The Nature of the Bad People
in the United States of America


Victor Edward Swanson,

The Hologlobe Press
Postal Box 5263
Cheboygan, Michigan  49721
The United States of America

copyright c. 2013

January 18, 2013
(Version 3)
(Draft version)

     Martin Luther King Jr.--a black man who died in 1968--is known as an important civil-rights leader in the history of the United States of America, and I will not present thoughts to prove or disprove it--for the sake of this document, I simply note that he seemed to be a good man.  On August 28, 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. said in his "I have a dream" speech at the Lincoln Memorial, Washington, D.C.: "...I have a dream that my four children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character."  In essence, the statement tells of his hope that men and women of color would be judged on their character and not on their color, and the statement shows that, for the most part, blacks in America see no value in Martin Luther King Jr. and what Martin Luther King Jr. tried to teach, given what the black community as a whole has become since the 1960s, and it can be said that Martin Luther King Jr. wasted his life and even wasted his time by saying the words that I have put in quotation marks, or it can be said clearly that Martin Luther King Jr. wasted his time on many of the blacks of America and wasted his life on them.  The proof of my statement about Martin Luther King Jr.'s having wasted his life makes up a portion of this document, the main focus of which shows the nature of what many Americans is today, and it is not good.

    The nature of a person--whether the person is good or the person is bad--can be deduced through the actions of the person, and sometimes, the actions are about the only way in which to deduce the nature of a person when the person does not freely give out true information about what the person is, and a prime example of that is Barack Hussein Obama, whose life is, for the most part, a mystery to people in the country, his having covered up, for example, what his grades in high-level schools are and what his true political beliefs are and who his mentors are and were about.  Today, there seems to be little talk about what a good person is and what a bad person is, and people seem unwilling to speak up about who are bad people, especially if the bad people are people of "color," such as blacks or maybe even so-called Hispanics (a vague term).  In addition, it seems many persons cannot even define what a good person is and what a bad person is, and it seems many persons have no idea what a good person should be or what a bad person can be.

    Let me show what can make up a good person, since I have to be sure a reader of this document is clear about what a good person is.  A good person does not cheat on tests--in any manner.  A good person does not hire someone to write a term paper or such document for the person, either for money or other consideration, and a good person does not buy a class paper from someone, and a good person does not plagiarize the work of others; when a person turns in work to a class that was not produced by the person, the person's true intelligence is masked, that which is probably more defective than that of the writer of the work, and such a person can be harmful to the country since that person can end up a job that the person is unqualified for, such as a political official, which could lead to the deaths of many citizens.  A good person is not a liar and does not lie; the person who lies and pushes lies is a person whose value as a person is false or fake or degraded, and, in the case of Barack Obama, who is a perpetual liar, it shows a man with mental defectiveness or mental illness.  When a good person is married, that person will not have sexual intercourse with a third person, since the person has made a commitment or a vow to not to get sexually entangled with a third person; a good person does not violate an oath made to another, knowing an oath has value and defines the person as upstanding and reliable (and more).  A good person does not steal, and the stolen item can be anything from money to an idea.  A good person does not support a bad person or cover up for a bad person, even if the bad person is a family member; for example, when a person cheats sexually on a spouse, that person should not be supported by a person who wants to be known as a good person or is a good person, or a good person gives no support to the person who cheats sexually on a spouse, even if the cheater is a U.S. President (one of the worse of whom in recent years has been William Jefferson Clinton, who was impeached, in essence, for having committed such bad behavior while being a U.S. President and who lost his law license for at least a short while for his having committed such bad behavior while being a U.S. President).  A time can come when a good person must kill another person, and that time is when the person must protect the self or others from great harm or death, but that is not bad, and it makes the person a good person; in fact, a person who kills another to protect the self or others from death--a deed of self-defense--does a good deed, stopping a person who treats others as expendable.

    What is considered good has been developed and defined by man over years and decades and centuries, and it has come about through experience with life and the world by countless numbers of persons, and while the definition of good has been developed for defined, the definition of what is bad, as related to a bad person, has been defined, and the definition of a bad person can go beyond the obvious clues to what is a bad person, such as that which relates to a person who physically stabs or shoots others in the act of theft.  The definition of what is a bad person is and the definition of what is a good person is have not changed over the history of man and the definitions never will, but over the history of man, groups of people have chosen to bury the rules about bad people and let bad people be labeled falsely as good people or be seen falsely as good people, and in the future, groups of people will probably choose to bury the rules about bad people and let bad people be labeled falsely as good people or be seen falsely as good people, and, most certainly, many Americans of today fall in to the category of people who have no qualms about defining bad people, such as mayors who are embezzlers or take bribes, as good people.  Really, what has come about over the years and decades and centuries is man has come to understand and define general rules of life and nature, which apply to every man.

    While you read the remainder of this document, keep one rule about the nature of life and man in mind--A man and a woman together can create a man or a woman--a child--through mating, but no man is the creator of man or another man, and that means no man can be deemed or can claim to be then the god of another man.

    Because "man"--which covers men and women--is an animal, and man cannot escape the rules of nature, and I must talk about "man" in relation to the world and other animals.  Squirrels gather nuts in the fall and, for example, bury them, and it is done so that the squirrels will have food that they might get to in the winter, and, in essence, squirrels that do not gather nuts and bury nuts--or do work--will most likely die of starvation in the winter, especially if a really hard winter hits, and that is the way of nature, and it is not the obligation of one squirrel to take up gathering nuts for other squirrels, except for family members, and it is especially not the obligation of one squirrel to take up gathering nuts for the squirrels that choose not to gather up nuts and bury them for future use; when a person (who is not disabled or retired in some way) does not do work to keep the self alive and gain money that can be used to buy things and pay bills, the person can starve or freeze to death, and it is not the obligation of a person to support those persons who do not work for themselves when they are able-bodied, and, the idea that we are "all in this together" is nonsense.  Ants live in colonies, as do bees, and the ant society exists as, basically, an entity with a head ant and all the other ants (worker ants), and that is the "ant society," and the society does not complex, being set up with the workers providing food and servicing the young and the queen, and there is not real thinking involve, such as to create water-treatment systems and products and event medical technologies, and although the "ant society" form does well for ants, it does not do well for "man," since the society of man is too complex for any one man or any small group of men to control and operate and make decisions for well enough.  Lions live in small groups, each of which is indirectly controlled by a single male and which is directly controlled on a day-to-day basis by a hierarchy of female lions (at the top of which is a dominant female), and the group works to provide food for the group, and when the group is unable to provide enough food, maybe in times of drought, members of the group can die, and it is not the responsibility of one group of lions to sustain the members of another group of lions, and, in essence, what one group does has no affect on another group--that is, if one group does well because the head female is smart and strong, the success of that group does not weaken the success of another group (groups of lions have difference territories for the most part), and if one man does well--by trying and spending a lot of hours trying to do something--that man comes into some for of success, the man's success is does not affect the success of a man who does nothing and can only affect another man if the other man is direct competition (as happens in mating).

    I have to dispel here an idea that is believed or perceived to be believed by people like Barack Obama, and the idea suggests that the total amount of money in a country or the value of a country is set or finite and stagnant, which gives people like Barack Obama the inspiration to suggest that rich people are hoarding the riches in the country and keeping money away from others, and the idea is greatly defective.  In 1776, the United States of America was established, and it was not much of a country; it was a country made up of land, and little of the land was used or developed, and, in fact, the country was made of little towns and villages that had been developing, for the most part, since the 1600s, and there was no plumbing in buildings, and there were no cars and good roads, and there were no skyscrapers, and there was no real health-care (since the field of medicine was basically nothing), and many people lived on farms and in shacks or log cabins, et cetera.  Because the country did not have a government that told people what they could create or develop, like the governments in the Africa (the tribal societies), the people in the country in the late 1700s and in the 1800s slowly built up towns and developed things, and, in essence, while they did, the things--the assets of the public and their governments, such as buildings--grew in number and sophistication, and it was a time of the rise of industries and factories--such as from paper mills to typewriter factories--and the evolution of some villages and towns to cities.  Yes, the value of the country rose over the period because the people made things (some of which were not lasting objects and many of which were at least somewhat long lasting, such as houses), and, in essence, people went from having nothing as a rule (owning the clothes on their backs and a few possessions) to having much more.  In the 1900s, more things were invented and created, many of which were beyond the imaginations of the people of, for example, the 1700s, and some of those things were commercial radio sets, commercial television sets, jets, and computers, and during the period, what could be found in the home--even for those who might be defined as low-wage earners--increased from simple and a few things in the late 1800s to many things (such as refrigerators and washing machines), or the assets of the people and the country as a whole continually increased, or over the period that was the 1900s, the wealth of the nation increased and was not stagnant.  What the country is today is starkly different than what it was when it was founded, and the people of today have more assets and are wealthier as a whole than the people who existed at the time that the country was founded, or since the 1700s, the people as a rule have become wealthier (of course, at each moment in history, some people were richer than others were).

    The proof of the previous paragraph for you can be found by your visiting the many museums, such as the small-town museums, that exist around the country, which, for example, have photographs of towns and how the towns developed over the decades, and, by the way, since the 1776, where there were basically no museums--certainly, no small-town museums--the number of museums has increased and the assets or wealth of the museums has increased.

    Up to today, there has been an ever-increasing amount of wealth in the country as a whole, even for the so-called poor, and, in fact, the so-called poor in the United States of America can be considered super rich when compared with the poor--the true poor--of the world, such as those in North Korea and China, who live like the poor of the United States of America around 1776, plowing fields with no real mechanical machines and working seven days a week and dying at early ages (such as, as a rule, in their thirties or forties).

    Let me make clear--In essence, the "money" of a country or all the money in circulation is sort of based on all the real things that exist in a country--in the case of the United States of America, the things that are owned by the people--and when a government of a country simply prints money, though not based at least in some way on new assets created by the people, the money is valueless, and when a government prints money not in some way based on new assets created and issues the money, the action devalues the money that is already in circulation, and that is the one way in which inflation is created and the devaluation in the value of the money can take place.

    I claim that the number of people who are ignorant in the United States of America today is high and can be considered astounding, and some of the ignorance has come about to some individuals through a purposeful choice to be ignorant, and some of the ignorance has come about their following the defective ways of relatives and peers, and some of the ignorance has come about through the teachings of defective clergy members or teachers and black racists, et cetera.  Recognizing ignorance in the self for a person can be hard to do, and for a person to understand how ignorant the self is may never happen, and if it is to happen, the person will probably have to discard a lot of base knowledge about nature and the world and expend a lot of effort working to disprove the defective parts of the base knowledge.  Basically, the remainder of this document shows examples of what the ignorant do not understand or profess to be right, and, in truth, the ignorant to whom I refer I call bad people.  Many bad people do exist, though over the last several decades, it has evolved that many bad people are not exposed as bad in public as they should be or good people seem to be hesitate about exposing bad people and about calling out the bad people out for being bad.

    My first example of what an ignorant person is comes about by showing what happened during the Democratic Party presidential debate held on April 16, 2008.  During the debate, which was moderated by Charlie Gibson, Charlie Gibson was dealing with Barack Obama.  Here is a part of the exchange of talk between the two men:
    Charlie Gibson: "...But actually Bill Clinton, in 1997, signed legislation that dropped the capital-gains tax to twenty percent...."
    Barack Obama (speaking softly and sort of speaking over Charlie Gibson): "Right."
    Charlie Gibson: "...and George Bush has taken it down to fifteen percent.  And in each instance, when the rate dropped, revenues from the tax increased--the government took in more money.  And in the 1980s, when the tax was increased to twenty-eight percent, the revenues went down.  So why raise it [the capital-gains-tax rate] at all, especially given the fact that a hundred-million people in this country own stock and would be affected?"
    Barack Obama: "Well, Charlie, what I have said is that I would look at raising the capital-gains tax for purposes of fairness...."
   Several things can come to the mind of a smart person who is exposed to the exchange of talk between the two men.  The exchange of talk between the two men shows that, when people have less taxes taken away, they can use the money that they get to keep to help do things in the marketplace, such as maybe create jobs or help businesses grow, and then the government gets more money in the long run since the people can make more money, such as by getting more investment returns as a result of in investing in businesses that grow.  The exchange of talk does not show that, not only very-rich people can have capital gains, but also the not-very-rich people can have capital gains (but proof of that will no be presented here).  The exchange of talk does show that Barack Obama was not concerned with having the government take in more money--he was more concerned with punishing those who have capital gains (who can be such persons as waitresses and plumbers and garbage men, who can have capital gains by having investments).
    Yes, an ignorant person--a bad person--would support Barack Obama's plan to punish people and his work to punish people, and an ignorant person would not realized that they could be punished by having capital-gains-tax-rate increases since they could have positive capital gains by having investments, such as in retirement accounts, and, of course, most certainly, an ignorant person would not understand the idea that lower taxes can lead to increased tax revenues to the government (since there can be more business activity in the country), and an ignorant person would not understand or see Barack Obama's statement shows the mind of an evil man and dangerous man.

    A bad person can be considered a rotten person if the person pushes that lie that lowering the tax rates on capital gains is bad for the economy and even the federal government, because such a rotten person is only concerned with having the government purposely take away more money from certain people so that the person can feel good that someone is being punished--for having something that the person does not have.

    In the United States of America, there are two main types of income--(1) income that comes from actual work or employment, such as an an employee for a company, and (2) income made from return on investments, the former of which is referred to as "earned income," which is taxed as "income tax."  In the United States of America, rich men who advocate that the federal government should take more income tax from men can be bad man, or a rich man who advocates that the government should be taking more income tax from other men is probably a man who is working to keep other men from being seen as as high in stature as he is or from becoming as rich as he is--through actual working--and in recent history, one such bad man has been Warren Buffett (one of the richest men of history), who, while advocating that the government's taking more income-tax money from men would bring more income-tax revenue to the federal government to reduce the national debt, was in actually working to devalue other men and keep other men down and depressed.  It was around the 2008-2012 era that Warren Buffett was pushing the idea that more income tax should be taken from the "rich," but at the time, Warren Buffett was mostly making money through investments.  An ignorant man might think that Warren Buffett had altruistic tendencies or was a good man by working to have more income tax taken from people, but the ignorant man would be wrong, and by believing Warren Buffett was working for the good of the country could be called a bad man, since the ignorant would be advocating the stealing by the government from other men, which would be keep non-rich men from becoming rich and would be keeping rich men (and even rich families) rich.  Men like Warren Buffett are self-serving and evil, and the non-rich man who pushes for Warren Buffett's idea to be enacted ends up keeping himself poorer.

    Here are things that are bad that Barack Obama does and a bad person does not see as bad.  Barack Obama promotes in people the hatred for others and neighbors; continually Barack Obama pushes the defective idea that the so-called "rich" do not pay their fair share (of taxes), and that causes people to be jealous of not only the so-called "rich" but also others in general since people get in the habit of comparing what others have to what they have, and what Barack Obama is inciting is jealousy and stirring up jealousy, which then leads to people willing to give him the authority to dole out punishment, such as in the form of more taxes to others to make the followers feel good.  What the federal government spends, the public is beholden to pay back or cover, and when Barack Obama signs bill into law that continues to lead to the government 's spending more than it takes in in taxes, especially when the overspending is in the thousands of billions of dollars (such as at least 5,000-billion dollars (or five-trillion dollars) in about four years, the penalty on the citizens is a rise inflation or a rise in taxes (a rise in the government taking more that belongs to the citizens), and when the overspending is in the range of 5,000-billion dollars (much on frivolous or defective projects), the rise in taxes cannot be covered by the so-called rich because the so-called rich in the country in total do not have anywhere near 5,000-billion dollars so everyone must be stolen from in the form of higher taxes, and that is an instance when truly the statement  "well are all in it together' applies, an applies in a highly negative way (Enslavists, who are communists and such, are people who try to push the idea, which is a lie and defective idea, that "we are all in it together," meaning it is up to all to be involved and must take part, but in the instance described in this sentence, it is one man who is putting everyone in hurt for his bad actions).

    Let us now look at the world of "profit" or the complex world of making a "profit" and why only an ignorant or evil person would think "profit" is something bad.  My story begins in the late 1700s, and we look at a man who is out in the wilderness of the North America continent, and the man may or may not have a wife, and the man may or may not have a wife and little children, and to keep the family alive, the man will have to hunt for food and make shelter for himself and the family or find natural place that can be used as a shelter for the family or used with a bit of adapting.  What the man finds for food to use is his to keep (if he can defend it), as is the food that a brown bear might find for itself, and the brown bear might be a mother bear who has cubs to prepare for.  What the man finds or makes for food is like a "profit," and what he finds or makes for food has come about their using his life and hours alive, and he may wish to share what he has gained--beyond his basic needs--with others, and he is not obligated by nature to share with a man who does nothing and has not spent of his energy working to keep himself fed.  As the days and years of time go by and the United States of America expands, people could be involved in more than simply spending much of the day working to get food, such as through farming and hunting, and people were involved in making clothing or books or tools or furniture or houses or covered wagons or butter churns or whatever, and to make things, people used their energy and lives and use raw materials, which other would get for them, and at various times, the availability of raw materials could vary, such as because of drought or storms or deaths of suppliers, and the prices that raw materials could vary, and the prices that customers would pay for things could vary, and people could bargain about the price of things, and because of competition, people could charge more for a certain thing at one time than at another, and people has to find ways to be able to pay for necessities, such as food, and other items, and if a person made more money in a year than the person paid out in costs to do things and gets things, the person would have profit, which could be used to expand business or buy something that might be considered a luxury.  Different talents of work or workmanship could command different returns; for example, a bad craftsman could get less in payment for a made item, such as a chair, than a good craftsman could.  Because of talents and effort, some men could gain more profit in a year than another man, and, certainly, a man who did nothing would gain less profit in a year that a man who did something, and, certainly, a craftsman who had spent years learning to make good tools, which can involve a lot of practice and research, could make more money in a year than a man who had no gained no skills, and no rule of nature stipulated that there must be equal pay or equal profit related to the craftsman and the man who had gained no skills.  Today, there are all types of jobs, and it is the people who decide what skills they deem should be valued more and what men they are willing to pay more for the work that they do.  There is no such thing as equality in pay or profit, and no government can make men equal in pay and profit and not have a society break down, and only a bad man would push a government to require that men of different skills be made to have equal pay or profit, because when people who spend more time trying to work and make a profit are forced to get paid the same as a man who does nothing or does lousy work, unrest develops in a culture and society.  And in the case of profit, some things are made and are never really wanted by people, or things can rotten, such as fruit, before they can be bought, and one year, man can survivor and make a profit, and the next year, the man make fail to make a profit and even end up owing others for their time and work.  Today, a man who sweep floors, having no real special skills, such as the ability to read English, can expect to be paid less than a man who can weld stainless steel or a man who can install water pipe in skyscrapers.  A man, such as a politician, who pushes the idea that men of different skills and knowledge should be paid equally and receive equal profit is a bad man, and a man, such as a politician, who works to take from those who have more than others to simply make it seem that his is working to give what he has taken to give to others to make men equal is a bad man and goes against the rules of nature and corrupts nature, and when such a man works to take from some to seemingly give to others to make men equal, the man promotes jealousy and hatred--those who deserve nothing for having done nothing and yet get something creates resentment in society, and when the man gets from men they have less profit with which to work and do and that hurts all,    The person as a politician who takes from other men--taking their profit--to give to men who do nothing is a bad person and an evil person and goes against the rules of nature, or the person as a politician who feels the person should be the determiner about what is too much profit for men and have the ability to take from men to give to other men to equal things out or achieve "economic justice" is a bad person and an evil person who goes against the rules of nature.  The idea of "profit" up to this point in the discussion has really included all "profit," but the idea of "profit" comes down to two main types of "profit"--"gross profit" (which is all income taken in) and "net profit" (which is the money that is left over when all costs have been accounted for--that is, a business takes in revenues and pays on bills, and what is left is the "net profit).  Really evil men promotes the idea that a company should or a person who runs a business should not have any "net profit," and such a really evil person says that the person or company that has "net profit"--positive "net profit"--gets that money by, in essence, stealing it from others or taking it away from customers so that it had become richer and keep customer poorer.  "Net profit" is important for keeping a business in business or the economy of a country healthy, and, for one, "net profit," which might be called a "rainy-day fund," can be used to take are or cover unexpected expenses, such as unwarranted law suits and breakdowns in machinery, and "net profit" can be used to expend a business (allowing, when more employees are needed, to the business to hire people), and "net profit" can be used to invest in other companies (the returns of which can help the business stay in business when sales fall), and "net profit" can be used to buy a business that is failing or might be shut down (such as when the owner retires, which might otherwise put employees out of work), et cetera.  There is nothing evil or bad about "net profit" or "profit" in general, and a person who tries to convince people that "profit" in general or "net profit" is bad is a bad person or an evil person.

    Only an ignorant man believes the federal government of the United States of America is the driving force for the economy of the country, and only an evil man tries to teach people that the federal government is the driving force for the economy.  In truth, the people who have worked for the federal government since the country was founded may have created businesses during their lifetimes, such as before they were elected, but they have not on behalf of the federal government been the creators of businesses and companies and products and services--it is people or citizens who are not employees of the government who have created the businesses and companies that have existed or do exist today, and those creators have created restaurants, lumber companies, oil companies, hair salons, machine shops, appliance stores, pharmacies, auto salvage yards, credit unions, et cetera.  The rule has been over history of the United States of America that the federal government has not been involved in deciding what products are made and how many products are made (however, the federal government has made some rules, maybe--maybe--in relation to safety, that have in recent years resulted in the federal government determining that some products must be taken off the market or must not be sold).  It is noted that, in essence, the federal government does no research to determine what things people will like to buy, does no research to determine what a product should look like, does no research to determine how many products to make, does no research to develop products, et cetera.

    Incidentally, politicians are so busy doing their jobs as politicians, such as continually campaigning, as Barack Obama does, that they have not the real time to do work to drive the economy--there is only so much time in the day for a person to use, and a politician, especially a U.S. President, has little time for driving the economy and making decisions about making businesses succeed.   (Note: Look at what your life is and what time you have in your life each day to do things.)

    The sign of an ignorant person is a person who believes a single individual can drive or is necessary to drive a country.  Any individual, such as a president, can only get out of the way of the people of a country, who actually drive the country by doing their daily lives, creating things, imaging things, trying things, et cetera.   Most certainly, a single individual, such as a president, can easily undo a country by placing obstacles, such as laws, in the way of the people or by sucking more and more money or assets out of their control through taxes.

    An ignorant person is a person who believes the government's taking more and more money from businesses in taxes does not hurt the economy and does not reduce the number jobs in the country, and an ignorant person believes the more money that the federal government takes in as income taxes from people the better it is for the economy.  On any given day or in any given week or month or year, a person (who runs a business) or a company has only so much money with which to use, and when the federal government starts to take more in taxes, such as income taxes or business taxes, away from a person or a business, the person or the business has less to use, and when the more businesses have to pay more taxes, customers end up having to pay more for products and services (since businesses have to pass along the cost of increased taxes to customers or have to fire employees or, maybe, go out of business).  An ignorant man is a man who thinks, when the federal government takes in more taxes, the extra money helps the government get out of debt, but the ignorant man is ignorant to the reality that the federal government rarely cuts back spending and will only use the extra money to spend on things, which is not to create products and services and put people to work, though it could give out more money to people who do nothing, such as in unemployment benefits, and when the government pays out more in unemployment benefits--maybe made possible by taking in more tax revenues--the ignorant man thinks the economy will get a boost and get better since money is being put in the pockets of the unemployed, who will spend money on things, but what the ignorant man fails to understand is, when the government takes in more taxes, it is simply shuffling money around, moving money from some people and giving it to other people (and some of the money gets wasted by the government, such as to hire a few more people to shuffle the money around, which produces no assets for the country as a whole).  Any man who promotes the idea that the federal government can improve the economy by taking more money from some people and giving the money to others (such as in unemployment benefits) will improve the economy is an evil man and a bad man.

    By the way, an evil politician is a politician who promotes the idea that income-tax-rate cuts lead to economic crashes or big federal deficits or federal debts, especially when the person pushes the idea that the big federal debt of today is the result of the income-tax-rate cuts of around 2001 and 2003 (during the U.S. President George W. Bush time), which were for everyone in the country and not for only a few, such as the so-called rich, and one piece of evidence for my statement is that the federal government--under the guidance of Barack Obama--actually overspent by about 5,000-billion dollars between January 2009 and January 2013.

    [Note: If you find definitions of bad persons contained within this document are describing you, that is the way it is, and I shall not apologize for showing you what you are--a bad person--since it would defeat the purpose the document, which is to point out the nature of bad people in the United States of America, a job that few people seem to be willing do because people wish not to show up bad or label bad people as bad people, wishing not to make it seem they could be setting up the idea that all the people are not equal in the country.]

    An ignorant person never thinks about one other point related to the idea of the government taking more taxes from people--when the government takes more taxes from people, all the additional money taken does not get distributed directly to other people for welfare or Social Security or something similar.  Some of the money could be given to other governments or countries, such as in the form of loans to drill for oil.  Some of the money could end up in the hands of the International Monetary Fund or the World Bank to prop up bad governments, especially those being run incorrectly by socialists in Europe.  Some of the money could be used to pay off federal debt to other countries, which sell off or redeem, for example, Treasury Bills.  Some of the money could be used to prop up poorly operated retirement plans tied to employees of local governments or state governments.  Some of the money could be used as loans or grants for start-up businesses, such as those to be operated by friends of the U.S. President or those tied to non-viable and dead-end industries (by the way, over the history of the country, it has not been the duty of the federal government to create businesses, but during the first term of the Barack Obama administration, the federal government under the direction of Barack Obama gave big-time loans to a number of green-energy businesses, which produced nothing before going out of business).

    In addition, when the federal government takes more in taxes, private citizens have less money that they can put into savings accounts and other investments, which is money that might be needed to pay for emergency costs, such as an illness costs, or for retirement costs (or at least some retirement costs).

    The United States of America, unlike communist countries, is set up as an entity in which the people own the country and the country (the federal government) does not own the people and what the people have, and that means every person in the country is the owner of what the person has and has acquired, and what all the people have in total is what the country has--but the country as an entity does not own everything--and when a person pays taxes, the person is giving up some of what the person owns.  The meaning of the concept presented in the previous sentence might elude an ignorant person, and an ignorant person might be fooled when an individual like Barack Obama says--"We cannot afford tax cuts right now."  When the word "afford" is used in a sentence like that which I put within quotation marks, it means to the speaker (often a politician), who can then be seen to be defective man, pushes the idea the government owns everything and government cannot afford to let people have lower tax rates and keep more of what is actually theirs.  A person who accepts the idea that the government owns everything is a bad man, and a very bad man promotes the idea that the government is the owner of everything.  A person who accepts the idea that "tax cuts" cost the government money and cannot be afforded is a person who does not object to being a slave to the government and does not object to the idea that all the citizens of the country are slaves to the government--which can be made up of a handful of persons, who can, as in the case of Barack Obama, be horrid people.  [Since most of the blacks who voted in November 2008 and November 2012 voted for Barack Obama, it could be argued well by me that blacks seem not to notice they are willing to be and seem happy with being slaves to the federal government and Barack Obama.]

    A bad person believes Barack Obama's propaganda that the so-called rich like doctors and bankers and business owners have not earned what they have or what they have gotten, and that is even though Barack Obama's idea can be easily dispelled, given everything takes work (either physical work or mental work, the former is which is easier to do than the latter is as a rule).  It takes work for a person to manage money and invest it properly, knowing about mutual funds, insurance, commercial paper,  Treasury bills, et cetera, and that is what a banker must know; it is not uncommon for people who are not trained in economics and money management and who win millions in lotteries to end up broke, thinking the money will simply exist and never run out.  After a person becomes a doctor, which had taken eight years or more of expensive and difficult courses in university, the person can very likely spend up to eighteen hours a day working and even spend seven days at week working (seeing, on weekends, patients in the hospital).  A person who runs a small pizza shop, especially when the shop is new, can end up working seven days a week, unable to take on employees or many employees, lacking revenues to take up paying employees, and then when the business expands over time to a number of shops, that person can still work many hours a day supervising the entire business, making decisions about products and investments and more.  When Barack Obama pushes the idea that the so-called rich have not earned what they have or what they have gotten, using their lives and, in essence, using their energy, he is pushing a lie and pushing crap, especially when he implies the government was important to the success obtained by  the so-called rich, such as by creating roads (over the history of the country, a government entity, such as a local government, has not built a road or improved a road or expanded a road till a road was needed--a government entity cannot simply build a road and expect it will spur increased economic activity), and a bad person--if not an evil jealous person--believes the so-called rich have not earned what they have or what they have gotten.

    An ignorant person or an evil person promotes the idea that the so-called rich have to "give back to the community" and are bad if they do not "give back to the community" at a level that the bad and evil person believes is enough.  A so-called rich person who has not killed another person or has not actually stolen something from another person or has not violated what are considered moral codes of the society has not hurt the community.  A so-called rich person, from the owner of a really big company (made up of many business locations) to the owner of a local store, is a person who gives back to the community regularly, having led to people getting jobs and being employed at the business, having led indirectly to buildings (such as government buildings and a houses) being built (which is tied to the person's paying taxes and employed people paying taxes), and having led indirectly to roads being made (through the paying of taxes, such as property taxes).  In contrast, an ignorant man can promote lies and misinformation in the community, which, for one, can led to persons' developing into persons who are too stupid to get employed well and which, for one, can led to persons' taking up hatred of other persons for wrong reasons or no good reasons, and that can lead to the death of a community, as has been happening for decades and is happening in Detroit, and ignorant and evil persons thinks places like Detroit are in economic trouble and decay because the so-called rich have not given back to the community or given back enough to the community.  Those persons who pass on the lies and ignorance that the so-called rich do not give back to the community or do not do enough for the community are bad persons, especially if the persons are teaching the lies and ignorance are in low-income areas or ghetto-like areas.

    A bad person believes the economic crash of around 2008 was directly caused by bankers and Wall Street people, discounting the idea that the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977 led to the government' forcing banks, especially during the U.S. President Bill Clinton days as the U.S. President, to issue home loans to people who were very unlikely to pay them off and led to the Democrat Party's working to hide the problems of the the home-loan-market industry in early 2000s (to learn more about the subject, you are urged to see my document entitled THOUGHTS AND PIECES OF LOGIC for the individual woman and the individual man, which can be reached by using this Logic link).  The bad person is not only bad for believing the lie, which has regularly been pushed on the public by the perpetual liar known as Barack Obama, but also for teaching the lie to other persons and that makes the person an unknowing propagandist and a killer of minds, especially if the minds are those of the young, who will end up with a base of knowledge that will be detrimental to them over their lifetimes and hurt the country and will cause them to look way from true information since the information will not fit with the base knowledge, which is flawed, that is in their minds.  Of course, the person who clearly understands banks and Wall Street people were not the driving force of the crash and yet pushes the idea that banks and Wall Street people were the driving force of the crash is a truly evil person, and such evil people make up the bulk of the Democratic Party and in the news media (especially at many newspapers in the big cities, such as Chicago, Detroit, Los Angeles, and New York City, and at ABC News, CBS News, CNN, MSNBC, and NBC News).

    An ignorant person cannot understand the theme of this paragraph or does not know about what happens in relation to the theme of this paragraph--though the theme shows of the work of men and women who are working to hurt millions of persons under the guidance of one really evil man.  A country is like a home, and a good country should be like a good home.  In a good home, the family has costs (which are seen as bills) and has income, and a good family pays off bills and only spends as much as the family has in revenue; however, there are times when the family is involved with loans, such as a mortgage loan and a car loan, but even when the family has loans, the family only takes on an amount of loan debt that the family is very likely to pay back or pay off.  If one of the heads of the family--either, for instance, the mother or the father--were to all of a sudden to go on a big spending spree, spending much, much more than the family could ever hope to pay off, that head of the family would be putting debt on all the family members, and if that head of the family purposely overspent, knowing if would hurt the family, that head of the family would be a bad person (either mentally ill or evil).  The politicians of the federal government of the United States of America can be likened to the heads of a household, and they have the ability to spend money, which is money that comes from the citizens (such as in the form of income taxes and businesses taxes taken in), and if the politicians overspend, such as on nonsense projects, the citizens are ultimately beholden to pay off the bills--not the politicians--or are put in debt, which might have to be passed on the offspring of the citizens or later generations and paid off in some way in the future (which can be through exorbitant tax rates, much higher than those that had existed before).  A bad politician--a bad person--could purposely impose great debt and high taxes on the citizens of a country in the near future and the not-so-near future by overspending by great amounts in the present, such as thousands and thousands of billions of dollars (or a number of trillion dollars).  Here, I have to note that, generally speaking, the federal government has been meeting its requirements of paying necessary bills for years and decades, and to meet the needs from year to year, the federal government has only had to increase spending by the amount of inflation as a rule on programs that exist, but, of course, spending can increase when a new program is created.  Between January 20, 2012, and about December 31, 2012, Barack Obama continually pushed to have the federal government spend more and more money, till he had added around 5,000-billion dollars in new debt to the federal government (more than that that had been made by all the previous U.S. Presidents and more than what might be tied to an inflation increase), and much of the money was spent on propping up poorly run local governments (such as their mismanaged retirement plans) and setting up ridiculous green-energy or solar-energy companies and giving rebates to people who would buy electric-type cars.  Despite how great the federal government debt was around December 2012, which, in relation to only yearly budgeted items, was about 16-trillion dollars (or 16,000-billion dollars), Barack Obama was pushing for more spending and was not really working to have the federal government cut back on its overspending--spending that was not really needed--and only an ignorant person would not understand Barack Obama's intent, and the intent was to take more and more wealth from the citizens--all the citizens--and put the wealth in his control (as long as it would exist).  By the way, I can prove Barack Obama--a communist and more that is bad--is a man who believes the federal government actually owns the citizens and everything the citizens have, and he believes he can do with the citizens as he pleases [and proof can be seen in what Barack Obama has said in public in the past, which is shown in my document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack  Obama, a link to which exists at the end of this document].  A politician like Barack Obama as a U.S. President  can work to purposely spend more money--a lot more money--than is expected to come in to the federal government in taxes, and, meanwhile, the politician like Barack Obama can avoid really making cuts in spending, and that causes the national debt to rise and maybe to rise greatly, and because the citizens are beholden pay off what the federal government spends, the citizens are then put in more debt--a politician like Barack Obama can indeed hurt the citizens.  Barack Obama has indeed overspent and increased the national debt greatly, and Barack Obama has pushed the idea that, because the national debt has to be addressed, the federal government must have more money and wealth from the citizens to reduce the national debt, and that means the citizens must have higher tax rates, and when the national debt does note really come down much after tax rates are raised, then Barack Obama can push to have the tax rates raised more--all for the good of the country or the "public good."  The plan is hideous, and when a man executes such a  plan, it shows off the man's mind as highly evil, and an ignorant person who does not understand what Barack Obama has been doing and is trying to do is a bad person.
    [Author special note: The main body of this section was typed up on Thursday, December 20, 2012, and while I typed it, I happened to hear Rush Limbaugh talk about during this nationally syndicated radio program (The Rush Limbaugh Program) "exit taxes" or the "exit tax" idea, and Rush Limbaugh noted information from an article of some type (the name of which I did not get), and the article noted how a state, such as California, which is in debt because of bad politicians (communists and such), might think about imposing a tax on people when they leave the state--an "exit tax"--to reduce the state debt (even though the debt problem was caused by politicians, bad politicians).  Bad countries, such as the Soviet Union (a communist country), have had "exit taxes," which have been imposed on people who were leaving the countries, trying to get away from the totalitarian ways of the countries.  Can you see how Barack Obama, who has overspent greatly, could get an "exit tax" imposed on Americans who might want to leave the country?  The evil mind--like that of Barack Obama--has no limits.]

    A man who feels, for having been created by nature, that another man--whether perceived as rich or not--owes him survival is a bad man, since the other man had nothing to do to create the man and is not obligated to support the man.

    A really ignorant person believes the federal government can solve the problem of poverty, such as by giving out money, but the government's giving money to people does not end poverty.  The federal government's giving money to people means taking money from others first, and if more and more is taken from those two have money, which comes about through having jobs and working, there comes a point when the government creates more poverty since people who once had money will no longer have much and become poorer and people who have jobs can end up out of jobs when businesses close down (unable to operate) and people who have money may leave the country before they become poor or poorer or people who have money stop producing things because they are going bankrupt or cannot justify wasting the time working and ultimately have the government take what they have and give to people who do nothing or do little.  The federal government's giving money does not improve lives of people in the sense of  getting people to develop talents that can be used by the people to stand on their own, or the federal government's giving money really does not inspire people with low talents to take up study to get talents that can be used to be employed.  Proof that the federal government's work--mostly the work of Democrats in the federal government--to solve the problem of poverty has failed since the 1960s, proof of which is the lack of improvement and the continually falling apart of big-city areas, such as in Los Angeles, Chicago, and Detroit; in essence, the federal government has had programs to, for instance, provide new housing, which then the recipients have torn up or demolished since they had no interest in the housing really (having not worked for it), expecting they would be given more for free later, and provide education, such as to really little children to give them a so-called "head start" toward being smarter and getting out of poverty, and, in general, the percentage of  those considered in poverty in the country has not gone down since the 1960s.  Anyway, the government's work to end poverty by simply giving out money does not change the cultures of groups of people, who have defective cultures and defective views of the country and defective views of life, and the defective culture can include supporting such ideas as unwed motherhood is good and a family with only one parent is preferable.

    During the time that Barack Obama was the U.S. President, Barack Obama often talked about taxing the rich more and not taxing the "middle class" (some 98 percent of the people), and an ignorant person thought that, if the so-called rich were taxed more, the federal government would be better off, being able to have a smaller deficit.  Such an ignorant person is a bad person, because the person is unaware, if the federal government took every thing from the so-called rich in the country, the country could only be run for a few weeks or so, and such an ignorant person does not consider that, in total, those of Barack Obama's defined "middle class" have a lot more wealth than the so-called rich have (though each person in the so-called "middle-class" has much less money than a person who might be called "rich" has).  The real wealth and most of the wealth of a country, especially the United States of America, is held by the total group of people who are not defined as "rich," and that is the wealth that an enslavist--a bad politician--really wants to steal and control and to maybe destroy (when the goal is to crash the economy of a county), and that is why an ignorant person who thinks a man like Barack Obama is working for the "middle class" is a bad, bad person..

    Remember: As a rule, politicians who are U.S. Representatives or U.S. Senators or U.S. Presidents are rich people or well-off people, and many of them see themselves as high in stature in the community, and the "enslavists" are politicians who use the power of government to keep you from becoming like them or equal to them in stature and wealth and work to make it so that you are dependent on them for your life.

    I must point out here a general collection of foolishness and evilness that can exist in the minds of bad Americans.  In 2012, if you were thinking U.S. President George W. Bush was yet to blame for the bad economy as it was around 2012 and if you were thinking the Democrats were not mostly the reason for economic crash of 2008, you are a bad person.  If you think Republicans are working to put blacks into slavery and if you think Republicans are working to take rights away from women, you are truly a piece of crap of a person, and, in fact, if you believe wholeheartedly Republicans are working to put blacks into slavery and you happen to be black, you are a "black racist."  If you believe The United States Constitution was designed by white men--elite white men--to keep blacks in slavery, you are ignorant.  If you think Barack Obama has not been able to get more done because the U.S. Congress, especially the Republicans in the U.S. Congress, have blocked him, you are right, and it had to be for the good of the country since Barack Obama has been trying to do things that are bad for the country and it is the duty of good people in the U.S. Congress to block a bad U.S President, and if you think Republicans should be blamed for all the economic problems of today and Barack Obama has done nothing wrong, you are a bad person.

    In life, you are guarantied nothing, and no man can make your life equal with another man's.

    Some politicians--most of whom label themselves Democrats (those in the Democratic Party)--purposely tell lies about how economics works and how the economy works, and because they do that, they are highly evil people, creating ignorant people and teaching ignorance, and one of the worst such politicians is Barack Obama, who, it can be said, devilishly works to keep people ignorant about how economics works and how the economy works in order to exploit the economy, and here I cannot give a good discussion about economics, but I can pass along economic truths, which you will not be able to dispel through research, to show up what idiots or bad people believe and teach to others, keeping the other ignorant.  An evil man passes along the idea that, if a person does not get rich or does not do economically well, it is caused by a rich man somewhere doing well, and the evil man hints at the idea that the rich man is hoarding all the riches that causes others not to do well, which is nonsense, as I have shown in my example that shows how a community or town over time grows in value, meaning the value of a town or community or country is not stagnant or finite or limited forever; Barack Obama is a big pusher of the nonsense that a rich man becomes rich by cheating others and stealing from others or hoarding wealth, purposely keeping others poor (however, it is noted here that poor men can be either good men or bad men, and rich men can be either good men or bad men, and it is possible that a so-called rich man who runs a company could purposely keeps wages low, which keeps employees from doing well economically, but what happens is good and smart employees can leave the company, leaving it with bad employees (stupid or lazy or unskilled), which can lead to the business going out of business and the so-called rich man from remaining rich).  An evil man pushes the idea that a rich man who makes a product becomes rich by purposely charging so much that people become poor by buying the product, and Barack Obama is a man who pushes such a defective concept; if a business charges too much for a product, customers will not buy the product, and the business will go out of business, and if a business charges too much for a product, and a competitor charges less, customers will buy the product that costs less, so it is not possible for a person or business to force others to stay poor through the price set on a product, and that fits in with the idea about how competition in the marketplace works and freedom of choice in the marketplace works.  A person who lives in a ghetto-like area of a city is an ignorant person if the person goes on the belief that the world is stacked against the person because a rich man is purposely keeping the world stacked against others (it is possible, however, that a politician, who is very likely to be a rich man or a well-off man, can suppress others economically by making and enforcing laws that say what people may or may not do, as happens in communist countries), and a person who lives in a ghetto-like area and believes the idea that the world is stacked against them because of a rich person is probably a person who is unable to read or is an alcoholic or is a drug abuser or is dysfunctional for another reason, and the person is simply a bad person.  An evil man, like Barack Obama, pushes the idea that, when the so-called "income gap" gets wider and wider, the poor are hurt and kept poor, and the idea ties in with the nonsense idea that there is only a finite amount of wealth in a society or country, but what has happened over the history of the United States of America is the definition of poor has continually changed, going from where a person had or owned almost nothing in the late 1700s to where a person can have a car and many other things today and yet be considered poor; one piece of proof that the "income gap" is nonsense can be shown when a football player, who actually produces nothing of lasting value, as, for instance, a dressmaker might, gets a raise, going from maybe one contract of $10-million (over three years) to a contact of $50-million (over three years)--when the football player gets the big raise, the raise does not affect the income of almost everyone else in the country, except maybe other players on the same team (who might not be able to get more money since more money was used on the player who got the raise), and, anyway, in the United States of America, when a person is a so-called rich person, that person's money does not exist in mattresses and locked-up boxes, the money can exist, for example, as assets in businesses, which have employees who get paid wages, and if the businesses want to stay in business, the businesses will only stay in business if good employees are paid enough to make them not leave the businesses and go to work for competitors.  An ignorant and evil man thinks that, if the government takes more taxes from the so-called rich and gives money to him and people like him, it will improve him, but the shifting of money from so-called rich to him does not improve the actual nature of the man, such as the man's intelligence or the man's ability to think or the man's ability to read and write or the man's ability to work skillfully or whatever, and the man who supports having the government take more from others, that man supports stealing from other men, and stealing and theft--when done in such a way by a government--that is bad and a sin, and it means that the man who supports the idea is bad, and those in the government who support such practice are bad people too (especially if they feel good about what they do).  An ignorant man supports the idea that the government should work to make everyone equal monetarily or work to make everything "fair" and "balanced" in relation to pay and wages, but the idea is defective since different persons have different skills and abilities, which are tied to different pay scales and offer different rewards, and when the government is involved in determining what people should get paid, the man who supports the idea could, in the future when he ends up getting paid more than he was before, be punished because the government determines that he is being paid too much now in relation to what others are (of course, a man who supports such an idea as having the government set limits on pay for people is probably a defective man in many ways); in addition, when a government gets involved in trying to make people equal monetarily--though it is universally understood people with different skills deserve or can demand different pay--the government then sets up disharmony in the society, making people who work angry at the government for taking from them and giving to people who do not deserve what they end up getting, and it can inspire people who do things to leave the country or inspire people who do things to stop doing things or inspire people who do things to purposely get even with those they feel are benefiting on their work, such as shunning them; in truth, the work to achieve economic equality is an impossibility since it it is a nightmare to manage, and any purveyors of this idea are highly evil since they work to convince people that they can do what cannot be done and since they are in the long run working to knock people down so that, for one, they will be seen as higher rank in society than others are (especially those who really deserve to be seen as higher in rank).

    Remember: Good men can exist as rich men or be rich men, and bad men can exist as rich men or be rich men, and the bad person will see all rich men as only bad.

    A black man who has avoided learning to speak English (formal and proper English) well or read English well because he has heard or has determined English is a language for the "white man" or "whitey" is a bad man and an ignorant man, and his failure in life cannot be blamed on "whitey," and if such as man works to take revenge for his failure in life related to failing to learn English, then that man can be deemed an evil man and a man who should not be respected or pitied or even supported.

    My document entitled Detroit and Death: A View of a Future United States of America (which is available for free at the website for The Hologlobe Press by using this Detroit link) shows why there are many bad people in Detroit, and one of the fact sections presented in the document shows that, around December 2012, only about seven percent of the 8th graders in the Detroit Public School system were "proficient" or better than "proficient" in reading (at the level required for 8th graders) and only about four percent of the 8th graders in the Detroit Public School system were "proficient" or more than "proficient" in math, and that is a sign of many bad people in Detroit, particularly many bad teachers and parents in Detroit, and, for the most part, those bad teachers and parents are blacks (given that most of the citizens in Detroit are black), and that means a lot of blacks are teaching crap to black children and keeping black children enslaved by ignorance, and it must be said that many of the children are--for now--bad people because they are unable to read as well as they should for their ages and, in turn, are stupid.

    A poor man is not a bad man, unless the man does bad things or believes in bad things or teaches bad things to others, and whether or not a man is poor or rich does not have an bearing on the quality of the man but the man's thoughts can determine whether or not the man is a bad man, and here I have three important clues that indicate a bad man, particularly a useless man.  One clue that identifies a bad man is the man believes the federal government is obligated to provide money or food stamps to the man as a part of man's existence.  Another clue that identifies a bad man is the man believes the government is benevolent and good--though it is nothing more than men and women, often ignorant and self-serving in the case of the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President, having been chosen through popularity and not skill--and can be trusted to protect the man, as a good father protects his children.  And yet another clue that identifies a bad man is the man believes in not protecting the children of the future from the economic disaster being imposed on the country now by Barack Obama, who, by forcing the federal government to spend more than it takes in in tax revenue, is enslaving the children of the future to debt not of their making, and that is a sin and a crime against mankind.

    An ignorant person does not understand or accept the fact or does not care that many members of the Democratic Party in the United States of America, especially all the head persons, are bad people, being corrupt or highly ignorant or selfish or thugish or deviant or morally defective.  A good example to help prove the statement is embodied in the man known as U.S. President Bill Clinton (a Democrat), who, while in office, was impeached for lying to a court and also lost his law license, and what he did was the way of a bad man (and before being the U.S. President, a number of women had taken up court cases against Bill Clinton for bad behavior).  Keep in mind--The main reason the Democratic Party has bad people as a rule is the Republican Party is filled with people who do not tolerate such bad people, not wishing to associate with such bad people, and the badness of the Democratic Party exists in those of federal standing, state standing, local standing.  In January 2009, the Governor of Illinois--Rod Blagojevich (a Democrat)--was put out of office because of his corrupt ways, and he would later be convicted of, for one, lying to the FBI (one of 24 federal counts) and would end up in prison in 2010.   In December 2010, the Mayor of Detroit--Kwame Kilpatrick (a Democrat) was indicated on a number of cases related to "racketeering," and he would have to resign as the mayor, and he would end up in prison, and, even in late 2012 and early 2013, he would still be the focus of a big-deal corruption court case, and in 2010, Monica Conyers (a Democratic Party politician based in Detroit and the wife U.S. Representative John Conyers (a Democrat) at the time) was convicted of bribery (she had had to leave her seat as a member of the Detroit City Council somewhat recently) and went to prison.  On December 9, 2010, U.S. Representative Charles Rangel (a Democrat related to New York) was "censured" by the U.S. House of Representatives for "misconduct" (he had been the subject of about a two-year ethics investigation, and the "censuring" did not put him out of office, but it did note something bad that had been done on his part, making him one of only a few persons who had ever been "censured" by the members of the U.S. House of Representatives).  During the first term of the U.S. Presidency for Barack Obama, U.S. Representative Eric Massa (a Democrat related to New York) had to resign his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives because of a scandal on March 8, 2010, and U.S. Representative Anthony Weiner (a Democrat related to New York) had to resign his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives because of a sex scandal on June 21, 2012, and U.S. Representative David Wu (a Democrat related to Oregon) had to resign his seat in the U.S. House of Representatives because of a scandal on August 3, 2012 (during Barack Obama's first term, one Republican--who was not a "conservative"--resigned from the U.S. Senate because of a sex scandal).  On Tuesday, December 11, 2012, a State Representative in Michigan--Douglas A. Geiss--showed off some of the bad nature of the Democratic Party when talking about bill dealing with "right-to-work," and, for one, he said on the House floor: "...We are going to pass something that will undo a hundred years of labor relations.  And there will be blood!  There will be repercussions!  We will relive the 'Battle of the Overpass.'...."  I have only noted some of the high-profile cases of corruption and defective statements of the many that I have read about or heard about since I was born (and I have not even hinted at the corruption and such of the big labor unions, such as the Teamsters, which are entities linked closely to the Democratic Party), and a person's doing research would indeed show that Democrats have been more likely to be involved in scandals than Republicans have been, and there is indeed more evidence available, such as in newspapers and on the Internet, that shows what the core beliefs of the Democrat Party are, and a person who supports the Democrat Party of today is a person who must be a supporter or consciously supports corruption in government, thugism in government, deviant behavior in government, et cetera, and that makes the person a bad person.  [Note: A person who wishes to see more evidence about what the Democrat Party could begin a search by looking up "Barney Frank" (U.S. Representative), "Marion Barry" (Mayor of Washington, D.C.), "Edward Kennedy" (U.S. Senator), and "democrats scandals" on the Internet, and a person can see the "crud" that is associated with Barack Obama by seeing my document entitled THE CRUD AROUND BARACK OBAMA:  My Rule--"Like Minds Get Together", which can be reached by using this link: Crud.]

    On Thursday, January 17, 2013, a U.S. Senator from Virginia, who was then a lawyer and a member of the Democratic Party, showed off his ignorance and, especially, his evil nature in public, and that man was Tim Kaine.  It came out in an interview with Soledad O'Brien during the CNN television program entitled Starting Point with Soledad O'Brien.  What showed off the bad nature is this set of statements made in relation to Barack Obama's recent issuing of 23 Executive Orders designed to curb gun violence: "...Ah, presidents have the power to do Executive Orders.  That's a power that, that's conferred on the president by Congress and by The Constitution.  Uhm, and so there are those, and as Rand Paul [a U.S. Senator who was a Republican and was related to Kentucky] said--he wants to nullify.  Nullification is a code word...." and "...Nullification has been used.  It's been used a lot, kind of a state's-rights argument, ah, that gets used, ah, ah, you know, in, in times of great controversy.  But the President is acting by executive power that is legally conferred on him.  And as you pointed out, you went over these Executive Orders--they are basic commonsense things, mostly geared around information, sharing information with communities so that we can take steps we need to reduce gun violence...." and "...But the notion that we're gonna nullify presidential action when the President is acting in pursuant to law, you know, that, that, that just kind of this anti-government rhetoric that I'm surprise to hear somebody in government use it...."  I report that "Executive Orders" are implied powers tied to the Executive Branch of the federal government, specifically to the U.S. President, and The United States Constitution and the U.S. Congress did not give the power of "Executive Orders" to the U.S. President, and "Executive Orders" are for the most part used to give orders to the members of the departments and agencies of the Executive Branch of the federal government, which have ties to actual laws enacted through the legislation process of the federal government (involving the U.S. Congress and the U.S. President).   A U.S. President may not and cannot create laws!  So Tim Kaine was teaching ignorance, and since Tim Kaine was then not only a U.S. Senator but also a lawyer, it can be said that Tim Kaine lied about the idea of where the power of "Executive Orders" comes from and what a U.S. President can do with "Executive Orders."   The U.S. Congress can nullify "Executive Orders" that are unconstitutional, those that create laws or try to create laws!  A smart and good person can see Tim Kaine was trying to teach the idea that a U.S. President can act like a dictator and make laws that cannot be challenged by the U.S. Congress, and that means Tim Kaine is a bad man and should forever be seen as a bad man.  [To learn more about the 23 Executive Orders, you are urged to see entry "129" in my document entitled A Little History of Barack Obama Events: A Show of Deconstruction, which can be reached through the link provided at the end of this document, and see the entry for "January 16, 2013" (related to a press event that was held by Barack Obama that was used to announce proposed gun-control measures) in the document entitled Nonsense Statements and Quotations of Barack Obama, which can be reached by using the link provided at the end of this document.]
    [Note: By the way, when a U.S. President imposes laws on the citizens of the United States of America through "Executive Orders," he is acting like a dictator, and a U.S. citizen does not need to follow illegitimate laws like those that a U.S. President imposes on the country through "Executive Orders."]

    True respect gained by a man comes about through good deeds done and not through such means as buying respect or coercing the designation of respect from others.  Some men think they deserve respect for simply being born or existing; it is especially true that gangsters and street thugs, such as "gangster rappers," think they deserve respect for simply being, and, by the way, when they do not get respect, they feel they are being "dissed" or disrespected.  Bad men, such as perpetual liars like Barack Obama, deserve no respect, and because a person who is a bad person becomes a U.S. President, you are not required or obligated to give the person respect, meaning you need not stand up for that person when the person enters your presence or applaud for that person or bow to that person, and if you bow or applaud or stand up for Barack Obama, you are a bad person since you are bestowing undeserved and unearned praise on a bad person and do not uphold the value that a good person would always follow of not bestowing praise on a bad person.

    Truly ignorant and evil people support very bad people and support the history of very bad people, and one of the worst men in U.S.A. history is Edward "Ted" Kennedy" (a son of a smuggler and crook and a brother of former U.S. President John F. Kennedy).  In the early 1980s, Edward Kennedy (then a U.S. Senator related to Massachusetts) worked to undermine the United States of America and U.S. President Ronald Reagan by being involved in secret discussions with the Soviet Union in relation to nuclear missiles, and, in essence, he was acting like a traitor to the country (to see more on the subject, you are urged to see my document entitled Television and History and Trivia #65, which can be reached by using this T.H.A.T. #65 link); another bad event tied to Edward Kennedy was his involvement in the death of Mary Jo Kopechne on July 18, 1969, at Chappaquiddick, Massachusetts.  Certainly, the bad nature of Edward Kennedy was on full display on the floor of the U.S. Senate on June 23, 1987, when he told incredible lies about Bob Bork Jr. (who was a "conservative" being nominated as a new member for the U.S. Supreme Court and who would die on December 19, 2012), saying, for example--"...Robert Bork's America is a land in which women would be forced into back-alley abortions, blacks would sit at segregated lunch counters, rogue police would break down citizens' doors in midnight raids, and school children could not be taught about evolution, writers and artists would be censored at the whim of government...."  Such an evil and rotten man Edward Kennedy was, and a good person who runs across an individual who supports Edward Kennedy and promotes such a man as good is a very ignorant person or a really evil person and dangerous.  Edward Kennedy is dead, dying on August 25, 2009, and can no longer hurt people--directly.

    By the way, one of the most rotten men in the the United States of America today is Chief Justice John Roberts of the U.S. Supreme Court, who, in 2012, twisted the English language in his presentation tied to the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to uphold the constitutionality of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010, and he is one of the most rotten men in the United States of America because millions of lives in the country will now be diminished and hurt, such as through lack of health care in later years of life, as happens in all countries that have national-health-care systems or government-controlled-health-care system, which have the government as the only source of health care (to learn more about the subject, you are urged to see my document entitled Not Supreme in Nature -- The U.S. Supreme Court and the "Obamacare" Decision: The Majority Pushed "Enslavism" on the Country, which can be reached through this Supreme link).

    A bad person pushes the idea that people with different political systems should find a way to compromise.  Unfortunately for people, some political systems are horrible and some political systems are bad and are drifting toward horrible.  Many young Americans are unaware or maybe do not care that communism is "enslavism," a former of political system in which the rulers treat the citizens as expendable and inferior and like cattle or sheep or worker ants, and many young Americans are unaware or maybe do not care that socialism is nothing more than somewhat controlled communism--socialists are people who are somewhat contained in what harm that they can do to the country by people who know the evil and badness of socialism (which evolves over time to communism).  A society that is not a socialistic or communistic society has a government, such as a Representative Republic, that is not compatible with the ways of socialism and communism, and a person who is a non-communist--often called a "conservative" in the United States of America--has nothing that the person can compromise with a person who is a socialist or, most certainly, a communist, who without a doubt is an evil person, as history shows.  A bad person does not see that a conservative cannot compromise political beliefs with those of a communist or socialist, and such as bad person is at least ignorant and can even be dangerous, since the person can cause harm to a country by pushing for compromise, which will bring harm to millions of persons.  By the way, the main type of bad person described in this paragraph is often called a "moderate" or an "independent," names that have vague meanings and whose political ideologies are hard to define and can be considered something with mushy standards, which are easily changed and molded, often toward ideas of socialism and communism.

    In the United States of America, it is commonplace to come across bad people who are musicians, actors, and other performers, and they are bad because they support the ways of bad and evil politicians and civil-rights leaders, and their support involves, for instance, supporting blacks who are race baiters (such as Reverend Jesse Jackson) and supporting those who are pushing enslavism (such as in the forms known as Sharia and communism) on the country, and some of the most prominent performers who have shown their evil nature through their words are Danny Glover (an actor), Janeane Garofalo (a comedienne), and Eva Longoria (actress).  Several times in recent years, in public, Jamie Foxx (a high-profile black actor) has shown himself to be a bad person, and one of the times was on November 25, 2012, while appearing on a television special entitled Soul Train Awards 2012, and this time, he pushed the evil concept that noted that the audience should--"...give an honor to God and our lord and savior Barack Obama, Barack Obama!...."  Another performer who has often said sick-minded things in public is Harry Belafonte (an actor and singer, who has been well-known since at least the early 1960s), and it was on December 12, 2012, while being interview by Al Sharpton (a black radical and black racist) on MSNBC, that Harry Belafonte said: "...What I think has most attracted me to this whole process is watching the political maturity of the American people, 'cause there was a great question during the first election as to whether or not Barack Obama would even be elected.  And after the turn out showed emphatically--put him in the presidency--it's interesting to watch the second term, when everybody really didn't quite know what the game would be.  Well, the American people in their maturity declared themselves fully--We want what Barack Obama is talking about, we want the country to go in that direction.  And what fascinates me is that, in the face millions of Americans expressing their desire, the whole political es, establishment defining its, its game, that there should be this lingering infestation of a, of, a, a really corrupt people who sit trying to dismantle the wishes of the people, the mandate that has been given ta Barack Obama.  And, and I don't know what more they want.  The only thing left for Varak, Barack Obama to do is to work like a Third World dictator and just put all these guys [seemingly "conservatives" and "Republicans"] in jail...." [Harry Belafonte's words show a man who is ignorant and who then works to pass on his ignorance about an evil man, Barack Obama, whom many, many Americans know little truth about, having been lied to for years by most persons working as journalists and reporters].  The other-performers group of this section of the document can be made up of sports reporters, and on December 13, 2012, a man named Rob Parker (whose career really took off in Detroit) made a statement on an ESPN show that showed his ignorance and evilness and even showed his nature as a black racist, and the statement, which was tied to a football player informally called "RG3," was: "...My question, which is just a straight-honest question--Is he a brother or he is a 'cornball' brother?  He's black.  He does the thing.  But he's not really down with the cause.  He's not one of us.  He's kind of black, but he's not really like the guy you really want to hang out  with 'cause he's off to somethin'.  We all know he has a white fiancee.  And with all this talk that he's a Republican, which I--there's no information at all.  I'm just tryin' to dig deeper into why he has an issue, because we did find out with Tiger Woods.  Tiger Woods was like--I don't wanna, I have black skin but don't call me 'black.'  So people got a little wondered about Tiger Woods early on about him...." [As Rush Limbaugh noted on his nationally syndicated radio show entitled The Rush Limbaugh Program on December 14, 2012, Rob Parker is a "separatist," who is a person who, it seems, hopes to keep blacks and whites separate and who pushes the idea that some blacks (such as those who are Republicans) are not real "blacks," and on Friday, December 14, 2012, ESPN put Rob Parker on leave indefinitely].  I say that America has a lot of persons--buying tickets to shows and buying movies and DVDs and watching television shows--who support performers who are sick-minded individuals and who are working to drive the country into a slave-state condition under, for instance, communism or Sharia, and everyone who supports such performers (many of whom are rich or millionaires) are without a doubt bad persons. [You are urged to see my document entitled T.H.A.T. #104, which has more information about performers who are bad people because they support bad and evil politicians and bad political ideologies and which can be reached by using this T.H.A.T. #104 link, and you are urged to see my document entitled Never Forget These Media Darlings (?) -- A Guide for  the Individual in the United States of America, which can be reached by using this Media link.]

    A big reason many persons in the United States of America are bad persons or are evil persons who like to do bad things is the public educational system in the country is for the most part made up of ignorant persons or evil persons who are pushing the idea of "enslavism" on the country or simply pushing lies or wrong information or defective information, and it is easy to prove the public educational system is defective--look at the results of the educational systems or school districts of Chicago and Detroit and Chicago and Washington, D.C.  By the way, on January 21, 2009, even though the Chicago School System was defective, Arne Duncan, who had just been the CEO of the Chicago Public School System, became the head of the U.S. Department of Education (he had been hired by Barack Obama, an "enslavist").  On December 2, 2012, the head of the Chicago Teachers Union (or CTU) was Karen Lewis, and on that day, while being the "keynote speaker" at a hall-of-fame dinner for the Illinois Labor History Society, Karen Lewis showed she is a person who teaches ignorance and lies and is an evil person, being, for one, a Marxist (or an "enslavist").  During the keynote speech, Karen Lewis said: "...But Lucy [Lucy Parsons, a labor activist] said--Do not think for a minute that the wealthy are ever going to allow you to legislate their riches away from them.  Please understand that.  However, we are in a moment when the wealth disparity in this country is very reminiscent of 'Robber Baron Ages.'  The labor leaders of that time, though, were ready to kill.  They were!  They were just ready...Off with their heads.  They were seriously talking about that...." and "...But the key is that they [the rich] think nothing about killing us.  They think nothing about putting their people in harm's way.  They think nothing about lethal working conditions...." and "...So are we gonna be on the side of justice?  Are we gonna be on the side of a living wage for every person?  Or are we gonna be on the side of people whose entire mentality is based on a lie--job creators.  Really?  Then why have we lost so many jobs?  We can't, we can't tax the job creators because they'll take their toys and go someplace else.  Brothers and sisters, they've already done that...." and "...But we are now living in an age where CEOs are interchangeable.  One comes from one industry comes to another, enriches himself or herself, and moves on, destroying companies in the wake and nobody says anything about it...." and "...I can tell you now--We are sitting at the precipice of either all-out class war--and it's the rich against us...." and "...And right now the 'American Dream' is an awfully scary nightmare.  And the job creators continue to tell us that, if you work hard, you do what you're supposed to do, you too can be a job creator.  Well, the only problem with that is it's the biggest lie ever.  The gap now in social mobility in the United States of America is less, the, the ability to change and move forward now is less than it's ever been in our history...."  Everything pushed out through the mind of Karen Lewis was nonsense; for example, business people are not working to kill off employees, which means she was pushing a lie, and high federal and local taxes and bad regulations have led to the reduction in jobs in this country, and the "American Dream" is not simply about getting rich, as she hinted at in her speech, and the "American Dream" does not have and has never had a scary meaning, and the "American Dream" is scary now because the U.S. President is an "enslavist" and has an ill mind, which is imposing defective political policies that hurt employees of companies and the operators of companies in the country, and CEOs are not running around from job to job with the purpose of killing businesses, evidence of which is the history of business in the United States of America since the 1800s at least--the growth businesses and increased number of businesses--and there is no war being waged by the rich on so-called poor.  Incidentally, every person who is a good person does not want to have a government that can legislate their riches and their property away, making them poorer and poorer and poorer, which Barack Obama is working toward.  Karen Lewis is evidence of what the public educational community as a rule is teaching children, especially black children in places like Chicago.  Karen Lewis is a bad person!  [Again, I urge you to see Detroit and Death: A View of a Future United States of America (which is available for free at the website for The Hologlobe Press by using this Detroit link.]

    Many people today think that universal rules of life no longer apply since they are old-fashioned rules and passé and do not apply to this modern age, but universal rules of life never become passé, and the rules focused on here are those that young people seem not to be taught these days and will always apply to man.  It seems many young people have adopted or have come to accept that a person's plagiarizing a term paper (copying someone else's term paper and submitting it has the person's work) or paying someone else to write a term paper for the person is acceptable, but it is not acceptable, and a person who violates the rule is a rotten person and is not as valued in the eyes of others as the person might think, and a person who submits another person's work as the person's own is a bad person and deserves all the disrespect that might befall the person.  Before a person becomes married, that person may have sexual intercourse with another person or other persons--which has been the way of mating for the species for centuries--but when the person signs a married contact with another person and then violates the oath of not having sexual intercourse with someone who is not the marriage partner, the person is a bad person, having violated an oath of trust to another person.  Should a person--whether married or not--be involved in creating a child, that person has the obligation to be involved in raising the child, and when a person who has created a child does not take up the obligation of raising the child and the obligation falls on the other person in creating the child or on others, the person is a mostly highly bad person, a person who, over the rest of the person's lifetime, deserves no respect.

    [Note: About sixty percent of the young women who voted in the election of November 6, 2012, voted to have Barack Obama become the next U.S. President or to have a second term as the U.S. President, and that means at least sixty percent of the young women in the country are ignorant or evil, helping to let a defective man have the office of the U.S. Presidency.  It must be pointed out that such women can even be considered ugly--because of their minds, having ugly minds.  Women who complain about having a hard time finding a good man to marry or are not able to get a good man to marry them probably do not consider the reason for their problem could be good men, getting to understand what they believe in, well recognize such women as rotten or ugly--because of their minds--and avoid them.  When the divorce rate for first-time marriages in the country is running at somewhere around fifty percent, it is easily for a person to understand one reason the divorce rate is at that level is there are a lot of rotten women in the county today.  Yes, the country has a lot of rotten men (who can be blamed for adding to the high divorce rate), but the theme being presented here focuses on rotten women.  If a rotten and ugly woman--one who supports the way of life being pushed by Barack Obama, which, for one, is going to hurt children in the future--does get married to a good man, it is very likely the marriage will not last, since the good man will tire of the woman's ignorance or evil nature.  Women often blame their looks for not getting or keeping a man, but in the long run, their defective minds are more likely to be the reason for failure in marriage, and it seems a lot of young women in the country today are going to have miserable lives because they have rotten minds and ugly minds.  Incidentally, I have seen evidence that suggests many women think Barack Obama is nice, and sometimes when I think about women supporting Barack Obama because of how he looks, I think of the "battered-wife syndrome," in which a woman will not leave a bad man, such as a husband, who batters her regularly, thinking he really does love her and maybe she deserves the battering.]

    A bad person is a parent who gives a child no truth about the ways of politics. A bad parent thinks it is not important to bring up the subject of politics to little children, such as the badness that communism has been for millions of people of the world and the badness that communism is for millions today, and the badness can be tied to, for example, economic hardship and starvation (especially in North Korea), no right to speak out against bad politicians in public, dress codes, lack of cars for average citizens, and limited travel rights for citizens in their countries.  A bad parent does not monitor what political ideas are being taught to the person's child by teachers and does not challenge the teachers when what is taught is bad for the child and the country, such as teaching the child to praise a particular politician as someone who is some type of god or messiah.  A bad parent is a person who does not bring up the topic of politics, such as the topic noting that Barack Obama is bad man and is not a nice guy, with older children because the discussion might cause a rift in the family or make children uncomfortable at the moment.  A bad parent reports that politics is only a game--something in which it is only important for a side to win for the sake of winning, as if what could be done by the winner does not have real consequences.  A bad parent does not report the truth about what the Democratic Party stands for, which is the "enslavism" form of government (such as communism), and does not report some people in the Republican Party are actually Democrats who are hiding and lying about what they really are and what they really believe in, which is the "enslavism" form of government.

    If you are an ignorant person, though potentially a good person if you gain the truth and understand it and pass it on, you have to be considered a bad person since what do not know can and does hurt you and your family and children and your good neighbors and our country--the United States of America.

    So I return to Martin Luther King Jr.  If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, he might want to consider taking back his statement about judging people by their character and taking up pushing the idea about judging people by their something or other; for example, his pushing the idea of judging people by their character involves looking past the facade and seeing what lies underneath, and, in the case of most blacks today, the underlying structure of character is ugly and rotten, being made up of characteristics that show support for thugs and killers (as evident in the abundance of black-on-black crime), support for a world of lies (as evident in the support for a perpetual liar known as Barack Obama), support for musicians and rappers who continually show violence toward or disrespect of women, support for teaching children nonsense and for keeping children ignorant, support for drumming up racial hatred on a regular basis, support for corrupt politicians in the black communities, et cetera.  If Martin Luther King Jr. were alive today, he might want to turn away and not look and consider walking in another direction, that which heads away from the many failed lives and leaves them to wallow in their own and self-made cesspool of ignorance and filth.


"Jeffrey, Terence P.  "Only 7% of Detroit Public School 8th Graders Proficient in Reading.", 11 December 2012.

"Lucy Parsons.", 5 January 2012.

"Monica Conyers.", 13 August 2012.

"Rod Blagojevich.", 13 December 2012.

Greenberg, Chris.  "Rob Parker On TG3: ESPN 'First Take' Host Asks If Robert Griffin Is a 'Cornball Brother' (video) [UPDATED]."  The Huffington Post, 13 December 2012, 5:45 p.m. EST, 7:36 p.m. EST.

Margasak, Larry.  "Charles Rangel Censured: House Votes to Censure Longtime Congressman."  The Huffington Post, 10 December 2010, 06:27 a.m. ET.

Mitchell, Dan.  "Barbara Boxer, Exit Taxes, and the Totalitarian Temptation."  International Liberty, 5 April 2012.

Newby, Joe.  "Michigan Democrat on right to work bill: 'There will be blood.'", 11 December 2012.

Van Bibber, Ryan.  "ESPN Suspends Rob Parker.", 14 December 2012.

Note: On Wednesday, January 9, 2012, I saw a video on YouTube entitled "Karen Lewis-Keynote Message for the Illinois Labor History Society on Dec 2,....," which was posted on YouTube by Mike Sivine Elliott.


    Note: This document was originally posted on the Internet on December 25, 2012.

    Note: This document is known on the Internet as

For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Conservatives and
    The United States Constitution Versus
    Enslavers and Enslavism (or Communism,
    Sharia, Socialism, et cetera), which can
    be reached by using 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:
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Madness in a President
    and Other Matters of a Defective Mind,
    which can be reached by using this link:
For further reading, you should see my
    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 Never Forget These
    Media "Darlings" ?: A Guide for the
    Individual in the United States of
    America, which can be reached by
    using this link: Media.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled A Little History of
    Barack Obama Events: A Show of
    Deconstruction, which can be reached by
    using this link: History.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled Lessons for Children
    about Politics and Dangerous People,
    which can be reached by using this
    link: Children.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled The Next Elections:
    What Has to be Done to Protect the
    United States of America, which can
    be reached by using this link: Elections.
For further reading, you should see the
    document entitled World Tyranny:
    Warnings about  the Insane Who are
    Trying to Create a Communist World
    Country, which can be reached by
    using this link: World.

Note: Many other documents exist at the
Web site for The Hologlobe Press that will
give you information about the bad that Barack
Obama and his associates are doing to the
United States of America, such as the Michigan
Travel Tips documents and the T.H.A.T.
documents that have been published since
the fall of 2008.

To get to the Site-Summary Page for The
    Site-Summary Page for The Hologlobe
    Press, you may use this link: Summary.
To get to the main page for The Hologlobe
    Press, you may click on this link now: