Showing 57 comments for
The Republican Mole

I raise my glass to the mole - on Obooger's nose.Moo doesn't need to cater. She would eat all the profits. Hey, what a great new Socialist program!She'd rather sit on her big cushion and collect her cut of the $4 Billion taxpayers gave to her friends to install sneeze guards for her MOVE initiative.

"...assorted liberals would have it; it's reality."Ah... I think I found the problem. It's that pesky r-e-a-l-i-t-y again. We can't have that getting in the way of a nice, expensive, feel-good-but-make-the-problem-worse liberal solution, can we?As for African poverty, I think we may be dealing with an apples-to-oranges comparison. Certainly in the U.S. the definition of the word "poverty" is as elastic as Bill Clinton's definition of, well, anything. In the U.S., for example, we have the richest poor people on Earth. When the largest health risk to the poor is chronic obesity caused by too many calories and too much leisure time in front of the flat screen, your poor aren't really very poor at all.I wonder if the U.N. definition of African poverty has been similarly notched upward in the past 40 years. I'm not disputing that most of Africa is a dreadful place for the people who live there, mind you, and certainly the typical African is worse off now that the bulk of the continent is no longer under colonial rule, but it is VERY politically-incorrect to point out that obvious reality (Dang: I used the "R" word again).

The wars that heve been waged since WWl all seem to follow the same pattern. Throw money and resources at the problem, ignore failed results, throw in more money and resources , ignore the human costs,....... begin again.....ad nauseum.....

GM Burt.First on education, it has been part of my perception that blacks and hispanics dilibertely avoid a good quality education as part of their minoric zeitgeist.For blacks it is the entertainment world, government related, including welfare, or crime. Further where looser black leaders such as Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson disengenuously bewail the disparity of white and blacks in prison while never promoting the opportunities inherent and free, at the tax payers exspence, paid for predominately by the whites, in American education, the hispanics without looser leaders do their time in prison as a measure of their machizmo.It is the unspoken but well understood moto for both groups, we don`t do whitey, and an education is whitey. The girls are also beholden to the motto, though with them it is motherhood early and often that becomes their badge of honor.It is bad enough that the black leaders offer disengenuous leadership that corrals subtley but powerfully their flock into an anti whitey zeitgeist, but then to have the democrat party help with the continued corraling by rewarding both groups for their anti whitey zeitgeist with money wrongfully and immorally appropriated from hard working Americans and then given free to said flocks is an abomination and transgression of liberty, the American spirit and those that have earned their money. Worse still, this reward of free money helps hold blacks and hispanics to their cherished moto, it helps them stay in their corral, and in turn condems them to ignorance, welfare and crime.Some of the PP readers, and of course Burts columns may noy have notice, but what has become quite clear to me, I share with you, democrat and dirty rat are phonetically similar. This may be coincidence or it just might be meaningful coincidence. I believe it is meaningful coincidence for although a dirty rat is not a democrat, a democrat is surely a dirty rat. Thank you.

I kinda like to boast that immediately after the election, I said Obama would be maybe the best thing that has happened to this country since George Washington, because I expected his extreme positions and actions would wake us up. McCain would have done the same things, but too slowly for us to put our guard up, as has been done over the last 50 or more years. But I'll admit I was not sharp enough to realize he is a mole. Great insight, Burt. But, on second thought, are the Republican leaders sharp enough to have devised such a plan?

Burt,Straight to the point and brutally honest as always!The truth hurts, doesn't it? But they don't want to hear the truth, they want you and me to subsidize and cuddle them because we are "rich white men." They seem to feel injured, entitled, as a result of history's past, and continue to pull up history as a means to garner sympathies and support. One doesn't have to be a genius to see where the problems lay for the minority populations you mention. One only has to watch TV, read the newspapers, listen to the radio, and look around to see who creates the majority, statistically, of the problems for themselves and for this country.Statistically, minorities have the higher prevalence of crimes, such as murder, theft, assault, domestic disturbances, armed robbery, and a host of other crimes. But many (liberals, Black politicians, et. al) will claim it is because of their station in life, that they do what they do and are the way they are.Often times you have to look within for the solutions to problems, but many seemingly look out towards others as being the problem, and their solution, to their woes and station in life. It is time to grow up and accept personal responsibility for your own lives, not continue to blame the white man and "system" for your problems.

"...nobody ever demands an exit strategy when it comes to the unending wars on drugs and poverty?"Quick little side thought; If the anti-tobacco nannies put as much effort (as they do in destroying the tobacco industry) into finding a way to effectively fight drugs, we'd probably not have that much of a problem....I do have a suggestion. It is not decriminalization of said licit substances, but instead of imprisonment, we not only take their drugs, but fine those (and not a small slap on the wrist fine, I'm thinking at least 5-10k) that are using said drugs? I know this would probably not be effective in some cases, (dealers and distributors)but for users, it does become a problem. Those that use and still hold a job, said fines could be either paid in full at the time of court hearing, or, if unable to pay at that time, will be attached to their wages. Of course the ACLU would scream it targets the poor and blah blah, and it's unconstitutional, but then again so is the confiscation of our own personal wealth in the form of income taxes. But I digress. For those that are not gainfully employed they can and WILL be forced to work at for the public good, cleaning streets, public toilets, soup kitchens etc, until fine is paid in full. Said payments will be charged at the minimum wage, until it is fully paid and discharged. Perhaps they can be fitted with one of those tracking bracelets? I don't know how this would fly in the face of most conservatives, but, it is something to mull over at the very least.

In answer to Dennis`s question as to whether the Republican,so-called leaders, are sharp enough to devise such a plan; the answer is no as most of therm are about as sharp as a marble,which makes it very easy for them to roll over and play dead.God how I wish Chris Christie would get into the race!I think he would eat Obama`s lunch.Richard RyanLamar,Missouri - Birthplace of Harry S Truman

PDK - Perhaps donating funds from the government largesse is a good thing, in a twisted but real sort of way. It's akin to protection money. Just think, by giving a monthly check to the flunkies who can actually work but don't, we are preventing a lot of looting and pillaging. If we take their checks away, we might have to declare martial law to attend to the defending and raping of our businesses and homes.Doktor Riktor Von Zhades - I have a better solution to drugs. First - if you are caught using it's automatically twenty years. Second - If you are caught selling it's life without parole. Third - If you traffic, or sell and cause a death it's death by public hanging. Wait a minuit......Let's combine the second and third with the penalty for the third. I bet it would work.

Doktor & Ragweed: My approach to drugs is quite different from yours. At the risk of sounding like a fan of Ron Paul, I don't think it's anyone's business what people snort, smoke or inject. I would tax the stuff just the way we already do with tobacco and alcohol, but what I would do is not allow addiction to be used as a mitigating circumstance when the user commits a crime. Commit a crime while under the influence, you don't get to throw yourself on the mercy of the court, insisting that you're a victim. Your sorry ass is going to the clink, not a clinic.Burt

@Doktor Riktor Von Zhades..."Said payments will be charged at the minimum wage, until it is fully paid and discharged."...More slaves for your plantation? How about we just take'em out and shoot'em. Get rid of all those nasty old court costs and later subsequent medical issues?At the very least? How apropos.

I imagine to guarantee failure of any war is to let the government handle it. WWII was won, in spite of government, by the brilliance of American industry. The war on drugs and poverty have failed because government, without citizen help, is inept. It seems liberal government does not want drugs and poverty to end; both keep the masses stupid and voting for liberal fools who promise more. God help us, the Democrats will not!

I agree with Burt on his approach to the drug issue. Making it legal and taxing it does help remove the victim status. Also, treatment for addiction, even mild could be included on insurance policies, governmental and private.If we are serious about individual liberties then drug use falls under this umbrella. An adult should not be limited by law in his/her recreation choices based on others moral convictions or economic considerations. By economic considerations I mean big pharma running the US legislature when it comes to pot legalization. You wouldn't need those valiums or other legal goodies that insurance pays for if you can take a couple of puffs or have a brownie after that stressful day.We've created an underclass of citizens with these draconian laws that are ironically created by men who drink, smoke, and take pills.Fascinating, this country is. Fascinating in the way like watching a horrible car wreck in slow motion is fascinating...

Burt,With your Libertarian/zero-tolerance approach to drugs; you'd better be ready to build a lot of "clinks". A LOT of them. And staff them and maintain them. Were's all that money gonna come from?From the drug tax? Hmm... maybe.

The Law of Racism:Racial Sensitivity is inversely proportional to the overall success of your culture

I believe Burt's on the right track. When you consider things from a constitutional point of view, what business is it of government to proscribe or prescribe what citizens choose to put into their bodies?? If the principle of personal responsibility is applied, those choosing to ingest harmful substances would necessarily and appropriately incur the expected results of their actions. The only problem with such freedom, of course, would be how to minimize the victimization of children in the context of parental drug abuse. Sterilization of the abuser parents would perhaps be one option.

On the topic of legalizing all drugs at the Federal level, there is no existing Federal authority to outlaw them. The Federal government, States and People all knew that to have Prohibition of alcohol required a Constitutional Amendment granting the Federal government the authority to outlaw alcohol. There has never been any such Amendment passed to outlaw the currently illegal drugs.Further, I'm not convinced legalizing drugs would require more prisons, as Saint Peter implies. Certainly fewer laws regarding possession, transport, etc would result in fewer people locked up for possession, transport, etc. A lot of the corollary crimes would be greatly reduced as well, because legal drugs would be safer and cheaper than illegal drugs because they would be subject to mixed market conditions rather than their current black market conditions. Take crack as an example--crack exists because cocaine was made illegal. It makes perfect sense to make, buy and even use a more powerful drug when the consequences are roughly the same either way.(For the record, Professor Walter E. Williams has very eloquently and repeatedly made the point about the Amendments--I give him credit for it.)

Burt,Reality nevers is considered when political descisions are made. NEVER.Therfore, the fact that some percedntage of Latinos and Blacks will never have the same standard of living as whites is and always will be racist. As long as Al, Jessee and Jessee, Jr, Maxine and the like are given the airtime they crave; honest law abiding whites, Blacks, Latinos, Asians, etc. will never get the chance to be Americans.Regarding the taxation/legalization of certain drugs; NO, NO, NO. Addictive narcotics must never be legalized and sold as tobacco and alcohol. Marijuana and hashish maybe because the addictions to these are usually caused by the cutting agent usd by the street peddlers. I can understand grass and hash being sold in "state" liquor stores (package stores, whatever the individual state calls the agency); but, never addictive drugs like heroin, crack, meth, etc.I understand the old stories about demon rum and tobacco. Since I am not a dedicated user of either tobacco nor alcohol (I do like a socail drink once in a while), I leave to the individual to make their own decisions regarding their individual use of alcohol and tobacco. Since both can be harmful in excess, I refuse to be sympathetic when someone is caught driving drunk or develops lung cancer. The risks are know: forewarned is forearmed.As for the reason for not changing the Government pension systems with regards to felons drawing $100,000 pensions' the current crop of government servants (like that??) are fearful that they may end up is a prsion and will not like it if they have cut off there only means of support.Duke

Burt, I continue to proclaim that Bush and the bobble-headed republicans who went along with his mindless agenda made Obama possible, if not inevitable. But for any substantial long term change toward return of a constitutional government, it's not going to be enough for Republicans to just be "not Obama". American citizens are looking for a LEADER who understands individual freedom FROM government and a government bounded by the authority given it by we the people. Republicans may win the next election just because the nominee is "not Obama", but without a true Republican LEADER, 4 or 8 years from then there will BE another Obama.

Ragweed, I concur.For some time now I view states such as California, Illinois and others from that very perspective. Here at the PP, every once in awhile someone from California writes a comment about LA and SF as the big liberal voting chuncks that controll the democrat process while rural areas are very conservative. It does not take much imagination to see cities as where the liberal loosers are hearded and corraled into, with the intent to keep them from robbing and murdering the rest of the people in the suburbs and rural areas with guns and gangs.If it were all a Hollywood movie the big cities would have surrounding walls to keep the people in. Instead of a government check arriving by mail, parachute drops of supplies would be made, guards would be posted in the possibility of an escape letting loose on the good citizenship the outlawing, looser liberal welfare recipient.It is a type of mafioso payment, but if the loosers swallowed their false pride and worked in school and after in the workplace, and further if the democrat party would allow itself to sink or swim on its own merit very little of this would be needed. Thanks.

Burt - one minor correction, both Engineering and Architecture are given as undergraduate degrees. But you do have to take some (about 1/4 of the total courses) useless liberal arts and physical education courses during the first two years. For the life of me I can't understand how gym makes me a better engineer. I have a Bachelors Degree in Mechanical Engineering and a Masters Degree in Civil Engineering. In addition in engineering, physics, calculus, chemistry courses the answers to a quiz question is either right or wrong, there is no maybe or "I feel good about it."Richard - before you wish Chris Christie would get into the race, consider these three things; He has voiced support for some gun control (semi-auto ban), has said being in the country without proper documentation is not a crime, and has called climate change real and partially manmade. I seem to remember some guy by the name of McCain had similar views. What I believe is the Republican Big Shots (you can't call them leaders) are just pushing another candidate with RINO views now that their Fair Haired Boy Romney is going no where.

Okay, I've just got to ask: PDK, just what the hell are "loosers"?

Re: DW Hudson,You are correct sir. There will be many other Obama's and socialists alike. Therein lays the problems. Socialism creeps upon us, they believe in patience and understand that 2 steps forward, and 1 step backwards, is how they attain their ends.Despite all the hopes and wishes about bringing a "conservative" into power each election after a Marxist graces our sacred halls, it is only a matter of time before the creep sneaks in for good, once and for all, and we are beyond a point of no return.Unfortunately, I do not think many of the readers understand this is the socialist's modus operandi. They will eventually win out, because there will be more Obama’s forwarding the socialist agendas, slowly chipping away at our liberties and constitution until it is unrecognizable and too late.This is my conservative friends is only an eventuality. Sadly, perhaps not in our time, but likely in a couple or a few generations to come they will have succeeded.

We need to keep in mind that regardless of what a presidential candidate may hold as his platform for election, the implementation requires that the congress of the United States passes legislation to uphold that platform. With congress in perpetual gridlock and unwilling to compromise on anything of substance, 999 and any other platform is just pie in the sky. We should look at the man,or woman,as to their character and wisdom and take their platform with a large grain of salt.

PDK & Robert - aren't "Liberal Loosers a redundancy?

Sadly, by letting obama in by not voting for McCain, we gained two ultra-liberal justices on the SC. The obama experiment wasn't worth the damage he has already inflicted on this country.

To Pulitzer candidate Burt:I agree wholeheartedly when you say, "...I regard the first four years of liberal arts instruction as an unholy waste of time and money...." If our now-government-run (formerly "public") schools cannot teach our kids to read, speak, communicate, write, handle money, think on their feet, work with their hands, understand and argue our Constitutional system, know our history, learn responsible life skills, etc., in 12-years' time . . . then why the bloody hell do we demand they go to college and get stupider, learning mostly meaningless rubbish and hare-brained failed notions?Few of our young people -- those who would become doctors, scientists, architects, engineers, and the like -- should be going to college at all anyhow. This is a reflection on our woefully ineffective educational system. If we could only .... If we could only take that statist authority away from Fedgov and our teachers' unions .... Have the states compete with one another for excellence in education. Our youth need to learn practical things and to know how to think rationally and critically, and how to live by their wits, and not rely on the dumbed-down groupthink of progressivist dogma.We will never convince the ~30% of liberals how delusional their thinking is. We're wasting our time trying to win them over. Our problem is with the Establishment staus-quo Republicans who are not smart enough to fight back against this relentless tide of pathological progressivism, unless of course they are progressivists themselves.Burt, you're too good. You raise too many good questions. You could write a script about what is going on now, but nobody would believe it.

Hello America,By Golly, I think Bert's got it. Leave it to the mind of a true realist to surmise the probable. The Bama is a Republican mole. God bless you Mr. Pretlusky for that ray of light (truth). I especially loved the closing sentence. It says it all. We needed that. And that is the rest of the story.PS: I told you liberalism is a mental disease. These misguided people are so easily fooled by sort of dark skin, and a glib tongue. It serves them right. Shock therapy might help, but I doubt it.The Turban Torpedo

C'mon Burt, I go along with you most of the time, but I love mole, whether on plain cheese enchiladas or chicken. It is really off putting to associate this fine sauce with Obama!

And forget Chris Christie. He's getting all this attention because he's palatable to Establishment Grand Old Pooper Repubs. He's fine as governor, but president?

And besides, not even mole can cover up some unmitigated horrors, like cat poop.

@Robert: "Okay, I've just got to ask: PDK, just what the hell are "loosers"?" "Loosers" are loose Conservatives otherwise know as RINO's. Liberals are just plain old losers as redundant as that is - with a nod to Howard.

Ragweed: I like your solution to the Drug Problem. Some of the other solutions presented here would only increase the crime problem. But the real answer to all of society's problems begins in the heart, with revival and a relationship with Jesus Christ.

@akaangrywhiteman"More slaves for your plantation?How about we just take'em out and shoot'em. Get rid of all those nasty old court costs and later subsequent medical issues?"Ummm, huh? Although your suggestion, might be effective, and has merit, I doubt it would fly. Burt I can agree to a degree, IF we can create a national penal system somewhere in the Aleutians, wherein said offender serves minimum 5 years. Let's face it, those islands are not exactly conducive to human comfort....Seriously, I'm not sure what you mean by my plantation. I don't have one, never have had one, and don't plan on having one. All I was suggesting was to hit drug uses in the pocketbook. We constantly hear the neomarxists complaining how the prisons are so over crowded with folks that have been caught with a seed. (not that I believe it), so I proposed a fine that would hurt worse than being in jail. Is that so bad?

@Doktor Riktor Von ZhadesIt isn't the drug users that have a viable source of income that causes societies problems, so why fine them for paying for a habit they would have whether it is lawful or not. The biggest problem with most drug users is they don't make a viable living and as a general rule either live off entitlements or illegally by breaking laws against persons or property. If you wish to punish those individuals, punish them for the crimes against the person or property as severely as you wish, but the bogus crimes against the state laws should be done away with.The state uses crimes against the state to milk the public of money, case in point seat belt and helmet laws. Perhaps you feel safer with the state deciding what you should and shouldn't be allowed, I don't.As to the plantation mention, the state farms the people just as a dairy herder farms his herd.

Mr. Haviland, I pray for gridlock! Unfortunately the Republican "leadership" is more interested in compromising principles than using the fiscal authority granted to our HOUSE to stop the democrat onslaught dead in its tracks. I would also be quite happy to settle for a Republican president whose interest was more engaged in STOPPING unconstitutional legislation than "doing something" to look good when the best course is to just leave it alone. The party "platform" I always look for is our Constitution.

Holy cow! I leave for a few hours and I come back to a food fight. I believe Aaron Stovall answered ST. Peter on my behalf. Once we let everyone out of prison who is there on (non-violent) drug charges, we'd have plenty of room for new and more deserving inmates.Howard Reed: It pains me when someone pays me a compliment and I have to call him on the carpet, but how can you manage to misspell both my names in a single message. Bert? Pretlusky? What have I told you about drinking in the afternoon?Regards, Burt Prelutsky

RE: Dennis -ur post 1046am 10/3 "I said Obama ... maybe the best thing ... happened to this country since George Washington, because I expected his extreme positions and actions would wake us up. McCain would have done the same ..., but slowly..., as has been done ...last 50 ...years. But I'll admit I was not sharp enough to realize he is a mole. Great insight, Burt. But, on second thought, are the Republican leaders sharp enough to have devised such a plan?" Like any Politician, GOP sharp enough to take credit for such a plan.

RE: Fed up ur post 246pm 10/3, "Therein lays the problems. Socialism creeps upon us, they believe in patience and understand that 2 steps forward, and 1 step backwards, is how they attain their ends." Socialist-any Statist-Not Content to Control Our Lives from Womb to the Tomb, They Will also ReachUp from the Crypt.

Cute. Funny. But I disagree with you regarding undergraduate work. The problem is a lack of healthy diversity of opinion in these courses. When the liberal professors let the communists in, they shut the door on conservatives.

Burt, having read one of your books (and having read a patch of the tripe passed off as writing by the likes of Tom Friedman) I am sitting here in slack-jawed disbelief that you have not won a Pulitzer. If I had a vote, you'd have it. For gems like this one:"But even in their wildest dreams, the GOP never imagined that within two short years, they would pick up Ted Kennedy's Senate seat and elect a slew of governors and senators in Ohio, Virginia, New Jersey and Florida. When Bob Turner, a Catholic conservative, won the recent election in New York's predominantly Jewish 9th district, millions of champagne glasses were hoisted all over America toasting their favorite mole, Barack Obama."Genius!

MichaelSSec: If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times...the wrong people are in charge of the Pulitzer Prize.Regards, Burt

Burt and all ye good folk out there. Can’t believe you missed that old line, “Johnson declared war on poverty, and poverty won”.

Burt, Quit tipping off the libs. It was apparent that McCain wanted no part of being elected. I only hope we didn't underestimate the damage one Obummer could do in four years. He is doing his best to put this country in irretrivable recovery. How can any reasonable person think he is good for this country?

First for those who think that we should be compromising simply because of gridlock, I have only this to provide as proof that compromise isn't all that it's cracked up to be. "The spread of evil is the symptom of a vacuum. Whenever evil wins, it is only by default: by the moral failure of those who evade the fact that there can be no compromise on basic principles." Ayn RandAs to drug use and legalization, I cannot agree, particularly with narcotics. These drugs form dependencies that are so strong that a person's life will be forever changed for the worse upon their first attempt at use. The result will be more single mothers and fathers with children raised up in a single parent household that will then be dependent upon the government.Legalizing these drugs will simply make these drugs more prevalent and easier to obtain. This will result in more people using these drugs, becoming dependent upon it and the government for support. Unintended consequences will result in more government progams to help those who have drug dependencies. Even one person on this thread is already suggesting that insurance companies provide coverage for addiction therapy.

@ Richard Ryan: I'm afraid I have to disagree with you on Chris Christie, my friend. Although I like his very outspoken, in-your-face approach, I'm with Howard Last on this one. Christie appears to me to be just another RINO, supported by a host of good old boy establishment Republicans. Here's a short list of the reason why I think this, at the risk of repeating what Howard said:- He has said that illegal immigration is “an administrative matter” rather than a crime. He prosecuted very few immigration cases as a U.S. attorney. - He thinks man-caused global warming is real.- He supports New Jersey’s ban on assault weapons and has opposed proposals to allow state residents to carry concealed weapons – positions that are not too surprising for a former prosecutor. (This alone loses my support).- He didn’t join Florida and the other 25 states that sued to block Obamacare.- He supports civil unions for gays.There are other things, but for me, this suffices. I say no to Christie.

Ah, yes....the same old libertarian solution to the drug problem: "legalize drugs, but tax their use." What nonsense! For those of you who favor this, may you be the first ones under a surgeon's knife when he is "high." Doctors who sober already make serious mistakes (such as amputating the healthy leg of a man, then having to go back and amputate the diseased one.) One wonders what they would do when"OWI" (Operating while under the influence.)

Emcee: I think your comment is rather silly. Alcohol is legal and its use is common and widespread, but I don't believe that drunken surgeons have been a problem. I also don't believe that the surgical team would agree to work with a surgeon under the influence, because, even setting aside their own morality and professionalism, the resultant tragedy would result in their facing criminal and civil charges.Sprinklerman: We already have tens of millions of people who have dependencies that have ruined their lives and destroyed their souls. They're not drug addicts, they're liberals. At least we can toss the druggies in jail if they misbehave.Burt

OK. A final comment. I stand by my original treatise. Drugs are a cancer that is killing this country. We must cut its head off. We do this by eliminating the problem - drug sellers. If we do this we won't have to punish users. They won't have anything to use. Convicted of selling? You're dead. A bullet or a noose - your choice. Bullets are quicker but messier. The noose is a good choice - it's recyclable.....GREEN none-the-less!Many years of the war on drugs prooves my point. Where are we after spending billions and billions fighting drugs?It may not be my business as to what people snort, smoke or inject. But it is my business when they try to influence my grandchildren to do it, and Lord help the person who tries it. I will gladly pull the trigger on anyone who tries to sell my kids drugs.It is part of government to "promote the general welfare," and killing drug sellers is a very efficient way of doing so.Executing drug sellers does several things. It is a deterrent. An executed drug seller will never sell drugs again. It is a cleansing of the scum from our society. It will ultimately give people a chance to have a good life that they would never have on drugs. The list goes on and on.I stand by my thoughts.Keep it up Burt.....

Ragweed: If what you suggest were a possible option, I would go along with you. But when we don't even execute most murderers and never a rapist or child molester, I don't hold out any hope that we are going to start doing away with drug dealers. And while I don't know where you live, I suspect that unless your grandchildren are four or five years old, they have already been approached by drug-selling punks. So I will continue to hope the War on Drugs ends sometime soon, although I doubt that it will. I'll remind you that even when there was a Constitutional Amendment outlawing alcohol, people continued drinking and even producing their own. While you may disagree with my position, at least I'm not promoting legalizing drugs for my own sake. I don't use any mind-altering drugs, including alcohol. It's bad enough that I have to listen to the likes of Obama, Pelosi and Juan Williams, without risking doing permanent damage to my brain.Burt

To those who object to legalizing drugs, a few quick points:1) There is a large difference between assuming the moral authority to tell me what I should or shouldn't do and seizing the legal authority to tell me what I can or cannot do. 2) The fear of what will happen if these drugs are legalized seem to me very similar to the fear that compels women to be covered head to toe in many Muslim countries :) Instead of just assuming all hell will break loose, why not look at a) the awful effects of the current system, b) what was actually happening with the use of these drugs before they were outlawed, and c) what happens in countries without such laws. 3) Your preference that drugs stay illegal under Federal law does not address at all the Federal Government's total lack of legal authority to outlaw them. State authority will vary by their constitutions.Like Mr. Prelutsky, I have no interest in legalizing these drugs so I can use them. I have never used any of them nor am I interested in starting. However, for me to tell others what they may or may not do to themselves implies I have a higher claim on their body than they themselves do. I have no such claim and neither do any of you :)

Been gone for awhile and the whole world falls apart Burt---Missed your article on age etc., but this caught my eye. Everyone knows that if you want to eliminate anything let the Govt. run it, tax it, and regulate it. Problem solved. As for Barry being a GOP plant, this is the second time I have heard that statement. The first was in '07 from a friend in Washington. That is why the GOP hasen't persued the birth certificate issue, and explaines why their reluctance to force the issue on Libya. They didn't count on Barry going so far overboard. He was supposed to do what they wanted, but he got big headed and tried going it alone, and found out he had a lot of support. Now they are in trouble, and can't find the courage to get rid of him. They have one last resort and that is impeachment, but because of the political fallout they are having a hard time finding the nerve to do it. They created a monster and now they are stuck with him. If they think that one of these canidates will do it they are wrong. The only way for them to win the white house is to force Barry to resign, or should I say to pressure him into resigning, or better yet black mailing him to resign. If he does so he keeps all the 'bennies' etc., but if impeached he loses every-thing. This has to be done under the table so as not to show the people they are out to get him so that will allow the Dems. an advantage in 2012. They put him in there, they sure as hell can get him out.

@MARINE:You've fallen for the gag. We have to blame someone!! With the exception of the hideous growth on Obama's nose, the only thing about him resembling a mole is that he has obviously lived underground amongst the seediest characters imaginable for his entire life. Therefore, he is more likely to be a black toxic mold. Ethnic minorities - hyphenated Americans who have no identity except that given them by the self-interested leaders of African-American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, Gay-American, and Other-American sects - have increased in their combined populations to almost equal that of Conservative-Americans, who, by the way, provide the money for the programs that allow the hyphens to comparatively exist in America in style. Add to these the stupid, and you have the political base of Obama and the other Progressive communist/socialists. These are the folks who permitted Obama to succeed in 2008, and this is the scary unknown creeping up on us in 2012. Stupid Republicans cannot be excluded, however

MARINE: Obama will not be impeached and he will not be re-elected. Even the Democrats are tired of him. They'll vote for him, but a great many more Republicans and independents want him gone.Holmes: You are aware, are you not, that I was, as I often am, writing humor?Aaron Stovall: I'm glad we agree. Too often, the only folks who see eye-to-eye on me about this are people who have a vested interest in seeing the garbage legalized.Regards, Burt

Holmes---I beleive you are mistaking this theory as a gag. Can you document anything about Barry? Name any people who knew him in college? Burt---I realize your humor, but this statement of yours was first presented in '07. Nobody knows a thing about this guy. No girlfreinds, no one from college who has stepped forward about him who say they knew Barry, with the exception of the three blacks that were killed after saying things that Barry didn't like. Now we assisanate a citizen of the US? I think your humor is funny, but this subject is one that will haunt the GOP for a long time. It will take years to straighten this mess out, and theres no GOP willing to do so. I hope your're right come 2012, but I don't think theres enough people to out vote the dependant minority in this country. People don't vote with the good of the country in mind, as we do, they vote for what they can get, or keep from losing.

MARINE: For a good part of the past two years, voters in state after state have voted against the candidates who supported Obama and those for whom he campaigned. What on earth makes you think that if the voters dislike his surrogates that much, they intend to vote for the man, himself, next year?Perhaps you, like many others, are just superstitious and are afraid of jinxing the election. Nothing else explains why you folks ignore all the positive signs that in less than 400 days, Obama will be un-elected.Regards, Burt

@MARINE:This Marine has a sense of humor, MARINE. It may be a little warped and a little slow sometimes, but there are plenty of reasons for that, as I'm sure you can attest. I feel you, man! Like Grandpappy always says, "It's better to have humor when you have a tumor!" All the Best. HS@Burt: Your predictions for 2012 are correct I hope. I can't take anymore of the creep. If he is reelected, 2012 will become known as The Year of the Ass - 2013 will then be known as The Year of the Ass Assy Nation, or something similar thereto.