Idiot Thought:
A Collection of Nonsense
Comments and Ideas from Democrats (such as
Communists and Supporters of Sharia)
and Others (such as Republicans Who Are
Actually "Rhinos" (Fake Republicans)
or Are Not "Conservatives")


Victor Edward Swanson,

The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan  49721

copyright c. 2020

Version 37
(February 10, 2020)
(draft version)

    On January 20, 2009, Barack Obama became the current President of the United States of America, and since that date, Barack Obama has done nothing good for the United States of America, and, in fact, I contend Barack Obama is purposely trying to hurt the county or kill the country--and some people within it--and evidence about Barack Obama's hate for the United States of America can be found in a number of my documents that exist at the Web site for The Hologlobe Press, such as Madness in a President and Other Matters of a Defective Mind, and I contend that Barack Obama is an enemy of the country (as it was founded, based on The United States Constitution, and is a traitor), whose bad laws should not be followed.  Since January 20, 2009, the members of the Democratic Party--through their actions--have proved without a doubt that the Democratic Party promotes and approves of changing the federal government of the country into a "enslavsim"-type of government, such as a communist dictatorship or a fascist-type dictatorship, all types of which are bad for citizens and good for elites (particularly politicians).  Also since January 20, 2009, a number of Republicans have proved themselves to be socialists and even communists, and two big examples are General Colin Powell (a retired U.S. general) and U.S. Senator John McCain (a Republican related to Arizona), and many high-ranking Republicans in the U.S. Congress have shown themselves to be unconcerned with preserving and protecting The United States Construction, such as by fighting back against Barack Obama on each occasion that Barack Obama has violated The United States Constitution, and many high-ranking Republicans in the U.S. Congress have shown themselves willing to side with the Democrats and push through laws that Democrats (who are enemies of the country) want and have shown themselves willing to put down and destroy "conservatives," and one of the biggest high-ranking Republicans who has tried to destroy "conservatives" has been U.S. Representative John Boehner.  It must be remembered that "conservatives" are people who support the ways of The United States Constitution, are angry that the U.S. government is being put in economy collapse by the Democrats and some Republicans (non-conservatives), want to limit the power that the federal government has so that the federal government is not an all-powerful entity, and want the U.S. border secured so that illegal aliens cannot come in to the country at will (and there are more things that define "conservatives," one of which is to not continually lie, as Barack Obama does).  And since January 20, 2009, at least, I have heard truly idiot thoughts come out of the minds of Democrats and even some Republicans, and some of the comments are presented in documents of mine that exist at the website for The Hologlobe Press, but it came to a point where it seemed that I had to put together a document that would simple present idiots thoughts that I happened to hear in a single document focusing on idiot thought, and this is the document, which is designed to show up not only the idiot thoughts of politicians, some of whom truly show up the evil minds of some politicians, but also non-politicians, especially those who might influence the naive or poorly educated into choosing bad things over good things in relation to life and living.  Did your favorite television newscast show iniformation about how, on March 14, 2019, the Connecticut Supreme Court made a rotten ruling that, in essence, means that a gun manufacturer can be sued when a person uses a gun maufactured by the gun manufacturer to kill another person?  The ruling can be likened to the idea of having it possible for a car manufacturer to be sued when a driver of a car kills another person with a car or the idea of having it possible for a knife manufacturer to be sued when a person using a knife kills another person or having it possible for a paper manufacturer to be used by a person who gets a paper cut from paper made by the paper manufacturer.  The ruling was a four-to-hree decision, and the decision shows why four of the persons on the Connecticut Supreme Court are highly rotten and, in essence, killers of a society.

    I start by showing up the nonsense and idiot thought presented by Jeb Bush (the son of former U.S. President George W. H. Bush and the brother of former U.S. President George W. Bush) on Friday, June 14, 2013.  Keep in mind--The "Bush" family is not a family of "conservatives," but it is a family of so-called "Republicans" (which has a vague and broad meaning), and I can say that at least at the moment it is not a family that clearly promotes fascism and communism.  The statement that Jeb Bush made was made at the Faith and Freedom Coalition gathering on June 14, 2013, and it must be noted that some real "conservatives," such as Michele Bachmann, showed up at the event, but it was not really an event set up by "conservatives."  The collection of idiot thought, which I am focusing on in this paragraph (and there could have been more) shown was: "...Ten years from now, we all hopefully will be ten years older.  That's my plan.  And I hope it's yours as well.  And if that's the case, if that's the case, then we're gonna have fewer workers taking care of a larger number of people that have...[He flubbed up here]...the country has a social contract with, to be able to allow them to retire with dignity and purpose.  We cannot do that with the fertility rates that we have in our country.  We're below break even today.  Now part of that is the pessimism in our country, but part of it is the changing social mores that exist.  The one way that we can rebuild the demographic pyramid is to fix a broken immigration system to allow for people to come to learn English, to play by our rules, to embrace our values, and to pursue their dreams in our country with a vengeance to create more opportunities for all of us.  This is a conservative idea.  And if we do this we will rebuild our country in a way that will allow us to grow.  If we don't do it, if we don't do it, we will be in decline, because the productivity of this country is dependent upon young people that are equipped to be able to work hard.  And the rest of the world has the exact same problem.  Look at Japan.  Look at China.  Look at Europe.  All of these countries are facing the same problem, but none of them have an immigrant experience, an immigrant heritage that allows them to, ah, embrace people to come, not because of race or, ah, identity, based on ethnicity or some divisive idea but American values and American ideas.  We can do this, and if we do so, ah, we will begin to create a lot more energy.  Immigrants create far more businesses than native-born Americans over the last twenty years.  Immigrants are more fertile, and they love families, and they're more, and they have more high-tech families, and they bring in a younger population.  Immigrants create an imm, an engine of economic prosperity...."
    Where do I start my analysis?--this was in my mind right when I heard the set of words for the first time, while knowing I had to comment on them in some type of document.  By the way, around this time in history, the U.S. Congress was working to create and maybe pass a new big, big immigration bill, and many of the illegal immigrants being considered were Hispanic-types.  So, surely, you saw "Immigrants are more fertile...." in the set of quoted words from Jeb Bush.  I cannot even imagine myself ever saying such idiocy in a speech.  Why are immigrants more fertile?  Who says immigrants are "more fertile"?  Jeb Bush hinted that the country has a "broken immigration system."  For the most part, that is idiocy.  The country has had immigration laws for decades, and they have generally existed to allow people to enter the country legally and then over time become legal citizens, but, in the late sixties, one big piece of crap entered the general immigration law of the United States of America, mostly pushed through by Democrats (of course), and the idea is considered "chain migration," in which members of new Americans can get their relatives into the country easily, and that is a bad part of the immigration law of the country.  However, generally speaking, the immigration system of the country is not necessarily broken because of laws, it is broken because government officials, such as Barack Obama, have not been and are not enforcing immigration law (by the way, Barack Obama took the State of Arizona to court when the state tried to enforce existing-principles of federal law).  By the way, "Europe" not a country, as Jeb Bush hinted at; it is a collection of nations.  Oh, the reported main thrust of creating a new immigration law--at least as pushed by the Democrats and some bad Republicans--was to make millions of illegal aliens in the country, who are people who violated U.S. immigration law knowingly and are, in essence, criminals, legal citizens of the country.  Many of the people who come into the country illegally, such as by sneaking across the border between Mexico and the United States of America, are not scientists and highly educated persons--they are usually poor and oppressed people, who have no clear idea of what representative government is, often having lived in dictatorships and defective countries, and they bring their defective ideas about what government does and is supposed to do to this country, and that is bad.  Yet, Jeb Bush pushed the idea that all the people, many of whom are highly uneducated, will help "create a lot more energy."  That is idiot thought.  To help add to economic energy of the country, a person has to be educated (usually) about matters of economics and business, and poorly educated people do not  "create a lot more energy."  Jeb Bush reported--"...Immigrants create far more businesses than native-born Americans over the last twenty years...."  This does not make sense.  In fact, it sounds like a lie (and on Friday, June 14, 2013, I heard a woman named Heather MacDonald (of the Manhattan Institute), who is well informed about the features of the ideas being proposed for a new big immigration law, report on The Mark Levin Show, which is a nationally syndicated radio show, that the statement is a lie).  In addition, Jeb Bush said--"...Immigrants create an imm, an engine of economic prosperity...."  Where is the proof to back up that statement?  Currently, I say that, because of laws imposed by Barack Obama and the Democrats and some Republicans in the country, such as the Patient Protection and the Affordable Care Act of 2010 (which is loaded with taxes on the citizens of the country) and the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010, the engine of economic prosperity--the citizens already here--is being hindered and will be hindered even more in the future, and when so-called illegal aliens become citizens, they will not be able to do any better than the current citizens can of driving the economy since the new citizens will be subject to the same nonsense and crappy laws.  Jeb Bush slipped in " by our rules...." into this speech, but a person does have to remember the illegal aliens did not play by existing rules to get in to the country and stay in the country.  And Jeb Bush noted--"...they love families...."  Okay, what does that really mean?  The Heritage Foundation had a document on the Internet for me to see on June 14, 2013 (at least) that was called "Four in 10 children are born to unwed mothers", and it noted, around 2010, that 72.5 percent of black births are tied to unwed mothers, and that 53.3 percent of Hispanic-type births are tied to unwed mothers, and 29 percent of white births are tied to unwed mothers (and the percentage figures are from the U.S. Census Bureau in 2011).  That is enough of the analyzing.  Jeb Bush is an idiot thinker, based on the quoted material.  By the way, Jeb Bush delivered his statement as many Democrats do who do not want you to really analyze that they are saying for the nonsense that it is--he spoke very quickly and put out a lot of words--and so listeners have no time to remember it all and analyze it all.  [Incidentally, Virg Bernero, who is a Michiganian, a member of the Democratic Party, who talks like a communist (Marxist), using all the themes of The Communist Manifesto, and who recently tried to become the governor of Michigan, uses the technique of talking very quickly.]

    Okay, on Sunday, June 16, 2013, another "Miss USA Pageant" took place, and it was broadcast, as is usual every year, and viewers got to hear some nonsense or idiocy from some of the contestants (though probably a lot of viewers were too stupid to understand when nonsense and idiocy was being spoken).  One contestant was Mary Margaret McCord (Miss Alabama), and at one point in the program, Mary Margaret McCord said: "...I think that, in the society that we live in today, it's sad that, if we go to the movies or to the airport or go to the mall that we have to worry about our safety.  So I would rather someone track my telephone messages, and feel safe wherever I go than feel like you're, um, encroaching on my privacy...."  Mary Margaret McCord is an idiot, and, unfortunately for the world, what she--being a celebrity--says that is nonsense gets passed along and adopted by the naive, and that is bad.  How does tracking, for instance, telephone messages keep people safe really?  A government's tracking a mass of telephone messages will not stop a person from going to the store and getting robbed or stop a person, while jogging in Central Park, from being attacked or stop a person from being followed by a stalker or stop a person from being harassed in a public place or stop a person from being the victim of a car jacking or stop a person from whatever is bad.  Of course, the theme of the answer was stopping terrorists who might want to set off a bomb somewhere, and the odds of catching terrorists is almost impossible when the work to catch terrorists involves in getting mass amounts of information on, in essence, everybody.  By the way, it seems very likely to me Mary Margaret McCord thinks that it is possible for some people to make this wonderful big computer that can collection an incalculable amount of data about the world and analyze that data and save people from harm--as happens in the television series called Person of Interest (which is aired weekly on CBS-TV around this time).  It can be said that Mary Margaret McCord lives in a dream world, which does not take into account the bad nature of people, who often take up in their life's work becoming politicians so that they can live easy lives, living off the work of others, and control or hurt others.  It is possible to have good people in government, but bad people do always sneak in to government jobs, as history shows, and a person should always understand a government should always be restricted in what it can do and in what information that it can get on the citizens, since when a bad government has masses amount of information on citizens, it can use the information to harm citizens, such as if the information about a person, who is living in a country in which the federal government is the sole determiner of health care and is trying to get a health-care procedure, shows the person is not a supporter of the political party in majority power at the time (a government that is bad can and will most likely block or hinder good people--non-supporters of the bad government--from getting health care).
    [Note: No one will ever create and build a big enough computer system to determine the thoughts of all the people in a country and determine when some bad act will take place, but people can and do make computer systems that can store just a few pieces of information that bad politicians need to understand and determine who their enemies are.]

    Presidents of the United States of America can be idiots, and, in fact, I think it is commonplace because such persons are specialized thinkers and not general-knowledge thinkers, no matter how high a college degree such a person has.  By the way, in addition, people who become U.S. President can be bad people, and that is especially true with such former U.S. Presidents at Woodrow Wilson, Franklin D. Roosevelt, and Jimmy Carter, all of whom were from the Democratic Party.  Former U.S. President George W. Bush (a Republican) was a weak thinker and U.S. president, and, for one, he was the biggest U.S. president spender till Barack Obama became the U.S. president in January 2009, and since Barack Obama became the U.S. president and has engaged in pushing communism and socialism (which is temporary soft-line communism) on the country, which has included signing into law the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which is a terrible law, George W. Bush has said almost nothing about the bad--as I see it--that Barack Obama has been and is pushing on the country.  On Sunday, July 7, 2013, George W. Bush was interviewed by Jonathan Karl for This Week with George Stephanopoulos (a weekly program aired by ABC-TV), and one thing that George W. Bush did say in relation to the creating of a new and big immigration law in the country is: "...I think it's very important to fix a broken system, to treat people with respect, and have confidence in our capacity to assimilate people.  Ah, it's a very difficult bill to pass because there are a lot of moving parts, and the legislative process is, can be ugly.  And, dah, and, it looks like they're making some progress...."  and "...The reason to pass immigration reform is not to bolster a Republi, and Republican Party, it's to fix a system that's broken.  Good policy yields good politics as far as I'm concerned....."  That is idiot thought--two main pieces of idiot thought!  Basically, the push for a new and big immigration law is being done to make illegal aliens--people who have violated existing U.S. immigration law--U.S. citizens, and that basic idea is idiocy, and then when you add in the idea that George W. Bush thinks illegal aliens should be treated with respect, though they are criminals, you have idiocy upon idiocy.  In addition, a new and big immigration law has no ability to get people to assimilate into the country, such as learn English and take up following the ways of The U.S. Constitution, which Barack Obama--as a U.S. President--has violated numerous times already.  And does anyone believe some Republicans, such as George W. Bush and Jeb Bush, are not working to pass a new and big immigration so that they can make the Republican Party look good supposedly to Hispanic-type people, especially those who might soon become citizens of the country after the new and big immigration law it passed?

    On Thursday, July 18, 2013, the City of Detroit filed for Chapter 9 bankruptcy protection in a federal bankruptcy court, following years of mismanagement and corruption and theft (such by city politicians) and policies tied to communism (really begun in the 1970s by Coleman Young, who was at least a communist) and socialism and old black tribal ways and cultures from Africa, and, of course, once the filing was made the idiots came out of the woodwork, spouting nonsense thought, and one was a writer for the Detroit Free Press,  who was a local television commentator--Stephen Henderson.  On Sunday, July 21, 2013, the headline story on the front page of the Detroit Free Press was an article from Stephen Henderson, and it was entitled "DETROIT'S BANKRUPTCY: Wake up, White House, get in the game" (Henderson, Stephen  "DETROIT'S BANKRUPTCY: Wake up, White House, get in the game."  Detroit Free Press, 21 July 2013, pp. 1A and 7A.].  The article opened with: "The White House's we'll-keep-an-eye-on-that response to the biggest municipal bankruptcy filing in U.S. history is an astounding puzzler and suggests an dangerous lack of urban vision--and no understanding of Detroit's unique issues...."  Right from the start, Stephen Henderson presented crap!  "Urban vision"--such nonsense the set of words is.  Since the Mayor Coleman Young administration of the 1970s and onward, the "urban vision" in Detroit was defective, and, by the way, it involved Coleman Young's policies of promoting racial hatred--blacks against whites.  So Stephen Henderson was pushing for Barack Obama--a big-time communist and defective mind who is driving the country into bankruptcy--to get involved in Detroit, or Stephen Henderson, who is at least a communist, based on his past writings, was pushing for a defective man to help Detroit.  And a person should see, as I do, that Stephen Henderson was really pushing for the federal government to get involved in bailing out the city--giving the city money--and I say that is a very bad idea since that would only export keeping the crap that Detroit is alive by passing on and spreading the burden to others in the country.  [Note: I say that bad children must be chopped off at the knees and must be made to pay for their mistakes alone, even if it means years and decades of horrible times, and I say that it is not my responsibility to pick up after rotten children.]

    On the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives on Thursday, August 1, 2013, U.S. Representative Steny Hoyer (a Democrat related to Maryland) made a speech that showed his evilness.  For one, Steny Hoyer said: "...The Republican majority cannot get its act together, disagrees with itself, is a deeply divided party.  I was just on television, and they played a clip of Rush Limbaugh.  Before that, Rush Limbaugh said that we ought not to compromise because we don't have anything in common with them, meaning Democrats.  My response was--Oh, I think Rush Limbaugh was wrong.  We're all Americans.  And we're all elected here by Americans to serve them and to serve their country...."  This statement is rottenness through and through.  There are good Americans--non-thieves, non-crooks, non-perpetual liars, non-tax cheats, et cetera--and there are bad Americans, such as communists and socialists, and good people have nothing in common with bad Americans, who, like Barack Obama, is most definitely a bad person.  Just because a person calls the self an "American" is useless information, because, for one, the person may not support the ways of The United States Constitution, which Steny Hoyer, like Barack Obama, does not, as can be seen by what laws Steny Hoyer has supported over the years--such as the communistic-type law known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, a truly rotten law and evil law.  Steny Hoyer may call himself an "American," but he has nothing in common with good Americans.

    On Saturday, August 3, 2013, I saw the edition of the Detroit Free Press, and on page 11A, I found a "commentary" piece by Robert B. Reich, a high-ranking man in the Democratic Party, and the headline of the piece was "Income gap is what's tearing cities like Detroit apart" [Reich, Robert B.  "Income gap is what's tearing cities like Detroit apart."  Detroit Free Press, 3 August 2013, p. 11A.}.  The commentary from Robert B. Reich shows once again the rottenness of the man.  Consider and examine some of the beginning of the article:

    One way to view Detroit's bankruptcy is as a failure of political negotiations over how financial sacrifices should be divided among the city's creditors, city workers and municipal retirees, requiring a court to decide instead.
    It could also be seen as the inevitable culmination of decades of union agreements offering unaffordable pension and health benefits to city workers.
    But there's a more basic story here, and it's being replicated across America: Americans are segregating by income more than ever before.
    Forty years ago, most cities (including Detroit) had a mixture of wealthy, middle-class and poor residents.  Now, each income group tends to live separately, in its own city--with its own tax bases and philanthropies that support, at one extreme, excellent schools, resplendent parks, rapid-response security, efficient transportation and other first-rate services; or, at the opposite extreme, terrible schools, dilapidated parks, high crime and third-rate services.
    The geopolitical divide has become so palpable that being wealthy in America today means not having to come across anyone who isn't.
    Detroit is a devastatingly poor, mostly black, increasingly abandoned island in the midst of a sea of comparative affluence that's mostly white.  Its suburbs are among the richest in the nation  Oakland County, for example, is the fourth-wealthiest county in the U.S., among counties with 1 million or more residents.

    Robert B. Reich was trying to persuade people, especially the ignorant, that so-called rich areas caused the crap that is Detroit.  That is nonsense, and the argument presented by Robert B. Reich shows off the nature of an evil man.  The existence of the so-rich rich areas is the result of people fleeing crap politics and culture, and the existence of the so-called rich areas was the cause of Detroit going to crap.  Robert B. Reich had other nonsense to pass along in his article, and here it is--"...If Detroit is defined as the larger metro area that includes its suburbs, it has enough money to provide all its residents with adequate if not good public services, without falling into bankruptcy.  It would come down to a question of whether the more affluent areas of this Detroit were willing to subsidize the poor inner city through their tax dollars and help it rebound.  That's an awkward question that the more affluent areas would probably rather not have to face."   You should see Robert B. Reich pushed the idea in his words that the suburbs should now give up money--being in the Detroit area, though the suburbs are not "Detroit" proper--to Detroit to help come out of the crappy state in which the city is, or what Robert B. Reich suggested in his words is like this--Well, the good families on a block in a neighborhood, who work hared and take care of their properties and such, should give up money to the rotten families to support the failings of the rotten families, who might be families of drunkards, slobs, drug addicts, bums, communists supporters looking for handouts, morally corrupt people, et cetera.  By the way, also Robert B. Reich was pushing racial hatred in his talking about "blacks" and "whites."   And Robert B. Reich had in the article--"Drawing the relevant boundary to include just the poor inner city, and requiring those within that boundary to take care of their compounded problems by themselves, lets the whiter and more affluent suburbs off the hook.  Their city isn't in trouble.  It's that other one--call Detroit."  I say that Robert B. Reich is a rotten, rotten man.

    Since 1949, people in the country have watched the episodes of The Lone Ranger television series, which had an original run in the very late 1940s and a good portion of the 1950s, and the main performers were either Clayton Moore or John Hart as the Lone Ranger and Jay Silverheels at Tonto.  It was and is a likable television show or series.  Well in mid-2013, another theatrical movie about The Lone Ranger was pushed in to movie theaters, and the main performers were Armie Hammer (as the Lone Ranger) and Johnny Depp (as Tonto).  By the way, Johnny Depp always seems creepy to me when I see him in interviews on television, and as Tonto in the 2013, he looked creepy or crappy.  The 2013 theatrical movie, which had political overtones, died in the theaters.  On August 7, 2013, the Detroit Free Press had a piece called "'Ranger' starts blast critics" ('Crawford, Greg, and B.J. Hammerstein and Mark Stryker.  "'Ranger' stars blast critics."  Detroit Free Press, 7 August 2013, p. 2D.).  The article noted that the stars believed the movie died in theaters because of the reviews of "evil movie critics" (as it was presented without quotations in the article).  The advertisements on television for the movie that I saw made the movie look crappy and unlikable, and it was not critics that made me not see the movie.  Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp--especially Johnny Depp, probably--were and are trying to put the blame for failure not on themselves and all those involved in making the movie and not on the movie, probably feeling they are smarter than others and know best about what it good, which seems to be the way of "liberals."  I say that, in essence, the people who were involved in making the 2013 movie were working to dispel and attack the goodness of the original ideas and themes of The Lone Ranger television series (which had been made of a radio show, which was broadcast out of Detroit, Michigan, and broadcast all over the country).  Yes, Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp push crap and idiot thought!

    On Tuesday, August 27, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service released some rules related to penalties for some people who do not buy a health-care plan, which is required by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, a rotten law pushed on the American society by enslavists (Democrats, who are actually communists or socialists or black radicals or more that in rotten in man), and on the same day, the State Senate of Michigan passed a bill to expand Medicaid in relation to the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.  It took two rounds of voting to pass the bill in the State Senate of Michigan, and the rotten senators in Michigan who voted "yes" were mostly members of the Democratic Party, but some were members of the Republican Party, and the Republicans who voted for the bill were Tom Casperson (of Escanaba), Geoff Hansen (of Hart), Roger Kahn (of Saginaw Township), Mike Kowall (of White Lake), Jim Marleau (of Lake Orion), Randy Richardson (of Monroe), Roy Rocca (of Sterling Heights), Howard Walker (of Traverse City).  By voting "yes," the senators were making it harder to kill of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 in the country and stop, for instance, the ability of the federal government to decide who gets to live and who gets to die, to tax people who wish to take care of themselves the best they can by buying the best health-care plan that they can, to work to close down by private-sector health-insurance companies and ruin careers, to tell a person what must or must not be bought, to tax more medical devices (which drives up the cost of such devices and makes them less likely to be used), and to do more that it bad.  Those who voted for the bill are truly rotten, and they are not the only persons who are rotten and have ties to the bill, such as by working to pass the bill into law.  For instance, on Wednesday, August 28, 2013, the Governor of the State of Michigan--Rick Snyder (who labels himself a "Republican" but acts like a "Democrat," such as a communist Democrat by pushing to keep the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 a law) was on The Paul W. Smith Show on WJR-AM (Detroit), and some of the things that he said were: "...Paul W., it was a very good day [that the bill passed in the State Senate]...." and "...I want to thank the Senate for passing it in a bipartisan fashion and now I'm looking forward to it going back to the House...."   And then in the interview, Paul W. Smith showed himself to be a rotten man by asking a rotten question, and what he said was: "...Well, eh, again, I'm just wondering what you have said to people both publicly and privately that there are a lot of people who don't want to do one thing that would advance Obamacare--what's been called Obamacare--or expanding the federal government.  I understand all of that, but how do you get the point across that it's here, it's already in effect?"  Rick Snyder answered Paul W. Smith with: "Well, that's the issue.  It is federal law and a number of the negatives are coming to Michigan in any case.  For example, Michigan taxpayers will send over a billion dollars in additional taxes to Washington.  There will be major changes to what our health-care community has in terms of resources, in terms of the dollar adjustment there.  And this is our one opportunity to do something positive...."  Rick Snyder seems to ignore that overwhelming bad that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 is and is willing to forget the bad to have one little victory, which will not be a victory in the near future because, once the federal money to increase spending on Medicaid ends soon, the state will be stuck with the mess--the full mess that is the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.  Oh, Paul W. Smith is rotten since he showed himself to be man who has resigned himself to the idea that the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010--no matter how bad it is--is law and we should just put up with it.  Oh, and then on Tuesday, September 3, 2013, the State House of Michigan voted on the bill, and it passed the bill, and the vote was 75 "yes" votes to 32 "no" votes."  I can say that, in essence, about two-thirds of the state legislature of Michigan is made up of rotten people--ignorant or evil--and on Tuesday, September 3,  2013, it was public knowledge that Rick Snyder was going to sign the bill into law.

    Here is a piece of thought to consider.  Around the early days of September 2013, Barack Obama was working to get Republicans and Democrats in the U.S. Congress to support his idea to make military attacks on forces supporting the leader of the country of Syria, or, in other words, Barack Obama was working to get support for his military action to help those who have ties to the Muslim Brotherhood, a terrorist organization, and, by the way, Barack Obama worked to get the Muslim Brotherhood into power in Egypt during the first term of his administration, and Barack Obama did nothing to help Americans under attack from terrorists in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11, 2013.  So, on Wednesday, September 3, 2013, hearings about the potential Syrian action were being held in the U.S. Congress, and at one point, U.S. Senator John McCain was caught playing a video game on his iPhone [it was unreported when exactly he was playing the game, either in sort of down time or during an important moment in the discussions].  It was reported that John McCain noted that he lost the game.   I note--Maybe, it is all a game to John McCain (who regularly supports the ways of socialists and communists, as, for example, his record of statements and actions of the last five years clearly show). ["McCain playing poker on his iPhone."  The Washington Post, 3 September 2013, 5:55 p.m., 6:38 p.m.; "McCain caught playing game at Senate hearing."  BBC, 4 September 2013, 08:25 ET.]

    When a person has a class at a university about English and writing, the person should expect the teacher (such as a professor) would talk about English grammar and writing, which would include talking about, for instance, plot lines, sentence structure, and maybe even Modern American Usage: A Guide.  In the 1600s, people who came to the North American continent and later the United States of America had to bring things to the country to do things or make things or they had to make things from scratch, such as tools, and since the 1600s, what people have has gone from basically nothing to countless things, only a very few of which are all types of tools, telephones, television sets, radio sets, MIR machines, houses, skyscrapers, cars, bicycles, footballs, kayaks, silver tea sets, computers, furnaces, swimming pools, books, dolls, big university campuses....  Around September 5, 2013, people were learning more about how rotten people have become nestled into the teaching community of universities, when it was revealed publicly the nature and ways of a tenured professor at Michigan State University, William Penn, and people learned that William Penn was teaching or supposed to be teaching a creative writing class recently and said such things as "....If you go to the Republican convention in Florida, you see all of the old Republicans with the dead skin cells washing off them...." and "...They [Republicans] are cheap.  They don't want to pay taxes because they have already raped this country and gotten everything out of it they possibly could...." and "...This country still is full of closet racists...."  and "...What do you think is going on in South Carolina and North Carolina?  Voter suppression.  It's about getting black people not to vote.  Why?  Because black people tend to vote Democratic...."  [By the way, a Detroit Free Press article about William Penn of September 5, 2013, called William Penn a "Native America," which, to me, means he is some type of "American Indian."]  William Penn showed himself to be a rotten man in many ways, some of which I note here.  First, South Carolina and North Carolina are two of the states in which people are trying to set up systems in which only true and legal citizens are able to vote and end up voting so that there is less voter fraud, and such states are not racist because they are working to clear up voters rolls, such as by verifying whether or not people are legal voters, such as by having people show pictured identification cards.  Second, William Penn seems to suggest that the country has reached the point where nothing more is going to be created in the country--the country has reached the point where nothing more can be created and the last wealth that could ever be created has been created--and that is big nonsense, which is shown through examining the history of the country.  Third, William Penn was teaching idiot thought to people since he was teaching lies.  Fourth, William Penn was pushing hatred for the sake of hatred since what he said was not based in fact.  Fifth, how does a person's--any person's--work to keep as much of what the person earns through labor--using the person's life and health--as possible from the government bad [especially if the government is a crooked government, which is the state of the Barack Obama administration (which I detail in facts in numerous documents that I have available on the Internet for free)]?  On Thursday, September 5, 2013, and Friday, September 6, 2013, the event was big news in Michigan, such as on radio talk shows and in newspapers, and by Friday, September 6, 2013, it had become public knowledge the professor--a tenured professor--was pulled from classes and was still getting paid (he gets $146,510 in salary a year).

    The anchor date for this section is Wednesday, November 13, 2013, and it is the date on which this section was originally written.  In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 was made a law, such as through the signature of Barack Obama (the U.S. president); the law had been made into a bill, in essence, by only the Democrats in the U.S. Congress at the time [you should see my document entitled National Health Care and Mass Failure: The Reasons it is a Dead Issue, which can be reached through this Health link, to learn all the rottenness tied to law], and in June 2012, the U.S. Supreme--because of the rotten thinking of five members of the court--upheld much of the law as "constitutional" [you should see my document entitled Not Supreme in Nature -- The United States Supreme Court and the "Obamacare" Decision: The Majority Pushed "Enslavism" on the Country, which can be reached by using this Supreme link].  Yes, the law was rotten, for one, because it forced people to buy something, which had never happened in U.S. history before, and the law was also very bad because it was going to lead to taxing people who happened to have insurance plans that were considered too good, which is the sign of a rotten country, and the U.S. Supreme Court supported rottenness of the highest degree.  On October 1, 2013, the law really went into effect, and it was the date that people could begin to sign up for "Obamacare," and immediately there were big problems with, for instance, the website, and some idiot thinkers who were Republicans in the U.S. Congress were talking about passing a law that would delay what was called the "individual mandate," which required all citizens to have health-care-insurance plans by a certain date in 2014 or be fined or penalized.  The idea of passing a law to delay the effective date of the "individual mandate" was a rotten idea, since, I say, it was better that the American people learn through early implementation of that law how bad the law was so that they would work to have the law killed and would vote out bad politicians in the next election (which was scheduled for November 2014).  After October 1, 2013, people by the hundreds of thousands began to learn they were losing their existing health-care insurance plans or soon would, and the reason is the federal government through the law was forcing insurance companies to shut down the plans, and in early November 2014, people in the U.S. Congress were talking about having the federal government pass a law that would, in essence, force insurance companies to keep people in their existing health-care insurance plans.  Of course, the idea was highly idiotic.  For one, if the new law was passed, the federal government would be involved in forcing citizens to buy something, which had never happened before and which, in this case, was health-care insurance plans (which had to meet the designs of the federal government).  Yes, people wanted the federal government to get involved in forcing insurance companies to sell something to citizens, even though, in no time in history, had the federal government had the power to force a company to sell something to people.  Around November 13, 2013, as noted by Erick Erickson in an article entitled "It's a Trap!", one of the persons pushing for the new law, which would force insurance companies to sell things under threat of punishment from the U.S. government, was U.S. Representative Fred Upton, who was a Republican related to Michigan and who was the uncle of well-known model Kate Upton and who was involved in banning incandescent light bulbs in the country, which was a sign of idiocy in the man [Erickson, Erick.  "It's a Trap!", 13 November 2013], and Erick Erickson noted that U.S. Representative Fred Upton's proposed bill was rotten, in that the bill was shallow, having no real useful provisions, and if it were to be passed in the U.S. House of Representatives and to be passed on to the U.S. Senate for consideration, it would not be taken up in the U.S. Senate, and, instead, a bill proposed by U.S. Senator Mary Landrieu (a Democrat related to Louisiana), which was not shallow in nature and was designed to force insurance companies to keep insureds in existing plans--despite what the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 had been set up to do, which was to kill insurance plans of millions and millions of persons in the country--would be voted on in the U.S. Senate and passed on to the U.S. House of Representatives, where it might pass and end up ultimately as a law, setting another precedent in the history of the country and helping to kill The U.S. Constitution.  Both Fred Upton (a Republican) and Mary Landrieu (a Democrat) are two rotten people with rotten ideas, which, if taken into use, will lead to more enslavism for the citizens of the country--more enslavement of the citizens to the federal government.  When a government of a country has the power to tell a company what it must sell and tell a person what it must buy, it is a rotten country, and those persons who push for the two powers for a government are highly rotten!

    A big pusher of ignorance on people and a big pusher of "enslavism" for the country for many years is U.S. Senator Chuck Schumer (a Democrat related to New York).  On Sunday, February 9, 2014, Chuck Schumer was one of the guests of Meet the Press with David Gregory (a weekly television program shown by NBC-TV), and one thing he said was--"...What CBO said is that many American workers would have freedom.  Now that's a good word--freedom to do things that they couldn't do.  The single mom who's raising three kids has to keep a job 'cause of health care can now spend some time raising those kids.  That's a family value.  The student--twenty-seven-years old--wants to finish school quickly so he can get a great job can't 'cause he needs health care, he's now free...."  The theme was--not having to get a job because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010.  The rottenness presented by Chuck Schumer was a collage of rottenness.  First, people do not got and keep jobs just for only health care--people have jobs to pay for a place to live, to get money to buy clothing and food, to get money to afford transportation, to get money to....  Second, in the United States of America, in the big cities, the birth rate tied to unwed mothers is over sixty percent, and that is rotten, and I say that a woman should not be doing things that could get herself pregnant if she will not be able to support the child and if there is very likely not to be a husband to help raise and child, such as to bring in money to support the family, yet Chuck Schumer seemed to hint there was nothing wrong with the unwed mother.  Hold it.  How does the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 help a college student who is twenty-seven years of age?  The college student who gets to twenty-seven years of age will be forced by the federal government to buy a health-care plan because of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010; before the act was passed, the twenty-seven-year-old person had not been forced to buy a health-care plan and had been able to simply pay for health-care out of pocket if care had to be paid for--now a twenty-seven-year-old person has to use more money on health-care than the twenty-seven-year-old person might have to if the law did not exist.  Generally speaking, a community college is a two-year program, and a university is generally speaking a four-year program, and a person who is twenty-seven years of age probably already has six years at higher-level school.  In addition, Chuck Schumer corrupted the meaning of "freedom"--trying to push the idea that "freedom" is not having to work.  But, of course, in life, to get something, a person has to work for it, and that is nature.  Chuck Schumer's collection of words was crap, and he was teaching crap.

    On Sunday, February 16, 2014, the U.S. Secretary of State was John Kerry (a Democrat), who in the early 1970s during federal-government hearings, lied about what the U.S. military had been doing to citizens in Vietnam.  As U.S. Secretary of State, a person gets to travel the world, and, unfortunately, if the person is rotten, the person can spread rottenness to the world in what is said.  In this day and age, some people--evil people--are pushing the idea that man is killing the planet by using fossil fuels and putting carbon into the atmosphere, and it is all part of what can be called "manmade-global warming" or "manmade global climate change."  The "manmade-global-climate-change" idea or the "manmade-global-warming idea" is a hoax, and it has been proven to be a hoax, but pushing the idea by some people, such as communists, to get control of, for one, the industrial industry of the United States of America goes on.  John Kerry was in Jakarta, Indonesia, on February 16, 2014, and one statement that he made was: "...When I think about the array of global climate, of the global threats--think about this--ah, terrorism, epidemics, ah, poverty, the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, all challenges that know no borders, the reality is that climate change ranks right up there with every single one of them...."  In essence, John Kerry was taking a hoax or a lie--"manmade global climate change" or "manmade global warming"--and comparing it with terrorism or epidemics or poverty or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, or he was taking a hoax or a lie and working to make it seem equal in stature with terrorism or epidemics or poverty or the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which have resulted in the deaths of millions.  By making the statement, John Kerry once again showed off his evilness and his work to take a hoax and give credibility, which would, in turn, could help communists and other such rotten people gain control on the industrial bases of countries, such as the United States of America, through, for one, treaties and laws imposed on the countries by the United Nations (an entity controlled by communists and socialists and other such bad people).

    A person can call the self a "conservative" (an "anti-enslavist" or an "anti-enslavism supporter") and not really be a "conservative," and a person can call the self a "conservative" and yet do stupid things, which hurt the causes of "conservatives" and what might be called the "conservative movement."  Bill O'Reilly--the host of The O'Reilly Factor for the Fox News Channel around February 2014--is a person who calls himself a "conservative."  Bill O'Reilly may be a "conservative" and may be working to show up the rottenness of Democrats, especially Barack Obama, but I say that, from time to time, Bill O'Reilly show off either his tactical ignorance in working to put down the enemies of the country or his work to not hurt the enemies of the country, such as Barack Obama.  On Tuesday, February 18, 2014, Bill O'Reilly was one of the guests on Jimmy Kimmel Live, which is a television talk-show program aired by ABC-TV on weeknights, and Bill O'Reilly said at one point in the interview: "...I like Barack Obama, as I liked George W. Bush.  I think they're both patriots.  Okay?...."  The statement shows that at the very least Bill O'Reilly is "tactical idiot."  I state that you do not praise your enemy or the enemies of the country in a good light in anyway or to any degree.  I note that Barack Obama is no "patriot," given his history as, for one, the U.S. President (some evidence of which I show in my document entitled A History of Barack Obama Events: A Show of Deconstruction, which can be reached through this History link).  Bill O'Reilly' statement softens an attack on the image that Barack Obama has, such as as a nice man or a good man, though Barack Obama is not a nice man or a good man.  Bill O'Reilly failed on this date.  It must be kept in mind that Bill O'Reilly has failed in the past to be tactically smart is defining Barack Obama for what Barack Obama really is, a bad man; for example, during an interview with Barack Obama on February 2, 2014 (the day for the Super Bowl), Bill O'Reilly said at one point near the end of the interview: "...I think your heart is in the right place...."  I report that, at the very least, Bill O'Reilly is a "tactical idiot"

    On April 15, 2013, two terrorists attacked people at the Boston Marathon, a running race done at Boston Massachusetts.  On April 15, 2014, an event was held at Boston to remember the victims and the incident, and U.S. Vice President Joseph Biden was at the event and spoke.  One thing that Joseph Biden said was--"...Let me say, ah, to, ah, those of--quote--survivors--My god, you have survived and you have soared.  It was worth, it was worth it...."  The statement came off as yet another idiot comment from Joseph Biden.

    During a person's lifetime, the person can make mistakes or make errors of judgment, some of which can lead to the death of a person, such as if the person errs while driving a car, and during that person's lifetime, the person can say incorrect things, such as through a slip of the tongue, or even say stupid things, and a person can say something that shows off the person as a really stupid or rotten person, though the person has been known for saying and writing--supposedly--worthwhile things.  George Will has been a political commentator for many decades, and, for example, he has been a regular contributor to television shows that focus on politics, such as This Week (a program aired by ABC-TV on Sunday).  On Sunday, July 27, 2014, George Will made this statement during the airing of Fox News Sunday (on Fox TV)--"... My view is that, dah, we ought to say to these children--Welcome to America, you're gonna go to school and get a job and become Americans.  We have three-thousand-one-hundred-and-forty-one counties in this county.  That would be twenty per county.  The idea that we can't assimilate these eight-year-old criminals with their teddy bears is preposterous...."   The children to whom George Will referred were the children streaming in to the country illegally at the southern border, such as that part related to Texas.  George Will's statement is an idiotic statement, showing off high-level idiotic thinking and showing he is no great thinker.  For one, the children are not going to be divided up equally over 3,141 counties--the goal seems to be of the Obama administration to put the children in places (almost secretly) where they can be a burden on small-town resources or can in the future help flip so-called "Republican Party"-type states to "Democratic Party"-type states by changing the electorate makeup of states.  Also, many schools in the United States of America are teaching the ways of communism or socialism and even telling incorrect history of the country or telling little accurate history of the country so the children are not very likely to be supporters of the ways of "anti-enslavism" (The United States Constitution and such) in the future.  In addition, just because you put a person in such a spot in the country, it does not mean the person will take up, for instance, the ways of anti-communism and good Americanism and not take up wanting welfare and food stamps and be a burden on other people.  Oh, what guarantee does George Will provide that, just because a child is put in school, the child will get a job later?  By the way, George Will calls himself a "Republican."  George Will is a good example of an idiot in the Republican Party.  Nothing of his past or the future can make the nonsense that George Will pushed out in the statement quoted.

    In essence, the persons presented within this document are rotten people overall, and, in some cases, their rotten minds get people killed.  On Thursday, October 2, 2014, a truly rotten man--who happened to be a "white man"--appeared on a television show called Anderson Cooper 360, which is a program hosted by Anderson Cooper and is a program shown by CNN (the so-called cable news channel).  The man was David Quammen, who is called an author and a so-called authority on ebola (which is a deadly virus).  The ebola problem in Africa and in the world came up as a topic of conversation.  During the program, David Quammen said as an interviewee: "...You can't isolate neighborhoods.  You can't isolate nations.  It doesn't work.  And people who talk about--Well, we shouldn't allow any flights in from Liberia, I mean, we in America--how dare we turn our backs on Liberia, given the fact this is a country that was founded in the 1820s, 1830s, because of American slavery.  We have a responsibility to stay connected with them and help them see this through....".  The set of words from David Quammen show off clearly the rottenness of the man.  Using David Quammen's dating, you can say that Liberia was founded some 175 years ago--some 175 years ago.  Liberia is not a part of the United States of America and has never been, and since roughly the 1800s, the people in the Liberia area have lived their lives under what they had and how they could, such as in relation to rotten political systems with which they had, as the people in Africa had been doing for centuries (and, for the most part, had created little).  In addition, it is not as if the United States of America created Liberia and was shipping "black" people to Liberia or has been shipping blacks to Liberia since the 1800s.  Oh, some 100 years ago, slavery was killed in the United States of America!  Slavery has nothing to do with any discussion about ebola today, and there is no connection between the creation of Liberia and the United States of America today, as put forth by David Quammen--that is, Liberia was created decades and decades ago when there was slave trade (in which, for instance, blacks in Africa sold other blacks into slavery), and Liberia has become what it is because of the people in Liberia.  The United States of America has not directed the political systems or economic systems of Liberia since the 1800s, and the ignorance that is Liberia today can be traced to the people of Liberia over the decades, such as the tribal-type leaders and their rotten ways of life.  By the way, the situation can be likened to houses in your neighborhood--you take care of your home and house, and you are not responsible for what goes on in the other houses.  The United States of America has no connection to the poverty and rottenness of Liberia.  Next, over the years, the United States of America has provided aid (such as in the form of money and food) to nations and countries in Africa (and over the years, some rotten political leaders in Africa have stolen the aid from the people), and it is not as if the United States of America has not tried to help people in Africa, even in rotten countries (because of their political systems).  [Barack Obama, who is a rotten man, did announce a short while ago that some 3,000 American soldiers were going to Africa to help in the fight against ebola.]  Now that I have said all that, I can get to the issue of "isolation."  In the history of man, well people have had to--for their own health safety--isolate highly ill people from the well people and do what could be done for the highly ill people, if anything, so that many, many more people would not become ill.  For instance, in the 1800s, a town in the United States of America was very likely to have a special house--outside of town--in which highly ill persons were put and kept isolated so that they would be very less likely to cause big breakouts of illness and death in the community [You are urged to see my document entitled Michigan Travel Tips #40, which can be reached through this Travel #40 link, since it gives information about the real "Pest House" (the name of which is derived from "pestilence house") that is on display at Old Mackinaw Historic Village at Mackinaw City, Michigan].  Despite what David Quammen said, isolation does work and has to be used as a tool to protect well people!  Can isolating highly ill people be completely reliable?  No, it cannot be, since people can error, such as in the handling of infected materials.  But that is life.  David Quammen's way of life is rotten--He thinks, because "slavery" existed years ago, the United States of America should not block highly ill people, such as with ebola, from entering the United States of America (other countries around the world block highly ill people from crossing into their lands).  In David Quammen, you have a man with an ill mind!

     The Muslim Brotherhood is a Muslim-type group or a Islamic-type group, and the Muslim Brotherhood is a group that supports Sharia (a rotten political system that is labeled a religion), and the Muslim Brotherhood has a number of off-shoot groups, and the Muslim Brotherhood and the off-shoot groups, such as al Qaeda, are involved in terrorism, such as bombing, and violence and killings, and any person who supports the Muslim in Brotherhood in any way is a rotten person.  Around the first of October 2014, U.S. Representative Gerald Connolly (a Democrat related to Virginia) gave a speech to a group of  Arab-type people in the United States of America while running to be elected to the U.S. House of Representatives again, and on October 7, 2014, a portion of the speech was posted on YouTube (under the name "Gerald Connolly 11th District Virginia) by an entity called "Suzanne Scholte For Congress."  In the speech, the sitting U.S. Representative--Gerry Connolly--showed off his support for the Muslim Brotherhood, and one thing that Gerry Connolly said was--"...I was the only member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee [of the U.S. House of Representatives] who spoke out against the Egyptian military after the coup, because they overthrew a democratically elected government, whether we like it or not.  And either the United States supports democracy or we don't!  And even though our government may not like the Muslim Brotherhood--I may not like the Muslim Brotherhood...."  The coup in Egypt took place in July 2013, and it came about because the then president of Egypt, who was a member of the Muslim Brotherhood, had been enacting bad laws soon after having been elected, such as Sharia-based laws, that the people in Egypt did not like--the president was acting like a Sharia-pushing dictator.  Gerry Connolly pushed out the idea in his speech that the U.S. federal government--the Barack Obama administration--does not like the Muslim Brotherhood.  Gerry Connolly's statement is nonsense, given the Barack Obama administration pushed to get the Muslim Brotherhood in power in Egypt (for instance, around the time of the election in Egypt in June 2012, then U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with members of the Muslim Brotherhood), and since January 20, 2009, members of the Muslim Brotherhood have regularly been guests at the White House or guests of Barack Obama's.  In the speech by Gerry Connolly, Gerry Connolly said--"...I may not like the Muslim Brotherhood....".  There are many Muslims who despise the Muslim Brotherhood, and yet Gerry Connolly did not say--I do not like the Muslim Brotherhood.  In a few words, Gerry Connolly showed himself to be a rotten man.

    Some men are so rotten that they get called "idiots" by those who see the men as rotten, though "idiot" does not really describe the rotten men well--so many words at once should really be used to describe the rotten men, but, to be quick and short, "idiot" gets used.  On Thursday, October 9, 2014, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry (a "Democrat" or communist and such, who, by the way, had lied in testimony to the U.S. Congress in the early 1970s about the U.S. military) spoke words while at at the Wind Technology Testing Center (in Boston, Massachusetts) that showed once again he is a rotten man--an "idiot."  He said--"...If we're [John Kerry and his associates, such as the rotten Barack Obama, are] wrong about this future, what's the worst that could happen to us for making these choices?  The worst that could happen to us is we create a whole lot of new jobs, we kick our economies into gear, we have healthier people, healthier children because we have cleaner air, we live up to our environmental responsibility, we become truly energy independent, and our security is stronger and greater and sustainable as a result.  That's the worst that happens to us.  What's happens if they're wrong?  If they're wrong--catastrophe--life as you know it on Earth ends...."  The manmade-globe-warming idea or whatever it is called at the moment has been shown to be fake and a lie, being pushing along by rotten people, such as Barack Obama, who is a perpetual liar.  John Kerry's words make them a group of words that is incredibly defective in many ways.  Putting carbon in to the air helps plants, and yet John Kerry is trying to make you believe putting carbon in to the air will bring about the end of the world--" as you know it on Earth ends....".  To say such words shows off John Kerry's idiot mind--evil mind.  John Kerry is one of the persons working to killing the coal industry and the oil industry in the United States of America, and you should see John Kerry is working to put people out of work who work in the oil industry and the coal industry--oil and coal cannot be replaced by wind energy, such as to fly airplanes and jets and make enough electricity to keep people alive--and to put people to work in the windmill industry and solar panel industry.  In essence, John Kerry promotes the idea of killing jobs and creating jobs at the same time--where is the gain and where is the proof there will be a net gain jobs?  John Kerry has no facts to back up what he says about an increase in the economy.  In addition, a country has a lot of windmills and solar panels around, how does that improve the "security" of the country?  Tanks and other motorized military equipment cannot be made to move well with electricity and help keep the country secure.  How can any person predict the end of the world?  No man or woman is smart enough to do that.  And Keep in mind--World War II took place, and millions of explosions, which put out carbon in to the air--did not kill the planet.  John Kerry speaks crap and is crap!  [Note: What is "environmental responsiblity" and who sets the standards?]

    Evidence shows that some "Republicans" can be as rotten as all the "Democrats" are, which is not surprising since bad men and women can cover up with they really are, and since January 20, 2009, many of the "Republican leaders" have shown themselves to be rotten and to be not willing to support The United States Constitution and block bad things being instituted by "Democrats" in federal-government jobs, such as Barack Obama, and one of the "Republicans" is U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell (of Kentucky), who has done nothing since January 20, 2009, to show that he will help kill the law known as the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, which is a rotten law.  On July 1, 2012, during an appearance on Fox News Sunday (of Fox TV), U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell said about the Patient Protection and the Affordable Care Act of 2010 and a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision about the law--"...The Chief Justice [Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court] said it's a 'tax.'  Taxes are clearly what we call reconcilable.  It's the kind of measure that can be pursued with fifty-one votes in the Senate, and if I'm the leader of the majority next year, I commit to the American people that the repeal of 'Obamacare' will be job one...."  The U.S. Supreme Court--as a body headed by John Roberts--upheld the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and John Roberts corrupted the English language to push through the decision to uphold the law, and, for one, John Roberts did tie the "tax" idea to a penalty for people who do not sign up for a health-care plan--a "penalty," which had not been thought to be a "tax" by the pushers of the law, such as Barack Obama, was called  a "tax" by John Roberts.  The work by John Roberts did make it so that, for instance, the U.S. Senate could help kill the law in the future by only having 51 persons (senators) voting down the law.  Yes, a president would ultimately have to sign what the U.S. Senate (in conjunction with the U.S. House of Representatives) passed to kill the law to officially kill the law, but it would not take 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to help kill the law.  Then, October 28, 2014, Mitch McConnell said in an interview with Neil Cavuto (who was a reporter and anchor for the Fox News Channel and the Fox Business Channel) on the Fox News Channel about killing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010--"...Well, it would take sixty votes in the Senate.  No one thinks we're gonna have sixty Republicans.  And it would take a president, presidential signature.  No one thinks we're gonna get that.  So the question is--What can you do about?  Well, I'd like to put the Senate Democrats in a position of voting on the most unpopular parts of this law, and see if we can put it on the President's desk...."  A smart person can see that, in 2012, U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell said that the U.S. Senate could help kill the law by getting 51 votes to kill the law, and the smart person can see U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell could have made the statement knowing it would make it seem he would work to kill the law and knowing what would be done would not ultimately get signed on to by the President, and then a smart person can see that, in 2014, U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell was a trying to sell the idea that it would take 60 votes in the U.S. Senate to help kill the law, and the smart person can see that U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell had changed his tactic, maybe knowing, if Republicans were to gain the U.S. Senate through the up-coming election, he might have to work to have the U.S. Senate work to help kill the entire law, which he really did not want.  Since 2010, when the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 became a law, leading Republicans in the U.S. Congress, such as U.S. Senator Mitch McConnell and U.S. Representative John Boehner, have shown no true intentions of killing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, such as by making speeches to voters regularly about what they are really doing to help kill the law and making speeches to the people of the United States of America regularly about why the law is bad and should be killed.  I state--Basically, Mitch McConnell has not worked to educate the American people about the badness of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 and have them help work to get federal politicans to kill the law, and it is evident Mitch McConnell used the 2014 interview to talk down any work to really kill the law.  Mitch McConnell, though he calls himself a "Republican," is really just another enslavist and rotten man in the United States of America.  [Note: By the way, it was Mark R. Levin of the nationally syndicated radio show called The Mark Levin Show who reminded me of the 2012 statement from Mitch McConnell by playing an audio clip of the statement and who made me aware of the 2014 statement from Mitch McConnell.]

    Since big push of the "Women's Movement" of the 1960s--when a lot of men haters and lesbians and communist women really started to work to displace men as leaders in businesses and government--a lot of rotten women have ended up in high ranking government jobs.  Barack Obama as the U.S. president hired two highly rotten women to be members of the U.S. Supreme Court, one of whom is a racist, and Barack Obama has put other rotten women--communists and such--in government positions.  During the first term as U.S. President, Barack Obama had Hillary Clinton (the wife of former U.S. President Bill Clinton) as the U.S. Secretary of State--Hillary Clinton is tied to the "Benghazi Killings Scandal."  On Wednesday, December 3, 2014, Hillary Clinton gave a speech at Georgetown University at Washington, D.C., and she showed off more of her rottenness and idiocy.  One thing that Hillary Clinton said during her speech at the university was--"...This is what we call 'smart power,' using every possible tool and partner to advance peace and security, leaving no one on the sideline, showing respect, even for one's enemies, trying to understand and insofar as psychologically possible empathize with their perspective and point of view, helping to define the problems, determine the solutions. That is what we believe in the twenty-first century will change, change the prospects for peace....".  I state--Hillary Clinton was teaching rotten ideas.  I report that a person does not and never should empathize with an enemy, and any good soldier knows that rule of life to stay alive.  By the way, given that rule, I do not sympathize with communists like Hillary Clinton and, of course, Barack Hussein Obama.  Hillary Clinton has shown her willingness to side with the Muslim Brotherhood--over the people of Israel--and for her to say such words shows off her work to get dumb people to take up having sympathy for such rotten entities as the Muslim Brotherhood, which is made up of terrorist killers and bombers.

    It seems to be getting easier and easier for me to come across rotten women in government jobs.  Another example of a rotten woman in government showed up for Americans all over the country on Saturday, April 25, 2015.  The Mayor of Baltimore--Stephanie Rawlings-Blake--gave a press conference on that day, and one thing that she said was--"...I've made it very clear I, ah, work with the police, and I instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their, ah, right to free speech.  Ah, it's a very delicate balancing act because while we're trying to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, uhm, we also made those who wished to, to destroy safe to do that as well....".  The theme of Stephanie Rawlings-Blake's words showed of the rottenness of what she believes.  By the way, Stephanie Rawilngs-Blake is a black woman, so she is a rotten "black woman."  "Free speech"--it has nothing to do with a person's having the freedom to breaking things of others.  "Free speech" does not give a person the right to break the things of others.  Yet, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake pushed out the rotten idea that it does. "Free speech"--it is about having the ability to speak out and talk about in public the government and politicians.  Generally speaking, the job of a government body is to protect the property of citizens from people who would damage property or steal property.  Stephanie Rawlings-Blake failed to show that their job is to protect the community from thugs and rottenness citizens.  Yes, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake did not want the protesters to get hurt by cars and trucks and by it seems people who might want to protect their property from the rotten protesters, and, in fact, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake expressed her wish to let people destroy things freely.  [Note: In essence, when the government purposely will not protect the property of good citizens, what are good citizens to do?]

    On July 15, 2015, a news entity called The Daily Caller issued to the public some statements made by U.S. Senator John McCain in audio form (the reporter was Kerry Picket), and the focus was on John McCain's thoughts about "treaties" and "agreements" made by a U.S. president and what the U.S. Senate can do in relation to them.  Before I get to what John McCain said, I have to pass along some information that you must know.  The United States Constitution has a section that notes that "treaties" made by the U.S. president can only become valid with a vote of approval from the U.S. Senate.  Treaties are agreements between countries or among countries, and treaties agreed to by the U.S. government can supersede U.S. law.  I state that a treaty can be highly rotten if it supersedes U.S. law and a treaty can allow rotten people of other places in the world to control the citizens and the law structure of the United States of America.  I note that any agreement made by a U.S. president that acts like a "treaty" is a "treaty" no matter what it is called*, and if that were not true, then a U.S. president could make any agreement with another country at any time and make the agreement overrule U.S. law--even The United States Constitution--and that is bad since, on any day, other countries could determine what is valid law in the United States of America and what Americans could and could not do.  [* = Note: Only a rotten person would suggest and believe that the makers of The United States Constitution would not forever want "treaty" to be defined as something that is called a "treaty" and something that is like a "treaty" (even if called "contract" or "agreement" or another word).]   Some of what John McCain said to Kerry Picket in relation to what was called the "agreement" that had recently been made between, essentially, Barack Obama and the Iranian government was--"...It's not a treaty, though.  That's the problem.  They're [Barack Obama and his associates in the Executive Branch of the U.S. government are] calling it an agreement.  If it was a treaty, then it would require two-thirds vote of the Senate in a positive fashion....".  Do you notice the idiocy that John McCain was and is pushing?  There was more idiocy.  John McCain talked a bit about the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015, which had been passed somewhat recently, as being the only thing or the best thing that, for instance, the U.S. Senate could pass in relation to how it could approve or disapprove of what agreement Barack Obama and the Iranians were working at at the time.  I note--While the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 was being worked on, The United States Constitution already had the "treaty" provision in it, which noted what the U.S. Senate was supposed to do in relation to agreements (which were called treaties) between the United States of America and another country, and when the Iran Nuclear Agreement Review Act of 2015 was made law, it made it harder for the U.S. Senate to block from becoming valid an agreement that Barack Obama might make with the Iranians--it was and is a piece of shit law.  When the reporter wondered whether or not the "agreement," which had hours previously been made public, should be considered a "treaty" because of the nature of it, John McCain noted that he believes the agreement is not a "treaty" if the administration does not called it a "treaty."  John McCain emphazied--"...It is not a treaty!  It is not a treaty!  Try to understand that!...".  I ask--Then what the hell is it?  I note--So, as long as something is not called a "treaty" even though it is like a "treaty," it not a "treaty."  I note--So, a bad person as the U.S. president need never again use the term "treaty" for anything, even if it is like a "treaty," and he gets to make any agreements with other countries and make them valid by himself--alone.  Do you see the crap in John McCain's thinking?  I note--The why does a "treaty" section exist in The United States Constitution and why does the U.S. Senate exist?  John McCain was not done!  John McCain said in relation to whether or not the U.S. Senate can treat the agreement (between Barack Obama and the Iranians) as a treaty--"...We [the U.S. Senate members] can't designated as a treaty.  We cannot!  They [Barack Obama and his associates] have that ability to call it an 'agreement.'  We do not!  That's the facts!...." and "...Not on an 'agreement,' we don't.  We don't...." and "...Ask the parliamentarian.  Ask any constitutional scholar.  You can have your views...." and "...The Congress cannot designate it as a treaty.  Ask a constitutional scholar.  We cannot call an agreement a treaty.  The administration has to call it a treaty.  Ask anyone who's an expert on The Constitution.  Yes, you're frustrated.  I am terribly frustrated, 'cause I think this is gonna be a new nuclear arms race throughout the Middle East....".  Do you see that John McCain believes that the U.S. Senate cannot set down the rules about the definition of a word or the meaning of "agreement," but the "parliamentarian" for the U.S. Senate, who is involved in procedures and rules for how the U.S. Senate works, can make the determination about whether or not something can be taken up, and do you see that, in essence, John McCain believes a "constitutional scholar" can make the determination about what the U.S. Senate can do and the U.S. Senate must follow it?  It is rottenness of high degree!  Informally I state--John McCain just threw The United States Constitution under the bus.  John McCain's thinking is another example of why John McCain should have never been made a U.S. Senator and why he is an enemy of the country [I note--In the past, John McCain has shown his support for communism and the killing of The United States Constitution, and this is another case.].  By the way, it seems to me that the international community is treating the "agreement" as a "treaty" or a "treaty"-like thing, and the international community, which is mostly made up of rotten countries, will make the United States of American uphold its part of the deal.

    On Sunday, March 13, 2016, Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders--both of whom are, in essence, communists, and both of whom were running to be the nominee for the U.S. president for the Democratic Party--took part in a town meeting on CNN, and it was broadcast live, and both persons showed off their rottenness as thinkers and persons, and Hillary Clinton said one of the worst things that anyone who was running to be elected to the office of the U.S. president could ever say.  Hillary Clinton said--"...I'm the only candidate which has a policy about how to bring economic opportunity using clean renewable energy as the key  in the coal country because we're gonna put a lot coal miners and coal businesses out of business....".  Publicly, Hillary Clinton announced her intention to kill a big industry in the country, that which is involved in providing a lot--a lot--of electrical energy to the country (indirectly).  In other works, I can say that Hillary Clinton told people she was going to kill jobs and hurt people.  In exchange, however, she had a plan, which might involve new jobs (supposedly) for people put out of work, though no person can guarantee that people put out of work when the coal industry dies will be given jobs (governments do not give out jobs).  Keep in mind--Hillary Clinton has created nothing in her lifetime (such as a product, which gave jobs to people).  But, during the event, Hillary Clinton did imply that she was going to take care of coal miners put out of work, seemingly by giving them something like welfare.  It seems to me Hillary Clinton's idea is--Kill jobs (based on the communists' lie about "manmade climate change") and give welfare (or something like that).  The idea is the sign of a rotten mind.  By the way, Hillary Clinton also noted that she was going to hurt people working in the oil industry, and that was evident by her saying--"...By the time we get through all of my conditions, I do not think there will be many places in America were fracking will continue to take place....".  More people--people working directly and indirectly in the oil industry in the United States of America--should see they are going to be put out of work.

    There is a saying that can go as such--"Like mother, like daughter.".  On Tuesday, March 15, 2016, Hillary Clinton--a rotten woman--was running to be the Democratic Party nominee for the election of the next U.S. President, and on that day, Chelsea Clinton--Hillary Clinton's daughter--was in Salt Lake City, Utah, where she showed once again that she is just as rotten a thinker as her mother is.  In public, Chelsea Clinton said--"...which is why she [Hillary Clinton} thinks it's so important to extend the Affordable Care Act to, uhm, people who are living and working here, regardless of immigration status, regardless of citizenship status....".   [Note: An illegal alien is a criminal, a person who has violated U.S. law.]  Day after day, illegal aliens are entering the country.  When does it stop?  When will it stop?  Based on Chelsea Clinton's statement, a smart person can see that, in essence, Chelsea Clinton thinks you--you--should be beholden to pay for the health care of everyone in the world, or Chelsea Clinton believes--as does her mother--any person who sneaks in to the country should get health care, whether the person can afford it or not, and that means, in some way, you are beholden to pay for the health care of everyone in the world since every person in the world could decide to come to the country illegally at some point.  Think about this general idea--You are, in essence, the head of a family, and you live in a house with the family, and you have a certain amount of money, and you take care of your family with that money, and Chelsea Clinton thinks you should help support the family in the house next door and the house next to that house and the house next to that house, and the number of houses with illegal aliens just keeps on growing since there is no limit existing on the rise of illegal aliens entering the country every day.  I state--You are not obligated to support and raise the families in other houses, and that is one of "The Rules of Man"!  And Chelsea Clinton is another idiot and rotten woman and enslavist in the United States of America!

    It is easy to find rotten people--stupid and selfish and vain and evil and whatever people--in the television media of the United States of America, or it is commonplace to find people in the media who support communism and socialism (which is temporarily restrained communism) and Sharia, all of which are forms of government that are designed to enslave the "masses" for the benefit of a few, as history shows clearly.  On Monday, March 21, 2016, a man really showed off the high rottenness of the people of CNN (a television news network), and that man was Chris Cuomo (whose father was Mario Cuomo, who had been, for a while, the governor of New York and who had been a "Democrat" [Note: The "Democrat Party" in the United States of America is at least a communistic party]).  At about 8:14 a.m., Chris Cuomo said---"...I wear this [shirt] for a reason.  This shirt belonged to my father.  It was given to him by Fidel Castro, ah, as a gift, that, eh--it, it didn't mean something to him because it came from Fidel Castro necessarily--but because it marked conversations going on decades ago that were the same as those today.  The concern was the freedom of the people.  Ah, what is the point of this communist regime if it is not to truly make everyone equal, not at the lowest level, not by demoralizing everyone, but lifting everyone up?  Ah, my father and generations of politicians have been fighting this, so I wear this shirt as a reminder of that....".  Chris Cuomo showed himself to be an idiot and a highly rotten man.  What man--based on the evidence of decades of history, such as that tied to Cuba and North Korea and other communistic countries--could believe the concern of communism is truly "freedom" of the people and is to make everyone equal at the highest level?  By the way, what is the "highest level" when there is nothing to gauge what the highest level can be?  I state--No small group of people--rulers of a country--can ever enact a policy or law in a country that will put the millions of citizens of the country at the highest level, such as rich.  That is impossible!  The idea is crap that comes out of defective people!

    It is March 23, 2016.  Michelle Obama--the wife of highly rotten Barack Obama--was in Argentina.  Michelle Obama was speaking in a big, big room to a gathering of girls or young women.  Let us see what words of wisdom Michelle Obama had for women.  Let us see how great Michelle Obama's mind might be.  At one point during the speech, Michelle Obama said--"...As I got older, I found that men would whistle at me or make comments about how I looked as I walked down the street, as if my body were their property, as if I were an object to be commented on, instead of a full human being with thoughts and feelings of my own....".  This quoted material shows off a sick mind--a women with a sick mind.  History shows that whistles by men to women are signals of praise from a male to a female in the process of the "mating dance" and the like idea.  Does Michelle Obama really--really--think men whistle at women to say that the women have rotten minds or no minds?  Of course, women never look at men and do something similar with a "whistle" to show their approval in the "mating dance."  Oh, I have never heard the idea that a man whistles at a woman because he believes the woman is his "property."  The whistle is one way in which a man might start up a relationship with a woman, who may not know how to start up a relationship with that man, whom she wants relationship with or might learn she wants a relationship with, such as a marriage relationship.  Before whistling at a particular woman, how can a man know what is the mind of the particular woman who he has never met and make the whistle appropriate to her mind and feelings?  A man can only learn the mind of a woman over time.  I state that the mind of Michelle Obama is rather cold, given she is working to take away the feelings and emotions of the man who whistles, his feelings denoting his liking her (at least at the first meeting).  Those are emotions of men.  Of course, Michelle Obama is a communist and a feminist, whose mind has hate in it for others, especially any who might be seen has having higher stature in society than she.  It is not as if Michelle Obama has not pushed this same theme in the past, by the way.  Her theme has been used before.  It has given me insight into her mind.  I would not whistle at her.  Michelle Obama is an ugly woman--based on what her mind is, which is a idiot mind.

    It is easy to find rotten people in the United States of America, especially those who work in government or hope to work in government.  All the people who call themselves "Democrats" are rotten because the way of life that they work to impose on others, such as communism, is shit, and most of the "Republicans" are rotten (for the same reason).  On May 3, 2016, Donald Trump proved beyond a doubt to good people that he is a rotten man; he had already showed his support for the "mandate" of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, which goes against "The Rules of Man" and is a rotten law.  On that day, Donald Trump was a guest on Fox and Friends (a television show on the Fox News Channel), and a topic that had been put in the public mind recently by The National Enquirer (in a story called "TED CRUZ FATHER LINKED TO JFK ASSASSINATION"] came up; The National Enquirer had show that Rafael Cruz--the father of Ted Cruz, who was running against Donald Trump to be the Republican Party candidate for U.S. president--was shown in a photograph taken in 1963 with Lee Harvey Oswald, who soon after the photograph was taken would shoot and kill U.S. President John F. Kennedy (a Democrat).  On the television program of May 3, 2016, one thing that Donald Trump said was--"...What was he [Rafael Cruz] doing with Lee Harvey Oswald shortly before the death, before the shooting?....".  Donald Trump--who had no idea why Rafael Cruz and Lee Harvey Oswald had ended up in a photograph together--was working to give the impression Rafael Cruz was involved in killing U.S. President John F. Kennedy.  That is--at the very least--unethical!  Keep in mind--History shows that, in the 1950s, Rafael Cruz was indeed working to put down the Cuba government that Fidel Castro was working to put down, and others--for various reasons--were working to put down the Cuban government.  Donald Trump's statement on Fox and Friends came early in the morning on a day in which Republicans were holding a presidential primary election in Indiana.  There is no evidence that Rafael Cruz worked to kill U.S. President John F. Kennedy.  If Donald Trump were a good man and a smart man, he would have avoided talking about Rafael Cruz/Lee Harvey Oswald/John F. Kennedy topic.  Since 1963, all sorts of "conspiracies theories" have been talked about and passed around and held in the minds of American as truth about the death of John F. Kennedy.  Now, Donald Trump has added to the idiocy, carrying forth the idiocy started by The National Enquirer!  I state that now Republicans will be tied to the death of U.S. President John F. Kennedy for all time, and the ignorance will go on and on and on.  Donald Trump showed that he is not a good enough person to be the U.S. president, fitting in with Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

    On June 21, 2016, some people turned on their television sets and caught a press conference given by the U.S. Attorney General--Loretta Lynch--who was in Orlando, Florida, and the theme of the moment was the recent shooting by a terrorist tied to ISIS.   Loretta Lynch spoke nonsense.  For example, Loretta Lynch said--"...This Department of Justice and your country stands with you in the light.  We stand with you to say that the good in this world far outweighs the evil, that our common humanity transcends our differences, and that our more effective response to terror and to hatred is compassion, its unity and its love....".  These are the words of an idiot and useless woman!

    A person who is about to become some type of federal judge swears to uphold the ways of The United States Constitution and the "rule of law," and a person who ends up being a federal judge of some type who does not, for example, follow the ways of The United States Constitution can be considered a rotten person and a evil person and an enemy of the country.  On June 24, 2016, a man named Richard Posner was one of the judges of the Seventh Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals, and on that day, he pushed out an "op-ed' on an entity called The Slate, which is, in essence, a communistic publication; Richard Posner was responding to something that does not matter here.  Richard Posner wrote--"...And on another note about academia and practical law, I see absolutely no value to a judge of spending decades, years, months, weeks, day, hours, minutes, or seconds studying the Constitution, the history of its enactment, its amendments, and its implementation (across the centuries--really just a little more than two centuries, and of course less for many of the amendments)....".  This is the mind of a rotten man, who--I say--should be thrown of the bench.  I need say nothing more about his words presented so far.  I jump to more.  Richard Posner also wrote--"...Eighteenth-century guys, however smart, could not foresee the culture, technology, etc., of the 21st century....".  [The "eighteenth-century guys" were those who, in essence, put The United States Constitution together, and they are often considered "The Founders" and not "guys".]  The nature of man does not change over the centuries--bad men and woman exist all the time and can work to become leaders of lands at the expense of others.  Invented things, such as cell phones, have no baring on the argument that Richard Posner was and is pushing out.  Richard Posner pushed out the idea that, because something is invented or people have things that did not exist some 200-years ago, The Constitution has no value anymore or The Constitution or cannot pertain today.  That is defectiveness from Richard Posner.  The United States Constitution is related to matters of the nature of man, and, for one, it was designed to block and stop rotten men or women from becoming enslavists over the many; for example, the document was set to to define the main structure of the federal government and divide up power and authority and responsibilities, and "The Bill of Rights" section--which was an added section--was and is designed to block politicians from being able to do bad things to the citizens of the country [Note: The section reports clearly what the politicians may not do, which angers enslavists, who hate being restricted from being able to hurt others].  It seems Richard Posner believes that anything goes and that he can do whatever he wants as a judge, and it seems Richard Posner believes he should not be restricted from doing whatever he wants as a judge or that he should be "free" to do whatever he wants, and it seems Richard Posner is pushing out the idea that judges should simply do whatever they want and create the country in any image that they want at the moment.  That is the way of a rotten man--an enslavist!  Oh, Richard Posner's closing statement was--"In short, let's not let the dead bury the living.".  And that is bullshit!

    Ashton Carter was the U.S. Secretary of Defense on June 30, 2016; he had been for a while, and he had been, for instance, a professor at Harvard University--the communistic-based university--in the past.  On June 30, 2016, Ashton Carter announced that "transgenders" will be able to be openly out in the military, and he reported that, basically, all medical stuff for "transgender" issues would be paid for by the U.S. military (really, by the U.S. taxpayer), and he noted that by saying, for instance, "That's correct!".  More fully, Ashton Carter announced--"Any medical treatment at that, in that instance that is determined to be med, medically necessary by their doctors will be provided like any other medical...."  Ashton Carter, who is directly beholden to the "Commander in Chief"--Barack Obama--showed himself to be an enemy of the good citizens of the United States of America through his announcement, and he showed his rottenness as a person.  Now, for instance, the U.S. military will have to waste manpower and money to do "transgender" surgeries and to provide hormone medicine to "transgenders" on an ongoing basis, and that cost can easily be over $100,000 for each person, and the U.S. military will have to set up a distribution system for special medicine for "transgenders," and during war time, manpower and time will be wasted to move and get hormone medicine to "transgenders" regularly, which will use transport space that should be more usefully used to move medicine to care for injured soldiers and to move bullets and guns and other materials, such as food.  The transgender announcement is all idiocy from Ashton Carter and ultimately Barack Obama, and it is the crap that permeates the Democratic Party in the United States of America.  And it must be remember "transgenders"--people who want to change her physical image from one sexual type to another--have ill minds, and Ashton Carter and Barack Obama want such ill minds directly involved in, for instance, combat situations.

    There are a lot--a lot--of stupid people in the United States of America and in the remainder of the world.  Two groups of highly stupid people are politicians and "geniuses."  First, the politician is usually a bad person--a person who usually takes up getting into politics so that the person does not have to be anything else, such as be a doctor, a plumber, or a dress maker, all of which require work and study, and a person who usually takes up getting into politics so that the person can hurt others and keep others down--as part of self-survival and self-preservation--and have the backing of laws to justify the actions taken.  By the way, politicians are a group of people who can be called specialists--their general knowledge of the world and life is limited, given their lives are so focused in the ways of politics, which are often made up of convoluted theories and ideas, and what the politicians produce is often a collage jumbled up words in great numbers, such as filling up thousands pages.  Second, "geniuses" are actually stupid people as a rule.  Such a person is highly versed in one subject and is continually focusing on one subject on a day to day basic, so the person often is unaware of other subjects well and how so many different things interact in the world.  Incidentally, the word "genius" is often used to define so-called great work done by musicians, actors, poets, singers, comedians, and sports figures, but, in fact, what work they do is superficial and lacking in real thought; for instance, a song that it a so-called "hit" or is popular may only have a dozen words or so, which does not indicate real thinking on the part of the writer, and musicians simply have the ability to combine notes of the scale in what might be called nice ways.  I must add that politicians do not achieve their posts through having great knowledge--they simply get their jobs through being elected in what basically amounts to popularity contests, in which voters often vote for people based on image and looks and gender type and even skin color, which is commonplace in this day and age for "blacks" (who often will only trust a "black" to do for them).  In addition, politicians can rise in the hierarchy through payoffs and "networking", which have nothing to do with real smarts, especially those tied to honesty and truthfulness.  On May 25, 2017, a man called Mark Zuckerberg--the man who was instrumental in creating the "" entity (in essence, nothing more than a computer game or toy) in relation to the Internet--gave the commencement speech at Harvard University, which is a communistic-based university, and, by the way, because Mark Zuckerberg is good at writing "computer code" and making a lot of money writing "computer code," he is considered a "genius, and, by the way, Harvard University is a place were so-called "geniuses" (as students) are nurtured.  Mark Zuckerberg may be good at writing "computer code," but he has never put together a great collection of thoughts and ideas about the world that makes sense and are truthful, maybe contained book of several hundred pages, and he has not shown others how the world works and how things of the world work, and he has shown no ability to be adept at giving advice about anything that is not tied to "computer code."  The speech of May 25, 2017, at Harvard University by Mark Zuckerberg came, and it showed Mark Zuckerberg's in full force.  Look at one example--"...In a recent survey of millennials around the world, asking what most defines our identity, the most popular answer wasn't nationality, ethnicity, or religion, it was citizen of the world.  That's a big deal!  Every generation expands the circle of people we consider one of us, and in our generation, that now includes the whole world.  This is the struggle of our time.  The forces of freedom, openness, and global community against the forces of authoritarianism, isolationism, and nationalism--forces for the flow of knowledge, trade, and immigration against those who would slow them down...."  This set of words is true idiocy.  Keep in mind Mark Zuckerberg has supported, such as with money, the Democratic Party, which is a party tied to political systems known as socialism and communism, which are authoritarian-type political systems.  Now look at this last line again.  Why did he mention "authoritarianism", which he has shown to support?  His logic breaks down into nonsense right there.  He mentions "immigration" in his last sentence.  What does that have as force or a something against "authoritarianism, isolationism, and nationalism"?  It seems very likely he is talking about immigration in relation to the United States of America.  But the United States of America has had immigration laws, as other countries have, for decades and decades, and immigrants have been coming to the country for decades--immigration has not stopped in the United States of America.  What does immigration have to do with "freedom"?  Anyway, what does Mark Zuckerberg have to do with "freedom" as an idea, given he supports "communism" and the Democratic Party, which is pushing communism as the form of government for the country, and what does "freedom" mean to him?  What is "global community" in his speech, and what does it have to do in relation to what the quoted material might be trying to push?  What does "global community"--a vague thing or concept--have in the fight against "authoritarianism, isolationism, and nationalism."  The parts do not come together.  What supporting evidence does Mark Zuckerberg have that "Every generation expands the circle of people we consider one of us"?  His idea is nonsense and just a cliché or filler set of words!  Anyway, I say that every generation does not expand the circle of people we consider one of us!  Another piece of material from the speech shows up even more of Mark Zuckerberg's rotten mind.  See this--"...Every generation expands its definition of equality.  Previous generations fought for the vote, civil rights--they had the "New Deal" and "Great Society."  And now it's time for our generation to define a new social contract.  We should have a society that measures progress not just by economic metrics like GDP but by how many of us have a role we find meaningful.  We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas.  We're all gonna change jobs and rolls many times so we need affordable child care to get to work and health care that's not tied to just one employer.  And we're all gonna make mistakes so we need a society that's less focused on locking us up and stigmatizing us when we do, and as our technology keeps on evolving, we need a society that's more focused on providing continuous education through our lives....".  For one, who is going to make sure people--as much as possible--"have a role we find meaningful?  Will it be decided by a government or politicians, who are basically stupid and selfish people?  How can a politician or a government guide a society to the point were people have a "role" and it "meaningful"?  It cannot be done!  It is all vague thought, imagination run wild, wishes, and imagery from Mark Zuckerberg--nothing based in reality.  The really big piece of crap is this--"...We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas...".  Here is Mark Zuckerberg's perverted logic--He believes, if you give a person at least a basic income to live, the person will then have time to "try new things" or create new things.  I state that new things come about from experience and trial-and-error work and even struggle to get somewhere.  Giving the free to people does not inspire new ideas.  And who is going to determine the "universal basic income" and where will that basic income come from (not tied to having created anything new that can be sold, such as a product or good)?  Will the money just fall from the sky?  Will government simply print paper bills (money)?  Will government take money from one person and give it to another--and that person will then be inspired to "try new ideas" (simply by having free time to dream).  The idiot--Mark Zuckerberg--is all happy it seems to have children in "child care," where parents are not really involved in raising their own children--government (which is made up of usually rotten people) is.  Mark Zuckerberg talked about  "health care that's not tied to just one employer.".  Whether or not health care "tied to just one employer" is accurate does no matter here.  What matters is a smart person can see Mark Zuckerberg's thought is focused on selling the idea of having a health-care system tied to one entity--instead of one employer (which cannot put you in jail or fine you), it should be one other entity, which is a "government" (though it is mostly made up of rotten people, who can put you in jail for not following their dictates and rules).  Here is a set of words that a smart person has to wonder what the meaning is--"...And we're all gonna make mistakes so we need a society that's less focused on locking us up and stigmatizing us when we do...".  That is a head-scratcher!  What is this "locking us up" crap?  Really, the words presented by Mark Zuckerberg in the two quoted sets of words shows Mark Zuckerberg is a piece of shit of a man--and young man at that--and what he was selling is rottenness for the "masses."  By the way, the "New Deal" and the "Great Society" are failed idea, which, for instance, have led to more poverty, the break down of the "black family," and increased national debt--nothing has been solved really, but that is the way of the dreams of stupid people.
    [Note: I must present additional information here relating to Mark Zuckerberg.  For one, Wikipedia notes that, when Mark Zuckerberg was young, he excelled in classes, and, for example, he learned a number of languages [which means he can say the same nonsense in several different languages], and since middle school, he has focused much of his life on computer and "code."  By the way, Mark Zuckerberg's father was only a psychiatrist, and Mark Zuckerberg's mother was only a dentist.  It seems very unlikely to me Mark Zuckerberg never wired a radio-station studio, installed brake line in a truck (using his own tools), painted numerous rooms in a house, diagnosed the problem with a poorly running car and repaired it, built a wooden flag pole (out of cedar), made a seven-foot-tall lighthouse, installed water pipe (such as copper or galvanized steel), installed and ran gas pipe, attached wire in an electrical "service box," laid down gravel on a gravel road, put on siding on a building, put on roofing on a building, ran coaxial cable, repaired a toilet, set a toilet properly on a floor, welded steel pieces together, used a wood lathe, used a metal lathe, used an electric band saw, used an electric scroll saw, used a table saw, used a drill press, put gutters on a house, written long history documents (such as about a U.S. Coast Guard Light Station, two former freighters on the Great Lakes, or at one time the biggest icebreaker in the world), et cetera.  It seems to me Mark Zuckerberg's ties to hard work related to actually building something--other than switching out "cards" in a computer--and getting fingers dirty and scraped is very limited, and it seems to me Mark Zuckerberg really has not tried and failed and tried again and succeeded in doing something or making something that can stand up well to weather and nature and get a job done.  And since Mark Zuckerberg has not done such things, it seems very likely to me Mark Zuckerberg really has not developed a good amount of commonsense based on the real world.  Mark Zuckerberg is yet a boy, and he will probably always be that, spouting out nonsense he has memorized from other idiots, such as a Harvard University, who have not done anything.  I say that Mark Zuckerberg is just one of the leaders in "The Pseudo Information Age and the Age of Ignorance"--a useless person in most matters.]

    Here, I have a section typed up on Friday, June 2, 2017.  I was inspired to write it when I got a collection of idiotic statements from a range of people, such as from an actress to a retired U.S. astronaut.  The theme of this section is tied to U.S. President's Donald Trump's press conference on June 1, 2017, noting that the United States of America was abandoning or getting out of the global-warming agreement of Paris, which U.S. President Barack Obama (the black racist and communist) had signed on to.
    I have to begin by pointing out some facts of life.  First, for forty years at least, communists and other rotten people have been pushing out the lie of manmade climate change or manmade global warming or whatever the hell it has been called, and over the period, there have been predictions every year or so that the Earth is going to freeze and die or the Earth is going to heat up and die, and that is usually tied to some ten-year-in-the-future date, and all that is tied to using carbon-based fuels, which, when used, help plants, which need carbon dioxide, which is a by-product of burning fossil fuels.  Second, the agreement of Paris really had nothing to do with really controlling the use of carbon to save the world.  Look at this thought.  Most of the countries of the world are rotten, being run by black communistic dictators or red communistic dictators or corrupt politicians or socialists or crooks or idiots.  That is a fact!  So try this little analogy.  Pretend you live on block that has ten houses, and you live in one of the houses (with your family), and it is decided amongst the group of people in the ten houses that they will create a government body of sorts that will be designed to create laws that must be followed by all if they sign on by a majority.  In your house, you have your laws, such as of doing this or that and being honorable and doing right (that is, if you are a good person).  It is as if you have a constitution of laws of sort for your house.  The rules are your rules.  Now, if you sign on to the agreements with the other houses, most of which are operated by rotten people, you must abide by the rules created, even if those laws supersede the laws of your household and are rotten, or if you sign on to taking part of in that government body, you are beholden to abide by the ways of the majority even if what is created is crap.  In the United States of America, a smart person knows, when the country comes into an agreement with other countries, it is a "treaty," and if the U.S. president signs up for a "treaty," the "treaty" can only become valid, if the U.S. Senate votes to sign on and agree to it.  [Note: Of course, the U.S. Senate can be filled with mostly rotten people and sign on to "treaties" that are rotten for good people, and, today, I say that the U.S. Senate is mostly bad up of rotten people.]  Barack Obama avoided the "treaty" process in relation to the Paris environmental thing by saying that he was not signing on to a "treaty" but an agreement of some type.  It was a sham!  A good person in the United States of America knew it was a "treaty" and knew Barack Obama was working to tie the United States of America to the ways of bad people.  By the way, Barack Obama did the same with an agreement tied to the United Nations about the nuclear program of Iran, and, by the way, rotten people in the U.S. Congress (Republicans and Democrats) let Barack Obama get away with the rottenness.  The Paris agreement about the world environment really would have put the environmental policy of the United States of America in control of other countries, mostly rotten countries elsewhere in the world.  That is like letting idiots and rotten people of the other houses of your block telling you what you can do in your home and on your property, even if what you do is right and honorable and sensible and even if the rules are rotten and supersede your good rules.  And given the dea that humans are killing the planet by using carbon-based fuels is a lie, as the "Climategate" scandal showed, the agreement tied to Paris truly was horrible and evil for good people (non-liars, non-communists, non-socialists, and the like).
    And in the real world, a number of countries tied to the agreement are ruled by "Sharia" (Islamic law), an truly horrible political system masquerading as a religion.  Sharia is shit!  Everything about Sharia is shit!  Why would a non-Sharia-based country of the world, such as England, wish to get tied to the people promoting Sharia for the world?
    On the day that U.S. President Donald Trump made this statement to pull out of the climate agreement, a lot of people and entities showed their disapproval, especially the communists and socialists and such of the world and the United States of America, and, of course, many in the media in the United States of America put down Donald Trump's action (but the media is the United States of America is mostly made up of rotten people--supporters of corrupt government officials and Muslims tied to Sharia, et cetera).
    Some of the truly bad people who made comments against the pull out are with the Detroit Free Press, a communistic-based newspaper (which I have shown up as rotten in a number of documents that I have made available on the Internet through the website for The Hologlobe Press).  As I expected, the people at the Detroit Free Press on June 2, 2017, really pushed out a "whopper" of an idiotic story about the pull out, and, really, it was an editorial entitled "In exiting Paris accord, Trump betrays out future" ["In exiting Paris accord, Trump betrays our future."  Detroit Free Press, 2 June 2017, p. 13A.].  Look at some of the material of the article or editorial--"President Donald Trump has betrayed the future of our children, our grandchildren and our planet.  His decision to exit the Paris climate accord, announced Thursday, is incomprehensible and inexcusable.  Climate change is real, and human activity contributes to it: among climate scientists, there is consensus on this subject.  Climate change is also a clear and present danger to our physical security, the global food supply, and the way we live.  The Paris accord represented the world's best hope of restraining global temperature increases....".  The set of words shown is such garbage and crap, and it is a lie, from the threatening of the food supply of the world to the consensus nonsense!
    I have to make an aside here.  The federal-government debt for the United States of America is somewhere above 150-trillion dollars (that is 150,000 billion dollars), and that is because of all the rotten politicians over the years.  It is an amount of debt that can already be said to be a killer of the children of today and the grandchildren of today and the children yet to come.  That is real horror!  The politicians--one of whom is Barack Obama, who increased the general operating debt at a new record--have betrayed the country, especially good people!
    Yes, all the highly rotten people showed themselves after Donald Trump's announcement, and I could give a lot more examples but that is not the purpose to show a bunch for this section of the document.
    I have already in this document reported the idea that most geniuses and such are actually stupid people, and one reason that I say that is they are so specialized that they have little commonsense in relation to political systems and politicians [Note: A lot of people called "geniuses" are nothing more than actors and actresses, who never deserve the title for acting].  In the 1970s and 1980s--being a man--I sort of found it pleasant to listen to and see Emma Samms (the British actress), especially in interviews to see whether or not there was a worthwhile brain in her head [Note: A woman with nice breasts and a brain or a least not a crappy brain is pleasant to me].  In interviews, she talked about restoring furniture and having some medical background, and that was good, but she got married and divorced three times (marriages to doctors and lawyers, probably for prestige), and I looked at that as bad.  Over the years, I have looked in on her to see how she had change physically, seeing if she is aging well and taking care of herself.  She has a Twitter account (I have no such account, and I have no plans to ever have a Twitter account).  Using a computer, I went to Emma Samms' Twitter account after the Islamic killer had attacked people in England in May 2017, killing many, because I wanted to see what response she might have to the incident.  It does not matter what I found for this document.  I went again a little after Donald Trump had reported that he was pulling out of the Paris accord, and I found Emma Samms' Twitter account had a statement from the Twitter account of a former astronaut--Scott Kelly (who calls himself an engineer).  The statement was--"Withdrawing from the #ParisAgreement will be devastating to our planet.  Paris and Pittsburgh share the same environment after all.".  To me, it was another idiot helping to push out the lie and the bullshit, and the statement was not based on fact and commonsense--it was just another fluff statement.  In addition, I learned Emma Samms was helping to push along the crap, and it showed she was just another dumb actress (though not necessarily a bad person).
    Of course, that piece of shit of a man called Barack Hussein Obama had a response to U.S. President Donald Trump's pulling out of the Paris accord or sham on June 1, 2017, and here is some of it--"The nations that remain in the Paris Agreement will be the nations that reap the benefits in jobs of industries created.  I believe the United States of America should be at the front of the pack.  But even in the absence of America's leadership; even as this Administration joins a small handful of nations that reject the future; I'm confident that our states, cities, and businesses will step up and do even more to lead the way, and help protect for future generations the one planet we've got.....".
    And that is a collection of more idiots in this day and age.

    Incidentally, one reason that I went to the Twitter site for Emma Samms after Donald Trump had made his pull-out press conference is I had just finishing writing up a document that is like a proof, showing what the name was for a former "steam barge" on the Great Lakes (from 1871 to 1905) for a lighthouse society, and that ship is or was The Joseph S. Fay, and I was goofing off.  During the researching process, I went to the website for a number of big cities and big universities in the country, and one place was the Cleveland Public Library.  On the main page for that library, I was exposed to a garbage statement that was being pushed as "our goal" for the library.  Here it is--"We are the 'People's University,' the center of learning for a diverse and inclusive community.".  That is strictly what I would expect a communist to say!  Such a rotten place to be must by the Cleveland Public Library, another place pushing ignorance really and enslavism.

    One way to prove that you are a rotten person is to see whether or not you support the idea of having the government give you a basic paycheck for simply being alive.  That is the idea known as "universal basis income" (or "UBI").  I state that there is nothing good about the idea.  First, since the government does not really create anything to get the money that it has to use, the money comes from the people (the citizens) of the country.  That means, if you support UBI, you support the idea of having others in the country pay taxes to give you an automatic paycheck for simply being alive.  Second, if UBI comes into existence, where does end?  What are the limits on the number of persons who can take part?  In the case of the United States of America, where rotten people are pushing for an "open border," where anyone can enter the country at any time, and, in this day and age, get free health care and other services, illegal aliens could become holders of such paychecks.  I see an endless expanding mess of more taxes and more qualifiers that can bloat government budgets to new heights day upon day!  I state that receivers of UBI will do less to do for themselves and strive to be better (though I have seen some people push out the idea that receivers of UBI will not likely to do less).  Chris Lee (a "Democrat" and a politician in Hawaii) is pushing to get Hawaii to adopt an UBI system, and a big show of that came on June 15, 2017, when people were working to make a bill called "House Concurrent Resolution 89" lead to a law that would have the government of Hawaii run an UBI system.  If you support any government running a UBI system--where people get money from the government for simply being alive--you are a rotten person, an idiot.
    [Note: I can see more women--especially young poor women--simply have babies to get money from the government, an idea that has already been around through welfare programs for years.]

    I have said for years that we are currently in "The Pseudo Information Age and the Age of Ignorance," and I also say that many so-called "geniuses" are idiots because such persons are so specialized in one field that they are stupid about other things, especially politics (which are really ways of life and often bad ways of life for people, coming from rotten politicians).  On September 11, 2017, I was once again exposed to more of the idiocy that resides in the mind of Neil deGrasse Tyson, who is professed to be a genius about scientific matters, such as the universe.  I went on the Internet and was exposed to a story from The Huffington Post, which was presented on the Yahoo! home page.  The story was "Neil deGrasse Tyson Destroys Climate Change Deniers' Favorite Argument In 1 Tweet", and the article was written by Ed Mazza.  Here, I now show up the idiocy of the article--or Ed Mazza--and Neil deGrasse Tyson, who has been pushing the lie of manmade climate change that is killing the planet and will kill the planet in the very, very, very near future.  The big argument pushed in the article that is from so-called "climate-change deniers" is that scientists are in cahoots with each other to push the manmade-climate-change idea (related to killing the planet).  I can report that scientists in cahoots is not a "favorite argument" of people who disbelieve the manmade-climate-change idea (that is tied to killing the planet off).  "Climategate" (the scandal) proved that a number of scientists--such as those tied to NASA and NOAA (both of which are U.S. federal government entities) were lying about climate data and climate models.  That is a sign of cahoots by a number of so-called "scientists."  Around the time of "Climategate," Barack Obama (as U.S. president) often pushed out the idea the lie that a "consensus" of scientists (though many were not scientists) had come to the decision that manmade climate change (leading to the quick death of the planet) was true, but he could only site a few so-called scientists, while a group of at least 30,000 real scientists had gathered together through a petition to show their objection to the manmade-climate-change idea (leading to the soon death of the planet).  In the article by Ed Mazza, Neil deGrasse Tyson's tweet, which was supposed to discredit the so-called "climate deniers," was presented, and it was--"Anyone who thinks scientists like agreeing with one another has never attended a scientific conference.".  That material within quotations was the only argument from Neil deGrasse Tyson put forth in the article really.  I presented in this paragraph that idea about the 30,000 scientists--they came to an agreement.  But that is no matter, since the idea of "Anyone who thinks scientists like agreeing with one another has never attended a scientific conference" has no merit in the discussion.  Keep in mind--It has been shown a number of scientists were involved--in agreement--about pushing the lies in climate data for years, and the scientific community's reliability was devalued and was shown to be suspect.  The article from Ed Mazza also had like a side note a bit of text from Neil deGrasse Tyson that noted that, last month, there was a solar eclipse, which was predicted by scientists.  I note that the eclipse thing and the manmade-climate-change idea (related to killing the planet in the very, very, very near future) are unrelated and cannot be set up in a comparison.  For many decades--centuries--people have been able to predict when solar eclipses will take place because of mathematics used in relation to knowing the orbits of planets, moons, and the sun, which are, in essence, predictable.  Wheathercasters today have difficulty predicting weather events even within the forthcoming week, let along years and decades, because the number of factors involved in very high (in early September 2017, for instance, scientists could not predict well where hurricane Irma was going to hit land--they could only come close), and people who look up information about hurricanes of the last number of decades can find evidence about how scientists were wrong about exactly where hurricane were going to hit the continental United States.  The article noted that in August 2017, Neil deGrasse Tyson was on a television show entitled The Daily Show, and he said--"I don't see people objecting to it [the solar eclipse prediction stuff].  I don't see people in denial of it.  Yet methods and tools of science predict it.".  I say--"So what!".  The solar eclipse is a simple thing in relation to climate stuff, and people of recent history have not been lying about solar-eclipse data.  Another useless statement from Neil deGrasse Tyson presented in the article by Ed Mazza was--"So when methods and tools of science predict other things, to have people turn around and say 'I deny what you say,' there's something wrong in our world when that happens.".  I state a person should not blindly take as fact predictions presented by scientists--since predictions are only guesses.  A statement about a forthcoming solar eclipse is not really a "prediction" (like prediction what might happen, such as years in the future)--it is fact.  And yet another useless thought from Neil deGrasse Tyson in the article was that the American public's rejection of science is "the beginning of the end of our informed democracy....".  The article presented no facts that "Americans" are "denying" science.  Neil deGrasse Tyson and Ed Mazza simply passed along fluff (illogic) and made no case that was worthwhile to note, and, in essence, Neil deGrasse Tyson and Ed Mazza tried to pass along nothing as something that "destroys" a belief held by so-called "climate deniers."   The article was nothing and more crap from Neil deGrasse Tyson (a supporter of the Democratic Party in the United States of America, which supports and promtes as good Sharia and socialism and communism).

    Hillary Clinton is a known pusher of "communism" (also known as "progressivism"), which is a rotten form of political system, and Hillary Clinton is a known liar and a corrupt woman, and it seems she will do anything to push communism and rottenness.  A good example of that is what Hillary Clinton said--or a portion of what Hillary Clinton said--during a speech at Georgetown University on February 5, 2018.  Hillary Clinton pushed upon students at the university this thought in relation to so-called climate change leading to the death of the planet at the hands of man--"...They [Women] will bear the brunt of looking for the food, looking for the firewood, ah, looking for, ah, the place to migrate to when all of the grass is finally gone, as the, ah, desertification moves south and you have to keep moving your livestock or your crops are no longer, ah, growing, they're burning up in the intense heat that we're now seeing reported, ah, across, ah, North Africa into the Middle East and into India.  So, yes, women once again will be the primary, ah, primarily burdened with the problems of climate change...".  I state that the idea that man is causing the planet to die is illogical and idiocy.  Even if it were possible, Hillary Clinton's thought pushes out the themes that men will not be affected or will do nothing, such as work to give families going, and that men will not be involved in looking for food or whatever.  Hillary Clinton's themes are idiocy, given history shows how men have for centuries and centuries and centuries and centuries have been involved in much of the work to keep, for instance, families and villages and tribes and such alive.  Yes, Hillary Clinton pushes out the idea that men will do nothing, or she is pushing out the idea that Hillary Clinton is pushing out the idea that men are bad and do nothing.  It must be remembered Hillary Clinton has been a supporter of the "Feminist Movement," which is a man-hating movement, pushed along by communistic and socialistic women.  What Hillary Clinton said at Georgetown University is high-style idiocy!

    "Never again!"--this was one of the main themes of Thursday, March 14, 2018, for many students all over the country, such as high-school students, protesting against guns in the country; one of the entities in the country that was helping to push for the protesting was a communistic entity--originally founded by communistic women--that, for one, in 2017, had been involved in promoting women's marches--the entity is "Women's March."  On March 14, 2018, thousands of evil or ignorant students--sort of set up in groups of mobs--took part in the protesting, which was called a National School Walkout.  Yes, many young defective children took part, unaware in some cases that they were working to help eliminate guns from the country or eliminate the ability of citizens to have guns.  I report that, should guns be eliminated from the hands of the good citizens of the United States of America, the United States of America would be yet another country in which the good citizens would not be able or could not defend themselves from the government--guns exist to kill bad politicians and their associates when necessary, and it has been necessary in the world for centuries, since bad people usually strive to be politicians so that they have the ability to hurt and even kill others and gain high stature in society and not have to be in other professions or jobs, where they would have to do real work, and, of course, bad people work to be politicians so that they can gain money and assets and prestige and such and even become like kings and queens (through having done nothing useful in truth).  By the way, you might hear or might have heard the walkout of March 14, 2018, was to protest against gun violence and get the government to do something about gun violence--stamp it out.  Such idiocy all the themes were, given, for one, it is impossible for a government to really stop one or two persons from doing violence at some unknown time, whether with a gun or guns or anything else some people do killing, and there is no way in which to determine when, and there is no way in which to set up any law to stop a bad person from doing harm to others.  Keep in mind--Humans are animals, and sometimes the rotten instincts of animals rise in humans (rising in humans for countless reasons), and the humans kill.  So I say that, on March 14, 2018, thousands and thousands of students around the country publicly showed off their ignorance and rottenness or they showed themselves to the good person that they are ignorant and rotten and even useless persons, and the day was more proof that the world today is in "The Pseudo Information Age and the Age of Ignorance" [Note: That set of words is something that I have used for many years].
    [Note: On March 15, 2015, I went to a website tied to "Women's March" and found the entity's mission statement.  The statement was--"The mission of Women's March is to harness the political power of diverse women and their communities to create transformative social change.  Women's March is a women-led movement providing intersectional education on a diverse range of issues and creating entry points for new grassroots activists & organizers to engage in their local communities through trainings, outreach programs and events.  Women's March is committed to dismantling systems of oppression through nonviolent resistance and building inclusive structures guided by self-determination, dignity and respect.".  I report that statement provides nothing concrete about what the entity really is--an entity working to instill, for one, communism in to the United States of America.  I report that the wording of the quoted material is flap doodle pseudo-intellectual babble.  Really, the statement is bullshit from evil women.]

    On March 14, 2019, a video about Robert Francis O'Rourke's announcement that he is running to be the next U.S. president showed up, such as on television news channels, and the video had Robert Francis O'Rourke sitting in a room, and he was shown with his wife, and on that day, I heard portions of the announcement on radio shows, and I then knew Robert Francis O'Rourke was an idiot man, who had to be knocked down, since his idiocy could hurt millions.  On March 15, 2019, I recorded the audio for the announcement so that I could show off the dumbness of the announcement.  Here is a portion of what Robert Francis O'Rourke (also known as Beto O'Rourke) said in the video--"Amy and I are happy to share with you that I'm running to serve you as the next president United States of America.  This is the defining moment of truth for this country and for every single one of us.  The challenges that we face right now--the interconnected crises in our economy, our democracy, and our climate--have never been greater, and they will either consume us or they will afford us the greatest opportunity to unleash the genius of the United States of America.  In other words, this moment of peril produces perhaps the greatest moment of promise for this country and for every one inside of it.  We can begin by fixing our democracy and ensuring that our government works for every one and not just for corporations.  We can invest in the dignity of those who work and those who seek to work.  We can ensure that every single American can see a doctor and be well enough to live to their full potential.  And all of us--wherever you live--can acknowledge that, if immigration is a problem, it's the best possible problem for this country to have, and we should ensure that there are lawful paths to work, to be with family, and flee persecution.  We can listen to and lift up rural America.  We can work on real justice reform and confront the hard truths of slavery and segregation and suppression in these United States of America.  We can reassert our global leadership and end these decades-long wars and be there for every woman and man who has served in them.  Perhaps most importantly of all--'cause our very existence depends on it--we can unleash the ingenuity and creativity of millions of Americans who want to insure that we squarely confront the challenge of climate change before it is too late.  This is going to be a positive campaign....".  That is enough of that!  The collection of words from Robert Francis O'Rourke is bullshit and idiocy and nonsense and flap doodle.  A smart person has to ask the self about the entire piece presented--What the hell is he talking about and what the hell does it mean?  Look on only a few parts of the nonsense.  Where is the crisis of the economy?  I report that the economy is running better than it had under Barack Hussein Obama (during his eight years as the U.S. president).  Keep in mind--Barack Hussein Obama is like Robert Francis O'Rourke in that both are "Democrats" (ultimately, supporters of communism and socialism), and Robert Francis O'Rourke is not really educated in what is needed to run something like a government--he is a musician and holds a BA in English literature (obtained in 1995).  How is the democracy broken in his mind?  While Barack Hussein Obama was the U.S. president, he violated The United States Constitution a number of times, and Robert Francis O'Rourke (who was a U.S. Representative for the 16th District of Texas from 2013 to 2019) said nothing.  U.S. President Donald Trump has not violated any laws, such as those in The United States Constitution.  The country already has federal immigration laws, as it has had for years, and history shows the people in the Democratic Party in the United States of America who are in government jobs have not been upholding the laws, which is why, for example, there are "sanctuary cities" in the country today, which are violating U.S. immigration laws.  Robert Francis O'Rourke wants to "lift up rural America".  Does Robert Francis O'Rourke still think rural America is like 1900 rural America, where there is no electricity and no telephone and no car and no running water and no...?  How is Robert Francis O'Rourke going to "lift up rural America"?  Robert Francis O'Rourke talks like an elitist, who thinks people in rural America are backwoods primitives.  How can Robert Francis O'Rourke "unleash" creativity in one person let alone millions.  [Note: Go to someone.  "Unleash" the creativity in that person.  Tell the person to be creative.  Ha!]  Government cannot inspire creativity.  Creativity comes when it comes, coming from people who are allowed to think freely and do things without government hindrance.  How does a government "invest in the dignity of those who work and those wo seek to work"?  What does that mean?  How do you "invest in dignity"?  That is a garbage statement.  Where is slavery going on in the United States of America?  I cannot find it, as I could have between 1776 and about 1865 in areas of the South controlled by Democrat-like people.  It is the Democratic Party whose history is tied directly to slavery.  Robert Francis O'Rourke, who supports having no border protection, should never be involved in running a country--a good country--since his mind is filled with crap and his mind teaches crap.  This section shows off more of the nature of the Democratic Party in the United States of America through Robert Francis O'Rourke, and it is a party of Sharia and socialism and progressivism and communism--enslavism.

    Around March 2019, one Democrat who was running to be the next U.S. president was a man named Andrew Yang, who had never held a useful political office.  Andrew Yang was a man of Chinese descent and a man who clearly was communistic in nature, which was shown off in a number of statements that he passed along in public around the time, and he even showed to the public that he was an Asian racist.  I note, here, that Andrew Yang got a BA in economics from Brown University and got a distinction of Juris Doctor from the Columbia Law School.  On March 18, 2018, Andrew Yang was on a "steaming" show entitled Red and Blue, which is associated with CBS, and one thing that Andrew Yank said was while promoting an idea of giving every citizen in the country free money--"A 'Universal Basic Income' is a policy where every citizen gets a certain amount of money free and clear to do whatever they want.  So my plan--The Freedom Dividend--would give every American adult a thousand dollars a month--$12,000 a year--starting at age eighteen.  This would create millions of jobs around the country and would allow families and individuals to help manage, ah, this historic transition that we're in....".  The statement shows that Andrew Yank is an idiot, who learned nothing in economics, or is highly evil.  Let me show up the idiocy of Andrew Yang's idea, which is a country killer and society killer.  Basically, the government of the country gets money to operate by taxing the citizens, taking some amount of money that they have made in making things (assets that exist in the community, such as pens or books or houses or cars) or in providing services.  The money that the citizens who are taxed get is based, in essence, on something create or done.  If the government were going to give people so much money, the government would have to tax more the people who do things or the government would have to simply push out useless money (bills and such) into circulation, which is money that is not based on something that was made (and exists in society) or some service that was provided (such as a hair cut).  If the government were simply to put more dollar bills or coins into circulation, especially billions and billions of dollars, the result would be inflation in a high degree, since the money would not be based on anything, and that would lead to prices of goods and services rising to compensate for the value of a dollar being truly defective.  If the government simply were to take more money from people who make things or provide services, then the people who do things will have less money with which to do things or make things.  Does Andrew Yang's plan involve giving money to people who already have a certain amount of money?  What would be the cut-off line?  A problem comes when you simply give all people money.  For one, most people are not generators of ideas for creating new businesses and do not have the skills for running businesses well.  Remember--The government cannot simply give out money and ideas will spring forth within the minds of people.  How will jobs be created with everyone getting money?  Anyway, many people who end up getting money will simply avoid taking up getting into a job and creating jobs.  Andrew Yang's proposal is illogical.  His proposal is round-about nonsense.  Hold it!  I talked about Andrew Yang being an Asian racist.  Consider a statement made by him in public in March 2019 (seemingly on March 14, 2019) in relation to technology and maybe Asians taking jobs from "whites"--"...I  personally, I said to a group at Harvard--I think we're one generation away from falling into the same camps as the Jews who were attacked in the synagogue in Pittsburgh like just a couple months ago.  Like we're probably one generation away from Americans shooting up a bunch of Asians saying like--Damn the Chinese because there, there's a Cold War even more with China....".  What Andrew Yang was doing is race baiting!  By the way, Andrew Yang hints that everything is going to be technology, technology, technology.  I ask you--Are all the other types of jobs--countless types--going to disappear so that they will not longer exist and the only jobs left in the country will be related to his idea of technology?  There will still be accountants and salespersons and real-estate agents and mechanics and electricity linemen and wedding-dress makers and....  Andrew Yang is a bullshitter and a killer, who has to be beaten down orally and verbally all the time or millions will suffer!

    On April 2, 2019, I went to YouTube and saw a video entitled "Why Pete Buttigieg is Taking Back 'Freedom' for the Democrats | Now This", which had been posted on YouTube on March 31, 2019.  The video had a man named Pete Buttigieg--then the mayor of the city of South Bend, Indiana--talking to a small group of people.  Pete Buttigieg is a socialist and communist--an "enslavist"--who supports, for example, having the government in complete control of every person's health care (by having "Medicare for all") and having a country in which there are no borders [Note: When a country is set up so that the government is the single controller of health care, the citizens are enslaved, because bad government people can refuse to give people health care if the people do not support the rotten government people).  Pete Buttigieg is like what his father was; his father was Joseph Buttigieg, who was a teacher of literature--that was his main background knowledge--and publicly showed his love for The Communist Manifesto, and Pete Buttigieg has a BA in literature and history from Harvard University (the communistic university), which is a big part of his educational background.  Pete Buttigieg is a "Democratic," and the Democratic Party stands for communism and socialist, and the Democrat stands for having a government in complete control of the citizens of the country, and that is the way in which China is and the way in which Cuba is and the which in which Russia is and the way in which the now-dead Venezuela is.  A person who supports communism and socialism supports a government in which the citizen can be fined and hurt and jailed and killed at the whim of the government or the politicians, since, in essence, the citizen belongs to the government, and every citizen is expendable because the government comes first.  I state that that makes Pete Buttigieg a killer!  On April 2, 2019, I wrote down what Pete Buttigieg was saying in the video, and here is most of the material--"...I don't think we [the people of the Democratic Party] need different values.  I believe in the values of the party [the Democratic Party].  That's why I'm doing this [running to be the next president of the United States of America...." and "...It's one of the reasons why you always hear the word 'freedom' on my lips.  We've allowed our conservative friends to get a monopoly on the idea of freedom.  Now, they care about the idea of freedom, but they care about a very specific kind of freedom--freedom from, freedom from regulation, as though government were the only thing that could make us unfree.  But that's not true, is it?  We know that your neighbor can make you unfree.  Your cable company can make you unfree.  If they're telling you who you ought to marry, your county clerk can make you unfree.  You're not free if you're afraid to start a small business 'cause leaving your job would mean losing your health care.  You're not free if there is a veil of mistrust between you as a person of color and the officers who are sworn to keep you safe.  You're not free if your reproductive choices are being dictated by male politicians in Washington.  So don't let anybody tell you the other side is the side that's got a handle on freedom.  We are the party of freedom, and we shouldn't be afraid to go out there and say it....".  The words presented by Pete Buttigieg show how rotten Pete Buttigieg's mind is.  Pete Buttigieg teaches ignorance and defectives ways of life.  I now present only a few ideas that show up how rotten and evil Pete Buttigieg is.  Pete Buttigieg talked about cable companies.  To Pete Buttigieg, a person's having to pay for cable service makes the person unfree.  Of course, a person does not have to buy cable service.  And if a person does not buy cable service, the cable company cannot put the person in jail, which the government can do.  It seems Pete Buttigieg is hinting that a person should not have to pay to get cable service--the service should be free.  Based on that idea, I can say that it seems Pete Buttigieg believes a person should not have to pay for telephone service or water service or electricity service or clothing or food or pencils or holiday cards or a car or a vacation trip or a football or a newspaper or an iPod or a cigarette or a cigar or marijuana....  I guess Pete Buttigieg thinks you are "unfree" because you have to pay for things.  But Pete Buttigieg does have a solution--government.  Government can make it so that a person does not have to pay for, for example, cable service.  The government--a thing that has the power to put you in prison for not following the ways of  the government, especially if it is a communistic or socialistic government--will force cable companies (till they go out of business and end up in government control) to give you free service.  That is freedom to Pete Buttigieg!  Of course, Pete Buttigieg's forcing the cable company to give out free service does not make the operators of the cable company free.  Pete Buttigieg was selling that rotten idea that the government can make you "free."  Here is another idea.  Pete Buttigieg brought up the idea of a neighbor making you unfree, and Pete Buttigieg was really vague about what was meant.  Does Pete Buttigieg think that, if a neighbor complains that you are too loud, the neighbor is making you "unfree."  Of course, your being too loud interrupts the neighbor's freedom.  What was Pete Buttigieg talking about in relation to the neighbor theme?  By the way, not only is Pete Buttigieg an enslavist but also Pete Buttigieg is gay and is so-called "married"--to a male.  So, Pete Buttigieg brought out the idea that a county clerk can tell you who you should marry or "ought to marry", and that is not really true--county clerks only follow laws about who may or may not get married, which are based on the history of man, which involves the ways of males and females.  To me, Pete Buttigieg is not "married" in the true sense but is married in a freaky sense.  You should think of Pete Buttigieg as a gay communist (and that is an oddity and is dangerous, especially since he can have a hate on for "straight" people and may use law to hurt "straight" people as revenge).  By the way, in at least some communistic countries, gays must be in hiding or may be killed.  The Democratic Party also supports Sharia (Islamic law), such as that supported and practiced by the people of Saudi Arabia and Iran, and the Shariaists torture and kill gays.  In the United States of America, a gay can be gay--and thus be seen as someone to be looked on as great automatically in this day and age--and yet push communism on "straight" people, and that is hideous.  I state that "freedom" is really "free" from bad politicians and bad political ways and bad governments--and communism and socialism are bad--and "freedom" really has nothing to do with cable-companies bills and the like.  Remember--Most people who get into politics get into politics because they have no real skills, such as good thinking skills, have no wish to do work (like what most people do), have a wish to use government to hurt others (because they like and even love to hurt other people and government affords them the ability to hurt others through laws), and see government as a way in which to be seen higher in stature in society than people who actually do things are, and the bad people get into government so that they can protect their ability to be bad people or be freaky people (protected by laws and the laws in which they enact).  Pete Buttigieg purposely warped the definition of freedom, even hinting that government can make a person free.  That is idiocy!  And Pete Buttigieg, who supports the Democratic Party, which practices the ways and ideas of communism and socialism ("enslavism" and hard-line government control of citizens) and anti-freedom in truth, says that he is promoting "freedom" and has "freedom" on his lips all the time.  There is nothing good about Pete Buttigieg, and his way of "freedom" for people leads to their death.

    On Tuesday, July 16, 2019, the managers of Berkeley, California, came up with a real bunch of idiocy and freakiness.  The decided to make rules that--in relation to city documents and such--such words as "he" and "she" and "they" and "policewoman" and "policeman" and "manhole" could no longer be used.  The managers of the city were making Berkeley, California, a better place by making Berkeley, California, gender neutral.  They wanted to make a place that was better for "binary people", a name that I had not heard of or used before, and upon hearing it, I decided not to look it up.  I then also thought about my days in the 1980s, while being a radio writer and radio announcer, studying a version of a book called Modern American Usage: A Guide, which was mostly attributed to Wilson Follett, though the version that I had was edited and completed by Jacques Barzun [Note: Today, I have several copies of the book.].  The book, which was sort of like Modern English Usage (for the people in the United Kingdom), was a logic piece and was a book designed to make people use words correctly and more logically.  Upon hearing about Berkeley, California, I asked myself--What would at least Wilson Follett say about the new rules of usage in Berkeley, California, if Wilson Follett were yet alive?  I know what I say--Such bullset it all is!  Fortunately for me, there are words that I can use to easily describe the backers of the new rules in Berkeley, California, and, by the way, the words happen to be words that are gender neutral, though it is not the reason that I have chosen them.  The pushers of the new rules are freaks and creeps and idiots and nutty and sickos and deviants, and, really, the pushers are people whose minds are defective, and there is nothing good about them!  [Note: I wonder if "them" is banned.  And, yes, Berkeley, California, is another socialistic/communistic stronghold in California.  And that event shows what socialists and communists sow--foolishness and sickness to the nth degree.]

    Around August 7, 2019, twenty persons were the main persons running to become the nominee for the Democratic Party in the United States of America--a political party based on socialism, communism, and Sharia--in the next presidential election, and Joe Bide was then touted, such as by the media, as the front-runner.  On that day, Joe Biden gave a speech at Burlington, Iowa, and the speech showed off his twisted mind, lying about The United States Constitution and even The Declaration of Independence and the Founders of the country.  For example, Joe Biden said--"...I wish I could say that this all began with Donald Trump and will end with him, but it didn't, and I won't.  American history is not a fairy tale.  The battle for this sole of the nation has been a constant push and pull for two-hundred-and-forty-three years between the American ideal that says we're all created equal and the harsh reality that racism has long torn us apart.  The same document that promised to secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity also allowed for slavery and the so-called three-fifths compromise that discounted the very humanity of black people in America at the time....". Joe Biden spoke nonsense and crap.  The United States Constitution did not outright eliminate slavery, but what it did was to block any law from being made to stop the slave trade for a period of twenty years.  A smart and good person is well aware The United States Constitution would never have been adopted, if slavery were blocked right from the start (upon the adoption of The United States Constitution).  In addition, a smart and good person is well aware the "three-fifths compromise" was set up to reduce the possible number of representatives put in the U.S. Congress by states that yet had slavery or the slave trade--that is, the idea, which was basically a non-slave-states push, was to give slave states less power in the early days of the country, and that would benefit states that were working to kill off slavery in the United States of America [Note: It was a tactical move, design to over time lead to better ways.].  The "three-fifths compromise" was not designed to treat "blacks" of the time as less valuable and "whites."  In the speech of August 7, 2019, Joe Biden passed along the themes pushed along by communists and socialists to further enslave people, especially blacks, teaching rottenness and idiocy and putting down the true history of the United States of America, and it was done while Joe Biden was working to be the next U.S. president and to push his theme of the day--"Biden Works for America."  [Note: The speech from Joe Biden had more nonsense, such as that in which Joe Biden pushed the idea that U.S. President Donald Trump is a racist and is "fanning the flames of white supremacy", but the other nonsense will go uncovered well in this document.]
    [Note: Here I have supplemental information, which ties in with what Joe Biden pushed.  On Thursday, August 8, 2019, the Detroit Free Press published what I call a nonsense article, which was entitled "Experts: Mental illness not cause of mass shootings" (Shamus, Kristen Jordan.  "Experts: Mental illness not cause of mass shootings."  Detroit Free Press, 8 August 2019, pp. 1A and 8A.), and, in essence, the article was in response to U.S. President Donald Trump's saying that, for instance, mass shooters were "mentally ill monsters."  The article pushed forth the idea that mental illness was not tied to people who are mass shooters, such as by siding with Kevin Fischer of the Michigan chapter of the National Alliance on Mental Illness.  The article noted the Kevin Fischer thinks U.S. President Donald Trump's themes about mental illness are "ill-advised and dangerous," pushing forth the idea that there is no real tie between mental illness and violent killings.  The article also had these statements from Kevin Fischer--"...Unfortunately, I think the president finds it easier to blame mental illness than to confront such questions as: Do we have a gun problem?  Do we have a race problem?  Do we have a hate problem in this country that really needs to be dealt with rather than sweeping it under the rug, rolling it all up and calling it mental illness?  That's not it..." and "Racism, hate, white supremacy are not diagnosable mental illnesses....".  A smart and good person can see much idiocy in Kevin Fischer's themes.  For example, since guns exist--Kevin Fischer implies--that is the reason there are mass shootings.  Kevin Fischer does not push forth the idea that mass shooters have some mental defect--a mass shooter would have to have some type of mental defect to go out and kill a bunch of people whom the shooter does not know, especially since the shooter is not acting in immediate self-defense.  In addition, Kevin Fischer runs off the mouth with the idea that there is a race problem in the country.  What does a race problem have to do with a mass shooter, given few mass shootings are against a particular race?  I say--Would not a person's shooting a mass of people based on a racial thing show a mental defect in the person?  In addition, the article brings up themes of a 2016 book published the American Psychological Association Publishing and Arthur Evans of the American Psychological Association, who pushed out this idea in the article--"...That [past violence] is the single-best predictor of who is going to act in a violent way and commit these kinds of violent acts.  In addition, we know that there are other factors--stressors, alienation, disaffection, a history of domestic violence--all of those contribute to people's likelihood to act out in violent ways.  Mental illness is in there, but not as strong as some of these other factors....".  Do not "stressors, alienation, disaffection, and a history of domestic violence" come under the heading of mental illness--has not the person affected by such factors become mentally stressed or mentally ill?  And these themes came from Arthur Evans--"...The United States has 5% of the world's population but 30% of the world's mass shootings...." and "We don't have 30% of the world's mental illness.  The facts don't bear out that way....".  Idiocy--that is what Arthur Evans's percentage theme is.  I note that, in many other countries, guns are kept out of the hands of the citizens so that they cannot fight back against evil politicians, and in countries with so-called stricter gun-controls through laws, mass shootings still occur or mass killings still occur.  By the way, how does Arthur Evans know the United States of America does not have 30 percent of the world's mental illness, given his definition of mental illness seems to be watered down and seems not to include a number of people, such as mass shooters, who should be in the category, and communists and socialists and Shariaists, who most certainly should be in the category?  Joe Biden is a pusher of socialism and communism, and that shows that he has a defective mind--a mental illness--since socialism and communism lead to hurt for millions, as history shows.  Some so-called "studies" for so-called learned people can be defective and illogical, and the article in the Detroit Free Press was and is shit!]

    One of the biggest pieces of idiocy--if not the greatest piece--for this document involves U.S. Senator Willard Mitt Romney (a so-called "Republican"), the son of George Romney (who had been a governor of Michigan at one time), and the focus of this section is on a speech given by U.S. Senator Mitt Romney (the informal name that he uses for himself) in the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, February, 5, 2020, when U.S. Senator Mitt Romney talked about why he was going to cast a vote--one of two--against U.S. President Donald J. Trump, a vote that was designed to define U.S. President Donald J. Trump as guilty in the impeachment trial of U.S. President Donald J. Trump.  The speech showed off the low-level thinking skills of U.S. Senator Mitt Romney--such as in relation to logic--and showed off more of his nature as a supporter communism and socialism; it must be noted, for example, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney, while he had been the governor of Massachusetts, had helped pass a communistic health-care bill into law in Massachusetts in 2006 [Note: In addition, smart and good persons had seen how Mitt Romney, while Mitt Rommey had been running against Barack Hussein Obama (a "Democrat") to be the U.S. president, seemed to throw the race or "take dive" during debates (little willing to attack the rotten policies and ideas of Barack Hussein Obama (who was clearly a big supporter of communism and socialism, as he is today).].  It was during the day of February 5, 2020, when U.S. Senator Mitt Romney did his explaining about his upcoming voting (which would be in the four o'clock hour of the afternoon), and the speech came off a fluff and illogical [Note: The speech showed why he should never have been elected to any high-level political office, and the speech gave more proof why politicians should be limited (by law) in what they can do, which is the idea of "limited government," which is the main theme of my document entitled LIMITED GOVERNMENT -- For Good Individuals of a Society to Live Free from Enslavism, Politicians Must be Limited in What They Can Do, and There are No Exceptions to the Rule, which can be reached by using this Limited link, and I report that, for instance, the section of the document covering "The Rule of Generations and Careers" fits U.S. Senator Mitt Romney well.].  Basically, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney began his speech with--"...The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic's success....".   It was noted that The Constitution has the vehicle for impeachment.  Much of the time of the speech presented thoughts about U.S. Senator Mitt Romney's religious believes, such as through his saying--"...As a senator juror, I swore an oath before God to exercise impartial justice...." and  "...My faith is at the heart of who I am...." and  "...But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and political biases aside....".  I report that the religious theme seemed to be used to cover up ulterior motives (such as to support socialism, communism, and the Democrats) and an unsound thinking process to get to a voting decision, and I say that, really, the religious theme had no purpose in the discussion, since the case before U.S. Senator Mitt Romney should only have involved facts and logic related to the case at hand.  U.S. Senator Mitt Romney passed along a lot of fluff and useless things, such as about the U.S. Senators, shown when he said such things as--"..We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it [The Constitution]...." and "...But I hope we respect each other's good faith...." and  "...Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country...." and "....As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction.  We've come to different conclusions fellow senators.  But I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscious....".  The thoughts are useless and defective, given proof and history show a number of the U.S. senators at the time were communists and socialists, who were and are anti-U.S. Constitution.  By the way, Barack Hussein Obama (a Democrat) once said, going into the job as the U.S. president, that we are only a short time away from "fundamentally" changing this country, and when a person wants to "fundamentally" change the country, the person does not want the country set up as it is under The U.S. Constitution and does not "love: the country.  U.S. Senator Mitt Romney lied about what the defense team had done to knock down the arguments to remove U.S. President Donald J. Trump from office--"...In addition, the President's team presented three defenses.  First, that there could be no impeachment without a statutory crime.  Second, the Biden's con, conduct justified the President's actions.  And third, that the judgment of the President's actions should be left up to the voters....".  These reasons were not--as a group--the main reasons to not remove U.S. President Donald J. Trump from office, and that shows that either U.S. Senator Mitt Romney had been unable to understand what the defense had presented in the U.S. Senate or he was then purposely lying about what had been presented by the defense team, avoiding saying what really had been presented (unable to come up with a way to knock it down) [Note: A good discussion about what the defense team presented during the impeachment trial in the U.S. Senate can be found in, for one, my document entitled A Review of What Television Controlled by Socialists and Communists Worked to Sell as Truth in Relation to the U.S. President Donald J. Trump Impeachment, which can be reached through this Review of Impeachment link.].  While talking about the Bidens reason, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney clearly worked to make what the Biden's seemed to have done (such as related to firing a prosecutor in Ukraine during the time that Barack Hussein Obama was the U.S. president) as nothing big and certainly nothing serious, calling Hunter Biden's actions of being on the board of a company in Ukraine--"unsavory" but "no crime".  The highest nonsense from U.S. Senator Mitt Romney was this statement--"...The President's insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain, other than a political pursuit.  There's no question in my mind that, were their names not Biden, the President would never have done what he did....".  The statement about the Bidens and U.S. President Donald J. Trump is incredibly defective.  Where is the proof in history that U.S. President Donald J. Trump had been, for instance, running an attack campaign against the Biden family for years or decades or had a feud going on with the Bidens for years?  What proof is there that, maybe, there was a decades-long feud between the Trump family and the Biden family, which might be thought of like the now-famous Hatfield-and-McCoy feud of the late 1800s.  U.S. Senator Mitt Romney was suggesting that U.S. President Donald J. Trump has been purposely working against the Biden family--and only the Biden family--for decades.  Where is the proof that U.S. President Donald J. Trump would not want an investigation done on anyone else?  In addition, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney was sort of working to make you believe--I guess--that he could predict the future or prove the future, and that is idiocy--that is, that U.S. President Donald J. Trump would never take up action against someone else.  U.S. Senator Mitt Romney passed along shit!  Around the time of the telephone called of July 25, 2019, between President Zelensky of Ukraine and U.S. President Trump, a whole bunch of people in the Democratic Party were working to be the next U.S. president, and, then, no one had any idea who would be the real competition for U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and Joseph Biden was yet no real competitor for U.S. Donald J. Trump, and, at that time, the election was a year and a half out (not coming till November 2020) [Note: In February 2020, Joseph Biden was in no way near the top of the list of candidates who were trying to be the nominee for U.S. president by the Democratic Party, and, in fact, his rating was falling and not rising.].  In relation to the idea from the Democrats (such as the "managers" of the U.S. House of Representatives, who presented the case for removal from office to the U.S. senators) about the working being done to corrupt of the election of November 2020, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney said---"...The great question that Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to a level of a high crime or misdemeanor.  Yes, he did.  The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival...." and "...The President's purpose was personal and political.  Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of public trust...." and "...Corrupting an election to keep one's self in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one's oath of office as I can imagine...."  U.S. Senator Mitt Romney's idea is defective and rotten!  I state that there was and is no proof of corrupting an election!  By the way, the Democrats spent several years pushing out the idea that U.S. President Donald J. Trump had corrupted the election of 2016 in conjunction with the Russians, and that idea was proven wrong (such as through the "Mueller" investigation), and, anyway, the only so-called corruption by the Russians in relation to the 2016 election was in the form of a bit of advertising on, for example, "facebook"--no votes were corrupted or changed by the Russians.  Now try this!  Pretend an investigation by the Ukrainians of Joseph Biden and Hunter Biden were to be done.  The result could only end up showing that the Bidens did something wrong or bad or did not do something wrong or bad, and it must be remembered there was a treaty of sorts between the United States of America and the Ukraine in which there would be co-operation between the two countries in relation to criminal investigations.  If the investigation showed that the Bidens had done nothing wrong or bad, then the Bidens would look good to the American public, and that would not help U.S. President Donald J. Trump, and if the investigation showed that the Bidens had done something wrong or bad, then the American public would better know the nature of Joseph Biden, and that would be good for the country because--maybe--the American public would not vote a rotten man into the office of the U.S. presidency about year and a half later.  By the way, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney presented his speech in the same way as the "managers" had before the U.S. public, making wild statements and using a lot of adjectives, and in the end, it was an over-the-top presentation, a portion of which was the idea that "What the President did was wrong, grievously wrong...." [Note: The transcript of the telephone call of July 25, 2019, showed publicly that nothing "grievously wrong" was done.]  U.S. Senator Mitt Romney did not refute any points that had been made by the prosecuting team during the impeachment trial, and to close his time before the U.S. Senate on February 5, 2020, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney said--"...I yield the floor.".  At that point, a good and smart person understood that nothing had been said about how the so-called "Trump Dossier" was a fake document created by Hillary Clinton to affect the 2016 election, about how FISA warrants had been issued during the 2016 campaign season through false reasons (designed to put down Donald J. Trump), about how people had been working to impeach U.S. President Donald J. Trump from the day that he took office (though he had barely been in office and had not done anything), about how the impeachment process had been started in an illegal manner in the U.S. House of Representatives, et cetera.  In the end, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney, taught idiocy about how to think and analyze the world and what is going on and what could go on; for instance, U.S. Senator Mitt Romney did not teach how allowing any committee in the U.S. House of Representatives to request or subpeona documents at will from a U.S. president in relation to a non-official impeachment process (that which has not been sanctioned to take place through a vote in the U.S. House of Representatives) is a bad idea and would make, in essence, the U.S. President a puppet of the U.S. House of Representatives, where so-called impeachment inquiries could be running daily--ever time the U.S. president did not sign bills into law as wanted by the U.S. House of Representatives (which might be called "obstruction of Congress").  Mitt Romney showed American public once again that he is actually an enemy of good people and the United States of America (under The U.S. Constitution).
    [Note: I could conduct a long class at a university that could show up more of the idiocy of Mitt Romney's speech, and if I did, I would want him in the front row of the class so that I could beat up on him verbal and orally.]
    [Note: This section of this document also exists as a separate document, which is called U.S. Senator Willard Mitt Romney -- Yet Another Socialist and Society Killer Whose Defective Thinking Spread Rottenness about the Impeachment Trial of U.S. President Donald J. Trump to Millions, which can be reached through this Romney2 link.]

  Yes, idiot and evil thought is easy to find in this day in age, which I why I say that we have "The Pseudo Information Age and the Age of Ignorance."  For the moment, the document only shows a few idiot thoughts and idiots, but this is a document that has only begun to be put together.  Over time, the document should get larger, because idiot thought is commonplace in the minds of Democrats and can be found in some Republicans, too.


Chasmar, Jessica.  "Judge Richard Posner: 'No value' in studying the U.S. Constitution."  The Washington Times, 27 June 2016.

Dixon, Kim, and Patrick Temple-West.  "IRS issues final rules on Obamacare's individual mandate."  Reuters, 27, August 2013, 5:05 p.m. EDT.

Galeon, Don. "Hawaii became the first US state to pass a bill supporting basic income."  Business Insider, 15 June 2017, 4:48 p.m.

Gray, Kathleen.  "Medicaid Ok'd but delay = $630M."  Detroit Free Press, 4 September 2013, pp. 1A and 6A.

Gray, Kathleen.  "MEDICAID EXPANSION PASSES."  Detroit Free Press, 28, August 2013, pp. 1A and 5A.

Hanchett, Ian.  "Author: Slavery Gives Us 'Responsibility' to Not Ban Flights From Liberia.", 2 October 2014.

Holcombe, Madeline, and Sarah Moon.  "Gendered language like 'manhole' will soon be banned from Berkeley's city codes.", 18 July 2019, 10:43 a.m. ET.

Jesse, David.  "MSU prof pulled from classroom amid furor." Detroit Free Press, 6 September 2013, p. 4A.

Picket, Kerry.  "EXCLUSIVE: Levin Unleashes On McCain Iran Vote--He Voted To 'Surrender Power To Obama'."  The Daily Caller, 15 July 2015, 6:29 p.m.

Posner, Richard.  "Supreme Court Breakfast Table: 'Entry 9: The academy is out of its depth.'"  Slate, 24 June 2016, 5:49 p.m.

Warikoo, Niraj.  "MSU prof under fire for rant at Republicans."Detroit Free Press, 5 September 2013, p. 4A.

Weller, Chris. "Hawaii just became the first US state to pass a bill supporting basic income--here's the man behind it." Business Insider, 5 July 2017.


    Note: This document is known on the Internet as
    Note: The first version of this document was posted on the Internet on June 15, 2013.

For further reading, you should see the document
    entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations
    of Barack Obama, which can be reached by
    using this link: Quotes.
For further reading, you should see the document
    entitled Conservatism and The United States
    Constitution versus Enslavers and Enslavism
    (or Communism, Sharia, Socialism, et cetera),
    click on this link: Enslavism.
For further reading, you should see the document
    entitled Conservatism for Children and What
    Conservatism Means, which can be reached by
    using this link: Conservatism.
For further reading, you should see the document
    entitled Enslavism--The Definition and
    Explanation, which can be reached by using
    this link: Enslavism Defined.

Note: And there are many related documents to these
    four listed right above at the website for The
    Hologlobe Press, and to see a list of documents,
    use this link to the Site-Summary Page for The
    Hologlobe Press: Summary.