|
 Mr.Wonderful
Topics: | 1/28/00: State of the Union 1/27/00: Clinton Smart Handgun 1/21/00: Bush Hedges on Abortion 1/19/00: McCain Stereo-Types Gays
| |
(Best Viewed using Explorer 5.0 and your browser's 'small' or 'smallest' font size.)
Last night, while most American males were fussing over college basketball games, Mr.Wonderful was watching President Clinton's State of the Union Speech. In order to not miss a word, for those times I stepped out of the room, my head was adorned with a radio headset. (Afterwards, it took a quart of Jack Daniel's to calm me down.) I could do several pages on this most immoral of all President's ninety plus minutes of lies, and I may, however here is a single point. Clinton proposes a "$3,000 tax credit" for individuals who care for their senior parents in their own homes. (Disregard the fact that if government taxes did not decrease net income by 50% for most Americans, they could more readily afford to care for their senior parents.) 
I turned to my thirteen year-old son and posed this exact question, "If people have $3,000 more to spend on health care for senior citizens, what do you think will happen to the prices for items and services needed by senior citizens?" His answer? "They will go up."
Yes! They will go up. They will greatly go up. Folks, go down to you local OSCO Drug Store and check out the prices on walkers, walkers that qualify for Medicare. Those damn things are over $300 for a piece of aluminum with wheels that cannot cost, including shipping charges from China, more than $55! Greenspan is so concerned with inflation caused by consumers (inflation that my thirteen year old son understands) but unconcerned by the fact that our federal government is the actual cause of one-hundred percent of our inflation.
The 'smart' handgun Clinton wants to give manufacturers $10 million tax dollars to develop is similar to a recently unveiled Smith and Wesson prototype automatic pistol. This pistol requires the 'user' of the weapon to be 'authorized.' Since the city, county, state or federal government will be the most likely source of this authorization, is Mr.Wonderful alone in thinking that non-authorization could un-Constitutionally reverse the process? However, once a person is 'authorized' he can swipe his 'authorized' fingerprint across a scanner on the weapon, which then releases the trigger lock and unblocks the weapon's magazine. Finally, once he is securely holding onto the grip sensor in the handle of the gun and pulls the trigger, the weapon will fire. Because there are, in the United States alone over 100 million legally owned firearms, even assuming that these 'smart' guns function as advertised, this 'safe-gun' proposal is exposed as a non-solution. Are current gun owners to throw out their investment of billions of dollars in weapons? In the former Soviet Union there are another 200 million weapons controlled by individuals who, unlike their American cousins (living in government determined statistical poverty) spend most of their days waiting in line to purchase mouldy bread.
These truly poverty stricken citizens would welcome any income from any source including gun sales, legal or otherwise. And third, these new weapons will cost far too much to purchase and maintain for anyone but the wealthiest individuals. However, I do propose that the first users, the test market so to speak, be our President's Secret Service, The Department of Treasury, and the Capitol Hill Police. Why should my octogenarian mother-in-law in the middle of the Arizona desert, forty five minutes (on a good night) from Sheriff Joe's nearest deputy, be trusted to test this unproven technology as a criminal crashes through her front door?
Asked if he would permit an abortion in the case of a woman who has suffered a rape, George W. Bush 'dodged' the question. However, the media is asking the question of the wrong person. Should they be asking the candidate? No. Should
they be asking the potential mother? No. Should they be asking the rapist? No.
They should be asking a child who was born of a rape victim.
They should ask this product of a sexual assault, "Right at this moment, would
you rather be dead or alive?"
Senator McCain was quoted as saying that while in the military, he could discern who was gay. Naturally the gay groups moaned that this was 'stereotyping.' What garbage! It's quite easy to tell which males are gay and which are not. (Mr.Wonderful, having been 'queer-bait' all his life has an even easier time of it.) It's the male gay who is not overtly feminine in appearance and/or demeanor that is the rarity.
I have a neighbor who is a homosexual. I can tell! Big deal! Many gay males act
a certain way, ie. 'gay,' so they can attract other like minded males and housewives, to discuss, over tea, interior designing, flower arrangements and
their significant others.
