It is the patriotic duty of every American to keep as much money as possible out of the control of his government.
Matt Morehouse
Tuesday, November 24, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
2010 – Our opportunity to restore sanity
We are enduring a concentrated and vicious assault on American values and principles, led by the “troika” of President Obama, Speaker Pelosi and Majority Leader Reid. They are aided and abetted by the usual hacks and demagogues in both houses of congress, and in particular by the mainstream media. We can bring it to halt in 2010, hopefully before the damage is irrevocable.
We’ll eschew the use of the word “Change.” -- That’s what we’d like to have a little bit of remaining in our pockets. We’ll also ignore any reference to “Hope.” -- That’s a little town in Arkansas made infamous for giving us Bill Clinton. The 2010 election will be all about a return to American values and principles, and a course correction to counter the current hard left turn that has all of our heads spinning.
The preceding posts to this blog point out the opportunity to remove chronic offenders such as Senators Dodd and Reid, but they also point out the crowded field lining up for the competition. Such a mob scene plays into the hands of the liberals, because they can and will use a divide and conquer strategy to point out the differences and cause rancor among the various candidates’ supporters. Those feeling hold over long past the primaries.
What do we need to do to make sure this doesn’t happen? We who have been vocal and active here and on other forums need to get involved. Here’s a five-point plan, subject to editing and amendment by those with better political instincts than I have.
1. In each critical race, identify those candidates who reflect conservative values and American traditions, and are not afraid to say so.
2. Carefully vet the candidates – not with the proctological exam techniques used by the media, but with a careful look at the history and career of each. Any red flags than can be used by the libs and the media to destroy a candidate have to be acknowledged and dismissed early, so that it’s old news.
3. Work with State and Local officials to objectively rate the suitable candidates, and then to identify the ones with the strongest chance to win.
4. Work with the other candidates to try and convince them of the wisdom of narrowing the field. A two-or-three candidate primary is far preferable to a ten-candidate primary, and will usually result in the better candidate being selected.
5. Finally – once the primaries are over, support the candidate selected, even if he or she was not your first choice. They are still going to be a preferable to leaving the Dodds and Reids in place.
We will not likely oust Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank – they are both elected in districts that might be described as “People’s Republic of…” But if we actively work in the other important races, we can enhance the chances that sanity will return in 2010. Then we’ll be able to call Pelosi “Ex-speaker” and Reid “Former Senator.” Wouldn't that be nice?
Tom 23 Nov. 09
We’ll eschew the use of the word “Change.” -- That’s what we’d like to have a little bit of remaining in our pockets. We’ll also ignore any reference to “Hope.” -- That’s a little town in Arkansas made infamous for giving us Bill Clinton. The 2010 election will be all about a return to American values and principles, and a course correction to counter the current hard left turn that has all of our heads spinning.
The preceding posts to this blog point out the opportunity to remove chronic offenders such as Senators Dodd and Reid, but they also point out the crowded field lining up for the competition. Such a mob scene plays into the hands of the liberals, because they can and will use a divide and conquer strategy to point out the differences and cause rancor among the various candidates’ supporters. Those feeling hold over long past the primaries.
What do we need to do to make sure this doesn’t happen? We who have been vocal and active here and on other forums need to get involved. Here’s a five-point plan, subject to editing and amendment by those with better political instincts than I have.
1. In each critical race, identify those candidates who reflect conservative values and American traditions, and are not afraid to say so.
2. Carefully vet the candidates – not with the proctological exam techniques used by the media, but with a careful look at the history and career of each. Any red flags than can be used by the libs and the media to destroy a candidate have to be acknowledged and dismissed early, so that it’s old news.
3. Work with State and Local officials to objectively rate the suitable candidates, and then to identify the ones with the strongest chance to win.
4. Work with the other candidates to try and convince them of the wisdom of narrowing the field. A two-or-three candidate primary is far preferable to a ten-candidate primary, and will usually result in the better candidate being selected.
5. Finally – once the primaries are over, support the candidate selected, even if he or she was not your first choice. They are still going to be a preferable to leaving the Dodds and Reids in place.
We will not likely oust Nancy Pelosi or Barney Frank – they are both elected in districts that might be described as “People’s Republic of…” But if we actively work in the other important races, we can enhance the chances that sanity will return in 2010. Then we’ll be able to call Pelosi “Ex-speaker” and Reid “Former Senator.” Wouldn't that be nice?
Tom 23 Nov. 09
Friday, November 20, 2009
If it ain't broke...fix it??
When I was a young boy I used to tear down all manner of things just to see how they worked. Not all of these things got back together and went back into service, but my father was an indulgent man and kept bringing me more things to examine. Eventually he brought me things that already didn't work, with the stated expectation that they should work when I was finished with them. For a young boy it was a fine way to learn about how the things in the world worked.
As I was moving through this review of all things, I would occasionally see signs and bumper stickers saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I wondered about that motto. Later I would have engineering bosses who would say, "first prove to me that we have a real problem before you redesign that thing" (to fix a supposed problem based on one telephone call from the field). I learned from them too, and came to understand that they were essentially saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it."
Too late in life I began to take an interest in politics. Before that interest, I kind of understood that out there in the world somewhere there were "others", Nazis and Socialists and Communists. I even ducked a few communist bullets in my misspent youth, but I always had the feeling that those kind of people would never come to my homeland. I had to go to their homeland and fight them there.
As I grew older, I finally understood that "If it ain't broke don't fix it" really meant that lots of things work for reasons we may never fully understand, but if they work and we should respect them nonetheless.
As I studied the behavior of the socialists and communists, I detected a variation on "If it ain't broke don't fix it" Their motto was "If it ain't broke they won't let us fix it" So, "We need to break it first, then they will let us fix it." Socialism and communism cannot easily replace economic and governmental systems that work fairly well. Furthermore, almost all economic and governmental systems tend to work better than socialism and communism unless they are sabotaged.
And that is the point, or at least it is the question. Is our present administration, with their very socialist agenda, trying to fix things, or are they trying to break them? We are told now that our imbalance of trade and our ever increasing deficit are a big problem, big enough to destroy our way of life. Why then are we prevented from exploiting our own energy reserves? Is that so we have to send dollars to our Muslim enemies and aggravate the trade imbalance? Why have we made so many restrictive regulations on our own industry. Was that so we would export our industry and jobs to our arch enemy Communist China? Why are we contemplating cap and trade legislation that can only offer economic destruction? Communist China and India are not stupid enough to join us in this economic suicide. Without them, there will be no significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions so why are we intent on destroying the rest of our industrial base? Why is our government spending money at a truly shocking rate, thereby driving up the deficit and driving down the dollar? Why are we promoting the largest entitlement program in our history at a time when the government borrows almost half of all the money it spends?
Are the people in power at the moment trying to fix things.... or are they trying to break them? Have they reasoned that first they must break the system and then we the people will beg them to fix it? Good question. It is, after all, the socialist and communist way of gaining power and then keeping it.
By: Jerry
(
As I was moving through this review of all things, I would occasionally see signs and bumper stickers saying "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." I wondered about that motto. Later I would have engineering bosses who would say, "first prove to me that we have a real problem before you redesign that thing" (to fix a supposed problem based on one telephone call from the field). I learned from them too, and came to understand that they were essentially saying "If it ain't broke don't fix it."
Too late in life I began to take an interest in politics. Before that interest, I kind of understood that out there in the world somewhere there were "others", Nazis and Socialists and Communists. I even ducked a few communist bullets in my misspent youth, but I always had the feeling that those kind of people would never come to my homeland. I had to go to their homeland and fight them there.
As I grew older, I finally understood that "If it ain't broke don't fix it" really meant that lots of things work for reasons we may never fully understand, but if they work and we should respect them nonetheless.
As I studied the behavior of the socialists and communists, I detected a variation on "If it ain't broke don't fix it" Their motto was "If it ain't broke they won't let us fix it" So, "We need to break it first, then they will let us fix it." Socialism and communism cannot easily replace economic and governmental systems that work fairly well. Furthermore, almost all economic and governmental systems tend to work better than socialism and communism unless they are sabotaged.
And that is the point, or at least it is the question. Is our present administration, with their very socialist agenda, trying to fix things, or are they trying to break them? We are told now that our imbalance of trade and our ever increasing deficit are a big problem, big enough to destroy our way of life. Why then are we prevented from exploiting our own energy reserves? Is that so we have to send dollars to our Muslim enemies and aggravate the trade imbalance? Why have we made so many restrictive regulations on our own industry. Was that so we would export our industry and jobs to our arch enemy Communist China? Why are we contemplating cap and trade legislation that can only offer economic destruction? Communist China and India are not stupid enough to join us in this economic suicide. Without them, there will be no significant reduction in carbon dioxide emissions so why are we intent on destroying the rest of our industrial base? Why is our government spending money at a truly shocking rate, thereby driving up the deficit and driving down the dollar? Why are we promoting the largest entitlement program in our history at a time when the government borrows almost half of all the money it spends?
Are the people in power at the moment trying to fix things.... or are they trying to break them? Have they reasoned that first they must break the system and then we the people will beg them to fix it? Good question. It is, after all, the socialist and communist way of gaining power and then keeping it.
By: Jerry
(
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
A Fair Trial?
Ironically, after the Station Master of Treblinka, Adolph Eichman, was kidnapped in South America by Israeli agents, he was tried in an Israeli civilian court (tribunal), convicted, sentenced to death and hanged. No venire of twelve citizens of "average ignorance"!
I think Holder is a worthless piece of excrement for bringing those Islamic pigs here when we spent hundreds of millions engineering the Military Commissions and constructing a special court house at GITMO. If Military Commissions were good enough for the Germans and Japanese, they're certainly good enough for Islamic pigs! We both know this wasn't Holder's decision. Obama and Axelrod made this decision. BO is still grandstanding and campaigning --- for 2012.
I will never vote for a President who hasn't served in the military! This is week 12 of Barack's mulling-over a troop increase in Afghanistan. Like Jimmy Carter, he can't make a meaningful decision about anything.
We're still under attack! Case-in-point: Major Hassan. No doubt another excellent candidate for a "civilian" trial notwithstanding the fact he's active duty Army. BO's 2012 campaign is in full-swing.
Alan I7 Nov. 09
I think Holder is a worthless piece of excrement for bringing those Islamic pigs here when we spent hundreds of millions engineering the Military Commissions and constructing a special court house at GITMO. If Military Commissions were good enough for the Germans and Japanese, they're certainly good enough for Islamic pigs! We both know this wasn't Holder's decision. Obama and Axelrod made this decision. BO is still grandstanding and campaigning --- for 2012.
I will never vote for a President who hasn't served in the military! This is week 12 of Barack's mulling-over a troop increase in Afghanistan. Like Jimmy Carter, he can't make a meaningful decision about anything.
We're still under attack! Case-in-point: Major Hassan. No doubt another excellent candidate for a "civilian" trial notwithstanding the fact he's active duty Army. BO's 2012 campaign is in full-swing.
Alan I7 Nov. 09
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Quote for the day
“There is only one tactical principle which is not subject to change. It is to use the means at hand to inflict the maximum amount of wound, death, and destruction on the enemy in the minimum amount of time."
General George S. Patton
General George S. Patton
S.P.I.N.E.
“Why is it getting so hot, and what are we doing in this handbasket?”
That is the question Americans will be asking if the U.S. Senate follows the lockstep insanity exhibited by the House of Representatives.
Yes – there is still time to reign in the headlong rush to a government-run health care system and all the woes that come with such a monster. It will take several decisive events to stop it, including:
· The first step: Growth of actual spines by several Senators. This includes not only RINOs such as Olympia Snowe, but several so-called “Moderates” and even (hopefully) a few less liberal Democrats who have not fallen mindlessly into this lockstep rush to socialism.
· The second step: With backbones in place, this band must join committed conservative Republicans in blocking the Pelosi/Ried agenda and then offering up real, constructive reform such as interstate portability, tort reform and other changes that will help increase competition and reduce cost without handing the whole thing to the government.
· The Third step: Assuming step two can be achieved, the House and Senate bills brought to conference will be radically different. These Senators will then need all of the spine grown in step one to resist the inevitable arm-twisting, threats and wheedling that will take place as Pelosi and Ried try to force government-run health care down our collective throats. They must INSIST that the so-called “government option” be dropped; that portability and tort reform be left in place; and that any so-called “triggers” that would allow a government run plan to be brought in the back door be eliminated.
The thing we must do now is contact our Senators, forcefully and often, urging them to dig in for us and prevent the looming catastrophe. The movement needs a name. How about “SPINE?” (Senators Preventing Insane New Enactments)
Tom Wells
10 November 09
That is the question Americans will be asking if the U.S. Senate follows the lockstep insanity exhibited by the House of Representatives.
Yes – there is still time to reign in the headlong rush to a government-run health care system and all the woes that come with such a monster. It will take several decisive events to stop it, including:
· The first step: Growth of actual spines by several Senators. This includes not only RINOs such as Olympia Snowe, but several so-called “Moderates” and even (hopefully) a few less liberal Democrats who have not fallen mindlessly into this lockstep rush to socialism.
· The second step: With backbones in place, this band must join committed conservative Republicans in blocking the Pelosi/Ried agenda and then offering up real, constructive reform such as interstate portability, tort reform and other changes that will help increase competition and reduce cost without handing the whole thing to the government.
· The Third step: Assuming step two can be achieved, the House and Senate bills brought to conference will be radically different. These Senators will then need all of the spine grown in step one to resist the inevitable arm-twisting, threats and wheedling that will take place as Pelosi and Ried try to force government-run health care down our collective throats. They must INSIST that the so-called “government option” be dropped; that portability and tort reform be left in place; and that any so-called “triggers” that would allow a government run plan to be brought in the back door be eliminated.
The thing we must do now is contact our Senators, forcefully and often, urging them to dig in for us and prevent the looming catastrophe. The movement needs a name. How about “SPINE?” (Senators Preventing Insane New Enactments)
Tom Wells
10 November 09
Monday, November 9, 2009
Quote for the day
"The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once."
2009 Judge Alex Kozinski
2009 Judge Alex Kozinski
Thursday, November 5, 2009
(Don't) Let Them Eat Bananas
The bizarre banana boycott
I have just read that some virtuous liberals have now decided to save the world by refusing to buy or eat bananas. Their argument follows the lines that the transportation of bananas from Central and South America is too expensive in terms of fuel consumed. They hope, it seems, to do their part to prevent global warming by buying only locally grown produce. What next?
I’m sure they feel righteous in sacrificing to save the world from global warming in this manner (think globally, act locally, after all). What a shame they’re jousting with fearful phantoms that have no basis in science (but then what does science have to do with it -- it’s really about who has the most persuasive lawyers and the largest checkbooks, isn’t it?).
Misguided as they are on the problem, how can their solution (a bizarre boycott of bananas) save the world? That’s the question that kept me awake last night. Did they remember to tell the banana growers that demand will be shrinking? Do the transportation companies have plans to reduce their fleets? Or will the banana growers just keep right on growing and shipping, using the same amount of fuel to send every last banana on their trees to the grocery stores for those who are less enlightened and not nearly as righteous?
Isn’t this latest greatest idea for world salvation the equivalent of a boycott against someone’s national economy . . . the same economy they tried to save by eating only South American nuts in their Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in order to save the rain forests? Will bananas alone do it, or must they also boycott all chocolate, coffee, and sugar? Now we’re moving into the realm of true personal sacrifice.
But wait! Transportation costs being what they are, it seems to me that they also should buy only manufactured products produced in local factories. That means nothing more from China. Depending upon where they live, this could be a real hardship. I’m not certain that anything is manufactured in the continental U.S. anymore. Not even our flags.
Now that they’re eating only locally grown food, they’d better quit their jobs (commuting probably requires too much fuel anyway) so they can devote their springs, summers, and falls to growing and putting away crops for the winter. With all the canned and preserved food as their core meals, they’ll no doubt need to put in root cellars and they could then get rid of their energy-hungry refrigerators.
Now that they’ve a bit more time on their hands, they could save a lot of fuel by doing their wash in oaken buckets with washboards and using hand-powered wringers and the clothesline drying method. They could even haul their own water. They could get rid of their family automobiles (never mind what will happen to the landfills if they all decide to dump the family cars at once).
If we are all to get back to basics in this way, we’ll each need a much larger plot of land than most suburban dwellers own. That could be a complication, since there are so many of us and so little land left. But don’t worry. If some zealots decide this is a good idea for them, they’ll no doubt try to legislate it for the rest of us. Maybe they’ll need a czar and a federal bureaucracy to oversee the allotment of farmland, seeds for crops, how often we could water those crops, our use of pesticides, payment for not planting . . . just think of the additional government jobs that could be created!
After some reflection, it doesn’t seem as if we can easily revert to the 1800s after all. My conclusion is that we may as well eat bananas. We’ll need the energy they provide to fight the real problems we face today. In fact, the biggest problem we face may very well be the well-meaning zealots who would like to change their lives and ours too.
KTL
I have just read that some virtuous liberals have now decided to save the world by refusing to buy or eat bananas. Their argument follows the lines that the transportation of bananas from Central and South America is too expensive in terms of fuel consumed. They hope, it seems, to do their part to prevent global warming by buying only locally grown produce. What next?
I’m sure they feel righteous in sacrificing to save the world from global warming in this manner (think globally, act locally, after all). What a shame they’re jousting with fearful phantoms that have no basis in science (but then what does science have to do with it -- it’s really about who has the most persuasive lawyers and the largest checkbooks, isn’t it?).
Misguided as they are on the problem, how can their solution (a bizarre boycott of bananas) save the world? That’s the question that kept me awake last night. Did they remember to tell the banana growers that demand will be shrinking? Do the transportation companies have plans to reduce their fleets? Or will the banana growers just keep right on growing and shipping, using the same amount of fuel to send every last banana on their trees to the grocery stores for those who are less enlightened and not nearly as righteous?
Isn’t this latest greatest idea for world salvation the equivalent of a boycott against someone’s national economy . . . the same economy they tried to save by eating only South American nuts in their Ben & Jerry’s ice cream in order to save the rain forests? Will bananas alone do it, or must they also boycott all chocolate, coffee, and sugar? Now we’re moving into the realm of true personal sacrifice.
But wait! Transportation costs being what they are, it seems to me that they also should buy only manufactured products produced in local factories. That means nothing more from China. Depending upon where they live, this could be a real hardship. I’m not certain that anything is manufactured in the continental U.S. anymore. Not even our flags.
Now that they’re eating only locally grown food, they’d better quit their jobs (commuting probably requires too much fuel anyway) so they can devote their springs, summers, and falls to growing and putting away crops for the winter. With all the canned and preserved food as their core meals, they’ll no doubt need to put in root cellars and they could then get rid of their energy-hungry refrigerators.
Now that they’ve a bit more time on their hands, they could save a lot of fuel by doing their wash in oaken buckets with washboards and using hand-powered wringers and the clothesline drying method. They could even haul their own water. They could get rid of their family automobiles (never mind what will happen to the landfills if they all decide to dump the family cars at once).
If we are all to get back to basics in this way, we’ll each need a much larger plot of land than most suburban dwellers own. That could be a complication, since there are so many of us and so little land left. But don’t worry. If some zealots decide this is a good idea for them, they’ll no doubt try to legislate it for the rest of us. Maybe they’ll need a czar and a federal bureaucracy to oversee the allotment of farmland, seeds for crops, how often we could water those crops, our use of pesticides, payment for not planting . . . just think of the additional government jobs that could be created!
After some reflection, it doesn’t seem as if we can easily revert to the 1800s after all. My conclusion is that we may as well eat bananas. We’ll need the energy they provide to fight the real problems we face today. In fact, the biggest problem we face may very well be the well-meaning zealots who would like to change their lives and ours too.
KTL
Monday, November 2, 2009
Disaffected Leftist Relocation Fund
Let’s face it leftists, collectivists, Marxists, and all manner of socialist minded folks just don’t like it here. They don’t like my favorite form of government a classical constitutional democratic republic. They don’t like market capitalism. They find the United States Constitution so constraining that they want to turn it into an endlessly changing “living” document, i.e. a scrap of paper with no real meaning. They want to march everyone in this nation off to their wonderful utopian dream under the control of one or more of their philosopher kings. How dismal would that be?
I have a better idea. Rather than continually trying to change this nation into their idea of a socialist utopia they should just move to some place in the eastern hemisphere. There are lots of places to choose from and I am sure they all could find a nice country with a socialist ambiance much more to their liking than the USA. Why suggest the eastern hemisphere? Well, I don’t want to make it too easy for them to sneak back over the border with the other illegal immigrants.
Why don’t they just pick up and move then? Well, maybe they need a nudge. How about a financial incentive from those of us who like all the things they hate.
To that end I suggest that we establish the “Disaffected Leftist Relocation Fund”. I know it will cost us money and it seems like bribery or protection money but think about it for a moment.
We could avoid endless political battles over trillion dollar stimulus packages, bailouts and other government largess. We could reestablish a real constitutional republic. We could have a reasonable tax system, a stable dollar, and an end to leftist politicians and bureaucrats constantly undermining the Constitution, the dollar, and the economic structure of the country.
We could attract talented folks from other countries that think a democratic republic and economic freedom are capital (pun intended) ideas. California would become the Golden State again. Massachusetts would be the Bay State again instead of Taxachusetts. I could stop calling this state the People’s Republic of Minnesota. Last but not least we could avoid any nasty stuff like armed conflict.
In the end I am guessing it would save us trillions. Isn’t it worth an annual contribution to this fund to get that result? Isn’t it an attractive nonviolent market oriented way to solve our intractable political differences with these fools, oops I mean folks?
How would it work? I propose that we establish the fund as a nonprofit organization and solicit donations. Maybe some folks at Cato, Heritage, or Hoover could help us with the legal stuff and paper work and we could hire a good PR firm to create some snappy ads that your typical leftist just couldn’t resist.
The rules? Well each disaffected leftist would have to sign a document in triplicate renouncing his or her citizenship and agreeing to leave this country and hemisphere permanently. They would have to agree to a photo, fingerprints, and DNA sample and their information would go into the Disaffected Leftist Database (DLD) so a new and highly effective United States Border Patrol could at least keep them out of this country if not out of the hemisphere. I am sure we could develop some incentives for other countries on this half of the planet to refuse them entry and perhaps even get rid of their own leftists.
In consideration for this renunciation of citizenship and immediate departure for the east each leftist would get the following:
- A ticket to any country in the eastern hemisphere that would permit them entry.
- A tax free $100,000 dollars in cash or in some other major currency like Euros, Yen, etc.
- A tax free $25,000 moving expense allowance to transport their belongings like copies of Mao’s little red book and Marx’s Das Kapital. If they want to settle in the Middle East, we could supply them a complementary copy of the Quran which they will need for acculturation and Mein Kampf a very popular western book in places like Syria, Iran, and Saudi Arabia.
- A tax free cash settlement for any real estate they own in this hemisphere equal to the average of the appraisal amounts of three independent appraisers. They could keep their assets like securities and private pensions but would have to give up Social Security and Medicare. But I am sure they would be more than happy with the “free” medical care and vast array of social programs in their new socialist digs.
What if they have underage kids? They can take them along or leave them with relatives. That might be too bad for the kids but you know you can’t solve every problem.
Too generous? Maybe but after about 20% are gone the rest might panic and we could reduce the price. And when 50% are gone just think how much more pleasant life would start to be here in the USA! Now, 20% of say 10,000,000 hard core leftists is 2,000,000 so not counting real estate purchases that would be $250 billion. But as we got rid of more and more leftists our taxes would go down and our economy would markedly improve so some of that real estate could be sold off to defray the cost of the program.
Of course there would be some rich folks like Barbra Streisand and George Soros that wouldn’t take the bait but as time wore on they would become afraid of being left behind with a bunch of rabid conservatives and libertarians. The pressure would cause them to bail eventually.
The big issue would be getting donors and getting a law for tax free payouts. But maybe if we showed some headway in eliminating leftists we could eventually get say 50 million folks with an average donation of $6000 per year. That would be $300 billion per year not counting investment income and real estate sales. We would need some wealthy conservatives and libertarians to help with a sizable chunk of startup money and a commitment to a sizable annual donation.
Now I know there might be some legal and logistical problems with this but hey, you have to think outside of the box!
I just had another out of the box thought. I know they are understandably attached to their little piece of desert for religious, cultural, and historic reasons but maybe a lot of non socialist Israelis might want to trade places with our disaffected leftists.
I know Israelis had a socialist bent for a time but I read a few years ago that they were becoming disenchanted with the whole idea. That could solve much of our Middle East problem. And it would be another selling point since leftists here so desperately want to help the Palestinians. Maybe each disaffected leftist would want to share some of their $100K stipend with a new Palestinian friend. I think that would be just precious don’t you?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)