How To Tell if Your Ass Is Too Small

A TAX ON FATTY FOOD? February 11, 2000 A doctor is getting a lot of headlines by encouraging the government to come up with yet another tax. This is much like encouraging an alcoholic to have another drink. He is alarmed that some 30% of the people in the U.S. are said to be obese (seriously fat - beyond chubby). Naturally, we would all like to have perfect figures and have perfect health, but it has never been so and never will be. Everyone should be encouraged to live the life that the various health associations recommend, but taking the totalitarian approach of forcing them through taxation is not the answer. What would be done with the tax money if such a tax were enacted? If you have been paying attention to such taxes as the gas tax for roads (going to all sorts of political schemes), the cigarette tax (a windfall for politicians), and others, you know that politicians will use the money in any way they see fit. If you wish to see the government control another facet of your life, do nothing, or worse, go along with the idea of a "fat tax." If you do not think this will affect you, remember the story of the German who said, "When they came for the Jews I did nothing, for I was not a Jew. The same for the Communists, Unionists, and teachers. When they came for me, there was no one to ask for help." In other words, if they can get this by you, they'll tax something else you enjoy. Call or write to your Senators and Congressman and head this one off before it has a chance to take hold. Gerrold T. Adler

PARTIES AND "FAIRNESS" March 1, 2000 This year's primary election has posed an interesting problem for the Republican Party. A number of states now have open primaries, which allow people of all persuasions to vote to nominate any candidate. This is akin to the Elks' Club voting to elect the officers of the Lions' Club. It would not be allowed. Some State Parties, California included, have decided to only count the votes of their party members in assigning delegates to the National Convention. This is causing great consternation among the pundits. Is it "Fair?" This situation would not have occurred if the Democrats had a race on their side, but it is Dull and Duller, with Bill Bradley barely causing a blip on the radar screen. This allows Democrats and liberal Independents to cross over to create mischief (widely admitted in Michigan, where Dems wished mightily to embarrass Gov. Engler, a Bush supporter) without fear of harming Gore. Will these people vote for McCain in November if he is the nominee? I seriously doubt it. Once he is the nominee, the Democrat gloves come off and James Carville, the Ragin' Cajun, will make short work of the infamous McCain temper(displayed last night on Michael Reagan's national radio talk show). The purpose of Political Parties is to gather people of like mind (for the most part) for political ends. The parties are somewhat like large clubs. If you think that they, like any other club, are going to be happy about letting other than members choose their nominee, you haven't been paying attention. Not "fair?" Start your ownparty - Ross Perot did, and look what that got us. Gerrold T. Adler

DO YOU TRUST UNCLE SAM'S CENSUS? March 15, 2000 The latest news is that a lot of people are telling Uncle Sam where to put his intrusive census questions. The requirement for an enumeration (head count) of the populace is found in Article I of the Constitution. It was set up 200-odd years ago to ensure that representation in the House of Representatives is proportional to the actual population. The authors of the Law of the Land probably did not foresee some 8 million people living here illegally, but the Census folks are encouraging them to participate (we won't tell INS). As someone has said, it is possible that a Congressman might find him/herself representing a constituency the majority of which cannot legally vote. Why, then, the cynics (who have heard the President lie to their face and parse the definition of "is") say, do they want all this other information? The answer is Social Engineering. While your name, age and address are held very closely for 72 years (and I have personally had to retrieve this information - very difficult), the statistical information is shared with all manner of government and civilian organizations. Supposedly, it is used for transportation planning, assuming there is such a thing, and for determining the needs for such government projects as subsidized housing and child care. Glad you asked? Many people claim that they will not answer the questions. In that case, an "enumerator" will be sent to the home to clear up the problem. What happens if you tell said person to pack it in his/her attaché case is anyone's guess. Census claims that there is a $100 fine for failure to answer and a $500 fine for giving false information. In view of the fact that Uncle (and the States) have charged almost no violators of existing gun laws, I'd say they will probably just do a lot of whining, try to pass more laws, and assume that we will do as we do our taxes and go along with the program. The Census organization has shown so far that it would have a difficult time organizing a two-man half-court basketball game. Gerrold T. Adler

PERSONAL FIREARMS: ENDANGERED SPECIES March 22, 2000 The National Rifle Association is engaged in a verbal war with the Clinton Administration, and the news you are getting is being filtered through newsrooms inhabited by people who are dead set against guns. That is not to say that some of them do not have their own guns for self-defense, but they do not want you to have one. News reports are showing clips of Charlton Heston, actor and President of the NRA, implying that Clinton is a liar. Naturally, the media, especially the TV side, take offense at such "disrespect." Friends, Clinton looked into the camera on national TV and said, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman - Miss Lewinsky." He allowed a false deposition to be filed in the Paula Jones case, which his lawyer was forced to withdraw with an apology to the court. A judge found Clinton in contempt for making false statements. His veracity, it seems to me, should no longer be a matter for speculation. If the ACLU were the real protector of Constitutional rights, it would be loudly on the side of gun owners and manufacturers. It is strong on protection of selected free speech (1st Amendment) but not loud on the right to bear arms(2nd Amendment). I am aware that many pople think the 2nd Amendment only refers to militias, but the Amendment has not been superseded, and the right to bear arms should not be infringed. If you think it is not, you haven't been paying attention. Clinton and others cry that the 6-year-old girl would not have been killed if the gun owner had been required to buy a trigger lock. The place in which the 6-year-old shooter lived was a hell-hole. His dad was in jail. His mother is alleged to be a druggie. The uncle or boy-friend who owned the gun and apparently lived in the home is also of questionable character. Having a trigger lock or even a gun safe would not have ensured that either would have been used. These were not responsible people, no less responsible gun-owners. States, cities, and the Feds are preparing to sue gun manufacturers to the point of bankruptcy, as they have tried to do with "big tobacco." Next will be "Big Booze," "Big Mac," et al. The vital link to all this destruction of legitimate industry is trial lawyers. They are not in it for the money, though. They are making our lives safer. Gerrold T. Adler

THE LAW IS THE LAW - MAYBE March 29, 2000 During today's press conference, your president was asked about a judge's determination that he had violated the Privacy Act in publicizing e-mails sent to the White House by Kathleen Willey. Ms. Willey accused Clinton of groping her after having been seen by Linda Tripp recovering from her meeting with him. Amazingly, the White House was able to retrieve all of the e-mails which made Ms. Willey appear to be a liar almost immediately. The same group now claims that it has lost virtually all e-mails which might be associated with the numerous scandals still swirling around this "most ethical" of all administrations. Back to the Willey e-mails and the Privacy Act: The President said that he knew about the Privacy Act and did it anyway. He said he disagreed with the judge. When asked about the Elîan Gonzalez case (the Cuban boy who he and Janet Reno wish to send back to Fidel), he said that the law must be followed. We hear a lot about Clinton's ability to compartmentalize - keep his personal affairs (gulp) separate from his official ones. Apparently, it also applies to which laws are operative within the same press conference. Gerrold T. Adler

Another Day on San Diego Bay

I'd Rather Be Working - NOT

DON'T SEND ELIĆN BACK TO CASTRO April 21, 2000 I have resisted expressing my feelings on the Elićn (and the accent means that it is pronounced elYAN rather than "alien") Gonzalez affair, because it has been so overdone. So many Americans have been fooled into thinking that the boy will be reunited with his father that I can no longer remain silent. You who believe this lie are putting yourself in his place. You cannot. This is America; that is Cuba. Here there is freedom; there there is only THE STATE (or The Revolution - same thing). You cannot imagine a totalitarian Communist State by simply trying to imagine it. Read Orwell's Animal Farm and Solzhenitzin's Gulag Archipelago. Talk to the much-maligned "Miami Exiles." Do you think that they risked imprisonment or death to leave a country comparable to ours? Elićn, if he is retured to Cuba, will not return to his home town and previous existence. His memories of a life more elegant by eons than the 'worker's paradise" of Cuba (free medical care and all) must be re-formed - erased. He does not belong to his father in Fidel's empire; he belongs to The Revolution. How he is treated after his "re-education" is difficult to determine, but he will be accorded hero's status - at least while that is useful to Castro. Life in the U.S. with loving relatives is better than life in Cuba without any relatives as we know them. His mother died to achieve freedom and a future for Elićn. We should not deny her last wish. Gerrold T. Adler

ANOTHER CRACK IN THE LIBERTY BELL

JACKBOOTED STORM TROOPERS INVADE A MIAMI HOME TO '"RESCUE" ELIĆN GONZALEZ FROM HIS FAMILY

THAT GURGLING SOUND April 23, 2000 Your freedom took another hit yesterday when armed thugs, under the direction of the Wicked Witch of Waco, knocked down a door, knocked people to the floor, menacing them with automatic weapons, and pulled Elićn Gonzalez from the arms of one of the fishermen who rescued him from the sea. Outside, other goons were pepper-spraying the crowd, including Miami police, according to Miami's Mayor (who was not told about the raid). Tiring of negotiating with the family, Janet Reno ordered the raid, simllar to those used against people who sell crack cocaine to kids. She did this pretty much on her own according to Clinton, who did not wish to be seen as being involved in the affair, should it have gone badly awry. Speaking of that, we should be thankful, I suppose, that Ms. Reno did not burn them out. She did not want to take that kind of heat again - oops! In the last two days I have heard several people say that the end justifies the means. Let me tell you that that is how freedoms are lost in great chunks - not little nibbles. If we do not let our representatives know that such action is intolerable in a free society (it's perfectly ok in a totalitarian one), those who own guns will one day be forced to turn them in or see the infamous picture of the goggled goose-stepper up close - coming through their own door. It is that serious. A great person once said that all it takes for freedom to perish is for good men [and women] to do nothing. Write your Senators and House member and tell them how you feel. Your freedom is flowing down the porcelain fixture. Gerrold T. Adler

A MILLION MOMS CAN BE WRONG May 15, 2000 The large number of women who marched in Washington, D. C. on Mother's Day are, I suspect, largely well-intentioned. They are equally uninformed. Banning guns or requiring their registration does not reduce crime. The city of the march, our nation's capital, outlawed guns years ago. Strangely, to the liberal mindset, guns are still used by the city's criminals with alarming regularity. The same is true of New York City, which also has laws which prohibit owning guns. The liberal gun-grabbers quickly point out that neighboring states have no such laws, and prohibiting guns there would reduce crime. Much the way the War on Drugs has reduced drug usage? One of the first acts of a repressive totalitarian government, such as Hitler's, Stalin's, and Castro's, is to take away the populace's means of self-defense. This has been so since before firearms were invented. No, you can not take on a tank or a trained military squad with your personal firearm, but governments think twice about steamrolling an armed people. That is exactly the reason that the authors of the Second Amendment insisted that the right to keep and bear arms be near the first of the Bill of Rights. A popular bumper sticker of the firearms rights groups is, "When Guns Are Outlawed Only Outlaws Will Have Guns." New York City and Washington, D.C. are the proof of that maxim. A corollary is the story of Florida's easing of the right to carry a concealed weapon. What did criminals do when faced with the possibility of taking on a granny with a .38 with a knife or gun of their own? They followed arriving tourists from the airport and hijacked them, often recognizing their rented cars. Someone who has just arrived by plane is nearly certain to be unarmed. Home burglaries dropped significantly because of the uncertainty of getting in and out alive. The gun laws on the books today are more than adequate to prevent bad guys from getting them legally and punish them for using them. Are they used? The statistics indicate that they are not. The use of a gun in crime is frequently dropped in the "plea bargain," which District Attorneys use to keep the wheels of justice grinding and make their conviction record look good with a minimum of work. It is trite to say that guns don't kill people, because they do. Cars do, too. When a drunk driver kills someone, you do not hear the Mothers Against Drunk Driving calling for a ban of automobiles or even confiscation of any car other than that of the driver (and rarely that). Cars are registered, but it is not for the purpose of future confiscation. Gun registration is, and if you think otherwise, you are mistaken. Gun-grabbers also say that if you need a license to drive, you should have a license to own a firearm. I could accept training or a demonstration of ability as a requirement to purchase, but a license should not be required for home defense. One probably should be required to carry a concealed weapon, but such permits should be more liberally allowed to qualified persons. At the present time in most locations it is difficult to justify one's "need" to carry a concealed weapon, even though the number of legal carriers who kill unjustifiably is miniscule, bordering on non-existent. If more "Moms" actually raised and instilled morality in their children, in partnership with "Dads"(remember them?), we would not be having this confrontation between legal gun owners and liberal "moms." It used to work. Gerrold T. Adler

WE'RE FROM THE GOVERNMENT AND WE'RE HERE TO HELP YOU May 16, 2000 A good part of the State of New Mexico is in flames. The smoke can be seen from space. It is causing significant amounts of pollution. The National Park Service decided that it had to start a "controlled" fire to eliminate a buildup of brush, which was potential fuel for a forest fire. This technique copies nature. Lightning causes many fires over much of the earth's land mass. You have probably noticed that this usually happens in conjunction with rainfall, which has a tempering effect on the ensuing fires. Your government's bureaucrats decided to start this fire when the weather was dry and, according to reports, after the weather bureau had told them that the wind was coming up, and it was a bad time to conduct the preemptive fire. Had you or I been responsible for this conflagration, we would be cooling our heels in confinement awaiting trial for arson on a grand scale. The person responsible in this case is a government employee, who will probably be reshuffled to a new job at higher pay. After all, he meant well, didn't he? You can bet that the billions of dollars paid to victims will be paid from government funds. It is interesting to note that in many forested areas protected by the government you are not allowed to take out firewood, even that which is lying about waiting to burn. No, you may not even remove a pine cone or tree bark from the ground in some of these areas. Better to let the government take care of it and stand by to evacuate as the state burns. Gerrold T. Adler

SECURITY IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION June 16, 2000 It was announced today that - Shazam! - the missing Los Alamos hard drive with the most sensitive nuclear secrets of this nation had mysteriously reappeared. if reports are to be believed (and that is a stretch) the missing material was found behind a copier. The whole area had been searched, we are told, with the proverbial fine-toothed comb for about a month. This follows allegations that a Chinese scientist from the very same lab may have stolen the secrets of how to make a very compact (for nuclear weapons) and effective nuclear warhead and given them to the Chinese. Besides making virtually all the inexpensive merchandise available in stores today, the Chinese government (private industry is a shaky proposition in a Communist regime) also desires to be THE global superpower. That government will do so over our battered bodies if necessary. China today is much better off strategically, thanks to the Clinton administration, which provided it with the capability to orbit satellites more efficiently (China was actually having trouble getting them off of the ground). This also provided them with the ability to guide nuclear-tipped missiles to Alaska, Hawaii, and perhaps the West Coast.   You had to have heard about the Chinese contributions to the Clinton-Gore re-election campaign in 1996. Is there a connection? Now the FBI will try to determine who took the most secret of secrets and then put them back. The FBI, as it happens, works under Janet Reno. If history is any indicator, we won't hear much until after the election, if then, and there will be no independent counsel. Tidbits of the investigation may be released to keep pressure from building. No one of any importance will be at fault. In my career in the Navy I was responsible for secrets at a much lower level than this. If this fiasco had occurred on my watch, I would (if allowed) be writing to you from Fort Leavenworth Federal Prison in beautiful downtown Kansas. Gerrold T. Adler

A SHAMEFUL ACT June 29, 2000 Shameful acts are not a new thing for the Clinton administration, and sending Elićn Gonzalez back to Cuba does not rank up there with the mass murders at Waco or the multiple murders at Ruby Ridge. Nonetheless, despite the opinion of the uninformed masses that he should be with his father, sending Elićn back to Cuba was wrong. Cuba is a Communist totalitarian dictatorship (redundant but true). People are not individuals in such a state, and children do not belong to parents. Ownership of any sort of property is a privilege granted by the state. Children belong to the state, or the Revolution. Elićn will be held in a special house for as long as it takes to re-educate him after his exposure to freedom and plenty. The average income in Cuba is a very small fraction of that in the U.S., and comparisons between the lifestyle of U.S. and Cuban citizens is discouraged. Elićn will, simply, be "brainwashed." This is not speculation; it is the standard method of operation in states such as Cuba. He may live for a time after that with his father, and then he will work for the state and live where the state dictates. Why did Clinton bend over backward to get Elićn back to Castro? He knows it is not so that "the boy can be with his father." Some say it dates back to the Mariel boat lift, when Castro opened the prisons and mental hospitals and sent us thousands of Cubans. Some of the worst of these wound up in Fort Chafee in Arkansas. When they rioted it caused such a stir that Clinton failed to be re-elected as Governor. Clinton does not take kindly to losing. Right now Clinton is concerned about his legacy. Monica and impeachment are not what he would like history to see as his high points. Another Mariel boat lift right before the election would not sit well ("You want Cubans? I'll give you Cubans!"). So, the little boy who miraculously survived his journey in a leaking boat and inner tube to make it to the Land of the Free (his Mother's dying wish) is returned to the murderous dictator, Fidel Castro. Did you notice that the Point Man for this operation, following the kidnap of the boy by border patrol thugs, was Greg Craig, Clinton's impeachment lawyer? What a coincidence! The Statue of Liberty is weeping. Gerrold T. Adler

THE STAR OF INDIA

The Star sailing on San Diego Bay. The weather is less than optimum, as indicated by clouds on the horizon.

REPEAL THE DEATH TAX July 11, 2000 There has long been a maxim that "You can't take it with you," and the government uses the tax code to ensure that you don't. In some cases, you can leave less than half to your heirs. The tax is called the Estate Tax, but it is commonly called the Death Tax, because it taxes your wealth after you die. The tax rate can be as high as 55%. Yes, I said FIFTY FIVE PERCENT. That is over half, in case your fractions may be a bit rusty. In most cases this tax is on earned or interest income which has already been taxed. In many cases it has caused the heirs of small business and farm owners to sell the business or farm to pay the taxes (over half, remember?). Why is there so little outrage at this injustice? Why is Clinton threatening to veto a Republican measure which would eventually eliminate this atrocity? The answer is that you have to be fairly well-off to be required to pay the tax. For many years the threshold was $600,000 for an individual and a bit over a million for a family. The threshold has been increased, but the number of people exceeding it has vastly increased. Nonetheless, the majority of Americans, myself included, have little prospect of having to pay the tax, and many (not I) believe in "soaking the rich." Therefore, many politicians feel that they are on safe ground backing the death tax, and it is a money-maker for the government. The rich already pay a very large percentage of the tax burden. The not-ultra-rich who fall under the death tax should be able to pass on their wealth and business to their heirs. It was once the American Way. Gerrold T. Adler

A HOUSE THAT NEEDS CLEANING August 1, 2000 Back in 1992, 43% of the voters who actually took the time to vote ignored the rumors and voted for Clinton. They did it again in 1996. The results include more scandals than we wish to remember and a lessening of respect for the office of the President (and Vice-President). The incumbent was impeached. He was not convicted by the Senate, but that was a political decision; it was not for lack of evidence. Further, it would have given Gore a running start in his quest to be President. Lest we forget, the impeachment was instigated over a sexual affair IN THE WHITE HOUSE, but the real charge was perjury/obstruction of justice. Can there be any doubt as to the perjury? Clinton told investigators under oath the same thing he told the people (you, me, everyone) on National TV. He was found guilty and fined by a judge for lying in the Paula Jones case. Al Gore is still being investigated for illegal fund-raising in the1996 re-election scandal (remember the Buddhist monks who took a vow of poverty but managed to raise hundreds of thousands for Al?). Gore was found to have solicited funds from his office, which is illegal, but he claimed there was "...no controlling legal authority." That means no Vice-President has been caught doing it. Last night Dick Cheney, the GOP nominee for VP, said, "It is time for them to go." He meant the entire Clinton troika - Bill, Hillary, and Al. This is a house that needs cleaning. Gerrold T. Adler IT'S YOUR GOVERNMENT

THE JEWISH VEEP August 9, 2000 The press is making a huge issue of the fact that Gore has named a Jewish Senator as his vice-presidential candidate. His religion has (perhaps) something to do with the reason he was picked, but it is not the major reason. Jewish men and women have in the past held and presently do hold powerful government positions. As an example, both California senators, I believe, are Jewish or have Jewish ethnic backgrounds. A few in the press have hit on the fact that Senator Lieberman gives Gore the most distance from Clinton that he could get while remaining in the Democrat party. Lieberman, you will remember, had the "courage" to stand up in the Senate and denounce Clinton for the Lewinsky affair. He did not have the courage to vote for the removal of Clinton from office, although substantial evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice was presented. He seems to have a problem with the courage of his convictions, despite the stories of walking home on the Sabbath. He is presently waffling on school vouchers, which he supported before his elevation to VP-candidate. He also intends to run for re-election as senator from Connecticut, simultaneously with his VP run (hedge those bets!). Senator Lieberman has a reputation as a man of ethics, and many of his views before teaming up with Gore made sense. That may be why Gore didn't let him appear alone on the morning TV news-talk shows today. Gore wants that ethics Gravitas (the Dems' favorite word) to rub off on him. Unfortunately for Gore, the slime from the Clinton-Gore administration has already rubbed off on him. Hopefully, the voting public will notice. Gerrold T. Adler

AL GORE AND THE UNITED AUTO WORKERS August 12, 2000 I was somewhat mystified when I saw that the United Auto Workers had endorsed Al Gore for president the other day. Sure, labor unions almost always go with the democrat (except the Teamsters, who don't like NAFTA,GATT, etc.,which the Clinton-Gore administration backed), but this was environmental guru AlGore, author of "Earth in The Balance," a favorite of the Unabomber. Passages from the Unabomber's manifesto and Gore's book are nearly indistinguishable. In his treatise on the environment, Al stated something to the effect that the single greatest threat to the environment is the internal combustion engine. For those who may have forgotten their physics classes, that is the type that powers virtually every vehicle of every description on the planet. Excluded are electric vehicles, steam and human/animal powered ones. I can't think of any others. Much has been said about electric vehicles, but in the final analysis, they are not ready. The batteries do not run the vehicle for long enough to be practical, they are so heavy that the vehicle's payload is very limited, and the batteries need to be replaced frequently at very high cost. Where does that leave the UAW, whose foreseeable future is in building vehicles that their candidate wishes to eliminate? Well, as it happens, the UAW is under FBI investigation. You don't suppose that the investigation will be influenced by the union's endorsement of the vice-president, do you? Gerrold T. Adler

A NEW LOW FOR THE DEMOCRATS August 18,2000 You probably didn't hear about it in the mainstream media. I believe Rush Limbaugh may have mentioned it on radio. During the Democratic Convention, which wrapped up this week in Los Angeles, members of the Boy Scouts of America were booed by members of the California delegation. The Scouts were invited to take part in the patriotic portion of the celebration, and these fine young Americans were actually booed. Why? The Scouts have succeeded (so far) in denying membership to openly homosexual Scouts and Scoutmasters. It is their feeling that the spirit and intent of scouting is not in consonance with homosexual activity. The homosexual community could, of course, start its own version of the BSA, but it wishes to bend the existing organization to its will. It has tried through the courts to either force the BSA to accept homosexuals or make its existence miserable through constant litigation. The members of the California delegation who participated in attempting to humiliate the young men at the convention were not only boorish but stupid as well. The individual members do not make organization policy. What should we expect next from the party of diversity and inclusion? New lows? At least they didn't boo Cardinal Mahony when he spoke of the sanctity of life (a no-no in the Liberal/main wing of the party). On a related note, CBS News' Dan Rather practically accused the Bush campaign of dirty tricks when the news leak broke about a renewal of the investigation of the Clinton/Leinsky affair. It turns out that a judge appointed by Jimmy Carter (and hardly a GOP operative) accidentally spilled it to a reporter. Nice going, Dan. Gerrold T. Adler

AL GORE'S UNCIVIL WAR August 21, 2000 Divide and Conquer is a principle of warfare that is thousands of years old. It is still used because it works. Al Gore and the Democrats are using a form of it known as Class Warfare to try to win the Presidential and Congressional elections. The strategy of this war is to pit a large group of Americans (preferably voters who will actually vote) against another group of Americans without as many voters. Among the techniques used is the demonizing of the successful and wealthy in our country as moneygrubbers who victimize those who have less money. Examples include oil companies, tobacco-related industries (except for the farmers, who are Good Guys - Al Gore used to be one), drug and firearm manufacturers. Another technique is to attack any plan to cut taxes, which is anathema to liberal Democrats. President Kennedy, who the Dems revere, knew that tax cuts spurred the economy. Further, he knew that tax cuts did not only help the wealthy. His famous analogy states, "A rising tide lifts all boats." I have never heard a liberal of today use that quote. It is easier to say that the Republicans' tax cuts are risky schemes which favor the wealthy. First, who pays more taxes? If you guessed "the wealthy" you get a gold star, because the wealthiest Americans pay the vast majority of Federal taxes. Who is "wealthy?" According to the IRS, you are, if you receive Social Security and your income is over $35,000. That is the point at which your Social Security payment, once tax exempt, is now partially taxed. Clinton/Gore increased the amount of your Social Security payments which are taxed. The table to determine the amount is a real doozy, which most taxpayers are probably forced to leave to professional tax preparers. You didn't realize that you are wealthy? You don't need or want a tax cut, even though it is excessive taxation combined with a good economy which produced the budget surplus? The Democrats, who never would have allowed a budget surplus had they not lost control of Congress, say they wish to use the surplus to "save" Social Security and Medicare,which they caused to be in danger. They totally ignore the Trillions in proposed spending and treat the Surplus as if it is all the money the government will have for the next ten years. The difference between the Democrats and Republicans is the Dems think they know how to spend or invest YOUR money more prudently than you do. The Republicans wish to return some of the taxes that you overpaid and allow you the option of investing part of your Social Security taxes . It's as if you overpaid your Mastercard or Visa account, and the companies said, "We'll just hold on to this overpayment and pay off some of OUR bad debts - you understand - we'll be able to serve you better." Whose side are you on in this war? Gerrold T. Adler

GOD AND THE LIBERALSl August 29, 2000 It isn't often that I have something nice to say about a liberal Democrat, but Senator Joseph Lieberman apparently does have the courage of some of his convictions. Okay, he waffled on school vouchers and affirmative action, but he's still talking about God (as of 7 p.m. Pacific Time, August 29th). Liberals, in general, do not feel that religion has any part in public life. They have misinterpreted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which was intended to prevent a single State Church. The First Amendment does not define a separation of church and state, as it has been interpreted. It was intended that all religions would be welcome in the United States, but that none would be superior. So, Congress can convene with a prayer, but high school graduations cannot? The Ten Commandments cannot be posted in public buildings? Prayer is replaced in school by armed police? That's how liberal jurists see it. Senator Lieberman apparently did not initially "get the word" from the liberal handlers, and he spoke hither and yon of his love of God and his religion.   Finally, the Jewish Anti-defamation League wrote him a letter which informed him that all this talk of God did not belong in political speech, as it's not what the American people want to hear. I do not consider myself a very religious person, but Senator Lieberman's love of his religion bothers me not one whit. He is apparently genuine in his love of God, and he is not trying to force me to bow down. Why does it bother the ADL and other liberal groups? Perhaps these groups recognize their hypocrisy (it's a stretch to imagine it, though), for they are ready to tear apart any conservative who might mention religion in a political context ("Right-Wing Christian Fundamentalists," they are called, as in "Islamic Fundamentalists," with a curled lip). More likely they may fear that the voting public will recognize the hypocrisy of denigrating Governor Bush when he speaks of Jesus while cheering Senator Lieberman when he speaks of his God. Perhaps other issues will take center stage soon. This one is not a winner for either party. Gerrold T. Adler

THE WEAKER SEX? September 7, 2000 The latest polls (and I still have a hard time putting too much faith in them) show that women favor Al Gore over George W. Bush by a statistically large number. I hate to be seen as a sexist, but these are the same folks (women) who gave us Clinton/Gore in the first place. If women still did not have the vote (as I have heard some women suggest they should not) we would have never heard of Monica Lewinsky and the parade of other names not actually linked to Clinton by DNA. We would not have had Ruby Ridge, Waco, Travelgate, Filegate, Whitewater, and other scandals too numerous to list in his space. The Lincoln bedroom in the White House would not have become a Motel 6 for wealthy Democrat donors. I am not suggesting that women should not have the vote, but is it possible that there are that many people in this country who are too busy to pay attention to what is happening to it? Yes, I think it is possible. The Clinton/Gore administration tried to make this a socialist country and would have gone a long way toward doing it had we not voted in a Republican majority to Congress. The polls indicate that the threat of socialism didn't bother a lot of people. They seem to thnk it would be fine if the Government "took care" of more facets of their lives. The former Soviet Union is the mess it is today because it tried for 70 years to make socialism work. North Korea and Cuba have been trying for roughly half a century. They are economic basket cases. Are any neo-socialists paying attention? No. They think that they are smart enough to make socialism work. They are not. It will not. Al Gore is more than a neo-socialist. He is an over-the-edge environmental socialist, who will soft-pedal the radical environmental talk until after the election. After that, if elected, watch out. All of the horror stories that you have heard will come true. Find an endangered critter or plant on your property? Bid your land a fond adieu. Accidentally kill an endangered rat; go to jail. Ladies - admit it. It was the R-rated kiss at the convention that swayed you to the side of the man who praised Clinton as "one of the greatest presidents in U.S. history," wasn't it? Nothing points up family values like a deep-throat kiss on national TV. Gerrold T. Adler

THE BUCK NEVER GOT TO MY DESK September16, 2000 Yesterday's headline read, "Clinton Raps FBI, Justice in Lee Affair," indicating that Louis Freeh and Janet Reno are responsible for the fiasco. You will remember that a scientist working at the Los Alamos nuclear research facility was jailed almost a year ago for allegedly passing the country's most vital nuclear secrets to the Communist Chinese. The scientist's name is Wen Ho Lee, and he was observed for some time as a result of strong suspicions that nuclear secrets were leaking from the lab. Subsequent investigation found many of those secrets on a computer which was not authorized for such use (much as the former-CIA chief,Mr. Deutsch's had). Further, several tapes which should have been accountable were missing. Many details of the investigation were purposely leaked to the media so that rumors might be quelled that Mr. Lee's only crime was being of Chinese origin. He was made out to be a master spy who met with the ChiComs and passed them valuable material. Of course, in keeping with the record of the Justice Department under Ms. Reno, the case could not be made that Mr. Lee had done anything more serious than putting very sensitive material on an unauthorized computer. That, in itself, constitutes a felony, which earns the perpetrator at least a year in the slam. He may have done much more, but if you can't prove it... By pleading guilty to that offense, Mr. Lee was able to get out of the crossbar hotel on time served. He also would find it difficult to try to sue the government for what appears to be shabby treatment (as the judge, and now Clinton, say it was). Some of you may not know it, but the Justice Department and its subsidiary the FBI do not work for either Congress or the Supreme Court. Justice is a Department of the Executive Branch of the government, which is headed by the President. When you hear the current occupant of the White House publicly chastise his subordinates you are witnessing leadership at its worst or a total lack of it - take your choice. The expression "pass the buck" used to be very popular. It meant a ducking of responsibility by shifting it to someone else. Harry Truman was famous for having a sign on his desk which read, "The buck stops here." Clinton's should read, "The buck never got to my desk!" Gerrold T. Adler

WANT TO STAY IN CALIFORNIA? September 19, 2000 The backers of Proposition 39 on the November ballot are spending a lot of money to see that it passes. The TV and radio ads assure us that it willl improve schools and really watch your money carefully. What the ads do not say is that the passage of Proposition 39 will make it easier for your taxes to be raised by lowering the percentage of votes required for School Bond passage. Backers include the teachers' union - the strongest in California - and the American Association of Retired Persons (AARP). The teachers' union lobbies for anything that will fill the coffers of Big Education (Education is guaranteed a very healthy chunk of State spending, but it is never enough). Why the AARP is behind it is a puzzlement. I'll bet the rank and file are not - if they understand it. It is part of the State Law that it requires a two-thirds vote of the people to pass School Bond measures, and the ones which seemed appropriate have passed. Those which receive 50% or more but less than two-thirds are what have Big Education frustrated.   They want them all to pass and tried last time to lower the requirement to 50%+1. Now they are back proposing 55%. Those of us who realize that 55% of the voters can much more easily be swayed to raise our taxes than can two-thirds wish to maintain the status quo. The trouble with Bond issues is that the way they are promoted they sound like free money. They are not - any more than your home mortgage is free. The costs incurred are paid from your tax money. More bonds - higher taxes. A quarter-century ago we rallied around Proposition 13 so that escalating property taxes would not drive us out of our home state. It is time to do it again. Proposition 39 must be defeated. Anything less than a two-thirds vote of the people to raise taxes is unacceptable. Gerrold T. Adler

MILITARY RETIREES HAVE RIGHTS, TOO September 28, 2000 Many political writers are alarmed at the number of high-ranking retired military officers who have thrown their support behind the Republican candidate for President. Some have even suggested that this threatens a sort of military coup. While military personnel are prohibited from engaging in political activity while on active duty, there is no such restriction on retired service members. Most retired military officers feel that they are entitled to participate after a 20- to 30 year (or more) hiatus. They served in arduous situations, spending a year or more at a time away from home and family, doing work that (as is often said of illegal immigrants) most Americans will not do. I heard one retired general officer claim that he thought it was wrong for the senior retired officers to take sides publicly, but he was Clinton's man in charge of Kosovo, so I take his opinion very lightly. Yesterday the Joint Chiefs of Staff warned Congress that the next President will have to spend much more money to keep our Armed Forces from falling farther behind. It has been cut by a third or more under Clinton-Gore, and its mission of being able to fight two mid-intensity wars simultaneously is now considered by most to be out of reach. The retired senior brass, representing hundreds of years of military and political experience (yes, Virginia, Flag and General officers ARE political people) are backing Governor Bush because they have seen how Al Gore would treat the military. They know that Governor Bush will do a better job and are putting their reputations on the line because they know it is the right thing to do. Gerrold T. Adler

THE GREAT DEBATE October 5, 2000 The first thing I noticed was Al's makeup. I thought that morticians across the Nation must be saying, "I could do better than that!" Not content with rattling off statistics like a Furby gone berserk, Bore harrumphed, interrupted and used facial contortions to express his displeasure with Bush's responses. Bush seemed calm and collected; Bore seemed ready to explode. Bush did not bring up any of the many scandals of the Clinton-Gore administratin but did respond to Jim Lehrer's question about Bore's character. He pointed out Bore's part in illegal fund-raising activities in the '96 reelection campaign and said he would appoint an Attorney General who would investigate such activities. This refers to Janet Reno's almost total inactivity, bordering on coverup. In follow-up reports, it appears that Bore played a bit fast and loose with the truth in some of his examples (again - remember the Internet, "Love Story," Love Canal). It seems that he did not visit Texas with the Federal Energy Management Agency Director as he said, and the girl who had to stand in class in the ramshackle school had to stand for a time on the first day of school because $100,000 worth of new lab equipment had not been unpacked. Both the Principal of the school and the girl herself are said to be disappointed with the story. Bush's best rejoinder to Al's ideas for "fixing" Social Security, Medicare, and education was to note that Al has been in charge for seven years. He did not receive a response concerning the ninth-innng push to mend the broken bureaucratic nightmares. Al continued his Class Warfare, accusing Bush of promoting a tax cut that favors the wealthiest one percent. I lost count of the times he said it, but, as they say, throw something against the wall long enough, and something may stick. The party which talks incessantly of "fairness" does not believe in it when it comes to tax cuts. The fact is that wealthy people pay more taxes than do middle class folks, and many below the line do not pay income tax at all. Fairness would dictate that all who pay taxes get a percentage back. Gore believes that you should get a cut only if you fit into a special category (so-called "targeted" cuts). This means that if your lifestyle does not suit the Liberal pattern - no money back. The same goes for his college tuition plan. You may need an accountant to tell you if you qualify. In the final analysis, those of us who had already decided on a candidate probably were not swayed. Those "undecideds" for whom the debates might have made a difference, probably watched something else. Gerrold T. Adler

THE ABSOLUTE CHUTZPAH October 6, 2000 Senator Lieberman, who is runnng for both Senator in Connecticut and Vice President, said tonight, among other things, that the Democrats were the ones who balanced the budget, reformed welfare, and will make the military, which he claims is in fine shape, even better than would the Republicans. Chutzpah is a Yiddish word with which the Senator is familiar. It means, approximately, unmitigated gall, effrontery or impudence. As I write, Senator Joe is describing Al Gore as a great leader. He did not mention Gore's qualifications as a very close follower of Bill Clinton. Remember that Gore, after the impeachment of Clinton for perjury and obstruction of justice over some pretty disgusting acts in the White House, said that Clinton is one of the greatest Presidents in U.S. History. Bill and Al have been in office for seven years. They have sent the military around the world doing 911 duties and trying to keep peace where none exists. At the same time they reduced the military by a larger force than can be fielded by almost any country in the world. Military morale is down. The Navy term is lower than whale (word for manure). Clinton-Gore were dragged kicking and screaming to balance the budget and reform welfare by the Republican Congress we elected in 1994. To say the things that double-dipper Joe (VP and Senatorial candidate) said takes chutzpah of the First Magnitude. Gerrold T. Adler

previous page	Powered by MSN TV	next page