This is a very easy plan on how to pay off the national debt and balance the budget. It is quite easy to grasp.

Let's say you borrow $100 from a friend. He asks you to pay back $15 over the next 10 years. At the end of the ten years, your debt will be paid off. If you only make enough money to handle all of your expenses, plus sum to pay off the money your owe on your debt, then after ten years, the debt will be paid. Simple, huh?

All we need to do as a nation is make sure we are making our debt payments. After only 10 years of doing so, the debt will be gone. This is because the money is borrowed with T-bills that expire after 10 years. We don't need extra money to pay off the debt.

Now let's talk about making sure that the money coming in is the same as the money going out - in other words, the deficit.

Our economy is constantly expanding. That means our tax base (the amount of money we can tax from) is increasing over time. We will be able to raise more money in the future with the same tax rate today.

If we can do something to make the tax base expand faster, then we can get more tax revenue in the future. Think of it this way: If I spend $10 today, with the expectation that I will get $50 next year, is that a good investment? Of course! I will gladly borrow money if I have to to put that $10 in.

Whenever we do the following things, the economy expands. These are all things that the Bush agenda stands for.

* lowering taxes on the rich. See, the rich are rich because they know what to do with their money. They make money with money. The poor doesn't have money because they can't make money with money. If we allow the rich to retain more of their own money, they will make even more money, *increasing the tax base*!

* Reducing regulations. Regulations are generally good in that they accomplish good things. Take the clean air act. I mean, clean air is good, right? But regulations cost money to the tax base. Someone has to do something to comply, and it usually means that they have to do something more than what they are doing. We need to balance the benefit of regulation with the cost of regulation. Some things are hard to put a price on - clean air, for instance. But we must know how much we are going to spend for it, and balance that out.

* Eliminating corporate subsidies and welfare. By giving government money to the poor (both corporations and people), we are funding projects that don't have a negative ROI. In other words, we are taking money from people who can make more money and giving it to people who can't. We are reducing the tax base even more so than just taking the money.

The other side of the equation is spending. One way to balance a budget is to spend less.

* Eliminating corporate subsidies and welfare. I already mentioned this, but this is the same as burning money. The people won't go hungry - there are more than enough programs and shelters and charitable people who would love to feed these people (myself included.) I will gladly promise to do my part in helping the poor if government would stop competing with me.

* Reducing responsibility and thus spending. The government should be doing less and thus need less money to operate. By reducing the ambitions of government, and thus reducing the costs of government, we are lowering the amount of money needed to balance the budget.

As the amount of money spent decreases, and as the tax base increases, eventually the two will meet. If we played our cards right (IE, encouraging tax base growth), we can have a balanced budget with a low tax rate. A little deficit now is nothing to worry about because the economy and the tax base grows faster than the interest rate on our debts.

I want to revisit the point that really rich people are better than kinda rich people in our nation. Let's imagine these two scenarios:

(1) We have a low tax rate. Rich people keep a lot more of their money and they get really, really rich. We have thousands of multi-billionaires who have more money than they know what to do with.

(2) We have a high tax rate. The rich are only kindof rich. Maybe one or two people are billionaires, on we only have a few more multi-millionaries.

Would you rather have 50% of a million dollars, or 10% of a billion? Let's do the math:

50% * 1,000,000 = 500,000
10% * 1,000,000,000 = 100,000,000 = 200 times 50% * 1,000,000

Obviously, having a huge tax base with a low tax rate is far superior to a small tax base with a high tax rate.

Bush has been climbing in the polls, despite the intense pressure the democrats have been exerting since last year. What is the secret of his success? Why is he doing so well despite such a coordinated effort to tarnish his record?

Quite simply, the democrats do more to drive the republicans than the republicans do. More than one republican has told me that they are voting for Bush not only because he is a good guy, but because the democrats have to be stopped.

I see unprecedented participation on the ground in this election. As for myself, I spent 8 glorious hours treading cement to spread the word about Bush and the GOP. I was quite well received. Sure, there were a few vehement anti-Bush Kerry-ites. But the majority of those I met with liked Bush and his policies.

The other reason Bush will win because of the GOTV effort. GOTV stands for "Get Out the Vote". It is a coordinated campaign to target exclusively republican voters and get them to show up at the polls. Here's a dirty little secret: There are more republicans who don't vote than democrats that do. This is the 6th year of the GOTV coordination, and this year, it is so precisely coordinated that in my precinct alone (of about 100 actual voters) 40 republicans are turning out for the first time in a long time. We've been split down the middle since Reagan, and this year, we are going to get a whopping majority.

We didn't do it for the primary, because we didn't want to tip our hat. But we are doing it for the generals. It's already begun.

Kerry will be lucky to take New York and Massachusetts.

If you are a republican, or a conservative, it is important that you hook up with you local party immediately and ask what you can do. There are phone calls to be made, doors to be knocked on, and parties to attend. This year is the year of Bush, and the end of the democrats.

The latest article about the Rather scandal have all but ferretted out the last of the loony left. My favorite conspiracy theory: that Karl Rove masterminded the entire event. I have this picture burned into my mind of Karl Rove typing furiously on his computer. He calls out to Dick Cheney, "Hey, does this look fake enough? Or should I use the Times New Roman font?" Cheney responds, "Times New Roman. And here, let me sign the thing. My handwriting is terrible."

I guess when you have to come to terms with reality, it's always easier to slip back into the security blanket of delusional idea.

Here are some more, just to keep you looney lefties calm. George Bush really did cause 9/11. He even paid Osama to do it. George Bush really invaded Iraq for the Oil. No, it was for revenge! No, it was for Oil! Well, I'm still torn on that one. And John Kerry served honorably in the Navy, and never ever did anything to hurt the United States afterwards.

And let's leave them with this whopper: The majority of Americans agree with you and Michael Moore, and John Kerry is going to win in a landslide this November.

Good night, sweet dreams.

If you want to get your posts modded higher, and as a group of conservatives, get your rational viewpoint out there, try these tips.

(1) Go fishing. Post several different ideas in a single post that are all good. Each idea will appeal to different moderators. Your post will be carried upward.

(2) Avoid unsubstantiated claims. It is easy for someone to pass you over or even mod you down because you say something controversial. It is a lot harder for them to do this when you have substance behind. Name names, be specific, and have your references ready.

(3) Be quick. When a post first comes out, that is when the moderators are watching it. As a post ages, moderators ignore it. You'll have to keep your facts at arms reach so that you can compose that ground-shaking, substantiated post in time to get attention from the moderators.

(4) Moderate up, not down. Spend all your points moderating good posts up. Don't waste any points modding anyone down. As conservatives, we want to debate the issues because we win every time when everyone gets their complete say.

(5) Meta-moderate. Watch closely for moderations that are not done the way you would do it. If something is modded up that shouldn't be, then disagree with that. If something is modded down that shouldn't be, disagree. What happens is those that abuse their moderator points will get less of them.

(6) Mark people that make good posts as your friend. Eventually, a network will be built up so that you will have a little signal that a post should get your attention. Don't mark people that you disagree with or would like to mod down as your enemy. You will show up on their radar and get noticed by them. The idea is to be recognized by your friends, but hidden from your enemies.

Make sure you save your moderator points for those really controversial topics that get heated. That is when you can really shine. That is where it really counts. So pick you battles well, follow the guidelines above, and we will begin to get our conservative, rational voice heard.

I posted a comment that said that humans think more like a relational database than a hierchical one. (http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=120762&cid=10169159). I think enough people don't understand what a database is, nonetheless a hierchical or relational one.

A database is a store of information. Everything you put some data in and then retrieve later on is a database. Your filesystem is a database. The internet is a database. Even memory can be considered database.

The easiest way to keep track of the data is merely to retain a pointer to it. That is how we manage data stored in a memory database. The ext2 filesystem has something called an "inode" which basically is a pointer to a specific file stored on the disk. We use URLs on the internet to reference a particular piece of data.

But how do you find the data when you don't remember the exact pointer? And what if the pointer to the information has changed since the last time you accessed it or stored it?

Enter the hierchical database. In the hierchical database, there is a root node. The root node points to several other nodes, and so on and so forth, until every node is pointed to. This is an awful lot like some scripting languages. It is also how data is stored in a traditional filesystem. Notice how using these databases is quite difficult. The pointer to the node in question is now a path rather than a single bit of information. The paths can get quite complicated.

In short, hierchical databases really suck. They are not natural because we don't store data hierchically. Quick, what is the parent node of "the picnic last summer where you played baseball"? You don't know because you don't store information like a hierchical database.

Enter the relational database. In a relational database, data is stored and referenced by its relations with other data. Hierchical databases are a subset of relational databases. That is, you can store data in a hierchy in a relational database. But a relational database can do more than a hierchical database.

The types of relations possible are limited to your imagination. Typically, in real relational databases that are well-designed, data has three or more relations to other bits of data. The number of relations can reach into the hundreds, yet our minds can easily keep track of it. For instance, how do we map products to people? I can think of three different ways immediately. I see the products sold by a particular salesman, who is a type of person. I see products bought by a customer. I see products bought by the store from a distributor, who has a representative who is a person. There are more you can think of.

So, using the example above, how does you mind store "the picnic last summer where you played baseball"? It stores it in a number of different ways. First, it goes under the topic picnic. It relates to all other picnics. Then it goes under the topic of last year, and all the activities you undertook that last year. It is also filed under summertime, which includes all the activities you ever undertook during summer. Don't forget the relation to basebal games you played.

If you wanted to look that particular event up, you would search all your relations for the one event that matched "picnic", "last year", "summertime", "baseball". Even only using two of these four criteria, you would probably get a set of events that is small enough that you can identify which one you were looking for easily.

How does this relate to filesystems? You files should be stored relationally rather than hierchically. Rather, it should be stored relationally in addition to hierchically. You letter to grandma that you wrote last week should be filed as "the letter called "/home/jgardn/letter/grandma-2004-09-01.doc". It should also be filed under "letters", "grandma", and "stuff I did last week". These in turn will be related to other data. "letters" are "documents". "grandma" is "family" and maybe "friend" depending on your relation. "last week" is part of "this month", and part of "september" in the "year 2004". Again, searching for the letter with just two or three of the above criteria should give you a small enough set that finding the letter is trivial.

Now, a final point. Since relational databases are so similar to how we store data in our minds, performance is actually increased, even though the actual implementation is slower. This is because the act of finding a letter doesn't include just "loading the letter from disk into memory", but also "finding the letter in the first place, and identifying it as the one we want to see correctly." The second task is far more efficient in a relational database filesystem, and happens to also take the most time in any filesystem.

I've been following the issues closely. Any news article about Bush or Kerry is one that I've read. Every day, I look at the polls and the current issues. I can't tell if it is raining or not but I can tell you how many points Bush is up nationwide or even how many states they have locked in and how many electorate votes that counts for.

This is what Bush stands for:
(1) Pre-emption. Rather than let the terrorists strike first and then respond, we will hunt them actively and secure our nation first.

(2) Middle class wealth. Cutting taxes to the upper and middle class spur economic growth. (You can't cut taxes to the lower 50% because they don't *pay* taxes.) Home ownership among the middle class, especially among minorities is a priority. Also, entrepeneurship and investment is a priority.

(3) Social security reform. People, especially the poor and middle class, should be able to invest their social security money in the market. They will get a lot better return and they should fund their own retirement. Otherwise, SS will go bankrupt.

(4) Medicare. We should take care of our elders, but we should do so intelligently. Increasing the benefits while increasing the competition in this sector will solve a lot of problems.

(5) Regulations. In general, industry and the citizenry should have fewer regulations, not more. Government should partner with business and the citizens to get community responsibilities taken care of. Rather than taking an adverserial role, government should encourage cooperation.

(6) Keeping state out of religion. We shouldn't have a wall between church and state. The state should stay out of religion, but we welcome religious people and their contributions to society. Fact is that they are better equipped to help the homeless and abused than uncaring government officials.

(7) Tort reform. The law system has become like a slot machine. Lawyers are taking home the prize pots, leaving the truly deserving penniless. There should be limits on how much damages can be obtained, and there should be limits on how much of that can go to the lawyers. We need a less litigious society, not a more litigious society. Litigation harms progress when it is abused.

(8) Calming the tone in Washington. We all have our views. We all want to express those views. But we have to be civil and polite to one another. Bush went out of his way to get Democrat priorities passed, even at the offense of his base. He is trying hard to reach out and bring the vitriol back down to sane levels. Just because we disagree we shouldn't hate each other. We have plenty of that coming at us from our real enemies.

(9) Real education reform. School choice. The poorest students are stuck in schools that are failing. We should give them an opportunity to get the same education that John Kerry and George Bush received. Rather than dump money into a system that fails, we should dump money into systems that are working. High standards will help more students be more successful. Even if they don't obtain those standards, it will be better for having tried it. Standardized tests will give us metrics to measure the success or failure of schools and compare the rich areas with the poor areas. It will help parents and teachers and administrators make better decisions on what subjects are weak and strong.

(10) Judicial reform. We need strict contructionalists on the bench, or judges who will not rewrite law based on the political mood of the day. The Supreme Court and federal courts must protect the constitution, and subordinate themselves to the laws rightfully passed by the congress and signed by the president. The supreme court must respect the rights of the individual and states. Judges should be impartial, relying only on the law as written.

Now for what John Kerry believes in. I'm leaving out all the waffle issues where it is ambiguous.

(1) Reactive foreign politics. We can't act until acted upon, and we shouldn't respond to terrorists until we have been harmed. We should only respond in kind - eye for and eye.

(2) A kinder, gentler war on terror. If we weren't so mean to the people who are trying to kill us, maybe they wouldn't want to kill us as much.

(3) Putting Europe and China in control of our foreign policy. By turning the most important national decisions over to the UN, where France, Germany, Russia, and China have veto power, we will be helping to make the world kinder and safer because America will be bound down from acting unilaterally.

(4) Tax and punish the rich. Even though they contribute more money to charities and do more to help the poor than the poor and middle class do, and even though everyone in the middle and poor classes work for the rich, if we punished them for being so rich we would be better off. We should take that money and give it to the poor, funnelling a large chunk into the proper "authorities".

(5) Criticizing opponents, trying to shut down contrarian views. People who say things that hurt should not be allowed to express those opinions. Case in point is the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. Because what they have to say may be true, we have to shut them up by seeking injunctions to prevent them from exercising their first amendment rights.

(6) Appointing judges who feel that it is okay to murder children (in John Kerry's view), and protecting the right to murder innocent, unborn children. Appointing judges who will legislate from the bench on issues such as Gay Marriage, the right of the people to pass laws, and the right of the people to hold their government accountable.

(7) Non-reform of education. We must keep doing the same thing we are doing, to protect the teacher's jobs and because it is unfair to help the poor get ahead with a good education.

(8) Race baiting. By calling the Republicans names, and encouraging the black people to hate white people, we will help calm the tone of politics and encourage people to get along.

These are the views that I see John Kerry being consistant on. Now do you see why I am voting for Bush?

Here is my pledge to use moderation appropriately on political posts.

(1) I will not upgrade or downgrade a post simply because of its views. In other words, I will disagree with things people say, but I will defend to death their right to say it.

(2) I will not upgrade or downgrade a post simply because of who said it. I may not like the person, but that doesn't mean they don't have something important to say that should be heard. I may also like someone, but I won't elevate their voice above others simply because of that.

(3) Derogatory comments are always "flamebait" or "troll", coming from any side of the aisle. This is the classic "Republicans are jerks / Democrats are idiots" type thing. Also, language that is offensive (four-letter words, distasteful and irrelevant topics) are not welcome in political discourse.

(4) Ad hominem attacks are always bad, and will get modded "flamebait" or "troll". This is the classic "You're wrong because you are an idiot / commie / nazi".

(5) Posts with well thought out and explained positions will get at least "informative", and at best "insightful" mods. This is despite the fact that they oppose my views or destroy my arguments. I am always interested in seeing where I am wrong.

(6) Posts with political insight and explanations, or with facts and references, are always welcome. I will mod them "informative", "insightful", and "interesting", depending on which is appropriate.

I'll admit, if you trudge through my history of posts, I have posts that are worthy of being moderated as flamebait or troll. I will try to keep my emotions in check and treat my political adversaries as partners in the political process rather than enemies.

We should remember to keep decorum and civility in all political debates. It is all to easy to get dragged down into the mud and filth, and all too difficult to keep things tame and organized.

The last series of posts I made resulted in numerous people jeering at me. Are you really a Christian? Do you really like Bush? I can't believe there are people like you even left around here.

These people think they can control me, make me feel inferior, outnumbered. They even think they can make me feel stupid. After all, you have to be one of those mind-controlled idiots to believe in Christianity.

Unfortunately, they are telling me far more about themselves than they are about me. They are insecure in their beliefs. They are unsure of their facts. Everything is a lie - nothing is as it seems.

If you look at it in the right way, they are delusional.

If you believe that God exists, that He loves us, and he rewards those who follow him and punishes those who don't you are right. We wouldn't have this country called America if it wasn't true.

If you believe that a free market economy is the solutions to poverty, you are right. You have been vindicated throughout history. America, in times of free markets, prospers. In times of limited markets, it flounders. Economies where there is absolutely no freedom, mass poverty is the result.

If you believe that basic trust is the solution to most problems, then you are also right. People know what they need done better than others.

If you believe that science is cool, but unfortunately, has a terrible track record being correct (virtually no theories older than 50 years surviving as evidence) you are right. One thing to know about science is that what you know today is like what we knew 300 years ago. It is all bunk, to be replaced with more correct theories and models.

If you believe in a society founded in Judeo-Christian morals, you are right. Societies that stick close to these principles succeed wildly. Those that don't, self-destruct. It doesn't matter which continent, this is a universal truth.

The ultra-right wing, christian conservatives have nothing to fear. Let the left say what they want. They have never been right, in all the time that they have been screaming. The ultra-right wing conservatives built this country, saved this country from its many woes, and will be the backbone of this country for many years to come.

The ultra-right wing conservatives decided to found this country on the basis of laws and not men. They had an extreme distrust of men and called anyone who got sufficient power to sustain themselves a tyrant.

The ultra-right wing christian conservatives defeated slavery. Yes, while liberal democrats were busy in the south chaining them up and whipping them, the conservatives were busy trying to find a way to end slavery once and for all.

The ultra-right wing christian conservatives defeated the Nazi and Toshi power structures, and replace them with peaceful democracies. While FDR was busy wining and dining with the Soviets, generals who knew better drove their soldiers on to an overwhelming victory, praying to their God for help along the way.

The ultra-right wing christian conservatives brought down the Soviet Union, almost single-handedly. This was the greatest threat to America since its inception.

Now that we have an ultra-right wing christian conservative in office, we are actually tearing apart the terrorists, and replacing tyranny in the Middle East with democracies. While liberals echo the words of our enemies, we trudge along, planting the flag of freedom where they say it doesn't belong.

My dear friends, we have no need to fear. Stick to your principles. You are right; they are wrong. Discover the facts, don't fear them. The truth always favors us.

If they spit on you, if they strike you, turn the other cheek, then tell them "Civilized people don't behave this way. I thought liberals were compassionate and tolerant and all for diversity. I guess it is all words."

If they try to expose you, dig into the facts. Read their facts closely. What are the sources? Are they using the scientific method, or are they trying to cover up unfavorable results?

If they lie about you, expose their lies. Call them liars and expose them for what they are.

Remember the scene in the Two Towers where Gandalf the Grey returns to the castle, to rescue the king from Saramon? It is the truth that conquers all, not falsehoods. Oh, they have their day, but their glory withers like the morning dew. Soon, it is forgotten. But the truth persists, and is unstoppable.

We're too busy putting down the Iraqi resistance to occupation to get the oil flowin'. The invansion has only just begun. We've been riding on post-liberation euphoria up until this point. The Iraqi's are only just now waking up to the fact that we dont' give a *** about them.

Interesting opinion. I certainly care about the Iraqis. It sounds like you do too. I'm sure if you asked most Americans what they think about the Iraqis, they would say they care about them to one degree or another.

So the idea that America doesn't care about the Iraqis is false.

I understand that perhaps you were arguing that the Bush Administration doesn't care about them. I don't think that is true either. If you have had your eyes open, you would've known about the support we are getting from Iraqi expatriots in America. I remember hearing on the radio of one Iraqi in tears saying how thankful he was for President Bush and the soldiers who gave their time, comfort, and lives to free his country. Now he can go back to Iraq and practice his profession without worrying about Saddam or his goons coming to get them.

If we didn't care about Iraq, we would've just nuked the whole dang thing and called it over. But we didn't. We committed soldiers and their lives to fighting one-on-one so we can discriminate friend or foe to the maximum degree possible.

As for this sudden awakening, it is only happening because as the June 30th deadline appears, the Saddam loyalists and Iranian-backed Shiite terrorists see a real end to their reign. It worked in Germany. It worked in South Korea, even while there was intense fighting against communist guerillas. It will work in Iraq, even if several cities are held under siege by terrorists and loyalists.

If we really didn't care anymore, we would pull out and let them fend for themselves. But we aren't. We are going to stay. We are going to stay and support the fledgling democracy. We are going to hunt down and kill every last terrorist and loyalist who dares raise their fist against the right of the people to vote for their government, and the right of the people to live a life unencumbered by vicious terrorists or ruthless dictators.

So now you see a different perspective. If you trully care about the Iraqis, you would use your voice to support our troops rather than minimize their effectiveness and support the terrorists and loyalists. If you truly cared about the Iraqis, you would stand strong, shoulder-to-shoulder with Bush and show that the terrorists stand no chance of victory even if Ralph Nader got elected president.

Watching the latest debacle in San Francisco, and across the country, when Mayors and others are encouraging citizens to break federal, state, and local laws by engaging in so-called "gay marriages" or as I'd like to term it, homogamy, it's become that the homosexuals are truly suicidal.

The whole reason why we don't have large segments of the population shooting each other is because of a simple piece of paper, and the fact that we as a nation decided to honor it come thick or thin. We'll even let people bend it, because we believe we can always bend it back.

The whole reason why those nations in Africa and in Eastern Europe and in the Caribbeans and across the world and having one civil war after another is because they don't have such a document, or if they do, they don't honor it.

When the radical homosexuals engage in open violation of federal and state law, the people wait patiently until the executive and judicial branch can reign them in and restore order. There is a way to rewrite law, and it is found on that piece of paper. Both the state and the nation have such a document.

If the judges were to declare homogamy legal, then there would be a problem. You see, when we wrote the constitution, we gave the judicial branch the final say. The only way to overrule them is with an amendment to the constitution, and even then, they don't have to obey it. It is our faith that they are interpreting the constitution that prevents us from having an open rebellion whenever the judges rule against us.

If said trust were to be broken, by the judges overriding the constitution, then we have no more recourse except for physical force. Let me repeat that: The only thing that prevents us from having an open rebellion is that piece of paper, and our faith in the judges who interpret it. Should that trust be broken, we will have open rebellion.

I do not want rebellion anymore than you do. I have not experienced war first hand. I do not want to. I do not want my children to. However, once that constitution has been ruled as toilet paper, and the judges who were enshrined as protectors of the document openly violate it, then war is preferrable to a nation ruled by dictators in black robes.

I think that is why when Thomas Jefferson complained loudly about the power we gave to the judges, that the other Founding Fathers were quiet. Should the judges usurp all the power in the government, the only recourse is violence. And violence is the best recourse for an absolutely corrupt government.

Back to the title: Short-Sighted Homosexuals. Why are they fanning the flames, openly encouraging this? Why are they forcing this issue in the courts at this time? Because, they see the number of liberal judges in the federal courts as an endangered species. Already, Bush has appointed some of the judges who were filibustered to recess appointments. The liberals have no chance of taking control of the federal government for at least 10, and maybe 50 years. This is their last hope.

But what is the cost of such an endeavor? The nation itself. They are willing to trade a small political victory for the nation's peace.

Unfortunately for them, the majority is veheminently opposed to their position. Majorities tend to win wars.

1. Bush will win in a landslide. Blacks and Hispanics will vote Republican in record numbers.

2. Liberals will complain about their civil liberties being eroded, about the poor and the homeless, and about the middle class being left out. (Of course, what did they do to fix these problems when they were in power?)

3. Osama bin Laden will be caught alive. Liberals will want him put on trial. Americans will want him blindfolded and shot. Americans will win again.

4. Iraq will have a peaceful election. America will begin long-term occupation like Germany and Korea. Somehow, some liberal will find some unhappy Iraqi who will appear on TV and say, "Things were better when Saddam was around." They will find someone else who will say, "When Saddam was here, we had a monthly check. Now I have to go out and work for my food! This is terrible!"

5. N. Korea will either dismantle its nuclear program or it will be dismantled forcefully. Unfortunately, barring a miracle, North Korea will not fall. More horror stories from escapees.

6. Peace in Israel after they reestablish their settlements and expel the dangerous elements of the Palestinians. No Palestinian state. However, the peace between the Palestinians and Israelis will lead Palestinians to abandon their hopes for a state. Why form a seperate state when things are good under Israeli democracy?

7. A conservative wing of the Republican party will emerge with these goals:

a. Lower domestic spending by 50% by 2008.
b. Reduce domestic regulation by 50% by 2008.
c. Cut federal tax income (not rate!) in half by 2008.
d. Tort reform.
e. Increase the military; target N. Korea, Iran, Syria, and other enemies.

8. Liberals in America will be publically seen as the insane wackos that they are. Epithets like "Communist", "Socialist", and "Big Spender" will no longer be out of hatred but out of pity. ("Oh, don't mind him. He's a 'liberal'. Just smile and agree.")

9. Microsoft will release a version of Linux.

Chief Justice Moore is making a stand. He is willing to put his life in jeopardy to overturn the practice of Federal Courts ruling in matters they cannot have jurisdiction over.

The first amendment is clear:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

This means that there can be no federal law that says someone may or may not practice a particular religion. Thus, the federal court's "finding" that Chief Justice Moore is violating the imaginary "seperation between church and state" by placing a monument in the foyer of the state court is bogus. There can be no federal law saying you cannot have anything religious in a public building. Congress is the only branch of government that can make laws, and they are explicitly prohibited from making any such law!

Instead, hundreds of lawless judges -- judges who make laws when they have no power to do so -- have tried to join together to exert their illegitimate power in a judicial dictatorship. They are telling us to abide by their lawless rulings or suffer the consequences!

What power does a federal judge have to decide whether or not you can have an abortion? What power does a federal judge have to decide whether or not you can worship your God in a particular place? What power does a federal judge have in determining whether or not a particular group of people can decide to commit heinous acts of sexual depravity? Absolutely none, and teh constitution is explicit in saying so. Go read Amemendment the 10th if you don't believe so. Where in the constitution does it mention immorality or abortion? Nowhere. And so the power to decide on these issues lies only with the states and the people. Where does it mention that congress is allowed to even approach the subject of religion? In the 1st amendment, it explicitly states that they cannot. Since the 1st amendment still stands, they cannot.

I pray to God in the holy name of Jesus Christ that Justice Moore is able to revolt against these lawless judges. I pray that he is able to bring to the forefront of political discourse the idea that the constitution means what it says, not what some tyrannical judges try to interpret or invent! May dictatorships and tyranny, wherever it is found, be overturned, and in its place, lawfulness, obedience to God's will, and happiness found instead. Amen.

It seems anyone can justify any extreme government spending by claiming "It's for the children". If we don't correct that mistaken notion, our nation will become a third world country.

Children have a divine claim on their parents. Parents who do not take care of their kids are held responsible in God's Eternal Courts. Parents who trivialize their children or abuse their children are breaking sacred commandments. The result of this irresponsibility is a punishment that will exceed any punishment any court in the United States can ever exact.

Children are not the responsibility of the government. Where in any constitution does it say that the government claims responsibility for the children? If such a thing were to exist, it would conflict with the divine responsibility that rests on the shoulders of the parents. After all, if parents believe that government has more responsibility over their children than themselves, they will neglect their own responsibility, instead relying on the government.

We see this today. How many parents expect the government to fully fund the eight hours of babysitting we call education? How many parents seem uninterested in the events in the lives of their children, and instead focus more on obtaining more wealth to buy boats and fancy cars? Who do they think is raising their children? Unanimously, they feel that government is somehow responsible.

There is a commandment found in the Bible. If a child is raised, and he grows up to be disobedient and disrespectful, the parents are commanded to execute their child with stoning. This kind of law reinforces the concept that parents, not the government, is ultimately responsible for their children. Any defects in the child's nature rests in the hands of the parents, and they are required to exact God's judgment on those children who chose to do evil.

We must remove government as a "second parent". We must restore the divine order and give the ultimate responsibility over their children. Let the government spend nothing on children, and let it have no accountability.

When we see cases of abuse or neglect, let us ask, "What punishment should the government exact upon the parents?" rather than "What should the government do to fix the problem?" Government is not responsible for our children. We are. We should be held accountable for our mistakes, not the government.

Next time you hear, "The government should do something for our children", you can respond, "No, the parents should do that for their children. If they don't, we should punish the parents. Government is not the parent, nor should it ever be."

Recent politics are revealing that once again, Rush is right.

Rush predicted that as the liberals lose power, they will start behaving like lunatics. This is true.

Observe the California recall election. Observe what a liberal -- Governor Gray Davis -- is doing as he watches his power slip through his fingers.

He starts off first pretending that the people of California wants him as governor. I'm sorry, that's just not true. The people of California want him removed from office.

He then pretends that the recall effort was the result of rich, right-wing Republicans putting their minds together in a conspiracy. Governor, 30% - 40% of the 1.6 million people who signed the recall initiative were registered Democrats. They only needed something like 800,000 signatures to succeed, so a Democrat could've pushed this thing through with only a little help from the Republicans. As far as rich Republicans, the funding for the recall effort was mostly provided by hundreds of middle-class families who spared a couple of bucks to put the state government back on track. You'll note that most super-rich people are actually Democrats, not Republicans, so the myth of the "rich Republican" is mostly that -- a myth.

Then he pretends that somehow a citizen-led initiative is un-democratic. Maybe it is anti-republic, because it does not work through the duly elected representatives, but it is certainly not un-democratic. How can you call something where every legal resident of California is allowed one vote un-democratic? Only if you are a liar and a cheat.

He then claims that Republicans have been trying to steal elections because they cannot win. First off, Republicans are winning the elections. For the first time in most people's lifetimes, the Republicans gained control of the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the White House. Similar victories are recorded in record numbers throughout the state governments. If there is one thing the Republicans can't seem to be doing, it is losing elections.

But what about the effort to "steal" elections? He cites the impeachment of the rapist Bill Clinton, the disenfranchisement of the Florida voters, and the current effort to recall the governor of California. First, the impeachment was over the crime of perjury, AKA "lying", not sex. The courts found Bill Clinton in contempt of court, and revoked his lawyering license. It was the duty of the House to impeach him, because he committed a crime in a high place, or in other words "high crime". It was the duty of the Senate to remove him from office. However, this can hardly be considered an effort to "steal" an election. Should the Senate've removed the president, Al Gore would've been the new president. He is hardly a Republican.

And the Florida fiasco. Every recount revealed that Bush won the state. After significant investigation, a civil rights commission discovered that in fact, no one's right to vote had been infringed. The people who did have their ballots discarded were hundreds of deployed soldiers, and those who were responsible for it were the Democrats. So in reality, it was the Democrats who disenfranchised, and the Democrats who attempted to steal the electiong from Bush, who won both counts.

But the lies don't stop their. Blaming the Republicans, and in particular Bush, for the energy crisis was the frosting on the cake. What governor appoints a lobbyist on his council, despite the obvious conflict of interest? Why, Gray Davis. And then when the appointed lobbyist spends the state money by directing it to his employer, who is to blame for that? If you believe the lies of Davis, it would be Bush's fault.

But what about the Bush-Enron connection. If Enron made so much money from California, and Bush helped Enron, then it is Bush's fault, right? Unfortunately, the only relation between Bush and Enron is that they come from the same state. The truth is that many of the board members and leadership of Enron were staunch Gore supporters, and received help from time to time from the Clinton administration. Sure, they donated a few bucks to the Bush campaign, but they donated far more to the Gore campaign. And this somehow makes Enron a Bush company? I don't think so.

If only conservatives were allowed to make unsubstantiated claims like liberals can. Unfortunately, the double standard means that conservatives must be saint-like, or fear their name being spread across every headline. Take the case of the Republican member of congress that was speeding when he hit and killed the motorcyclist. That seems to be pasted all over the headlines. But mention "Ted Kennedy" and "Drunk Driving", and the cameras turn off and the ink dries up.

We don't have to lie to provide our ammunition. We can only cite the facts and still have more than enough to fight back.

- The Democratic Party has always stood in the way of civil rights for the minorities, while the Republican Party was founded on the principle of equality for all.

- It was democrats who charged a poll tax, predicated the right to vote on literacy, and shot minorities who attempted to vote anyway. The republicans sent federal troops to the South to protect the minorities and prevent the democrats from raping their women and murdering their children.

- It was democrats who got the state of California in the fiscal mess. Uncontrolled spending with the raising of taxes and increased regulations had two effects: A giant deficit, and a dead economy. The republicans were not in office, and had little to no control over the budget. However, during the Reagan years, there were surpluses, thanks to limited spending, decreased taxes, and reduced regulation. The effects of the Reagan governership was prosperity and a budget surplus.

- It was democrats who lie, cheat, and steal their way to get elected. Al Gore sued so that a third, fourth, and fifth recound should be performed. It was Al Gore who sued to desenfranchise the military voters of Florida. It was Al Gore who pushed the case all the way to the Supreme Court, which ruled that the laws of Florida are the laws of Florida, and there can only be one recount.

So this election cycle, be sure to elect strong, conservative republicans to positions of power. Democrats are racist, evil, and are trying to usurp power while destroying government.

Many people are puzzled at President Bush's political inaction. He is as popular as a president could be. Anything he puts his weight behind will get done.

He has two conservative judges waiting to be confirmed by the senate. Yet instead of mounting a huge campaign against the democrats who stand in the way, he stays out of the way and allows the senate to handle their own.

He has a tax-cut bill that is being chewed up and spit out. He could stand against those who oppose it, humiliate them and turn the public against them. He could puch his bill through untouched. But instead, he is quiet.

He has real political enemies in the United States. There are those who only want to see him impeached or worse. His response to these opponents? Silence.

Bush hand the eyes of the nation on him while he spoke from the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln. Anything he said would be accepted by the people. He was unstoppable.

His message? He declared that the war on terror is not over, that the terrorists would be pursued until they are all gone. He declared that dictatorships will be overturned and replaced with freedom. He declared freedom as critical as food, water, even air.

What is he doing?

He is being the President. He is above politics. He is saying that there are things a leader does, and there are things a leader doesn't do. Setting the tone, setting the moral grounds for all of our society's actions is his duty. Getting involved with petty political squabble is not.

Compare this with his predecessor, Bill Clinton. It seems everything Bill was, President Bush is not. Everything Bill was not, Bush is.

Could he be reengineering the entire political structure of the United States? Could he be starting a new era of politics, where moral authority is more important than political power? Could he be showing by example that government isn't supposed to be involved in endless arguments, but instead, to focus on the tasks at hand? And when tackling the tasks on hand, is he demonstrating by example, that rather than capitalize on the events of the day for your political benefit, you should instead do your duty and let the cards fall where they may?

If this is the new tone, I like it. Perhaps more of our politicians will understand it. Perhaps the bitterness and hatred that is so obvious will be toned down. And perhaps we will see more politicians willing to sacrifice their political goals for doing the right thing.