I’m not sure how it happened…

You see, there is this small group of people, I think they might be anarchists – at least that’s how they seem to act. They are all about destroying the existing order and making society go back in time hundreds of years. They say they have a vision, a pure vision of how life should be and they insist that I follow their ideals – or else. Oh, and here is a sign of their evil intent – they have a flag with a rattlesnake on it.


I should have known when I first saw it that it stood for their poisonous words and their venomous tactics. But I didn’t take them seriously; and to be quite frank, I don’t think anybody did. They were like a circus sideshow, you know a group of gaggling idiots and fools who could barely speak English. Whenever their supporters spoke in public (and there were a bunch of high level people like Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann), I could never understand what they said. I mean their words simply did not make sense, at least in this Universe. Literally, these people would blather on, making absolutely no sense. They call themselves the Tea Party, although they have nothing in common with the heroes who initiated the American Revolution against the King of England in 1776). Yet, they somehow capivated the minds of the uneducated American people who think they are Christian religious fundamentalists, although I doubt that Jesus would recognize their teachings.

I know, I know. This whole thing makes no sense at all. It’s like a poorly written story. But it happened. It is happening. And now I’m being held hostage by these people. And so are a lot of other innocent people.

They say that if I (actually the elected U.S. government) doesn’t give them exactly what they want (anarchy) they will pull the plug on the economy, and we will all go over some sort of very high cliff. All of us! Frankly, I’m very afraid of very high cliffs because if you fall off you will get hurt really bad. The problem is that these People of the Snake aren’t afraid of falling off of the cliff. That can only mean that they are either very stupid, or they are insane, or both. I think some are very stupid and the rest are insane. And here I am ( and you too, by the way). Trapped. A prisoner of a very small group of religious/economic zealots who have seized power in a very Un-American manner by misusing Congress and refusing to let the majority rule. In essence, “the lunatics have taken over the asylum”.

I know. I know what you are saying. These are just bargaining tactics and it will all come out OK in the end. Really? Have you ever looked into the eyes of Michells Bachman? Have you ever listened to the thoughts of Sarah Palin? Have you read Ayn Rand’s books? (She is the patron saint the of the TP). These people live in some alternate reality, a parallel universe that combines patriotic rhetoric from 200 years ago and Bible thumping, backwoods snakeoil salesmen pitches. They think they are suffering now, but they have no clue of the enormous economic suffering they are about to inflict on the entire world if they get their insane way. You see, I’m not the only hostage in the room. We are all in this together, yes, you too – wherever you are.

I should have known. When these people chose the poisonous rattlesnake as their mascot, it was a clear sign that they cannot be trusted.

May God Save the USA from this insane group of people… because Congress can’t.

Recently, there has been much discussion of possible attacks on U.S. citizens by drones operated by the U.S. government. This became the “issue of the day” when Attorney General  Eric Holder told Congress that he would not rule out the use of drones to attack American citizens. This of course conjures up images straight out of films like War of the Worlds or Independence Day. Imagine unmanned space ships,or government drones, taking potshots at panicked and unsuspecting U.S. citizens. There would be no place for anyone to hide! And of course, that’s OK with Eric Holder, and presumably President Obama, for whom he works. The media of course loved it because it is a story sure to stir up emotions and then people will watch the television news or buy a newspaper and the sponsors and advertisers will capture a large audience and sell more product. It’s a great story and sure to sell as long as it remains in the minds of the public, which it is certain to do for at least a day two until they are distracted by something else, like maybe the resignation of the Pope, and then the media will have to find a way to turn that story into some sort of advertising or commercial success.

Meanwhile, I’m wondering. What about the drones? Will they be used against U.S. citizens in the future? I think the answer is this: No. There is a good reason for that – it doesn’t make sense. The principal advantage of a drone is that it doesn’t have a pilot, so it can fly into really dangerous skies and if it gets shot down by the enemy, there is no pilot to get killed. In the U.S. it is unlikely that criminals or others who are enemies of the state would be walking around with anti-aircraft weapons. So, the government can easily use a small piloted airplane or helicopter to watch people and launch missiles at them if they want to. However, it is more likely that airborne platforms would be used for surveillance and ground forces, like the FBI or State Police would be guided by the pilot to the location of the bad guys. That’s what happens now and it seems to work pretty well. It’s hard to see why a drone would be be any better.

The real thing people should be afraid of is not whether the government has the right to track down and apprehend criminals, either from the ground or the air, or whether the government has the right to shoot it out with a criminal. This happens all the time. There are even times when the government launches an attack that will likely kill a criminal when it is deemed too dangerous to try to capture the criminal alive. Just recall Bonnie and Clyde.

So, should we be afraid of the U.S. Government? You bet we should be. Should we be afraid of President Obama? You betcha there too. Why? Well, it’s not because of drones; its because of the law and the Constitution. Let me give you an example: the Iraq War. Let me give you another: The Afghanistan War. Let me give you another: Guantanamo. How about one more: locking up American citizens by the U.S. military on U.S. soil without a trial on order of the President. So what is wrong with these? They are all in violation of the U.S. Constitution. Only Congress can declare war according to the Constitution of the United States, yet Congress has not done so since World War II. Instead, Congress has sidestepped its responsibility and delegated authority to the various Presidents to do as they see fit whenever military action might be required.

Similarly, the indefinite imprisonment of people, whether they are U.S. citizens or not, without a trial is also a violation of the U.S. Constitution – something that the President and Congress seem quite comfortable with.

The recent uproar about the use of drones against American citizens is silly. It doesn’t even make tactical sense. If the government wants to come for you via the air, you can bet they will be using manned helicopters or maybe small spotter planes and a whole bunch of people on the ground. The drone thing is fiction. Unfortunately, the gradual dismantling of the Constitution by the current and several former Presidents, with the spineless acquiescence of Congress, is something we should all fear. Yet, the media never mention it at all. Could it be they are too afraid to bring the issue up?

Or is it just not the sort of news that will sell product?

If there is one thing that today’s U.S. government excels at, it is obfuscation. Take, for example the current fiasco known as sequestration. The ordinary citizen might be forgiven if he thought that this was something like castration. Actually, he would be pretty close. However, for the United States, it might be even worse. 

I suppose its a tip off when politicians hide behind words derived from Latin that have migrated into old English law. By the time the word gets to America by way of the Roman and British empires, the U.S. politicians can make the word mean anything they want it to mean. It’s sort of like the words in Alice in Wonderland

The Latin word sequester, which is the root for sequestration, simply means a depositary, i.e. a person with whom you store something of value. So, you might surmise that when the government sequesters something, they are putting it aside for safekeeping. However, in today’s U.S. government-speak it means taking away money from lots of necessary or vital programs in order to cause so much suffering to the people, that the weakest part of the government will cry, “UNCLE!!” and give up, and the other part of the government will have its way. Clever, isn’t it?

One might have thought that President Obama, good guy that he is, would have acted as Superman and said, “Not only no, but HELL NO!” But he didn’t. Instead, he grinned like the Chesire cat and signed the Sequestration Legislation into law, thus setting in motion a series of gut wrenching, job killing , government spending cuts that helps no one. Then he gaily went about fiddling while Republican Senators and Representatives heads should have exploded (figuratively), like what happened to the invading Martians in the classic movie, Mars Attacks. (Still one of my favorite movies, and I have no idea why. But I do like the song.)

Unfortunately, the heads of the Republicans did not actually explode because their brains are protected by being in thrall to the “Tea Party” fanatics (no relation whatsoever to the heroes of the real Boston Tea Party) who seem to make up the core of today’s Republican Party – at least the intellectual wing of the Party. Clearly, the entire Republican Party has drunk the Kool-Aid, and it is that which apparently prevents their heads from exploding.

Even so, it seems that President Obama has failed to notice this lack of exploding heads amongst the Republican brotherhood who are meanwhile doing their very best Alfred E. Neuman “What me worry?” impression, i.e. they are doing nothing. 

While America burns.

OK. I know. I get it. They’re not really that stupid, are they? No, of course not. What’s really happening is that they are all playing a giant game of chicken, you know, like when two teenagers get in their cars and drive towards each other at 100 miles per hour and then we get to see who is chicken when one of them turns away in order to avoid a horrific, head-exploding, collision. The thing that I worry about is that I’m not sure that either Obama or the Republicans have the brains, or the maturity, of a hormone-saturated teenage boy, or for that matter even the brains of a hormone-saturated teenage bull.

This, of course, could be very bad news for the country. But who cares? After all, the members of Congress are mostly millionaires and you can be sure the U.S. Lobbyist Core in Washington will see to it that they are well taken care of, no matter what. And Obama? What does he care if massive layoffs go into effect and the nation goes into an economic death spiral and people start fleeing the country for the good jobs in Mexico? After all, won’t that solve the illegal immigration problem? As they say, “it’s an ill wind that blows nobody good.”

So maybe Nero had the right idea, when Rome burns, go with the flow. Don’t worry be happy. See! That’s why Obama actually signed the law ordering the massive budget cuts! It’s the Roman way: first you sequester, then you burn the city down, then you fiddle while Rome burns. 

Except for one little thing. Sequester doesn’t mean “cut”. It doesn’t mean slash the budget. It means to set something aside in a safe place until a dispute is settled.

Wait a minute, maybe I’m just taking this thing way too seriously? Maybe we should all be more like the President and the Republicans.

Maybe we should just do like Nero did after he finished fiddling: go to bed and take a nice sequester. Then, we’ll all feel better in the morning…

The recent murders of school children and teachers at Sandy Hook have once again caused the American people to examine their “right to bear arms”. More specifically, the question has arisen is this, “Why do ordinary citizens need assault weapons”? The answer that is usually given is that the right to bear arms is guaranteed by the second amendment to the Constitution. The text of the amendment is brief, simply stating that: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. If one were to live somewhere far from the U.S., like perhaps on Mars, one might be forgiven having the understanding that the U.S. has a militia, i.e. volunteer soldiers who are normally just farmers and so forth, but who are ready to go to war at a moment’s notice. You might call such a group Minutemen and you would be right, although you would be off by a couple of centuries. Indeed, the United States was once protected by citizen soldiers who were called Minutemen and who were expected to be ready with a minute’s notice. For this reason every citizen had to have his own firearm handy in case he had to rush off to war against the British, or the French, or the Spanish, or even those pesky Native Americans who kept thinking they owned the land that the Europeans called America.

However, times change, and the reason for the second amendment has long passed into the dustbin of history. Which is why the supporters of “gun rights” always talk about the second clause of the second amendment and not the first clause. Nevertheless, one might argue that some sort of precedent exists, given that people have owned guns for over 200 years in the U.S. and that militia groups still exist, as in Texas; however, I don’t think that anyone could seriously contend that the militia groups of today are a serious defense against other nations who have nuclear bombs, ICBMs, and armies that number in the hundreds of thousands, if not the millions. The defense against those potential threats is relegated to the standing Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marine forces of the U.S. The militias, such as they are, are of little to no value against modern threats from advanced countries. Even so, there are a lot of Americans who want their own guns, and not just guns, they want assault-style weapons. Why? One might ask. Surely you don’t need an assault weapon to defend yourself from a burglar who might break into your house in the middle of the night. Isn’t a pistol under your pillow much more convenient? Sure it is, and it was the typical solution for that problem for many Americans for many, many years.

An assault-style weapon can fire many, many bullets in a short period of time, perhaps 50-100 bullets in a minute. In comparison, a military assault rifle can fire close to 1,000 bullets per minute. So, the question must arise, why does the average American homeowner need an assault-style weapon? Surely, he’s not expecting to have a shootout with a burglar which requires the capability to fire 50-100 bullets in a minute, is he? Under what circumstances would the average American citizen need this firepower, let alone the firepower of a true assault rifle. Could it for hunting deer or maybe ducks? Imagine shooting a deer with 50 – 100 bullets, or maybe hitting a duck with all that lead. Does that make any sense? Could it be that the typical American gun owner is such a bad shot that he needs 50-100 rounds per minute just to hit a deer or a duck? I don’t think so.

The reason Americans want assault weapons – even multiple assault weapons – in their homes is this: they think they need them. Need them? For what? you say. The answer is found in the name of the weapon itself. They are used for conducting an assault – or for defending against an assault. Let us assume that most Americans are not planning an assault (with the exception of the numerous crazies out there who are clearly planning assaults with assault-style weapons). The typical American who wants assault-style weapons can only feel he has the need for one of these weapons if he is indeed fearing an imminent assault from someone else. From who? You say. Fidel Castro? No, of course not. It’s simple: it’s from THEM…. THEM…. Get it?

In case you are not familiar with THEM, THEM is the “others”, a group of people that is different from us, a group who wants our stuff, a group who, one day, will rise up and try to seize the property of TRUE Americans. That’s why Americans not only need assault weapons, it also why they need underground bunkers, a year’s worth of food and fuel, booby trapped properties, secret stashes of money, and so forth. It is a belief amongst the “haves” that the “havenots” are about to rise up in rebellion and take their stuff. Its a fear of class warfare. Its like a religious belief. It actually is a religious belief for some of these people. The end times are coming. The good and the bad will do battle – so the good need their assault weapons. It’s a combination of these ingredients and more that drive Americans to crave assault weapons.

So there you go… and you probably thought these people were just crazy or something.

When Charles Darwin wrote “On the Origin of Species”, he wrote about the difficulty of determining the actual mechanism of change in species from generation to generation. He was quite sure that the environment played a role in the final outcome of things via a survival of the fittest system. The problem in the theory of evolution was not that the strong thrive and the weak perish, because that is obvious. The problem is how does a species actually evolve? Darwin rejected the idea of incremental change over a long period of time as the likely cause of evolution. Instead, he looked at domesticated animals and observed how they could change over several generations by selective breeding. He thought that a mechanism similar to this, some sort of selective breeding that occurred in the wild, was the most likely mechanism of evolution. The “selective” breeding would occur between organisms that happened to be in the right place at the right time under the right conditions and they also happened to have the right genes for producing a successful hybrid. His theory was, in essence, that change in a species occurred due to a “natural” and chancy form of selective breeding. It wasn’t random change, it was more like lucky change. His theory then goes on to state the almost obvious: those changes that result in better adaptations to the environment result in better survival rates.

Darwin borrowed from the environmental theories of Malthus and concluded that as supplies of food increased in nature and animal populations thereby increased that those individuals most suited to the environment would prosper more than those who had been born slightly less suited. It was the principle of survival of the fittest. These survivors would then breed and the next generation would have the traits of the survivors. This was Darwin’s theory of evolution. The problem was, as Darwin admitted, how, exactly, does this generational change occur?

Many people take Darwin’s theory of evolution and proclaim that it is based upon random changes that occur in genes and those which help an organism to survive lead to successful adaptations while those random changes that hinder survival result in population declines. Darwin never advocated a theory of random change. His theory was more like a theory of natural selective breeding where the strongest get to breed and their traits are passed on to the next generation, very similar to what he observed in the farms of England.

Recently, genetic scientists have discovered that Darwin was wrong. It turns out that genetic change does not have to happen by selective breeding. It can happen by direct impact of the environment upon an organisms DNA. This new discovery states that the vast majority of our DNA, usually referred to as “junk DNA”, is not junk after all. Much of the human genome has been decoded so that we know where the code is in our DNA for blue eyes, or our blood type or even if we have a predisposition to some forms of cancer. Yet, the vast majority of our DNA is referred to as “junk”. That’s because scientists didn’t know what its function was – or if it even had a function.

In an article recently published in the New York Times , Gina Kolata writes that gene switches in junk DNA, “play critical roles in controlling how cells, organs and other tissues behave”. She states that, “…the environment can affect disease risk. In the case of identical twins, small changes in environmental exposure can slightly alter gene switches, with the result that one twin gets a disease and the other does not.” It stands to reason that if the environment can change junk DNA and then cause a disease, it can also cause a change that results in resistance to disease or perhaps some other very different result. The real discovery here is that a mechanism has been discovered that can cause human DNA to rapidly modify itself in response to a factor in the environment. This must be the cause of evolution.

While the Times article is primarily focused on diseases being caused by exposing junk DNA to certain substances, it is only reasonable to ask whether this is in fact the mechanism of evolution. It is a direct connection between the body’s genes and the environment. Certainly, there will be cases where the environment contains toxins and these toxins will harm the DNA and cause disease. However, this is very likely the mechanism of evolution also. It is the way in which the body’s DNA senses that the environment is changing and tries to make the appropriate response. This is very likely the true mechanism of evolutionary change. It also explains why evolutionary change is, as Darwin noted, fairly quick and not a progression of minute changes.

It seems that Darwin’s notion of selective change occurring because of the coincidence of the right circumstances for the right individuals is not the likely explanation for evolution. It seems far more likely that our “junk” DNA is not “junk” at all, and it is this DNA (it actually comprises about 90% of our DNA) that results in “evolutionary” change. It seems that just as we are able to make conscious adaptations to our environment that there is another level of consciousness in our bodies, that we are unaware of, that is also continually working to optimize our body’s response to the environment and also that of the next generation of human beings.

Junk DNA is how evolution works.


Remember Barack Obama’s inauguration? An enormous number of people turned out to see the new President who had promised to save the nation. It was like the second coming of Abraham Lincoln, and after the devastation that had been wrought upon the country by George Bush’s inability to understand economics and the government’s  complete lack of oversight of the financial industry, people were breathing a sigh of relief that this new, stunning speech-maker had the vision, boldness, and determination to do whatever was needed to save the sinking ship. Unfortunately, we found out that the man who had been put upon a pedestal had feet of clay after all, and his greatest gift was sadly, speech-making. Remember the promise to close Guantanamo? We don’t hear much about that anymore, do we? Well, what about the economy? He fixed that didn’t he? I suppose, at least he stopped the car from going over the cliff – something George Bush could not do. But he ignored the advice of Nobel Prize winning economist, Paul Krugman and instead listened to Timothy  Geithner and Larry Summers, both of whom were part of the problem, because it was the policies of these people, and others, that directly led to the economic catastrophe. The result has been a tepid “recovery”, if you can call it that. 

And then there are the new rules about the government now having the power to arrest and detain indefinitely any U.S. citizen who it suspects might be a threat to the country. And – it is the military who will detain you indefinitely, without trial or any other rights guaranteed to all citizens under the Constitution. And Congress looks the other way. And the Supreme Court looks the other way. And everyone else goes back to watching football or baseball, soon forgetting all about these new, un-Constitutional rules. But the U.S. government hasn’t forgotten, and Barack Obama hasn’t forgotten.

Sure ,Obama has created a sort of National Health Care system – nothing that could compare with those of Canada or Europe or Asia, but he got what he wanted: the elimination of the possibility of being rejected for health insurance because of a pre-existing condition. I guess it was because his Obama’s mother had such difficulties with that issue that he wanted to make sure that U.S. insurance companies couldn’t do that to someone else’s mother or child. 

OK. So, Barack, is that it? Are you done? You seem to think the economy is OK. I don’t hear much more about health care reform. You nailed Osama bin Laden, you left Iraq, and you are about to leave Afghanistan. So….any other ideas? I was just wondering, how are you going to get unemployment down to a number like 6%? Is there a plan or do we just punt? By the way, how are things at Guantanamo? Oh, and can Americans who are picked by the Army be imprisoned there now? Or do they go to some secret military prison, never to be heard from again? I think it’s time for another speech.

And then there’s Romney. The father of Obamacare, he now vigorously denies being the parent of this odious thing that is the object of Republican loathing and retching. But he is. And he thought it was a good thing too. So, what is Romney’s plan – other than, “let’s not tax the job creators”. That would be him and his cronies, I suppose. Here’s the thing I don’t get: if Bain Capital takes over a company and makes it prosperous by outsourcing its jobs to China or India, how many U.S. jobs are they creating? Or, when he says he’s creating jobs, is he including all those jobs in China and India too? Here’s another thing I’m not too sure of: do the “job creators” really use their personal income to create jobs for other people? I mean, let’s say you work at Bank of America – that would be a good job, right? So, did you get that job because the President and CEO of Bank of America opened up his wallet and paid you a salary? That would be really generous, wouldn’t it? But, I thought they used the money from investors to create the jobs – you know like when you buy BoA stock, then they take your money (thank you very much) and they hire people. And if the Bank doesn’t do well their stock goes down and you lose your money. But the job-creating President and CEO still gets his mega-million dollar salary, doesn’t he? And my man Mitt wants the President and CEO to pay almost no taxes because he “created” your job. Awww…isn’t that special? I guess that how our Capitalist system works, right?

Actually, it doesn’t work quite the way Mitty would like you to believe. Basically, he just wants the rich folk, who already own the Congress and the Supreme Court to also own the Presidency. The really interesting thing is that about half the American people seem to want that too. Not sure why…wouldn’t it just be easier to have a king and get rid of the sham democracy? And Barack, well he just wants to be President – not too sure why, he doesn’t seem to have any ideas about what to do. He hasn’t mentioned a new scientific leap forward like the space program that John Kennedy started.  He hasn’t mentioned anything of the magnitude like the Interstate Highway System like Eisenhower started.  He hasn’t mentioned anything like the Great Society and Civil Rights for all that Johnson started – oops, sorry, that one really bothered the Southern half of the country, didn’t it? Remember Johnson saying that he thought he had just turned the solidly Democratic South to becoming a Republican voting block? Well, ol’ Lyndon was right about that, wasn’t he? Being a Texan, he would know, too.

Anyway, Obama seems plumb out of ideas, now that his single idea of “no pre-existing conditions” has been enacted. I guess he’s just exhausted. And Romney, the opportunist, venture capitalist? Ahh, no ideas there either! At least he’s not talking about any…. Of course not, those venture guys aren’t going to share their secret plans with you or me – at least not the real plans.

So where are we? Obama did a lot of things we never expected and didn’t do a lot of things we expected. We can probably expect the same from Romney – so, it really doesn’t matter which is elected because they will wind up just doing whatever they want anyway – which will have little to no relation to their campaign promises.

So, wouldn’t it be simpler to just have a king?

Today, South Carolina voters will decide who they think should be the Republican nominee for President of the United States. Recent polls indicate that he is currently in the lead – and South Carolina has a history of picking the eventual Republican Presidential candidate! Let’s suppose Newt not only wins the primary but also becomes the Republican Party candidate and eventually becomes President. Should we care? Would he really be all that different from Barack Obama, a man who is perhaps the greatest disappointment to liberals in recent history? After all, didn’t Obama appoint Geithner and Summers as his principal financial people, and weren’t they part of the team that caused the financial catastrophe under Bush? Didn’t Obama just sign legislation that says American citizens can be imprisoned by the Army without trial indefinitely because someone suspects they might be guilty of a crime? Hasn’t Obama pretty much followed the Republican agenda of George Bush? So – what difference would it make if a Republican named Gingrich became President? Wouldn’t it just be more of the same – no real change no matter who we vote for?

No. This time it would be different. Gingrich would lead us down a path to Hell with no return. I’m not talking about his lack of morality because he is now on wife #3. Sure, he lacks the morality of most American citizens with regard to sexuality and loyalty to one another. But maybe his wife switching wasn’t just due to an over active libido. Maybe he just has a habit of making really bad decisions – like if you buy a car that was made in France, for example. OK. I admit it. Being on wife #3 and probably on the lookout for wife #4 is a bad sign. It’s a sign that says he has an issue with loyalty, or maybe he has an insatiable sex drive, or maybe he doesn’t choose the right person for the job most of the time. Something like that, maybe. True, these are all disturbing thoughts and should be taken into consideration.

However, there is something even more disturbing about this Newt (what an amazingly appropriate name – sorry, I just have to say it…).  It is the things he says that makes me wonder if he has ever studied history, and if so, was if the Cliff’s Notes version in college? It seems as if he has missed entire segments of the past and the lessons learned from a vast amount of human suffering. Even worse, he is blind to his own ignorance, spouting off in puffed up grandiosity, holding forth like he is Pythagoras or Socrates himself as he talks about abolishing the child labor laws. Either Newt doesn’t know why we have these laws, or he thinks that the American population is as ignorant as he seems to be. The simple fact is this: the laws were a necessity to protect children, as young as 7 or 8 years old, or even younger, from working endless hours in mills full of dangerous dust and grime. Children worked with the large knitting and other machines because their small fingers could fit into parts of the machines that adults could not reach. Children worked in these mills – similar to the ‘dark Satanic mills” of England, famously referred to by William Blake in his poem, Jerusalem – until about a century ago when people with far more intelligence that Newt Gingrich outlawed this abuse of defenseless children in both England and the United States.

Now, this extraordinarily ignorant and selfish man wants to be President of the United States. And the people of South Carolina seem likely to vote for him. Are the people of South Carolina as incredibly dumb as Newt thinks they are? We shall soon find out. And if he is right, we may well next learn something about the intelligence of the average American. After all, they voted for George Bush, probably the stupidest man to ever be President (so far) – a man who nearly destroyed the country with his insane financial policies. Could Newt be more dangerous than W? Yes, because he truly believes in the exploitation of innocent children and cares nothing for their welfare or safety.

He is a real and present danger to the next generation of Americans: the small and innocent children of the land. And there is nothing more dangerous to America than that.


%d bloggers like this: