Page Nine

Destroy the economy...go to glamorous cocktail parties; Smoke dope at home...go to prison

By Special Guest Columnist Craig Cantoni:

What happens when our overlords in Congress, the White House and the Federal Reserve destroy the economy and ruin millions of lives? They get invited to cocktail parties and news shows, and are treated with respect and dignity by the public.

What happens when some poor schlemiel gets caught with several ounces of dope for his own use and hasn't harmed anyone? He goes to prison.

Have we lost all sense of proportionality and justice?

Sorry, but please allow me one more emotional outburst: What kind of mind control has taken place to keep Americans from thinking about throwing their overlords in prison?

That's not a facetious question. If you thought it was, then perhaps you don't know what the overlords have been doing to us for the last three decades to bring us close to economic collapse today. They have knowingly turned the country into a debtor nation, given average folks an incentive to spend more than they make, created the housing bubble and other bubbles, given us trillions of dollars of free stuff without any intention of paying the bill, debased the dollar and thus our standard of living, and covered their crimes with economic bunkum, populist hokum, and money borrowed from foreigners.

If you don't think that Alan Greenspan, Nancy Pelosi, Barack Obama, and John McCain should be wearing prison stripes and eating from metal plates instead of going to Washington cocktail parties, then you must want to empty prisons of all convicted burglars, because, collectively, burglars have done far less harm to society than Congress, the White House and the Fed.

Or perhaps you don't know the facts, which would be understandable, given that government K-12 schools and government-dependent universities don't educate students about the economic crimes of the government. Some of those students become reporters and pundits, who don't know enough about economics and economic history to tell their audiences about the crimes. However, in their defense they know a lot about A-Rod's affair with Madonna.

A day doesn't go by without someone sending an email to me about Big Oil, regurgitating some tripe he heard in the imbecilic media about Exxon Mobil's profits and oil speculators. The senders don't know that Exxon Mobil is a small player compared to the real Big Oil -- the state-owned oil companies around the world. Even more telling, the senders never say anything about Big Fanny. No, not their rear ends, where many of them keep their heads; but Fannie Mae, the voracious monster created by the government to give mortgages to people who shouldn't get mortgages.

Big Fanny has become a slush fund for political payoffs and cronyism. Its former CEO, who made $90 million a year, was fired for cooking the books; yet he became an advisor to Mr. Change, Barack Obama. More capital has gone through Big Fanny than cr*p through the fannies of every goose in the world. If the company runs out of capital, the government could be on the hook for $5 trillion.

Psst! Let me whisper a secret to you: The government is you.

Amazingly, Big Fanny is a small burglary ring compared to Big Congress and Big Fed, the members of which deserve to be sent to the Big House and have their fannies lusted after by their fellow inmates.

Yeah, I know: You're powerless to mete out justice and imprison them. But the least you can do is stop treating them with respect and start treating them like the Big Crooks and Big Arsses that they are.

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

How Mack the Millionaire became Mack the Knife

By Special Guest Columnist Craig Cantoni:

Mack and Zack grew up in the same working-class neighborhood, are the same age, have the same education, earn the same salary, have the same number of kids, and have worked for 40 years in the same construction trade. The only difference between them is that Mack has $1 million in savings and Zack has zilch in savings.

Mack has a million and Zack has zilch, because Mack saved and invested $10,000 a year by living below his means. Mack lives in a much smaller house than Zack lives in, drives a much smaller and more fuel-efficient car than Zack drives, goes out to eat far fewer times than Zack does, and, unlike Zack, doesn't spend money on lottery tickets, professional sporting events, trips to Vegas, cigarettes, drinks at sports bars, and a big-screen TV and other electronic gizmos.

To stay healthy and save even more money, Mack grows produce in his backyard and consumes far fewer calories, far less fat, and far less alcohol than fat Zack does.

Mack's savings have been transformed into capital, which in turn has been invested in equipment, technology, productivity improvements and new companies, thus increasing tax revenue for the government, reducing the amount of money borrowed from foreigners, increasing the value of the dollar, and benefiting Zack and other Americans.

In spite of the good that Mack the Millionaire has done for society, Democrats think that it is unfair for him to have more money than Zack. Teaming up with likeminded rapacious Republicans, they want to punish Mack for his frugality and reward Zack for his profligacy. They are planning to raise the capital gains tax on Mack's investment income and reinstitute the estate tax so that Mack has to bequeath his money to Zack instead of his own family.

Even crueler and more insidious, Democrats and their partners in crime across the aisle want to print money to cover their own profligate political spending, thus reducing the value of Mack's savings with inflation.

They want to do the same thing to industrious people who have worked hard in K-12 school, invested in their future, obtained a degree in a rigorous discipline, and deferred marriage and procreation until they were ready for both.

Democrats call this fairness and social justice.

Whatever they call it, it is suicidal.

Mack cannot stop the robbers by voting, because Zack and his ilk outnumber savers like him by a wide margin, due to the government punishing savers and rewarding spenders. The latest example was the government bailout of people who bought homes they couldn't afford.

Mack realized a couple of years ago that he had two choices. One choice was to stop saving and become a moocher like Zack.

The other choice was the moral choice: to grab a knife or other weapon and defend himself and his family against the robbers in Congress.

And that's how Mack the Millionaire became Mack the Knife.

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.
See his superb book, Breaking From The Herd here.

Memo to race mongers: “racist” and “racial” are not synonyms

By Special Guest Columnist Craig Cantoni:

Race mongers in the moronic media are saying that it was racist for Hillary Clinton to state the fact that she gets more votes from working-class whites than does Barack Obama. Based on this incorrect use of the word “racist,” then I’m a racist for stating the fact that Obama gets more votes from blacks than does Clinton.

Actually, both her comment and mine are racial, not racist. A “racial” comment is a comment about race, whether negative, positive, neutral, factual, or not factual. A “racist” comment is a comment that reflects a belief that a given race is inherently inferior to another race.

Why is this distinction so difficult for the brain-belching class to understand?

Here’s a 10-question pop quiz to see if you understand the distinction:

1. Is it (a) racist or (b) racial to say that the Mafia, the Costa Nostra, and Tony Soprano have their roots in Sicily?

2. Is it (a) racist or (b) racial to say that Northern Italians are born smarter than Sicilians?

3. Is it (a) racist or (b) racial to say that as a group, African Americans have the highest rate of out-of-wedlock births?

4. Is it (a) racist or (b) racial to say that African Americans are genetically predisposed to having uncontrollable libidos?

5. Is it (a) racist or (b) racial to say that Asians outscore other minorities on placement tests?

6. Is it (a) racist or (b) racial to say that all Chinamen can’t be trusted?

7. Is it (a) racist or (b) racial to say that 90 percent of the illegal immigrants in Arizona are Mexicans and that their children have a dropout rate of 50 percent?

8. Is it (a) racist or (b) racial to say that Mexican immigrants don’t have the brains to learn English?

9. Is it (a) racist or (b) racial to say that Craig Cantoni reeks of garlic?

10. Is it (a) racist or (b) racial to say that Craig Cantoni is an idiot because he’s Italian?

Correct answers: “Racial” is the correct answer to all of the odd-numbered questions, and “racist,” to the even-numbered ones.

Bonus question: If a pundit, reporter, editorialist, K-12 teacher, or college professor uses “racist” as a synonym for “racial,” is he (a) a moron or (b) a race monger?

Correct answer: He is a moron and a race monger.

Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, racism

What if government harming were covered as extensively as global warming?

By Special Guest Columnist Craig J. Cantoni

A recent issue of Time magazine has a cover story about global warming. How original. It’s just one of hundreds of messages that drip on our heads and our children’s heads each day about global warming.

Drip-drip-drip.

Hundreds of other messages drip on us about Big Oil, evil corporations, rampant racism, rising income inequality, and the glories of diversity. The drops come from the media, K-12 schools, universities, and, amazingly, even from corporate advertising.

Drip-drip-drip.

The torrent contains some facts, but most of it is hyperbole and hysteria. I’d rather be water-boarded than endure this form of water torture.

Curiously, messages about government harming are as rare as rain in Death Valley. By “harming,” I mean the insidious and pervasive harm that government is inflicting on the economy and society.

For example, you won’t see this on the cover of Time: THE $800,000 INJUSTICE

The staggering sum of $800,000 is what the unfunded liabilities for entitlements and public pensions will come to -- per child -- if they are bequeathed to the 75 million children under the voting age of 18.

How many times a day do you hear about this coming travesty of justice from the establishment media, from our benevolent government, and from the presidential candidates (aka the Three Stooges)? Better yet, how many times have your children been told in government K-12 schools about the lives of servitude they face to pay off the $800,000 bill?

Oh, sorry. I showed my ignorance with the last question. Every time I’ve written that government schools are inherently statist and engage in propaganda, parents email nastygrams in response, calling me an ignoramus and other names too gross to repeat. Since I’m an ignoramus, it must be true that K-12 students are taught as often about the danger of the $800,000 as they are taught about the danger of global warming.

Right, parents?

Hello, are you there, parents? Knock-knock, anyone home? Can you hear me above the sound of the drips?

Funny thing, but when I told my kid about the $800,000, he was much more interested in that subject than he was in the subjects of global warming and diversity.

Did I break the law by telling him? Have Senators John McCain and Russ Feingold made it a crime for a father to give such facts to his son 60 days prior to an election?

For sure, you can count on President Barack “Bolshevik” Obama and First Lady Michelle “Fidel” Obama to increase the volume of drips. After all, both of them think that 13,000 hours spent with unionized teachers in government classrooms is not enough indoctrination during childhood. Drip-drip-drip.

Borrowing a page from the Third Reich and the Soviet Union, they also want young adults to join a government job corps after graduation to work for the good of society and the environment -- and, of course, to learn more about the party line. Drip-drip-drip-drip-drip-drip.

You’d think that in 13,000 hours there would be time to teach children such apolitical facts as these:

-- that the government’s share of national income has doubled in the last 80 years;

-- that transfer payments, subsidies and handouts accounted for about five percent of federal spending 100 years ago, versus over half of spending today;

-- that the cost of government and government regulations is almost $30,000 a year per household, or about 65 percent of average household income;

-- that the government created today’s healthcare mess 66 years ago;

-- that many, if not most, socioeconomic problems are caused by out-of-wedlock births and single-parent families, both of which have been fueled by government policies and praised by media outlets and Hollywood;

-- that public education has failed miserably to achieve its goal of universal education, and that the productivity of public schools has plummeted, as measured by test scores and spending;

-- that government bookkeeping is fraudulent, and that the Social Security Trust Fund is an accounting fiction; and

-- that the government is covering its profligate spending by debasing the currency and punishing savers with inflation.

If children were to know such facts about government harming as well as they know half-truths about global warming, think of what would happen. They’d grow into adults who would turn off the dripping propaganda faucet.

Of course, that’s why the brainwashers will never teach children about government harming.

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Obama, Clinton and McCain are superb candidates

By Special Guest Columnist Craig J. Cantoni

The presidential race is now down to three superb candidates. Why are they superb? Because, in their own way, they are willing to give Americans what they want. And down deep, most Americans want the same thing.

You might think that Americans want different things, because they differ on Iraq, abortion, public expression of religion, illegal immigration, gun ownership, taxes and global warming. You're right, of course. That's why there are some differences between the three finalists on these issues.

But on the most important issue, Americans want the same thing.

What do they want?

Regardless of party, they want the president (and the rest of government) to use government power for far more than the protection of life, liberty and property. They want government power used to remake the world into their narcissistic image, to tell others how to live their lives, and to infringe on the rights of others, especially on the right to keep the fruits of their labor. In other words, they want to use coercion against others, not realizing that others will retaliate by using coercion against them.

In this very important sense, the nation is no longer a constitutional republic based on individual rights and liberty. The Progressive Era, the New Deal, the Great Society, and the neoconservative movement have transformed the U.S. to a nation where political might makes right. The individual is now at the mercy of the will of the plurality, or the collective, or marauding special-interest groups -- all of whom are backed by the rule of law, which in turn is backed by armed government agents.

Barack Obama wonders why we all can't get along. Well, it's because politicians like him want to do things for some people by doing things to other people. And generally, the people he wants to do things to are the good people in society -- the people who defer gratification, invest in their future, lead virtuous lives, sacrifice for their children, and help their neighbors without being coerced to do so by the government.

Coercion has become so accepted that the word "coercion" is not mentioned at all in Congress, in the establishment media, in K-12 schools, in universities, or in any other centers of influence. Instead, people speak euphemistically about the common good, volunteerism, social justice, equal opportunity, fairness, income equality, and other platitudes du jour. Of course, history shows that the greater the rhetoric about the collective, the greater the coercion against the individual.

President Bush says he believes in "compassionate conservatism," but he really believes in coerced compassion. Sen. Clinton says "It takes a village," but she really believes in coercively taking the village's output for her political uses. Sen. Obama says that he wants to put hundreds of thousands of Americans to work in government job corps, but he doesn't say that millions of other Americans will be coerced to pick up the tab for something that is economic and social folly. McCain says that he wants to stop money in politics, but he has used coercion to limit political speech.

Politicians embrace coercion because the American people embrace coercion. Farmers embrace it to obtain subsidies that raise the price of groceries for everyone else. The elderly embrace it to get free medicine at the expense of future generations. Spendthrifts embrace it to take the savings of the frugal through the tax code. Cities embrace it to take private property for the benefit of developers. Preservationists embrace it to tell homeowners what color they can paint their homes. Anti-smoking zealots embrace it to tell owners of bars and restaurants what they can do on their private property. Arts aficionados embrace it to have their cultural interests subsidized. Sports fans embrace it to have non-fans build their sports palaces. College students embrace it to get cheaper tuition at the expense of those who don't go to college. The stupid and greedy embrace it to be bailed out of their bad mortgages by those who are smart and financially conservative.

Examples of the use of coercion in our supposed free country could run for hundreds of pages.

Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton and John McCain indeed have what it takes to be the president of the United States. For that matter, so does Vladimir Putin.

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Tags: Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, presidential election, John McCain

We should treat the president like the garbage man

By guest columnist Craig J. Cantoni

Do we cheer the garbage man for doing his necessary but filthy job? Do we revere septic tank cleaners for doing their necessary but smelly work? Do we honor undertakers with statues in the public square for doing their necessary but creepy work?

Of course not.

Then why do we cheer, revere and honor politicians for doing their necessary but filthy, smelly and creepy work? Why is Washington D.C. cluttered with statues and monuments to them but not to the garbage man, the septic tank cleaner and the undertaker?

You might answer that a monument like the Lincoln Memorial is important because it honors Lincoln for freeing the slaves and keeping the Union together. Good answer, if it were true. Actually, thousand of Americans died to free the slaves and keep the union together. Contrary to what we were brainwashed to believe as kids, Lincoln doesn't deserve a bigger monument than any of them. (Then there is the issue of whether the Civil War truly was unavoidable and whether the horror of slavery would have ended on its own without the tragedy of war and the subsequent tragedy of Jim Crow.)

The garbage man, the septic tank cleaner and the undertaker are necessary to stop the spread of pestilence. Politicians are necessary to stop us from using clubs to resolve our differences, but, as history shows, they often stir our primitive passions to club other tribes over imagined differences. All of these occupations reflect the dark side of human existence, but only the job of politician requires deceit, hypocrisy and egomania.

Is that something to celebrate and honor?

The Founders understood that government is a necessary evil. That makes the representatives of government a necessary evil. As such, it's important to select them carefully, to keep a close eye on them, and to limit their job description to protecting life, liberty and property. But honor them?

The best way to limit politicians' lust for power is to treat them like the garbage man. That means selecting mentally balanced people for the job, recognizing the necessity of their work, and firing them when they deviate from their job description. It doesn't mean erecting statues and monuments to them and crossing the street to gawk at them if they are in our neighborhood.

Imagine how much better the nation would be if a president came to town and no one showed up to pay homage or to demonstrate subservience by playing "Hail to the Chief" when Air Force One arrives, as if this is a tribal chieftain and the subjects are in loin cloths with bones through their noses. After all, we don't play "Hail to the Garbage Man" when he exits the garbage truck.

In such a nation, the job of president would attract people with humility and normal egos. It would not attract the likes of Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain -- all of whom want to remake the world in their likeness instead of restricting themselves to protecting life, liberty and property.

The closest I've come to such a nation was a business trip to Iceland years ago. As my host was driving around Reykjavik and showing me the sights, he pointed to a non-descript building that resembled a large suburban ranch house. "That's the office of the prime minister," he said. "Would you like to go in and meet him?" he asked as nonchalantly as if he were asking me to meet his garbage man.

"Just walk in and meet him?" I responded incredulously. Like other Americans, I had gotten so used to treating politicians better than garbage men that I couldn't imagine such a thing.

I've since placed my childhood notions about presidents and other politicians where they belong: in the garbage can of bad ideas.

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Instead of silly global-warming gestures, cancel the Super Bowl

By Craig J. Cantoni

This season's Super Bowl will be played about 10 miles from my home in Scottsdale, Ariz. In one of the silliest gestures produced by the unwarranted mass hysteria over global warming, the host stadium is planting trees to counteract carbon dioxide produced by the game.

If global warming is truly man-caused, and if environmental catastrophe is as imminent as Al "Zinc Mine" Gore says, then the Super Bowl should be cancelled. After all, what's more important: a football game or the inundation of Florida and death of life as we know it?

Consider the carbon dioxide produced by fans flying on jet aircraft to Phoenix from around the country for the game: Assuming that 40,000 will do so, the carbon dioxide spewed in the air by jet engines could total more than 40 million pounds, or more than 1,000 lbs. per passenger.

No doubt, some of the 40,000 are wealthy left-liberal greens who idolize Mr. Zinc Mine and throw their empty Perrier bottles in the recycling can in his honor. Then they spew 1,000 lbs. of carbon dioxide into the air to fly to something as unessential as a football game. Their hypocrisy is as astonishing as the hypocrisy of gaseous Gore, who flies around the world instead of teleconferencing.

Similarly, take the example of a green guy from San Francisco who has corresponded with me about global warming. He's so distressed about the destruction of the planet that he wants a world government to dictate the reduction of greenhouse gases. He also thinks that tribal life in New Guinea is superior to life in a democratic, capitalistic, industrialized society.

This is a guy who has visited New Guinea and has climbed Mt. Everest and other peaks on other continents. Just one of his trips produced more carbon dioxide than what a big SUV spews in six months.

Maybe his world government will execute mountain climbers for befouling the planet. Or maybe it will outlaw Super Bowls.

If I were czar of the world, I'd ban Super Bowls, not because I believe that humans cause global warming, but because I think the games don't match the hype and are played by goons, who, if they were fighting in the Roman Coliseum, would hear me rooting for the lions.

Hmm, come to think of it, how will the world government determine whose ox should be Al Gored in a futile attempt to end global warming? The answer is that the determination will be made by political calculations, just as they are now.

Al Gore is not a master scientist, but he is a master politician (and demagogue). He would never suggest canceling the Super Bowl, because he knows that working stiffs would get angry if their bread and circus were taken away. Instead, he advocates measures that hurt working stiffs without them realizing that he is responsible for the hurt.

For example, now that he has achieved fame and fortune with the help of his family's zinc mine, Gore advocates measures that will have the indirect effect of closing mines and putting miners out of work. He can count on his fellow propagandists in the mainstream media to not connect the dots for the proletariat.

Don't get me wrong. I think it's a good idea to plant trees. I'd like to plant one in Al Gore's behind.

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Tags: Al Gore, Super Bowl

Will a president fix our problems?

By Special Guest Columnist Craig Cantoni

Pundits, political elites and common folk are now claiming the problems facing the country are obvious and easy to fix, if only we had the sense to elect someone who wants to fix them. Broadcasting star Glenn Beck said that very thing yesterday on his show.

A growing feeling of economic insecurity, widespread disgust with Congress, and disillusionment with George Bush have led many Americans to embrace the platitudes of Barack Obama, the sophistry of Hillary, the religiosity of Mitt Romney and Mike Huckabee, the populism of John Edwards, the bully-bully of John "Teddy Roosevelt" McCain, the vacuity of Fred Thompson, the...

I have to stop before I get sick to my stomach.

Yes, indeed. If only we would elect an alpha male or beta female who cares about each and every one of us, partisan bickering would end, pork barrel spending would end, global competition would end, foreign interventionism would end, global warming would end, increases in the price of gas and healthcare would end, the invasion of brown people would end, radical Islam would end, and in-grown toenails would end.

But what about farm subsidies? Are they going to end? Well, no, not if someone wants to be elected president.

Then if a president is powerless to stop something as uncomplicated as farm subsidies, why would someone think that a candidate would be able to stop, well, anything putting Americans in a funk and feeling the nation is in decline?

Beats me. But I do know that the nation has been transformed into a kleptocracy under majority rule, or mob rule, if you will. Over half of Americans are now either mooching off the minority through the tax code, or working for the government, or working in private-sector jobs that owe their existence and good pay to government regulations.

They might complain about the other guy's rice bowl, but they will do anything to protect their own rice bowl. The result, of course, is the status quo, and the farm bill. The status quo is a kleptocracy and ever-growing government.

These people all depend on force for their jobs, subsidies, entitlements and handouts.

For example, if it weren't for farmers banding together to compel the government to give them taxpayers' money, non-farmers would never hand their money to them.

Unfortunately, government force doesn't work well in the other direction. As political science and economic principles explain, it is nearly impossible for citizens to band together, legally speaking, and get government to stop farmers (or any other organized special-interest group) from using force against them. If they can't stop 2.1 million farmers, they certainly can't stop 3 million unionized teachers, 35 million AARP members, or 48 million Social Security recipients.

Well, that's not completely true. They can stop them, but it would require something that I don't advocate: the use of extra-legal force. It would take only about 100,000 men and women marching on the Capitol with torches, pitchforks, feathers and hot tar to convince members of Congress that it is in their best interest to stop taking people's silverware and giving it farmers, teacher unions, wealthy geezers, and other special interests. If it came to a choice between losing an election and being tarred and feathered, they'd pick losing.

Enough fantasy. Back to reality.

The reality is that the nation isn't going to be brought together by Barack, Hillary, Mitt, Rudy, Mike, John, Fred, or anyone else. When government degenerates into a political spoils system as ours has, it is impossible for citizens to trust each other or their government.

It is astonishing and troubling that someone as smart as Glenn Beck doesn't understand this.

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Tags: Glenn Beck, farm subsidies, puppy

Liberals actually love guns

By Special guest Columnist Craig Cantoni

The conventional wisdom says that liberals hate guns. Actually, the opposite is true. Hillary Clinton proves the point. She advocates nationalized healthcare.
Huh? What does that have to do with guns?

Everything.

Nationalized healthcare would not be voluntary, which means that it would be required and depend on government force for compliance. This means it would be backed up by government agents with guns. For enforcement.

Under nationalized healthcare, if a physician were to refuse to participate in the system and set up his own practice, he'd be fined and receive cease and desist orders. Eventually, if he continued to treat patients outside of the socialized system, he'd be arrested by agents with guns. Liberals support this pro-gun approach.

The same with patients. They would be arrested by agents with guns if they were to have the audacity to act like free people and pay private physicians for medical treatment out of their own pockets.

If you think this is just hype, I respectfully suggest you read Medicare's regulations.

Every government program near and dear to liberals (and millions of ersatz conservatives) depends on putting guns to people's heads -- Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SCHIP, public education, minimum wages, and PBS, to name several out of hundreds.

The nation was founded on the libertarian (classical liberal) belief that the only legitimate use of government force is to protect life, liberty and property. By extension, that means government has legitimate authority to prosecute murderers, thieves and con artists.

But now, the government uses force to take property (money) from respectable citizens and then spends the loot on fraudulent Ponzi schemes such as Social Security and Medicare. (If you don't believe that Social Security is a Ponzi scheme, then please show me the Social Security Trust Fund.) Ironically, the government that is supposed to prosecute con artists has become the biggest con artist of the land.

Without a gun pointed at my head, I would not let the government take 15 percent of my income for the schemes. I wouldn't pay protection money to a Mafioso unless a gun was pointed at my head either. Most intelligent, freedom-loving people wouldn't.

Unfortunately, most intelligent, freedom-loving people now engage in policy-wonk debates with the likes of Clinton about nationalized healthcare and other programs -- that depend on guns. They debate the efficiency of socialism versus free markets, putting people to sleep with statistics and economic theories. What they should do instead is say, "A healthcare system that depends on government coercion for its existence is by definition unconstitutional, un-American, and likely to make things worse."

If government-run health care will be so good, why is the Veteran's Administration health care system so bad?

The Founders wanted citizens to own guns to protect themselves against a government that used guns for other than protecting citizens. That's why liberals love government guns but hate the Second Amendment.

An author and columnist, Mr. Cantoni can be reached at ccan2@aol.com.

Tags: Craig Cantoni, national healthcare, Ponzi schemes

Cantoni: Global Warming

Author and guest columnist Crag Cantoni writes --

Dear Friends with Brains:

The Fall issue of the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons has an article that is the best yet in debunking the mass propaganda about global warming being caused by humans. (It also has an article of mine.) Each of the article's many graphs is a jaw-dropper. By the time I finished the article, my jaw was on the floor. Of particular interest were stats that you won't find in the establishment press or classrooms -- such as the negligible amount of human-generated C02 relative to total C02. The amount is almost as negligible as the countervailing facts on global warming known by the average indoctrinated American.

Tags: global warming, Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons