit? Aren't there commercials on television telling me that the evil tobacco companies are making cigarettes as addictive as they possibly can? Therefore, causing price increases on illegal substances should lead to people choosing to quit, and voluntarily go to detox, right?

Don't you dare try to tell me that Secretary Clinton isn't responsible to a FAR greater extent than almost ANYONE else for the crisis in Mexico! She was First Lady, an unelected, unaccountable, cabinet-level advisor for EIGHT YEARS. Then, she was a SENATOR for eight MORE years. What did she accomplish???

Addiction is a serious problem for the addicted, their families, their communities, and for society. But according to Secretary Clinton, we are supposed to feel guilty for the problems of the nation that is SUPPLYING illegal drugs???

Clean up your own mess first, lady.

Tuesday, March 24, 2009

Sick, Sick Society

In a Tweet, I asked (rhetorically) "Is this the Soviet Union? China?" I got a reply from FakeBillClinton saying, "Clearly neither, or you would be told to SHUT THE F*** UP!" I blocked him for that because of the obscenity. I have small children. Too bad. The question he was asking was a valid one.

How can it be that I can speak freely when this country is becoming a totalitarian regime? I would have liked to have a discussion with FakeBillClinton, but, sadly, he doesn't seem to have the restraint to hold a discussion in a civilized manner. Perhaps he meant it as a slightly off-color joke. In today's society, vulgarities, no matter how obscene, are passed off as normal conversation.

FBC may not have had parents who enforced this one particular standard of etiquette, or after having reached adulthood, FBC may have just rejected any inhibition on his self-expression. People like him use vulgar language on their cell phones in crowded places, exposing school age children to their vulgar vocabularies, cheapening the language as a whole.

Venerable entertainer Bill Cosby tried to call upon "his people" to clean up their language, and was reviled for it. I recall a moment from the Hurricane Katrina disaster, where a concerned group shipped a truckload of Bibles to New Orleans. "We don't need no F***ING BIBLES!" was stated by several disappointed Louisianans, who were hoping for richer, more luxurious offerings. Some people, probably including those who sent the Bibles, were shocked. Others probably didn't notice or see anything wrong with that kind of free expression. Kinda reminds me of the guy who works at the sewage plant, saying, "After a while, you don't even notice the smell anymore."

So, it's a sick society, our kids are exposed to far too much verbal sewage, and I cut off someone rather than have a conversation. I feel like mourning.

By the way, I'm nobody. Totalitarian regimes don't come after nobodies until they've eliminated all the real threats to their power. Until then, I'm just "proof" that there is still Free Speech. The Supreme Court seems to not care that the current regime is working to silence the opposition NOW.

It's Our Fault, So We'll Punish Ourselves Severely!

In my post, There Will Be Violence, I Humbly asserted that threats of coming violence would be used to justify government intrusion and revocation of civil rights. Perhaps I was being too optimistic. Reportedly, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in order to protect Americans, will work to disarm Americans.

Apparently (please correct me if I'm wrong, AG Holder) we are planning to reduce violence in Mexico by making it harder for Americans to protect themselves, because, apparently, some Americans are abusing their rights to keep and bear arms by selling guns to criminals in Mexico. In so doing, we are choosing to weaken the ability of Americans who obey the law (criminals will still be able to shoot civilians and law enforcement types just as they could before) to protect themselves from criminals, including those Mexicans who cross the border illegally. Uh, doesn't that give them an incentive to cross the border, knowing that they won't be facing armed citizens? Has anyone considered a less drastic way to stop sending arms to Mexico? Perhaps enforcing current law and border security?

We have a word for this: surrender. We'll lay down our arms, and you won't. Please don't hurt us.

Okay, some of you out there know this is just another cobblestone in the Liberal Plan to re-make this country into a Liberal paradise. Government (a Liberal-run government, that is) needs to control industry, expression, and education. The people need to toe the line, and that means only government employees should be armed. School children will be indoctrinated to report--er--discuss counter-revolutionary activities they see of their parents.

Normally, I view this kind of extreme prediction as alarmist "conspiracy theory" chatter. The thing is, it's happening.

Sunday, March 22, 2009

What's an AIG?

No, no. Don't get me wrong. I know who AIG is today. A year from now? Will my Humble memory be able to drag this one back out to the light of day? Ask yourself: who was Enron? Haliburton? Sandy Burger? Gary Condit? John McCain? Teresa Heinz?

I Humbly theorize that it is the nature of Americans (we TV watching tuberous mass) to forget (if not forgive) even the greatest of horrors which do not personally affect us. A year from now, someone will say something about "a bigger bonus than an AIG executive", and you will give him a blank look like he was referring to something from the Taft administration. None of which has anything to do with the point of this post.

I resisted long and hard commenting about AIG and other "Bailed-out" (I use a capital "B" because we loaned them Billions) corporations. The Bailouts were intended primarily to keep large employers from going under, slow the decline of our economy, and keep the wheels of industry greased, as they must be, with money. This has all mostly been a failure, given today's 8% unemployment rate. The point of this post is to state my Humble opinion of the proposed 90% taxation of executive (or perhaps all) bonuses given by Bailed-out Businesses. Frankly, it stinks.

It shouldn't be necessary to even explain why this is so horrendous. I trust my Humble readership to already be able to understand why without a simple explanation. Some of you dear readers, however, may have lives that require time and effort, making mental exercise a luxury, not to be wasted frivolously. That's okay! Read on, and I'll do it for you.

This is a punishment tax. Whenever lawmakers say they are "outraged and appalled" right before announcing a new tax, that tax is intended to "correct" the "outrageous and appalling" behavior just mentioned. The discussion is not intended to get you thinking about what anyone should be doing, or why any such behavior should be considered good or bad by politicians. There is no rational discussion! What you get is an impassioned attack on an easy target! Evil coporations are taking YOUR tax money, and giving it to fat-cat executives! Hmm. That does sound evil! I can't afford a new car, even though I pay taxes, but a Bail-out CEO can pay cash for a new house! I have to budget new shoes for my bambinos but the Man can buy whole shoe stores. Why not tax those bonuses?! That's just taking our money back!

See how easy it is to get caught up in the emotion of it all? Forget the logic, reason, intelligence, just focus on your own needs. Folks, this is called pandering. It's emotional appeal, striking a chord within your viscera, not intended to fire up any neurons. YOU are smarter. YOU can see through the bull--uh--smoke. You KNOW that targeting a single group for punitive taxation is a slippery slope, giving Congress the non-Constitutional power to implement controls over private citizens and industry. Congress has a Constitutional obligation to protect commerce, but they are talking about punishing bad corporations with massive taxes on those evillest of things...bonuses.

What's next? A 50% tax on tips, because some Senator got bad service at Denny's?? Maybe a 72.5% tax on used car sales because Representative Chick N. Choker of Wisconsin bought a lemon? Why not? It has become fair play! Make an argument about how Industry X has violated the "public trust", and how this will simply level the playing field and make things right. How? Don't you worry your little voting head over the details.

Okay, almost the end of this post. Pop quiz: Who is AIG again?

THINK, people.

Thursday, March 19, 2009

They Say There Will Be Violence

I've seen a half dozen different articles claiming government officials are expecting a summer of violence. The latest one is the report that London Police are preparing for violent protests at the G-20 Summit in April. This is, imHo, about the same as saying "Go out and have a violent protest" to the discontented masses. Preparing for violent demonstrations is a sensible and realistic practice. Announcing plans for dealing with violent protests is idiotic. Why not just advise violent protesters to stock up on gas masks and body armor?

I can (Humbly) think of two reasons to talk about anticipated violence: to score points with fearful constituencies; and to start the process of enacting controlling legislation to "prevent" violence by preempting civil rights. Gun control legislation is the easiest to move following a spree of shocking violence. No need to come up with supporting facts, or to counter arguments that violence has actually decreased since the "Assault Weapons Ban" was repealed.

Local governments with "concealed carry" licensing have all seen a drop in murder and robbery rates. Local governments with restrictive gun laws tend to have much more violent crime, with and without guns.* One tragic school shooting later, however, where a minor steals a gun from a responsible adult, and guns suddenly become the "leading cause of death among children", and MUST be “controlled.” The NRA becomes the evil child killer enabler. Liberal pundits start raving that "the senseless slaughter of our children must end!" Never mind that ONE adult carrying a concealed handgun could have ended this heinous crime in its tracks. Voters who are irrational with fear know guns are evil!

This isn't a pro-gun-rights rant. It's an anti-liberal despotism rant. Think about the news not reported. Ever read ANY article, or hear ANY news story about how John Michael Doe, a concealed weapon license holder, shot and killed, yada yada yada? You know they would shout it to the rooftops if this happened!

This blog is not intended to be a gun rights rant. Really. It's my Humble intent to illuminate my Humble readership as to the value of a good scare, politically. The unofficial motto of the Obama administration is "Never let a good crisis go to waste." That's not a joke! Use every problem, disaster, protest, failure, and disappointment to move our agenda forward.

So, let's all predict a summer of escalating violence, encourage protesters to plan for normally effective countermeasures, and have liberal legislation drawn up and ready to throw onto the table after the "shocking" violent demonstrations take lives. Have a “gun show loophole” law that strips law-abiding citizens of their rights ready for when another school shooting takes place. Have a "Fairness Doctrine" ready to put in place after "rabid Conservative hate speech" is blamed for inciting a violent crime. That's not too cynical, is it?

Sadly, (and Humbly) it's only realistic.

1. The Bias Against Guns, and More Guns, Less Crime, by John R. Lott, Jr.

Tuesday, March 17, 2009

We're Gonna See Some Real Change Real Soon

If my Humble memory doesn't deceive me, President Obama promised us all change in D.C. politics. I'm still Humbly waiting. Today, he blasted AIG for taking contractually obligated bonuses. He neglected to blast himself for having taken over $100k from them, or Senator Dodd for ensuring they could legally pay out almost half a billion bucks in bonuses. And he totally ignored Secretary Geithner's contribution to the mess. Nope. It's the evil corporate empire's fault.

Neil Cavuto is reported to have criticized the Obama administration for blasting AIG when they have so much they can be called on the carpet for. He reportedly said, "Get the U.S. economy straight before targeting one company." Smart advice. Won't happen.

Today Terry Goddard, Attorney General of Arizona, testified before Congress about border violations. Secretary of Homeland Defense Janet Napolitano, who was formerly governor of Arizona, had no reported comment. Here's what she should say: "As governor of a southwest border state for six years, and as the confirmed Secretary of the Homeland Defense Department, I know exactly what to do. It's Bush's fault!" Unless my Humble memory deceives me, that's all she did as governor.

So, until something happens, there's nothing really blog-worthy. In my Humble opinion, that is.

Friday, March 13, 2009

Character or Charisma?

Eight years ago, newly elected George W. Bush was working hard to set a "new tone" in Washington, D. C. He ignored the abuses of the departing administration, refusing to investigate the destruction of government property (the juvenile prank of removing the "W" key from computer keyboards) or outright theft (rumors were widely reported that the Clinton home strongly resembled their former White House quarters). He chose to try to act like an adult in comparison. This strategy was (in my Humble opinion) a dismal failure. Failing to hold government employees, elected officials, and appointed officials to the standards set in law, set a "new tone" all right. It said the GOP was weak, blind, incompetent, and ineffective.

George Bush tried to show some character. His intentions are laudable, though his methods were misguided. He "misunderestimated" the political machinations of the opposition, their stranglehold over the majority of the mainstream media, and the frustrations of his constituents. His party paid the price. They lost the Senate majority in the next election, and the House majority the election after that. Demonstrating character doesn't accomplish squat in a hostile media environment.

Within the same time frame, his successor, President Barak Hussein Obama, has ordered the closure of Gitmo, tossed out the ban on government funded fetal tissue research, started "investigating" the previous administration's every action, changed the standard of diplomacy towards the U.K. to "barely tolerated" and "treat like crap", and used his office to attack those who state opposition to his wildly unproven attempts to stimulate the economy. Robert Gibbs, his press secretary, and Rahm Emmanuel, his chief of staff, delight in digging at conservative talk radio hosts. There is little or no attempt at maintaining decorum. The Office of the President has no remaining dignity. This is Chicago politics in action! Attack your opponents in any way you can! While the media loves you, you are always right!

President Obama has charisma, that is undeniable. He charmed a nation into forgetting that he had almost no national-level political experience, and NO executive experience. He played on the emotions of the populace, playing race and personality cards expertly. Every attack on his politics became "racial". Every skeleton that came out of his closet became an attack on whoever opened that door. "That's just campaigning," we all thought. After the election, things would be different. After all, Obama ran on a "change" platform.

Perhaps President Obama will come to realize that charisma and character are not mutually exclusive, that having attained the office of President, it is no longer necessary to use Chicago-style political bullying to accomplish his agenda.

I'm not holding my breath.

We Give Up! The Economic Collapse is Over!

President Barak Obama, today, announced that "It's not as bad as we expected," in a press conference about the economy and proposed budget. How regal. How monarchial (monarchaic?). It's as if (monarchistic?) he is allowing this country to (monarchative?) go back to how it was back in August 2008. The improved economy, in comparison (monarchival? HAH! My spell checker likes that one!!!) to the anticipated economy of the next four years, allows deficit spending on the order of $200 Billion over each of the next (monarchiastic? Hmm! My spellchecker liked that too!) 10 years, above the normal overspending. (monarchismal. monarchavistic. monarchical. Now my spellchecker is allowing everything! I think I killed it! I didn't know I could do that!)

Is it, perhaps, possible, that President Hussein--er--Obama, uses fear to accomplish his monarchitudinal agenda when dealing with the masses, but monarchialistically reverts to optimistic monarchiaginal predictions when dealing with Congress?

We are of this (Humble) opinion.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

I Grieve for Us, Our Ill Society

I just had an email exchange with my mother-in-law. I mentioned a story in the news about quadruplets who survived a year against the odds given by the doctors who had advised some or all of them be aborted. The story was a triumph, and a caution to weigh carefully the decision to end a life. My MiL (clever abbreviation for mother-in-law?) saw this as an attack on "women's rights", the "right to choose", and "reproductive rights".

MiL is a churchgoing woman. She takes her grandsons to church with her most Sundays. She signs them up for Sunday school. She is a christian. But she is so full of self righteous hatred for the male establishment, that she considers anything less than total freedom to kill a fetus up to the moment of birth to be an invasion of the rights and freedoms of all women, childbearing or not. Any restraint on abortion is tantamount to slavery, to her.

I'm a christian, too. But that's about all we have in common. I don't hate the male-dominated establishment. I see it shifting away from male domination, pushed like a sail by the winds of guilt. Centuries of domination mean that males today inherit responsibility for what our predecessors have done. Never mind that these despicable men were also ancestors for the women of this era. We are tainted by their bigotries. So, we are cowards. When confronted with "women have a right to decide what to do with their own bodies," we sheepishly say, "it's your womb, and we have no right to an opinion."

Those babies being aborted by the millions every year, they're our babies too. But the wombs they got started in are under the control of people who may not have the best interests of their tenants in mind. When having a baby might require making massive changes in their lives, and someone is waving a "solution" that is quick, mostly painless, and commonplace, it's much harder to say no. And if any germ of anguish or doubt crosses their gaze, well, damn it, you can't judge! It's only a bit of tissue! It's not murder!

The thing is, I'm a Christian, remember? I believe in a day of Judgement, where we face God, and He decides our eternal fate. And I see millions upon millions of people for whom an unborn child is not worthy of a moment's thought. No effort to let that child live is worth the time, effort, and trouble it takes. So, we, my society, my culture, treasure the "rights" of living, voting, consuming women over those of dependant, vulnerable, utterly helpless unborn...people. All that potential is simply tossed out in a medical waste bag.

Some of you reading this will think I'm a fascist, enslaving, heartless monster for wanting to damn all those women to either give up recreational sex, or be punished with the horrific specter of life with a child. But you who defend the "right to choose", what are you damning all those women to? Will you stand by them, and share their fate on that day of Judgement?

The slaughter goes on, and it's not going to stop because of one pitiful little blog. And I grieve.

Thursday, March 5, 2009

Bloggity Blog

I sometimes feel a need to blog just to read myself blogging. Well, no, not really. I feel that way now, and that's a first for me. Looking at the news of the day, and reflecting on events of the past two years, I see trends driving the world in its current Titanic-to-the-iceberg direction. According to the movie, they saw the iceberg before they hit it, but the Titanic was going too fast to miss it. Do the movers and shakers of the world understand that we're heading towards a global economic disaster, are they willing to avoid it, and is it not already too late?

About two years ago, the market price of crude oil in the U.S. started what looked like an endless rise. Prices at the pump went up, up, up. Consumer luxury budgets went down, down, down, and before long necessity budgets started to follow. The housing market stopped being a sure-fire positive ROI (return on investment) requiring only a listing fee as an investment. That was Phase I of the World Economic Decline.

As we approached the general election in 2008, the world started to wake up and smell the debt. U.S. currency started to tumble in comparison to the Euro and the Yen. This provided plenty of gloating fuel at the time. A superpower with an unstable economy is like...Russia! Only Russia is doing better than the U.S.! Those nations who would not exist or have their level of prosperity save for the assistance of the U.S. were particularly acrimonious about our difficulties. No offers to help smooth out the troubles were forthcoming.

Right before the general election, Senator McCain decided to "suspend" his campaign to fix the problem. Misbehaving kids get longer suspensions than his campaign had. His solution was to push for a $700B bailout. Congress gave a $350B spending card to Paulson, Bush's secretary of the Treasury, with no requirement for oversight or accountability. One of President Bush's last acts as POTUS was to release the other $350B as well.

The nation was reeling from the increasing pace of "bailouts" and spending by congress. Those few who did the math, and didn't go insane outright, started sounding alarm bells, to which the newly installed BHO administration snorted, "you're just jealous because you didn't win!" BHO then proceeded to break every campaign promise ever made in record time. Even former-pres W.J. Clinton was careful and deliberate in comparison. In the meantime, every major bank and car manufacturer was hitting up congress for spending money!

Now everyone who claims to have been instrumental in getting BHO elected wants payback. Just a few million here, a couple hundred million there. No one cares about a little pork anyway, slimed NY Senator Chuck Schumer. Translation, "you're just jealous because we're in charge of the Senate, and you're not."

But it's the future which concerns me most. In the past, economic setbacks were overcome by market forces, NOT government intervention! A few people get crappy jobs, and do them badly when the government gets involved. Not worth the effort! To make an economy improve, kick up the activity in the private sector! Lower taxes! When taxes drop, people lose their frakking minds, and invest like there's no tomorrow. When taxes go up, people look for tax shelters. Investment, risk-taking, and consumer spending are all discouraged. Tax revenues plummet. Taxes end up going up again to cover the budget which doesn't care if less revenue came in.

Yet, no one is trying to steer around this iceberg! The FDR New Deal didn't fix the Depression! It took a massive new market for military industrial goods to employ every available warm body, creating a secondary market for everything from automobiles to pizza, to fix that hosed-up economy. Commerce seems to be a dirty word to liberals. Yet without commerce, there is no income to tax to fund their little social engineering projects.

Today General Motors announced (paraphrased) "You know that $25B you loaned us? Turns out it wasn't enough, and we might go bankrupt anyway. Sorry."

So, it's all looking pretty murky because the people who can do something are playing ugly little political games and paying back favors, and NOT getting their hands dirty trying to FIX this mess! Popularity be damned! You're not going to have a chance in hell of getting re-elected in 2012 if you can't stop the disaster today!

Why bother? They're not listening.

Wednesday, March 4, 2009

Just Come Out and Say It! Let Israel Die!

That (title) is not my (Humble) opinion! That's what I gather from Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton's statement to a middle-eastern audience today ( As the prestigious top-diplomat for the United States, saying that (paraphrased, a little) Israel is causing violence by taking active measures in the Gaza strip, is tantamount to saying they are inciting more attacks from Palestinian militants, and justifying past attacks as well.

As I (Humbly) recall, during the 2008 campaign, the jewish community was heavily pro-Dem (many were rabidly anti-GOP). See the irony here? The knee-jerk liberal community might have to watch their choice of ruling party cater to ravening vicious militants and their enablers, while they throw Israel under the bus. The jewish community is unwittingly standing elbow-to-elbow with anti-semites who would be thrilled to hear about mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv.

Also, as President Clinton was declared "the first Black president" for his popularity among the Black populace, Senator Clinton was de facto "the first Jewish First Lady", having gone to extreme measures to win, overwhelmingly, the New York senatorial race in 2000, largely with the nearly unanimous vote of the NY jewish community. My (Humble) guess is, they're starting to wonder where "Hillary the Jew" went.

I guess there is enough irony to go around. President Bush, in supporting stability in that region, got cozy with many enemies of Israel. History will (Humbly) consider this to be dealing with the Devil. I (Humbly) suspect the Obama administration will simply be the Devil. Unless you like dead jews, that is.

My Humble Opinion is that Israel has a right to exist free of continued attacks, a right to respond to attacks that have occurred, and a right to deal with threats to their very existence in a substantial way. I (Humbly) guess this is where Secretary Clinton and I disagree.

You Can't Neglect Someone to Death Unless You're a Health Care Professional!

[Please note that I am commenting on the news, not reporting it. I make no claim for the accuracy of the story any more than the source should state support for my (Humble) opinions. Please visit the URL noted in the story for the source article. ]

In a Fox News story,,2933,490857,00.html, a Washington man was arrested for leaving his wife of more than 50 years to die on the floor. The 73 year-old woman fell more than 10 weeks ago, and was fed and cared for by her 82 year old husband. She remained on the floor where she fell after attempts to move her caused great pain. When she passed away, he called 911.

She was reported to have ulceration on her hip and legs. The husband was arrested for failing to summon aid. I realize this may be just, but is it fair? People frequently end up in hospitals with ulcers caused by neglect. Sometimes the caregivers are to blame for not wanting to go to the trouble of calling for an ambulance. Sometimes the patients themselves are to blame (yes! it's true!) for NOT wanting aid to be summoned. Some patients were otherwise healthy people, for whom summoning aid caused their major illness. Some were unhealthy people who contributed to their own unhealthiness. In every case, these were people who were helpless, and in the care of someone else.

I was struck by the bizarre double standard here. The state of Washington may pursue nursing homes who let elderly infirm patients die, but I've never heard of it. This comes across as a case where ordinary citizens are not allowed to neglect their family until they die. You have to work for a nursing home to have that kind of authority.

I strongly suspect (not based on anything in the story, just my own cynicism) that the woman who died requested that no emergency response be summoned. The husband (in my opinion) may have unwisely followed her wishes. Which would have been easier? Calling 9-1-1, and having her taken away? Or feeding and cleaning her for 10 weeks to avoid having to explain to the police? I suspect this man did what he did out of love and respect. No nursing home in existence can claim the same thing. And, having licensing requirements for qualified and certified personnel, have far less legal defense to explaining the deaths or severe injuries to their patients.

An 82 year-old man in jail with a dead wife probably won't be comforted by all this, though.