Posts Tagged ‘am libertae’

By R.C. Seely

I KNOW IT’S NOT CONSIDERED GOOD FORM to criticize another person of Celtic origins-I’m Scottish and Welsh-but I can’t stand Bill O’Reilly. Out of anyone on Fox News, he’s the worst, the most opinionated, pontificating bully trying to show he’s “in touch with the common man.” That persona has gotten him fame and accolades but less an earned respect and more of a taken one. Oh no, I hope I didn’t ruffle his feathers, at over six feet and a fiery Irish temper,  he could be imposing… I guess. O’Reilly has a reputation of intimidating guests of his show to get the truth, they aren’t the only ones to deal with his tirades. The members of his staff that have witnessed and tolerated his expletive laced temper tantrums probably were scared to death of him. One such incident was even recorded and posted on YouTube. Good job with consistency, shouting for the censorship of others yet being a practitioner of vulgarity. The way he treats others is only one valid reason for concern. Frankly, I find his understanding of freedom far scarier than the man

He’s “looking out for you” after all, in the same manner that one noteworthy man will “make America great again” or another gave us “hope and change.” All meaningless platitudes meant to silence their critics who dare demand choices. Who is O’Reilly really looking out for? Not the Constitutionally bound or the anarchists, not progressives or moderates. No he’s looking out for moralists just like him, those who only condone liberty by their narrow terms. If he had his way, the temperance movement wouldn’t have ended and the bootleggers, rumrunners and Baptists would still controlling their theocracy. Bible in one hand and sword in the other is fine for running your own personal life but in a nation that calls itself the “land of the free” we shouldn’t settle for temperance.

What about following the Constitution? Does O’Reilly really care about? Not if it contradicts his moral soapbox speeches, of course like most moralists nothing will change their minds, including evidence that doesn’t support his perspective. Present him with evidence that ending the War on Drugs would end the violence along the border or tariffs and other nationalistic policies make us less free and prosperous he wouldn’t budge. So what if the research into violence on television or the gore in video games causing violent behavior is proven tainted by bias or flat-out disproven as wrong, O’Reilly will continue his boring old line. Let’s make it harder for children to get R-rated material and drugs through federal intervention-even with a prescription. O’Reilly is so opposed to marijuana that he supports the onerous medical marijuana ban. Even if you are opposed to recreational use don’t keep treatment out of the hands of the patient, especially children. Not only is medical marijuana effective as a pain reliever but it lessens-if not eliminates-the more severe symptoms of childhood epilepsy and all without the dangerous side effects of pharmaceutical options. And since medical marijuana doesn’t trash the liver or kidneys, it’s a better option especially for children and seniors, when these organs are the most vulnerable.

Putting aside all that, any intervention by anyone violates the patients rights, if patients want to indulge in a treatment to alleviate their pain they shouldn’t need to stress about possible incarceration. Which also includes their right to end it. That’s right, O’Reilly is against voluntary end of life measures, just die there slowly in agony to preserve O’Reilly’s objections to assisted suicide. Yes, euthanasia of any kind is considered a taboo and distasteful subject but so is a patient living in pain against their wishes.

While he preens about how he protects the innocent from destructive choices in the US, he advocates for the endless War on Terror. The “Culture Warrior” may claim to be an independent, but seems in line with the Republican party in general and defends the nation building foreign policy of both parties.

Bill O’Reilly and his viewers don’t really want freedom anymore than the supporters of the duopoly do, because they have a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept. Freedom doesn’t mean having to turn to another party to make your personal decisions that are none of their business. If you want to get married, then do it, you shouldn’t have to ask for permission from your state. That’s essentially what a marriage license is. You shouldn’t be worried about being arrested and charged for what you put in your body or anything you do with it, as long as you do no harm to others. If there’s a valid justifcation-including a strong interest for the US-to go to war, then do so with restraint and in a smart and effective manner. Wars are not only costly in money but human lives and in our civil rights, and the call to act is used far too often. Between the O’Reilly temper and his temperance inclinations, he has demonstrated himself a danger to those who desire unrefrained liberty and those critical of him or those he supports. Maybe before we proceed further with the culture war, this Leonidas desires, we should evaluate the outcome or the consequences could be too high.

For more on Bill O’Reilly-and other topics of the Victim Culture, read the author’s book Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society.

By R.C. Seely

A SEARCH THROUGH MY EMAIL BUSINESS ACCOUNT  has turned into a drive to rid the nation of all things Trump, including one specifically from CREDO to “Tell Congress: Stop Bannon: No white supremacist on the National Security Council.”

In the petition from CREDO  comes the following:

“Trump and his administration have been playing fast, loose and reckless with our security… and Bannon’s appointment to the NSC is one of the most dangerous and irresponsible decisions he has made since taking office.

It is clear that in the White House, Bannon is the one running this presidency. He is one of the masterminds behind unraveling the Affordable Care Act, the unconstitutional Muslim ban, the anti-immigrant border wall, and the sweeping abortion restrictions coming out of Congress. And now, as long as he remains on the NSC, he has the power to say who among us should be protected and who should be targeted.

Bannon believes … that America should be the center of a new movement of right-wing populism centering on white nationalism.”

 

President Trump, Bannon and certain cabinet appointments do admittedly make me nervous … but not because they are necessarily “right-wing populists” or questionably “white nationalists.” They concern me because they are populists and nationalists, period. These kind of presidents are dangerous without additional monikers attached. They are enemies of the people and the Constitution, because they pick and choose which parts they want to adhere to and which to ignore.

The Trump administration has already shown distain for the first amendment, going to war with the free press. Something which has made a lot of other people nervous as well. And to be fair to CREDO at least there were legitimate concerns brought up with immigration and abortion issues and it wasn’t simply calling Bannon a racist. The Muslim ban keeps out those who could be assets to the nation as well as the terrorist threat, the most ardent opponents of illegal immigration are those who can across legally. Many border patrol agents are from Mexican heritage and are dedicated to the nation’s safety, with an immigration ban we turn potential supporters into part of the problem. What CREDO forgot to mention was the real cause is for the immigration influx is from the unintended consequences of the War on Terror, of course that would also bring up how their War Criminal President Barack Obama has blood on his hands as well. If not for the military intervention, which is sure to continue, these people wouldn’t have been displaced in the first place. Unfortunately this usually is where the discussion breaks down for the supporters of duopoly candidates-which could be why CREDO didn’t mention it but I doubt that’s why-in the first place.

Besides Bannon, there are legitimate concerns with cabinet member Jeff Sessions and Vice President Mike Pence and there should be. Both are moral authoritarians and will also ignore the constitution and will of law when it violates their personal morals. This is esspecially true when it comes to marijuana enforcement, both expressing the eagerness to maintain the status quo federal standard with regards to marijuana, which is at odds with many states rights and the changing opinion from the general public.

So who is Steve Bannon anyways? Before joining Team Trump he was the executive editor at Breitbart news, which is where the claims of racism originates. Since Bannon took over for the late Andrew Breitbart, there has been an increase of racist comments by staff as well as site vistors. Bannon had done nothing to check that. Before that he worked at Goldman Sachs and in the entertainment industry, a resume similar to Trump. Also like Trump both were Democrats and strong supporters of the party causes.

The concern over Bannon for the DailyKos is the Trump adminstrations efforts of “draining the swamp.” Reportedly the mastermind behind the policy Bannon said that “if you look at these Cabinet nominees they were selected for a reason, and that is deconstruction.”

The DailyKos goes on to say:

“The crippling or wholesale elimination of Federal agencies that ensure we receive such things as clean air, clean water, fair labor laws, fair housing standards, anti-discrimination laws, financial protections, food and drug safety, national education standards the like, has been a goal of [the] far-right … for decades.Their rationale, propagated by corporate and industry funded think tanks … has always been that the existence of these … agencies represents a mortal threat.

The reality is that these extensions of the Executive Branch-the Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Education, for example-exist to serve the interests of all the American people, performing the painstaking and complex task of regulating the very things that make all Americans’ lives worth living.They perform this function because history has clearly shown that neither the Congress nor the states are remotely up to the task of doing it. They have neither the time, the expertise, the manpower, or the ability to handle such mammoth responsibilites in a country of 330 million people.”

 

Yes, the Federal Government is just looking out for you … that’s why they use these agencies to eliminate free market choices and detain people for non-violent offenses that don’t keep us safer from national threats or those among us who wish to do us harm. These agencies have horrible track records and where there are private options available are usually outshined. The TSA, for example, has a 90% failure rate in detecting and neutralizing terrorist threats while private security at airports have a 75% success rate. The FDA has a death rate in the 100,000’s annually. When an environmental disaster occurs, the EPA has been slow to respond and the Department of Education is only about indoctrination and fails to prepare students for the real world. If the Department of Labor had it’s way every occupation would be unionized and that would be the end of all American efficiency and innovation. I know  DailyKos means this article as a scare tactic but its not working very well, the elimination of the public options and replacing them with private ones would make things better. If Trump does that, it will be one of the major boons from the administration, not a blackmark.

Bannon and Trump seem to have come from the same mindset, which only makes sense since they took similar paths. They are both corporatists to an extent, neither respects the Constitution and both are propagandists from the entertainment industry. Thing is, getting rid of Bannon doesn’t really matter, Trump is the president and even without his so-called “puppet master” advisor he will go down the same path. Bannon is to Trump, what Valerie Jarrett was to Barack Obama, or Karl Rove was to George W. Bush. If we are really lucky we end up with presidential advisors who are more than simply “yes-men” but most of them are, since that’s what the president is generally looking for. They want people with more knowledge and insights on the issues but still share their perspective. This is nothing new and doesn’t make Steve Bannon more or less of a threat than any of Trump’s other advisors.

R.C. SEELY is the founder of the americanuslibertae.com and the YouTube channel Americaus Libertae Television. He is also an author, the most recent Victims of White Male: How Victim Culture Victimizes Society.

By RC. Seely

WITH ALL THE CONCERNS ABOUT INTERNET security, because of the hacking of Sony to be more specific, the Obama administration has been pressured into action by progressive groups such as Openmedia and Demand Progress. The groups claim that Comcast and other greedy corporate entities have kept the internet in chains and need to be reined in. Apparently, from their perspective only the federal government can save the day, making Obama superman? That’s a scary thought! Obama as superman, he would apologize for interfering with the criminal and then assist him in blowing up the building. Is that too inflammatory? I thought I was allowed to make such comments in this country, but maybe I was wrong. With the fundamental misunderstanding of the role of government in our lives, our “superman” Obama has been eagerly waiting to advance a law to curtail freedom of speech and in the Net Neutrality extensions he would have it.

On February 26, the FCC is going to be reviewing its position in our lives. If Tom Wheeler – the current head of the FCC – agrees with the Obama administration that new restrictions and regulations are needed, this will basically be a reincarnation of the Fairness Doctrine. What are the implications of this? Well, nothing good, unless you are an Obama lapdog. When the Fairness Doctrine was in place during the Roosevelt administration, it nearing killed radio, because the general public was losing interest. They didn’t want to hear from the social democrats or progressives emotional preaching. The claim was that because the results weren’t the same, his progressive policies must not be given equal treatment by the radio industry – it never occurred to him that maybe the public didn’t care to hear it. This is what Obama believes is the case with the internet. The public loves him, so there must be something non-egalitarian in the internet, right? Sorry, superman the internet is already open and free, it’s just a lot of people don’t agree with you.

The internet, under the new guidelines, would mean censorship and higher prices for all. Despite the promises made by the Obama administration or the FCC, there will be no distinctions between the small no-budget blogger and those who manage the large power house media organizations. The fees will be less, but those who weren’t charged before, would be now. It’s also a very unnecessary move, the free market already regulates itself. Many internet organizations already offer free options for their sites, with fees only for additional features. Some say this is unfair. That doesn’t make sense, you should have to pay for extended services.

Freedom of speech is such a cherished and needed right, it is the pillar for a free society, something that we take for granted and others covet. Our nation has always been unique that we have that freedom and our leaders have been looking for ways to curtail our speech when it becomes “inconvenient.” Starting with John Adams, our second president, who wrote the sedition acts. Jailing journalists and pamphleteers writing scathing editorials about Adams. During World War I, president Wilson brought these laws back, incarcerating critics of America’s involvement in the war. Roosevelt also used such laws during World War II. That’s why the criticism of the Vietnam World seemed so intense, it was actually allowed! Our freedom of speech is so valuable, that so many fought to death for it and our most egotistical representatives fought – and continue to fight – to destroy it. The internet is the last refuge for such freedoms and worth fighting for, if we let the government neuter it we will regret it.

By R.C. Seely

The comments by Kathleen Sebelius, Health and Human Services director, is a stark demonstration of the blind, organized disconnect between elitist progressives and the American public. This is the same thought process Dr. Jonathon Gruber has, that the people are “too stupid” to understand their choices and we intelligentsia need to make them for you. I know what is best for, so let me do it.

This is also the same thought process employed by Barack Obama and his cohorts. Her comments should troubling to the administration, though, because they cast doubts on the narrative that the president is always right and has suffered disenchantment from the public in large. That the blind admiration and devotion by the Obamaites has crumbled, and they now see and feel the harsh reality of “hope and change.” To say there’s a problem with the brand name is tantamount to an admittance of failure by the administration – a point to which, I would definitely be agreement on – and not only frustrations about his name sake law, ObamaCare. If there is an issue with the name of the law how about altering it to a more fitting one – The Horrible Care Act.

With the numerous failed intentions and broken promises of the ACA, it’s an extremely appropriate change. Between the debacles website – that millennials won’t forget; the over six million booted from insurance policies they liked – projected to jump to over one hundred million after the temporary moratorium for businesses expires; the doctors leaving their practices in droves, and some entire hospitals refusing to accept patients with ObamaCare coverage; to the false promises to seniors, and instead proposing an expiration date for those in their early seventies. Then there was the promise millennials could stay on mommy and daddy’s insurance until age 26; an unnecessary guarantee, not only because most of us don’t really need insurance until we get into our forties, but also the market already provided it for the youth, with carriers already offering this provision. That wasn’t the only option either, there was catastrophic coverage and lower priced coverage, dismantled by the ACA. Lastly, it has to be mentioned that the reported numbers of new enrollees is questionable, many having enrolled in Medicare not ObamaCare, but counted on the ACA tally sheets. The only demographic that hasn’t been reported damaged by this law is those with prediagnosted conditions, but I’m sure they will get hit by this legislative atomic bomb as well.

In reflection after writing this article, maybe Mrs. Sebelius has a point of adopting a new title for this act of federal larceny. That way the public will be reminded the next time a politician try to advance a bad law, that doesn’t help anyone but the state. Then maybe they might think back on the litany of grievances brought on by the law that no one wanted but was forced on us anyways, in the end by a single vote.

By R.C. Seely

“It’s all over but the shouting: Obamacare is working,” states Eugene Robinson, in his op-ed piece for the Washington Post. That’s all I can tell you about the article. Because that’s as far as I got, judging from the title alone “Obamacare ready for a victory lap,” it wouldn’t be too hard to fathom the contents of the piece. Another example of school-girlish worship of Barack Hussein Obama. More God worshipping of Obama, more self congratulations for having done his part for the “Obama-nation” and more “where the hell are those nasty Republicans in all this” style of rancor. Okay, we get it – enough already! This is no longer beating the dead horse, but beating it to a throw rug.
Besides writing something that is nothing but tooting his own horn – which makes it boring – it’s also wrong. It’s very assumption is wrong. Obamacare is not working, it hasn’t been fully implemented yet, so stating unequivocally that it is currently working is beyond inaccurate. That’s like building a city in the middle of nowhere, it could thrive but you’re operating on blind faith. Is that really how we want our government to operate, on blind faith? We should be asking more, as is, we ask for more from our cell phone than from our federal government. Instead of “asking can you hear me now,” we should be demanding “you will hear me now.”
Instead of stating that Obamacare is working he should be stating that it will work, but will it? Very doubtful, seeing as when other countries tried it the end results was chaos in their healthcare system. Right now we simply are not at a point where we can measure the success of the law, except for the problems. Six million – and counting – kicked off their insurance, unprecedented spending and unprecedented power. The “success” of the law is based on an unsubstantiated eight million enrollment number, that administration doesn’t won’t explored. There are speculations about the source of those numbers, including adding Medicare and Medicaid to the Obamacare enrollees tally sheets. Such claims are admittedly highly speculative, but not less so than a pundit claiming a law a success before it’s full implementation. Check back with Eugene at the end of the year and see if he stills thinks it a success or if it’s simply that tingling he gets from Obama. To sum it up, Eugene Robinson is jumping for joy, on the optimistic premise – that in the end the venture will wind up an unprecedented success for the unprecedented president.

Did you like this article? Get UNConventional Wisdom: Methods of Behavior Modification for the Modern Age by this author. Also check out his other books all available at Barnes and Noble.com and Amazon.

By R.C. Seely

Before I begin, I must confess that I didn’t watch the State of the Union last night. Frankly the thought of sitting through another self-servicing gratuitous evening speech made my pizza dinner want to make a spectacular return. However, what I do in this company is political science, so to remain silent is not an option.
If I had been employed by someone else it would have been required that I at least watch the dreaded event, if unable to physical attend it fortunately for me that’s not the case. I’m a highly ethical person, though, so in order to give an accurate rebuttal I did have to familiarize myself with the speech somewhat. So to remedy this I watched the highlights on the Wall Street Journal channel of my Roku – it featured the parts when he admired that in this country any one could be anything if they worked for it, giving special notice to his colleague Speaker John Boehner; then the officer who had been injured in the line of duty. How moving, maybe I was wrong about the president and maybe I will start cutting him some slack. Don’t count on it though, from the comments of others who did watch the event it was nothing new. He griped about income inequality, immigration reform (which I do think we need, but not the kind up for discussion), and how he was stuck with a not-doing-a-damn-thing congress. He also apparently continued with his “magic pen” soliloquy, threatening that congress better play ball, or else. Or else what? What can he do to them if they don’t? – Nothing, this is not a real threat with real consequences and all he is calling for is going to hurt the population.
It sounds like the same old rhetoric from the past with the exception that he’s running out of things to mettle with. He hasn’t learned from his errors of judgment or even admitted them. A more refreshing and honest speech would have gone like:
“My fellow Americans, I release this out of character for a politician and might be arguably tantamount to political suicide, but since this is my term in office as president, that matters little. Even if that wasn’t the case I see that my course actions have caused detrimental harm to the office, the Democratic party, but more important the nation.
“Starting with my signature legislature, the Affordable Care and Protection Act, the millions who have lost their insurance is on me. The many countless others who have suffered the unintended consequences in the economy because of it, that too falls on the leader of the nation. While I will not make abortion illegal I can discourage it by cutting federal funding for it, making the individual responsible for paying for it, or finding an insurance company who will cover it.
“If not for my actions young men, like the one in the stands who will have to life with the consequences of ‘Nation Building’ is on me as well. I could have changed course, from those of my predecessors, and actually promote peace as I advocated as senator.
“My federal ‘Go Green’ environmental efforts and healthy lifestyles initiatives have gone too far, with very little substantial evidence to support such reactionary, expensive and intrusive actions. Letting the free market come up with the answers, unhindered by pointless and inefficient restrictions has set back the progress we all yearned for. I will curtail only the most modest and proven efficient restrictions.
“I rein in my social welfare programs and institute a system to follow up to see who needs really in need and who is scamming the system (authors note: With the advances of technology and the information I came across complete elimination of these programs would be the best conclusions, but for the sake of the discussion setting them up in a responsible manner would be a step in the right direction). The attitude of unrestrained spending on these programs has been a violation of the public trust, encouraged irresponsible actions within the government and encouraged dependency on the state. The minimum wage should not be expanded, but instead abolished. It’s effects on the economy and business, violates both the businessman rights to do business in their own way and the states’ rights. Immigration reform does need to be simplified, and the complaint that our current policies give negative incentives by offering illegal immigrants ‘freebies’ to come is valid. Changing the social welfare system so that abuses to it are minimized will affect those who illegal enter the country, natural born citizen or immigrants will no longer get a free ride on the backs of the taxpayers.
“Finally, the federal position on drugs has to change. I advocated abandoning the federal policies on drug enforcement as a senator, with the power before me – as president – I have not acted on my principles, I will now set policies that honor these promises. As with all the other issues mentioned, and others not mentioned, the best way to solve them is for the federal government is to isolate itself from the problem. As we proceed into the future, we must explore not only new technological advancements, but also advancements in political theories. As other countries have been abandoning authoritarian political constructs, this country pushing the failed agenda of more control. We should take heed of the changes toward a free market system that former socialist nations, and ask why are they making that change? No longer will I push for federal intervention with regards to; guns, abortion, marriage, drugs, immigration, health care or other issues that are the states’ or the individuals’ responsibility. I have learned that government’s place in all this, is on the sidelines.”
This is a speech that I don’t hold my breath about hearing anytime soon, but the candidate who does make such a speech is the kind that we need.
Like this article? – Read more about how federalism has failed us in my new book, UNConventional Wisdom: Methods of Behavior for the Modern Age.

Trayvor Martin: Martyr … Maybe Not
By R.C. Seely

I’ve been reading some the replies to the George Zimmerman trial and I have to say I’m more than a little concerned here.  Originally I wasn’t going to make a statement, but wait until it all blew over and for us all to move on.  Since that is not happening, then this is a plea for commonsense.
First, when brought up if it’s called the George Zimmerman trial, not the Trayvon Martin trial.  Many are not clear about that, and when asked think these are not connected.  When asked by interviewers about George Zimmerman the reply is, “Oh I haven’t been following that case.”  Trayvon is mentioned, however, the response is in the effect of, “Oh yeah, Trayvon.  Isn’t that sad that we are still such a racist country?” Okay, for the record, any death of a human being is sad, but the greater tragedy here is the assault on humanity.
From the onset of this case, the events were claimed as racist, now that’s sad!  As the information has gotten out about the case, it’s looking less and less racist.  There’s simply nothing pointing to racism in Zimmerman’s background.  But also calling this a white on black crime isn’t accurate, he’s Hispanic.  Where the hell are the PC police on this one?  So this is a case of one minority killing another minority, not a case of whitey murdering another brotha.  All this is telling of the larger picture of acceptable victim hood that is rampant in our culture.
One of the first arguments I see posted is, “unless you’re black, you don’t understand.”  You would be right, I wouldn’t understand your cultural woes as an ethnic minority- but what of it?  Just because I can’t understand how it feels, doesn’t mean those of the group in question should get a free pass on spreading racially charged rhetoric without being debate it’s merits.  I want some examples of discrimination they are suffering.  The only one I’ve heard is that they have had a hard time getting a job.  So the immediate conclusion is this is racism?  Who isn’t having a hard time finding work, no matter the skin color?  It’s called a recession, maybe you’ve heard of it?
One of the suggestions was that by discussing racism we are keeping racism alive.  That’s valid point and if it wasn’t it is worthy of a legitimate consideration.  What was the response to it? – Mostly with condensation and outright ridicule.  Probably the most absurd counter to it was to the effect of “if we stop talking about cancer will that die off too?”  Really?  Comparing racism (a social stigma) to cancer (a biological disorder), is that really a valid comparison?  That’s like comparing someone with a cold to the suffering of an AIDS patient.  If I were suffering from cancer and heard this kind of hyperbole, I would be fuming.  More to the point, it demonstrates the victim hood culture I’m talking about.  One part is valid about that comparison, with both cancer and racism, attitude means a lot.  If a cancer sufferer can be kept uplifted through the whole ordeal they have a far better chance of recovery.  If the racial dialogue is kept to a cool, rational debate, instead of the reactionary demagoguery of the Trayvor Martin death, than the solutions can be reached.
We have all suffered discrimination, of some form or another, at some point of our lives.  Being rejected by someone because of your physical appearance.  Turned down for job because someone with more experience or education comes along.  Being isolated in your own community because you’re not of the common religion.  Avoided because your personality clashes with others.  At times, yes, racial discriminations too will, unfortunately, come up as well.  Racial discrimination is not a one way streak though.  The Black Panthers are just as much a hate group as the Ku Klux Klan, and are just as wrong for it.  Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, could have followed the tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. – instead, they are pillars of the some racial division that they claim to condemn.  Jackson has stated that he himself would not comfortable with an urban black youth trailing behind him in the dark; he would be if it were a white man.  So, the man considered the human megaphone for racial sensitivity, is in essence saying he might do the same thing.  Where’s the anger at these comments?  How is this obvious intolerance, considered tolerable?
So, was what happened that night an act of racial intolerance?  Maybe.  If so, on which side, could if have been Trayvon that instigated the issue with previous actions in the community?  He had a history of gang activity, is it possible he started the fight?  Only Zimmerman and Trayvon know for sure.  As I stated earlier, the greater tragedy is the assault on humanity.  I only hope that humanity can have a quick recovery, because it appears it is needed more now than ever.

Property of MOJO Publishing 2013