California’s anschluss against home schoolers

California’s already dismal government schools are facing the brunt of the state’s fiscal nightmare. Reports Yahoo News:

Los Angeles – California, home to 1 in 9 American schoolchildren, is on the brink of what may be the biggest public education crisis in state history. Facing a $16 billion state budget shortfall, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has proposed $4.8 billion in school-funding cuts, or 10 percent of education spending.

In the past week, over 20,000 preliminary pink slips were sent by school districts to teachers and administrators state wide, according to the California Teachers Association. The association estimates another 87,000 (of a total 350,000 public school teachers) could come if Governor Schwarzenegger holds to his budget cut request.

So, how is the state government responding? By cutting waste and increasing quality?

No, by assaulting home schoolers.

My former Orange County Register colleague Steven Greenhut (why isn’t this guy a national columnist?) has the info:

A state court of appeal has basically outlawed home-schooling….

The judges – two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee – argued that “parents do not have a constitutional right to home-school their children.”….

The ruling is shockingly totalitarian, as it echoes this point: “In obedience to the constitutional mandate to bring about a general diffusion of knowledge and intelligence, the Legislature, over the years, enacted a series of laws. A primary purpose of the educational system is to train school children in good citizenship, patriotism and loyalty to the state and the nation as a means of protecting the public welfare.”

The phrase “loyalty to the state” captures the essence of the decision.

At the same time as Kalifornia has been assaulting home schoolers, the same thing has been going on in another state — or Staat, that is, the Fourth Reich. Germany today is persecuting home schoolers using a 1938 ban from the Third Reich — you know, the Reich run by that guy with the funny moustache. Home Education Foundation reports:

Germany’s ban on homeschooling began with the Third Reich. Chancellor Adolf Hitler banned the practice in 1938 in order to indoctrinate all young Germans in Nazi ideology through the public schools. Authorities have increasingly adopted the methods of National Socialist (Nazi) Germany to suppress homeschooling, which it regards as a “parallel society,” dangerous to the health of the state.

The parents of the nation’s estimated 300-500 homeschoolers face imprisonment, heavy fines and the state seizure of their children. Earlier this month, Klaus and Kathrin Landahl and their five children fled to England in order to escape the confiscation of their children by the mayor of their town.

The Nazis also shut Catholic and other parochial schools. They didn’t want any competition to the indoctrination of the Hitlerjugend — the Hitler Youth.

In reality, it is parents, not government — not even a “democratic” government — who are in charge of children. Even truancy laws are tyrannical. If you have kids, they’re your responsibility, not the government’s.

1938 also was the year of the Nazi anschluss (annexation) of Austria. In 2008, Kalifornia is trying to annex home schools.

Next thing you know, Californians will be fleeing this state for the same reasons folks fled the Third Reich. But why? Wasn’t it America, led by generals like George S. Patton, that kicked Hitler’s keister?

Isn’t America supposed to be a free country?

4,000 dead American troops

Easter tragically marked the death of the 4,000th American troop in Iraq. It came a few days after the 5th anniversary of the launching of the war by President Bush.

I’ve been struggling to find something to say about the war that hasn’t been said by me or anybody else. I’ll try a few paragraphs.

America obviously is among the great nations in history. Such nations also have great responsibilities.

I’m not talking about such inherently evil “great” nations as the Soviet Union, Nazi Germany, or Maoist China. Instead, I’m talking about normal, but flawed, great nations, such as the British, Czarist Russian, Spanish, French, non-Maoist Chinese, pre-1918 German, Roman, and others nations at their peaks.

Such nations have a responsibility to act in an intelligent and moral manner. When they do not, which seems to happen often, they bring disaster on themselves and others.

America has fallen down this hard path since invading Iraq in 2003. After the 9/11 attacks, America had the world looking to us for leadership to fight global terrorists. Going after Osama bin Laden in his cave in Afghanistan and other terrorists was reasonable, and within the bounds of the U.S. Constitution.

Instead, the Bush administration ignored any warnings of hubris and set about taking over the world. America, after all, was the world’s first “Unipower.” Nobody could stop us. We had right on our side. Universal peace would come as soon as we imposed democracy on every country, every people, ever tribe.

But reality doesn’t fit into the ideological categories set up by Bush administration officials and speechwriters. Iraqis and Afganis preferred their own local, tribal warlords to the nice democracy the Bush occupation officials established in the Green Zone in Baghdad or the similar area in Kabul. In Iraq, the warlords ethnically cleansed the country along the three major lines: Shiite, Sunni, and Kurd. When that was finished, the killing dropped off, although it didn’t stop. This coincided with Bush’s 2007 “surge,” giving him an excuse to claim success.

At the heart of this hubris is a monumental misreading of America. We long were not an imperial people. In 1940, when the major powers of Europe were slaughtering one another with millions of men in arms, America’s military comprised only 150,000 men. It mobilized quickly after that and fought to victory. But the point is that America’s nature is to be, not an empire on the order of Rome, or Napoleon’s France, or the British before 1945, but a kind of big Switzerland.

Our Founding Fathers wanted the influence of America to be spread through the world not through force of arms, but through the high example shown by our liberties, prosperity, and non-belligerence. War was to be by far the last resort.

“This,” Washington, Jefferson, and the other Founders effectively said to the world, “is how to act. Keep government minimal, mostly local, and chosen by the people. Let citizens freely trade across the globe. Don’t interfere in foreign squabbles.”

By going against these founding principles the Bush administration has doomed not just 4,000 Americans to death (not to mention the hundreds of thousands of Iraqis who have died), but has wounded the very essence of America. Promoting democracy and freedom by force of arms has turned America into a global pariah — while tarnishing the very names of democracy and freedom.

This cannot last. The Roman Empire lasted about 1,500 years. The Spanish and British empires lasted hundreds of years. The American Empire has faltered amidst the rubble of Iraq. An empire divided against itself cannot stand. America is going bankrupt in quest of a global empire enforced by a domestic police state — even as it claims to be bringing freedom to foreigners. But to bankrupt and enslave Americans while subsidizing and freeing foreigners is an obvious contradiction.

Let us hope that America regains her essence, her belief in maximum liberty at home and non-interventionism abroad. The alternative is a rapid decline into decrepitude, like the Spanish Empire after the Armada was sunk, the British Empire in the 1950s, and the Soviet Empire in the 1980s.

It’s your choice, America.

Sorry, Dan Walters, California does NOT need a car tax increase

Veteran California politics columnist Dan Walters is one of the best reporters on what’s going on in California. But he has a blind spot: He hates the $4 billion yearly car tax cut Gov. Arnold gave state families in 2003. He belittles it again in a new column:

Moreover, the car tax cut – his first official act as governor in 2003 – is a major reason why the state budget continues to drown in red ink despite the governor’s campaign promise to stop “crazy deficit spending.” While giving motorists back, by his count, $20 billion, he has run up close to twice that much in accumulated budget deficits, including $15 billion in direct borrowing from Wall Street bankers, and the deficits persist. That doesn’t sound like very smart economics by any standard.

He forgets the context. The tax was imposed unilaterally in 2003 by Gov. Gray Davis, violating the state Constitution’s stipulation that voters must approve tax increases. So it would have been tossed out in court. If the courts somehow had upheld the tax increase, state Sen. Tom McClintock — California’s version of Ron Paul — was getting ready an initiative to repeal the Davis tax increase, and it would have passed easily. Finally, Davis was recalled in 2003 largely because of the tax increase; so voters clearly indicated they wanted the illegal tax increase killed.

Walters also doesn’t understand that economics works “on the margin”; little changes in direction can indicate a lot. By getting rid of that $4 billion car tax increase, Gov. Arnold indicated that California was open for business again. Businesses and families knew they had a governor who wouldn’t allow any new tax increases. And as much as I have criticized Gov. Arnold, I have to admit he hasn’t imposed any new tax increases — at least not yet.

His problem has been that he hasn’t controlled spending. Now he’s in trouble.

Tax increases would only make matters worse by smashing the economy even more, killing businesses, jobs, and tax revenues. We’ve already been suffering a huge federal tax increase because inflation has boosted gas, oil, and other fuel prices. Increasing the car tax — or any tax — would make matters even worse. A car tax increase would slam drivers already staggered by a tripling of gas prices. And it would further hammer new car sales at a time when car dealers already are feeling like crash-test dummies.

I actually think that, deep down, Gov. Arnold understands this. Some of his conversations with his good friend, the late Nobel economics laureate Milton Friedman, must have stuck.

But he’s going to increase taxes anyway because he can’t see any other way out. And the Democrats he has put in charge of his administration won’t tell him anything different.

After winning in 2003 and 2006 he should have made McClintock his chief of staff. He didn’t. Now the only thing left is disaster.

California Dreamin’

California dreamin’
On such a winter’s day.

— The Mamas and the Papas

Out here in California, our governor is the Austrian Oaf. The Democratic Legislature is to the Left of Kim Jong-Il. Taxes are so high they would make even Karl Max howl — and will soon go higher. The Legislature and governor can’t balance a budget any more than Bill Clinton can tell the truth. Smoking is both heavily taxed and banned everywhere. And it’s all only going to get worse.

So why do we put up with it?

Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why? Why?

Here’s why.

It was 87 degrees Fahrenheit out here today, a new record. The beaches were jammed — on Easter Sunday.

Meanwhile, back in Michigan, where I grew up, my relatives suffered a record snowfall:

Normally in March, we get about 8.3 inches of snow, said Dennis Kahlbaum, a University of Michigan weather observer. So far in March, with more than a week to go, we’ve seen 16.7 inches of fluffy precipitation.

A good chunk of that came Friday night and early Saturday morning.

The storm – a narrow band across southern Michigan – dropped 7.5 inches of snow in Ann Arbor, Kahlbaum said.

That was enough to send this winter into the record books and shove the 2004-05 winter aside.
In 2004-05, 83.9 inches of snow fell. This year, we’re sitting at 85 inches.
That’s a lot of shoveling.

Actually, when you’re a kid, those are fun times. School is canceled. You play in the snow all day. You come home, warm up in front of the fireplace, and enjoy some hot chocolate Mom made.

But when you’re older, it means shoveling snow, tedious even with a snow blower, and driving in hazardous conditions while trying to avoid killing yourself and your family.

I suspect that, even with California’s toxic government, we’ll see a new round of migrants from the Snow Belt.

Happy Easter!

For Good Friday through Easter I won’t be blogging. See you Monday.

And have a Happy Easter!

Will the U.S. Supreme Court protect our 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms”?

The Bill of Rights originally was intended to restrict only the federal government, with the states allowed to function (except on foreign policy and a few other areas) as independent countries. But over the years the federal government has erected what the Founding Fathers criticized as “consolidated government.” So today, the Feds call the shots on everything from economic production, to abortion laws, to what goes on in your local schools.

This produces a conundrum for people, like me, who support both individual liberty and the Constitution. Should the Supreme Court support individual liberty against the 50 states? Or is the further expansion of federal power — even when defending individual rights — something that, in the end, will reduce individual liberty by expanding the most oppressive power of all, the federal government?

Some people I respect say the Feds control everything anyway, so we might as well use that to our advantage. Others say every chance to reduce federal power is worth it, even it means increasing state power.

The case the Supreme Court just took up, District of Columbia v. Heller, produces just such a conundrum. Are Washington, D.C.’s strict gun control laws a violation of the 2nd Amendment right to “keep and bear arms”? Or does that amendment, along with the other 9 in the Bill of Rights, apply only to the federal government itself, with the states (and D.C. acting as a state) allowed make their own laws?

The latter view is ably presented by one of our best constitutional jurists, Kevin R.C. Gutzman, J.D., Ph.D. He is the author of “The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution,” which actually is the best book on what our Constitution really means. (Hat tip to Lew Rockwell’s Blog.)

Also, did the 14th Amendment “incorporate” the Bill of Rights into the constitutions of every state, meaning the Bill of Rights applies everywhere? Or did it not? Or was the 14th Amendment fraudulently adopted? Questions to ponder.

For once, I’m wondering what position to take. Not that the Supremes will base their decision on my blog (although they ought to).

Out here in California we’re likely to soon get a rash of new gun control laws as the state increasingly becomes North Koreafornia. On the other hand, every day I see new encroachments of federal power of my liberties, and the liberties of my friends. And I don’t want the feds to get any more power.

2nd Amendment, 1st right

I suppose that, at this late date, it would be best to protect my right to keep a gun. The Feds, the state, and the local governments have taken away so many liberties, that a defense of states’ rights — in this case, to limit gun ownership — probably won’t matter much. It certainly is unlikely, for example, to lead to a curb of Bush’s Bolshevik No Child Left Behind usurpation of local and parental authority over public schools.

And if the court doesn’t uphold the 2nd Amendment everywhere, then its action will be taken as a reason to impose gun control in many more places, beginning with California.

So, let’s hope the justices overturn D.C.’s gun control law.

The right to “keep and bear arms” really is the most important right, even more than such other rights as freedom of speech, the right to property, or the right to life (anti-abortion). Because if you don’t have a gun, you can’t protect any of the other rights.

I recently reviewed a biography of Stalin, who murdered millions of people. He never would have gotten away with it if, when his secret police goons came around to grab men and their families for execution or the Gulag, the men had opened fire. With our guns, at least Americans will retain some freedoms.

Get a gun

Finally, if you don’t have a gun, get one and learn how to use it. Learn gun safety and how to shoot straight. My father, a captain of ordnance in World War II, taught my brother and me when were were kids. And I was in the U.S. Army for four years. But you can take lessons at your local firing range.

If you get a gun, you should be be prepared to use it, if necessary, to defend your family. That means, if an intruder is attacking your wife and kids, you kill the intruder. As a cop once said, make sure that there’s only one story to be told to the authorities afterwards.

If you can’t do that, then don’t get a gun. Instead, make sure your cell phone is charged so you can call police, who will arrive after it’s too late to protect your family.

You’re not really free unless you’re prepared, and willing, to defend that freedom.

Lock and load.

5 years after: Why the Iraq War always was wrong

It’s been 5 years since President Bush launched the Iraq War. I opposed it from well before it started, writing numerous editorials against the coming war in 2002 in The Orange County Register, where I then worked.

Why was this war wrong? Let me look at the bigger picture.

Governments, especially modern ones, have immense powers over the people they claim to serve. To control governments somewhat, in most countries that are not tyrannies constraints are put on government power, usually in the form of a written constitution. Ours is the U.S. Constitution.

Our Founding Fathers debated whether to give the war power to the chief executive, the president. They decided against that because he might abuse it. Alexander Hamilton — himself normally a Strong Executive guy — argued in Federalist No. 8:

It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.

And he delineates, in Federalist No. 69, why the president’s war-making powers were limited:

The President will have only the occasional command of such part of the militia of the nation as by legislative provision may be called into the actual service of the Union. The king of Great Britain and the governor of New York have at all times the entire command of all the militia within their several jurisdictions. In this article, therefore, the power of the President would be inferior to that of either the monarch or the governor. Second. The President is to be commander-in-chief of the army and navy of the United States. In this respect his authority would be nominally the same with that of the king of Great Britain, but in substance much inferior to it. It would amount to nothing more than the supreme command and direction of the military and naval forces, as first General and admiral of the Confederacy; while that of the British king extends to the declaring of war and to the raising and regulating of fleets and armies — all which, by the Constitution under consideration, would appertain to the legislature.

The U.S. Constitution itself clearly stipulates that Congress and only Congress, has the power:

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.

Violating the Constitution

Now, what happened with the Iraq War? In October 2002, Congress passed a bill which said:

The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to

(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions regarding Iraq.

On March 19, 2003 — 5 years ago today — President Bush used that authorization to invade Iraq.

Of course, we all know now that Bush’s excuses for going to war were phony. There were no weapons of mass destruction, as the CIA itself later reported. And Saddam Hussein had no ties to al-Qaeda, according to a Pentagon report released just yesterday. As to the United Nations, it never authorized Bush’s action in Iraq.

But let’s return to the bigger picture.

The worst thing any government can do is violate its own supreme law, in our case the U.S. Constitution. An exception would be if the supreme law itself was lawless, as in the case of the Soviet Constitution — or, for that matter, constitutional fugitive slave laws that existed in America before the Civil War.

But that doesn’t apply in this case. The U.S. Constitution as currently written, although not perfect, certainly is a reasonable document for governance.

If a government violates its own supreme law, then it becomes lawless. The Bush administration still cites the October 2002 authorization as adequate for its continuance of the Iraq War. And the Democratic Congress, which was elected in 2006 specifically to stop the war, bears culpability for not repealing the authorization and for continuing to fund the war.

But this still does not get us beyond the most important fact: the October 2002 authorization was not a declaration of war. Even the White House does not maintain that.

As I’ve brought this up with war backers over the past 5 years, they reply that “the October 2002 authorization was adequate” or, “declarations of war are obsolete.”

My response: The last U.S. declarations of war were during World War II against the several Axis powers. Since then we have had no declarations of war, yet we have been at war much of the time, including 3 massive wars in Korea, Vietnam, and Iraq.

The Iraq War has lasted longer than World War II, the Korean War, and the Civil War. And it has cost taxpayers more than any war besides World War II. In Iraq there have been from 23,000 to 100,000 U.S. casualties, including almost 4,000 killed. Estimates of he number of Iraqis killed in the war numbers from 150,000 to 1.2 million. The true number will never be known.

My point is that this is a major war. It isn’t the Mayaguez incident, Desert One, or the Grenada Invasion. And any major war should not have a mere “authorization” by Congress, but a formal declaration of war.

Violating the supreme law has consequences

Thus, the Iraq War is a severe violation of the supreme law of our land, the U.S. Constitution. It is the latest in a long line of presidential usurpations of congressional war powers. But it surely will not be the last. Even now, the Bush administration is preparing the ground for an attack on Iran — again without congressional approval.

If this increase in presidential powers is what is needed by the modern world, or wanted by Americans, then the Constitution should be amended according to the well-known procedure.

But the continued violation of our supreme law should not be allowed to continue by inertia. That has been a major theme of Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. He wrote eloquently about this matter long before his campaign, in his October 2002 statement against the Iraq War authorization bill:

Transferring authority to wage war, calling it permission to use force to fight for peace in order to satisfy the UN Charter, which replaces the Article I, Section 8 war power provision, is about as close to 1984 “newspeak” that we will ever get in the real world.

Such debasements of the Constitution, if carried out long enough, erode the document itself — erode, indeed, our language and the very belief in right or wrong on which any civilized society is based. If the government doesn’t need to follow its own law, why need anyone? If the government violates its own Constitution to use tax money to kill foreigners and get U.S. troops killed, then what’s wrong with citizens stealing and killing?

We’re seeing the fruit of this disengagement from the rule of law in many of the problems we now face: rampant inflation, endless budget deficits and debt, and a looming recession — or depression.

Worst of all, America seems unable to make things right. Public opinion against the Iraq War can’t stop it. The Democratic Congress won’t stop it. It just continues, out there, grinding away at the lives of our troops, our treasury, and our moral fabric.

Recovery

From its inception, the Iraq War has been a disaster for both America and Iraq. As to America, it will take us a long time to recover. We will blame the president and his assistants and advisors. But we also should look in the mirror and blame ourselves. Self-reflection is essential to the recovery from any disaster.

Know thyself, said Socrates. It’s time for America to know herself and to return to her roots in a Constitution that established a government strongly constrained in what it could do abroad or at home.

America as No. 2

How embarrassing.

Since about 1850, America’s economy has been tops in the world.

After World War II, America’s economy comprised 40% of the entire world economy, something even the ancient Chinese and Roman empires never managed.

America’s economy just dropped to No. 2. According to Reuters:

The U.S. economy lost the title of “world’s biggest” to the euro zone this week as the value of the dollar slumped in currency markets.

Taking the gross domestic product of both economies in 2007, the combined GDP of the 15 countries which use the euro overtook that of the United States when the European currency surged to a record high of more than $1.56 per euro.

A decade ago, the Neocons were boasting how America was the “Unipower,” the “sole remaining superpower” that had a mandate to force democracy on all the world.

Now we’re No. 2 and headed to Third World Status. Soon America will be a large version of Belarus, with better weather in some areas.

How did this happen? Simple. Bush followed the Neocons’ imperialist schemes and invaded Afghanistan and Iraq, wars which have cost $3 trillion — so far.

To pay for it — and for Bush’s LBJ-style wild domestic spending — Bush and his Fed flunkeys, Greenspan and Bernanke, debased the dollar. It’s the old trick ancient kings used, in those days by “clipping the coins” (thus saving a little gold or silver off each coin, which could be minted into new coins).

They crashed the dollar, which is crashing the economy.

This allowed the Europeans to zoom upward.

Like other empires before it — the British Empire, the Spanish Empire, the Soviet Empire, the Russian Empire, the French Empire, the Roman Empire — Bush’s U.S. Empire bankrupted itself on foreign wars.

The solution?

Go back to the modest, small-government Republic our Founding Fathers intended America to be. Then our economy will revive.

f the Neocons want to rule an empire, let them play a game of Risk.

Beatle Paul must be singing “Yesterday” about rip off by ex

You never give me your money
You only give me your funny paper
and in the middle of negotiations
you break down

— The Beatles

The above lyrics were written by McCartney for the song, “You Never Give Me Your Money,” part of the great medley on side 2 of “Abbey Road.”

The lyrics concerned the financial problems the Fab Four were undergoing eight days a week in 1969. In 1970, John, Paul, George, and Ringo went cold turkey from each other and split.

But the lyrics sure also fit Paul’s contentious divorce from Heather Mills. She just lifted £24.3 million from him, less than the £125 million she wanted, but more than the £15.8million he offered. That £24.3 million, today, amounts to about $49 million U.S. dollars.

Her court position said, in summary,

Money don’t get everything it’s true.
What it don’t get I can’t use.
So gimme money (that’s what I want)
A little money (that’s what I want)
That’s what I want, ye-ye-yeh,
That’s what I want.

She should be thankful that the negotiations were conducted in British pounds sterling, not the plunging U.S. dollar, or the £24.3 million she got soon would be worth about $24.30.

And what, exactly, did she contribute to Paul’s life that justified such a lavish grab? Embarrassing photos that popped up in supermarket tabloids and seemed to come straight out of “Paperback Writer“? A face that she keeps in a jar by the door?

All his greatest songs were inspired by other girls, such as Jane Asher in the 1960s and, for decades, his longtime wife, the late, “Lovely Linda.”

No doubt Sir Paul now is singing,

Yesterday [before I met Heather],
All my troubles seemed so far away,
Now it looks as though they’re here to stay,
Oh, I believe in yesterday.

Suddenly,
I’m not half the man I used to be [because that golddigger ripped me off],
There’s a shadow hanging over me,
Oh, yesterday came suddenly.

Sgt. Schultz Republicans

I have a new name for Republicans who refuse to see how Bush has ruined America — and the Republican Party.

They’re Sgt. Schultz Republicans. The name comes from Sgt. Schultz, the bumbling NCO on “Hogan’s Heroes” who, when he saw something fishy going on right under his nose, would blurt out, “I know nooooothing! I see nooooothing!”

When Bush-Bernanke-Greenspan inflate the dollar, sending gold and foreign currencies soaring and the dollar plunging, Sgt. Schultz Republicans say, “I know nooooothing! I see nooooothing!”

When Bush’s inflation sends oil to record highs and even bread is rising fast in cost, Sgt. Schultz Republicans say, “I know nooooothing! I see nooooothing!”

When Bush’s Iraq War costs soar to $3 trillion and more, busting the budget, Sgt. Schultz Republicans say, “I know nooooothing! I see nooooothing!”

When Bush’s wild spending pushes the national debt above $9 trillion, Sgt. Schultz Republicans say, “I know nooooothing! I see nooooothing!”

When Bush’s grotesquely extravagant spending pushes the federal federal budget above $3 trillion, Sgt. Schultz Republicans say, “I know nooooothing! I see nooooothing!”

When Bush’s “surge in Iraq fails” — despite Bush claims to the contrary — Sgt. Schultz Republicans say, “I know nooooothing! I see nooooothing!”

When Bush shreds the U.S. Constitution and destroys the most basic civil rights that date back even to the Magna Carta in 1215, Sgt. Schultz Republicans say, “I know nooooothing! I see nooooothing!”

When Bush’s disastrous presidency will bring election defeat in November, Sgt. Schultz Republicans say, “I know nooooothing! I see nooooothing!”

When are Sgt. Schultz Republicans going to wise up and see Bush what has done to destroy America, combining the worst aspects of LBJ, Nixon, Carter, and Clinton? When are Sgt. Schultz Republicans going to insist that this dictator stop the inflation, stop the snooping, stop the wars?