National Politics

Some have suggested that West Virginia revive Capital Punishment.

I am no fan of criminals and I have no sympathy for those who murder for the fun of it.

I am opposed to the death penalty in West Virginia and in the United States to boot.

Why am I opposed?

If we stop the executions of killers in the U.S. Then we wont look like hypocrites when we ask that other countries stop executing people for things that are perfectly legal to do here.

In short if we stop executing people for major capitol offences. Then we are not going to look like hypocrites when we ask Saudi Arabia to stop executing women for adultery. Then we are not going to look like hypocrites when we ask Iran to stop hanging gay people. In Kuwait a woman can be executed for driving a car.

In many nations, one can be executed for converting from Islam to Christianity.

If we stop executing people, we wont look like hypocrites when we demand that other nations refrain from doing so also.

In short if the criminals in this country are given life without parole as an alternative to the death penalty. Then it greatly increases the bargaining position of our diplomats who try to get other countries to stop executing political and religious offenders in other parts of the world.

In short I am willing to let some of the wicked animals on death row do life without parole if it enhances our ability to put pressure on third world countries to stop killing innocent people for petty reasons.

The French, Belgian, British, and Dutch diplomatic corps have intervened many times in the Moslem world where women are more likely to face capital punishment than men. In northern Europe capital punishment has been abolished. I wish American diplomats were leading the efforts. In some parts of Africa people (Mostly women) are still being brutally executed by stoning on occasion. It is a brutal world that we live in.

Americans have traditionally been people of great kindness and compassion and that is why we were once respected around the world. Remember the Kindness that President Truman displayed to our former German enemies during the Berlin Airlift. It was at that time the largest humanitarian campaign the world had ever seen and the world respected our kindness.

The current president of the United States has signed more death warrants and built more prisons than any other leader in American history and it does not work. Around the world Americans are no longer seen as kind humanitarian people who lead by example.

I want my country back.

I oppose capital punishment in the USA because its sets an example for developing countries to follow. No country can claim to be totally free as long as the government of that country has the capacity to (rightly or wrongly) kill its own citizens. Freedom for good people is what it is all about.

Thoughts about Education. Military Recruiters in High Schools

Violence and Education are opposite and equal reactions in a Newtonian context, in that the educated mind seeks peace out of reverence for order and contempt for chaos.
The uneducated and undisciplined mind is content with the imposition of brutality to resolve differences. Violence and education are inversely proportional.

Military recruiters and Educators will in many instances always be of diametric opposition in their intentions for youth. “Military education" is by is nature an oxymoron, due to the fact that educated people have traditionally resolved differences by peaceful means.

Censorship is merely the tyrannical imposition of intellectual brutality by virtue of imposed mandate based on the agenda of the tyrant.  Academia, when free of intellectual tyrants is unfettered in the search for factual truth. The tyrant pre-supposes his preconceptions and agenda are beyond question.

Intellectual freedom is predicated on the right to impeach the preconceptions of others and seek ones own concepts and truth.  Intellectual freedom is the right to detach oneself from the limitations and taboos of the status quo regimentation that is imposed by mediocre minds around us.

It is the total and complete absence of preconceptions and presumptions that results in the detached critical thinking that is traditionally needed for the advancement of science and humanity.

Stephanie Heck Huntington West Virginia

President Bush has ignored the recommendation of many senior generals and has implemented escalation orders to add 20,000 more U.S. troops, in addition the the troops currently serving in Iraq. President Bush has further made veiled threats of deploy naval forces to the Persian Gulf and this threatens to expand the war to Syria, and Iran. I am flabbergasted by the audacity of President Bush to continue and promote a policy of escalation in light of the failed policies of the past few years. President Bush does not understand that the last election was a voters mandate against the war. To contradict the wishes of the American people in this regard is totally irrational.

The United States Army is basically performing the Job of the Baghdad Police Department Swat Team and the purpose of an army is to fight wars, not police functions.

The US Government is prohibited from engaging in, or policing religious disputes within the United States by the first amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I just wish that President Bush understood that the U.S. Constitution is applicable to federal intervention in ALL religious civil wars be they foreign or domestic.

President Bush did not once mention Afghanistan which is the main reason that we were there in the first place after 911. Osama Bin Ladin is still at large, yet we for some reason generally not understood beyond Washington, we launched a war in Iraq to attack and kill Saddam who had nothing to do with 911. I see the presidents escalation actions as more rooted in right wing ideology than in common sense. The majority of Americans do not wish to send our armed forces to die over ideology.

You will see more Republicans crossing the line and joining with the Democrats to move against this war.

The writing is on the wall.

News Commentary: It is all over the news that Saddam has been executed by hanging in Iraq. We went to Iraq to liberate the country from the dictator Saddam and establish a democratic government there. Well the lawfully elected government of Iraq has convened a court of law to put a mass murderer on trial and executed him. Saddam is dead by order of a democratic government. Our goal has been accomplished. 108 American Military men have died in Iraq in December 2006. It is now time to bring the troops home.

Political Commentary.

Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman has lost the Democratic primary election for his fourth term in the U.S. Senate, just six years after being the party’s national vice presidential candidate. This U.S. Senate race is the first major political upset of election 2006 by newcomer Senate candidate Ned Lamont. Much will chnce in the next few months in national politics. The centrist and liberal Democrats in Joe Lieberman's home state of Connecticut are very irate at Joe Lieberman for supporting the Iraq war that many Democrats sincerely believe to be illegal and unconstitutional.

Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman has been accused of brown-nosing the president and his right wing cadre of Republican war mongers by moderate and liberal Democrats and therefore Senator Joe Lieberman is perceived as a D.I.N.O. or (Democrat In Name Only )

The Democrats in Joe Lieberman's home state do not desire that Joe Lieberman in his capacity as their Democratic Senator, reject the centrist values of the Democratic party in excessive compromise with the extremist neoconservative element of the opposition GOP party under the command of George W. Bush. In short they do not desire to have a Democratic U.S. Senator that pretends to be a Democrat but votes like a Republican.

In short Senator Joe Lieberman has lost his credibility as a Democrat, long before losing the democratic primary in the U.S. Senate Race in election 2006. Senator Joe Lieberman does not seem to understand the basic political concept that the United States involvement in the War in Iraq is very unpopular among democratic voters nationwide. The war in Iraq is almost as unpopular as the high fuel prices that are putting record profits in big oil companies coffers.

The majority of the American people admire the military but have severe questions about the policies of the the president and the administration that sends them into battle in search of Saddam's weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. Well over 2500 members of the U.S. Armed forces have died as the result of this wild goose chase that is rapidly turning into another Vietnam. Democratic Senator Joe Lieberman cannot seem to understand why his position of supporting this insane war is offensive to the vast majority of moderate democrats.

Such as the fate of those so called Democrats who kiss the posterior of the GOP's Elephant.

Stephanie Heck.

A Proud West Virginia Democrat.

This may well explain why Lebanon's small Christian dominated army has not deployed itself against the Israeli military invasion that is killing unarmed civilians, in addition to killing a large number of militant Muslim Hezbollah fighters. The Lebanese army is deployed in Northern Lebanon and is NOT responding with any measure of force to the Israeli invasion that is intended to crush Hezbollah.

It appears that the christian elements of the Lebanese government are sitting on their posterior and allowing the Jewish Israeli army to kill off Militant Muslim Hezbollah fighters who are operating a highly armed Hezbollah militia in violation of Lebanese law, and to some degree international law. If this was not true then the official Lebanese army would have entered the battle by now in response to the Israeli invasion / incursion into Lebanese territory. I have come to the conclusion that pacifism is deemed a professional virtue in the Lebanese Army

The Government of Lebanon has failed to order it own army into the battle and has therefore failed to uphold it own sovereignty and secure its own borders. The Hezbollah militia forces appear to be receiving no help whatsoever from the Lebanese Army ( but possibly from Syria and Iran ) because the Lebanese army's problem ( Hezbollah militia ) is being attacked by a foreign force. 

Hezbollah has what has been estimated to be 6-8,000 guerrilla fighters arrayed along the border between between Lebanon and Israel. It is these militant Hezbollah fighters that the Army of Israel has engaged in battle. Hezbollah has been estimated to have somewhere between 10000 and 12000 Katyusha rockets. It is estimated that 2300 Katyusha rockets have been fired at Israel by the Hezbollah militia since the fighting started. Hezbollah has been firing Katyusha rockets into northern Israel for over a year and the Israeli government is tired of the Katyusha rocket attacks, and has retaliated.

I feel that Israel was provoked by Hezbollah and the Katyusha rocket attacks by Hezbollah are a problem to the military security of the Jewish nation. However, I feel that the response to the initial provocation now has gone far beyond a reasonable punitive counterattack and a cease fire is now in order to give the diplomats a chance to look for non military options. I feel that dialogue between the U.S. and Syria and posibly Iran may well be in the best interest of the stability of the entire middle east.

Stephanie Heck

Huntington WV

At one time the fastest route to citizenship was enlistment in the Armed Forces. The theory being that anyone willing to fight for this country is welcome to stay here. Many Hispanics are in the US armed forces and those who speak English well are excellent soldiers, sailors, and marines.

If a young man (or woman) from Mexico wishes to come to this country and serve this country's military needs, I feel that U.S. Citizenship is an appropriate reward for the successful completion of the enlistment under honorable conditions of service.

I just feel that American Citizenship is too valuable a commodity to give away to any foreign national who wants it. I feel it should be earned to be appreciated.

We are a nation of laws and if immigrants are illegal, then the law should be enforced. We should not abandon law out of convienience or expediency. I also feel that the Bush plan is weak and ineffectual and constitutes a too little too late response.

I see the mass influx of illegals as an invasion. An unarmed invasion, as opposed to an armed invasion, by a foreign army, but none the less an invasion. A sovereign state as well as a nation has the right and the obligation to secure its borders.

I do not see Posse Comitatus as restricting the use of troops along the border as it relates to securing the border from foreign incursion. The "POSSE COMITATUS ACT" (18 USC 1385):
is a 1870's era law that prohibits the use of federal armed forces to enforce civilian laws against American citizens. I do not see foreign nationals as American Citizens but technically they are unarmed foreign invaders.

I have no objection to the use of federal or national guard troops for this purpose of deterring and or detaining foriegn nationals be they armed or unarmed. I dont see Posse Comitatus as relevant to this situation as some in the administration do.

I see the use of national guard troops in their capacity of a properly constituted "well regulated state militia" under the direction and command of state officials as proper to seal the border in states contiguous to the border.

I see illegal immigration in hordes as a federal security issue, but I also see a legitimate use of a states military authority to secure borders from foreign incursion as well.

I see the majority of Americans as desiring the border more intensly policed but the correct policy and methodology is in debate and much rhetoric dominates the political landscape.

Stephanie Heck

I think that I think and that scares some people epecially me.

I very strongly support my county and its armed forces, however I think it is time that America formulate a plan to bring the troops home from Iraq. I feel the American People were deceived about the alleged weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and I feel our president and his subordinates have mislead the American People as far as the grounds for the invasion of Iraq. I had a friend come home from Iraq and he also thinks it is time to bring the troops home. I feel the president should be impeached.

We have killed thousands of Al Qaeda members and their Taliban allies in Afghanistan. Those are the real terrorists who were responsible for 911. Afghanistan is where the real enemy is located. I feel that George Bush is negligent is not going after the real enemy.

In addition to the 2000 American Servicemen whom have died in this war, upwards of 30,000 Iraqi civilians have died as well. We were justified at cleaning house in Afghanistan, however we went into Iraq on a wild goose chase in search of weapons of mass destruction that did not exist. I do hold the president accountable in a supervisory capacity for the actions of his subordinates. As Harry Truman once said "The buck stops here" These weapons of mass destruction did not exist and therefore the threat did not exist. In absence of a threat, there was no probable cause or provocation to go to war under international law.

Starting a war without cause or provocation is a violation of the Geneva Convention and the United States is party to that convention and therefore bound by that convention. I feel this war is all about money and oil, and our leaders deny that.

I would support a congressional attempt to impeach President Bush. He lead us to war under false pretenses and 2000 American soldiers are dead as a result of the culpable negligence of the White House to verify the integrity of the intelligence data before sending troops in harms way.

Feel Free to disagree with me, I respect the right of Americans to dissent, and I also respect the right of Americans to impeach any elected official who denies the American People the truth. This is the nature of national politics.

I am conducting a poll. Should George Bush Be Impeached?

Stephanie Heck

Huntington West Virginia

Political Satire:

It seems that Vice President Dick Cheney has bagged his first Republican lawyer in this years hunting season. It is alleged that Cheney shot his dove hunting lawyer buddy with a shotgun in a dove hunting accident on a Texas Dove hunting trip yesterday.

I can fully understand the temptation that Dick Cheney faces to shoot republican lawyers full of buckshot, but because it is against the law, I cannot condone it. I do commend Vice President Dick Cheney for exercising his second amendment rights in relation to the threat posed to humanity by republican lawyers.

It is my desire that the state of Texas regulate the shotgun season for lawyer hunting before Dick Cheney actually declares open season on the bar association. It is reported that numerous lawyers have politely cancelled future scheduled hunting trips with Dick Cheney.

I once thought Cheney to be a loose cannon, however the fact that he has actually has shot someone on a hunting trip shows he is merely a loose shotgun with ambitions of being a loose cannon.

As with all republicans, the "caliber" of leadership falls short of what is "aimed for". I admit that the "loose cannon" VP can actually shoot more buckshot than blanks. No doubt the NRA is pleased and the Texas State Bar Association is terrified..

When Dick Cheney goes lawyer hunting with a shotgun, he most certainly means business. Now that is tort reform leadership by example.

The Fourth Amendment States:

Amendment IV

"The right of the people to be secure in their [B]persons[/B], houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized".

The word PERSONS is significant. One cannot protect individual freedom without protecting the biological shell that houses the human mind. Our homes were protected by the fourth amendment because that is where we have our material assets. Our persons were protected by the fourth amendment  because the human body is the "home" of our intellectual and biological assets.

According to the fourth Amendment, we have a right to a certain amount of privacy in our homes and in our PERSONS and the contents of our homes and person are immune to examination by government without a compelling government interest requiring a warrant.

This is exactly why you need a court order to take a DNA sample from a criminal suspect. The fourth amendment to the constitution gives PERSONS the right to anatomical privacy that can only be overcome by a warrant. In the case of a female, the uterus is an integral part of that person and that female citizen is the sole controller of her personal reproductive anatomy, assuming one has the right to own ones own body, a woman has a right to make decisions about her home and her PERSON with immunity from government interference. Therefore reproductive decisions made by a woman are a private matter beyond the scope of government.

I realize that this s controversial and upsetting to many with strong religious faith, however the "establishment clause" and the "free exercise clause" of the first amendment prohibit the government from enforcing religious convictions or sentiments. The first amendment is a de facto abdication of religious authority by government, and inversely an empowerment of the individuals right to practice a faith giving the citizen a great degree of religious autonomy.

Religious and secular people disagree about the exact time that life actually begins within the body of the protected female person. The government is not in the religious enforcement business. The same constitution that gives a woman the right to anatomical privacy, also gives religious people the right to practice their faith freely..

Neither side has a clear mandate. Both sides are factions in a constitution debate.

Any law requlating a womans right to control her own body is flagrantly unconstitutional, in much the same way that any law regulating what sermons may or may not be preached is also unconstitutional. The goverment cannot legislate against sin. Abortion is a matter of conscience to those of us who respect the right of a woman to control her own body in an enviroment that is free of coercion. My reverence for the bill of rights also compels me to respect the right of religious people to disgree with that.

Let us not replicate the mistake of the ACLU and get so blasted hung up on the first amendment that the other amendments are forgotten. Let us not replicate the mistake of the NRA and get hung up on the second amendment and excuse other amendments from the agenda. Those two organizations deserve each other for their one amendment agendas.

A TRUE liberal concept of patriotism means a strict adherance to ALL of the amendments and not just the ones that are your pet peeves or that support your position.

Religious fundimentalists and constitutional fundimentalists have debated these issue for several decades without resolution. The bill of rights protects both sides from goverment imposition of values. The challenge we face as Americans is to find a method to give equal respect to those who control a uturus, and those who control a pulpit, but not to give dominance to either side out of respect for the Bill of Rights.

Stephanie Heck

Huntington West Virginia

Liberal History in Perspective:

 In 1776 the ultra conservative monarchy of Great Britain sought to maintain power in the the colonies by maintaining the status quo and upholding the traditional values of the time. The king was the "defender of the faith" by law in addition to his political position in 1776.

Ben Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John Hancock, had several things in common. They were all wealthy, highly intellectual, and somewhat elitist, and in the context of the era that they lived, they were all VERY LIBERAL. It seems 1776 was not a good year for conservatives and their king. 230 years have passed sinse the Declaration of independance, and those who claim to speak for the king of the universe, as opposed to an earthly king are still fighting with liberals over how much freedom is approrpiate. As for the so called liberal agenda...I am well pleased with the one that the founding fathers wrote.

In 1776, the concept of a demcratic republic was the most radical liberal concept that the world had seen for a thousand years. There is not a stitch of conservatism in the legacy of the founding fathers.

Stephanie Heck

Huntington West Virginia

I have used my polling software to create a poll for my readers. The topic of this poll is the Iraq War. There are a variety of choices offered in the iraq war poll. I am trying to learn more about my readers.

Here is the poll link Iraq War Poll poll participation is optional.

The Execution of inmate Stanley Tookie Williams took place this morning, and the execution was carried out and the inmate was declared dead at 12:35 AM this morning by the California Department of Corrections.

Stanley Tookie Williams was sentenced to death and executed by lethal injection by the state of California after being convicted of four murders over 24 years ago.

" Tookie " was one of the original founders of murderous Crips street gang. Numerous celebrities have asked Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger for clemency, but clemency was denied and the execution proceeded as scheduled. The State of California's execution teem took no less than twelve minutes to find a vein to insert the needle and made numerous attempts for twelve minutes according to eyewitnesses.

On one hand I have compassion for the relatives of an executed inmate. I also have compassion for the victims of the condemned inmate. It is alleged that Tookie did much good during his time behind bars and this was evidence of reform and redemption that merited the commutation of the death sentance.

I believe that reform is possible, however the execution penalty remains the same in California.

I am really glad that we do not have the death penalty and there are no execution teams in West Virginia prisons. I am not soft on crime, but mature enough to understand that vengance by state sanctioned infliction of death does not equate to justice.

POLL: DID TOOKIE DESERVE EXECUTION?

Political Commentary:

President Bush has nominated U.S. Court of Appeals Judge John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court, passing over several well qualified female candidates to replace the retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in favor of a Harvard educated male litigator with very conservative political credentials.

Females have always been a minority on the Supreme Court and many American Women are justifiably proud of the contributions of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to American Jurisprudence and legal history. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor is a positive role model for ones young daughter. Both liberal and conservative women admire the contribution of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor in regard to her judicial scholarship.

For President Bush to replace a moderate woman like Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with a good 'ole' boy conservative male with Ivy league legal credentials, is to roll back the progress that female lawyers have made in the Federal judiciary. President Bush has a moral obligation to America's women to replace a female Justice with a female replacement.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has been a positive role model to every little girl in America, and every female law student. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor has PROVEN that women do belong on the Supreme Court. This is her contribution to History.

The Bush white house has ignored the polls that show a large majority of Americans feel that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor should be replaced with another female candidate. Not only is this a crass attempt to alter the conservative - liberal political balance of the Supreme Court, but it is also a ploy to keep women off the court in any appreciable numbers. The gender balance of the court is just as important as the political balance to the women of America. I am certain that U.S. Court of Appeals Judge John G. Roberts Jr. is an excellent attorney, he is merely the wrong woman for the job.

It is high time for Karl Rove to resign. He has become a liability to the credibility of the U.S. Government.

It is irrelevant if Karl Rove's reputation as a mean spirited blabber of secrets is warranted or not. The fact is that other allied governments may well withhold intelligence information from the U.S. Government to make certain that the identity of their own agents remains safe and super secret. Allied foreign governments are leery of dealing with those who leak information for any political purpose. For exactly this reason, Karl Rove has become a millstone around the Presidents neck.

How can we possibly ask foreign intelligence agencies to share critical intelligence data with us if they believe that the Bush White House cannot be trusted to keep the identity of our own agents secret, much less the identity of the agents of allied governments.

The current situation is enough to make "James Bond" profoundly paranoid. Karl Rove should step aside for the sake of his country. Karl Rove needs to understand that this nation needs to gather intelligence from nations that may well not cooperate if Rove stays in his current position. For those of you who are students of history, The Czar of Russia had Rasputin, and George W. Bush has Karl Rove. Both have been historically problematic.

I believe it is time to close the terrorist prison detention facility at Guantanamo Bay Cuba.

There are many dangerous men in that prison who need to be put on trial. The military has held them for several years and has not gone forward with trials. I suggest those who are accused of terrorist acts should be detained in a secure facility under the authority of a federal judge. It is time for the rule of military force to yield to the rule of law.

Federal Law allows for the death penalty for those terrorists held in Guantanamo who planned and executed terrorist actions against the USA. By all means let us proceed with trials for those who are accused of crimes against Humanity and the American people. Many of them are guilty of terrorism and some were simple illiterate foot soldiers for the Taliban.

The Guantanamo prison camp has been plagued with tales of abuse and scandal since it opened. The Guantanamo prison camp is an embarrassment to the American people. If we put the terror suspects on trial, it will uphold the rule of law under our constitution that gives the worst of humanity their right to a day in court. If we violate our precious constitution out of fear of terrorism, the bad guys win.

Stephanie Heck

Huntington WV

Property Rights

A sharply divided Supreme Court ruled 5-4 Thursday that local governments may seize people's homes and businesses against their will for private development. Individual property rights are not what they used to be. The 5-4 ruling represented a huge defeat for some Connecticut residents whose homes are scheduled for destruction to make room for an office complex. The homeowners argued that cities have no right to take their land except for projects with a clear public use, such as roads or schools. At issue was the scope of the Fifth Amendment, which allows governments to take private property through eminent domain if the land is for "public use."

The case on the Supreme Court Docket is { Kelo et al v. City of New London }

Commentary: You now have the right to own real estate, just as long as the city does not want it for the use of some private developer. Your property rights are now dependant on the municipal integrity, rather than the bill of rights. Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, argued that cities should not have unlimited authority to uproot families, even if they are provided compensation, simply to accommodate wealthy developers. However she was out voted when she stood up for the little guy at the Supreme Court. Her argument was rejected by the majority.

I feel the founding fathers deemed property rights to be human rights due to free people. When eminent domain was first invoked in the early days of the republic, it was used to secure right of way for public and post roads. Eminent Domain was used to build a road across a farmers cornfield but never to tear someones house down until recent years, because people had a right to be secure in thier homes, persons, and papers, and to be safe and secure from unreasonable searches and siezures. Abuse of eminent domain would have been seen as an unreasonable siezure until recent devcades. Using eminent domain against somones home was unheard of in the days of the founders when American's had property rights in abundance. Only the filthy rich have rights in this day and time. The Constitutional rights of the common American just ain't what they used to be.

Stephanie Heck

Huntington

Cabell County

West Virginia

There are many political loudmouth people in national politics. I speak to thier defense.

Howard Dean has a big loudmouth and he says exactly what he thinks in national political debate as a liberal Democrat. Rush Limbaugh has a big loudmouth and says exactly what he thinks in political debate as a conservative Republican. The founders of this nation intended for the truth to be distilled from the intellectual chaos that comes from loudmouth political debate. As American's, let us revere free speech, rather than what is politically correct.

The science of rhetorical articulation has become so genteel and respectful, that it undermines the dirty business of loudmouth political debate that actually results in efficient government. Harry Truman was very much a loudmouth and was prone to employ numerous expletives in his lexicon, yet all who knew hin deemed him to be a man of great integrity. I prefer the ravings of an honest loudmouth to those of a rhetorical word-smth who takes ten thousand words to say nothing of value. Verbosity demands a measure of integrity.

By all means, let the liberal and conservative loudmouth politcal people fight it out. Political Free Speech is what makes America great, and we loudmouth political people know it well,  so shout it from the mountaintops.

Recent drops in Stock market prices have convinced me that the idea to privatize social security with individual accounts is a bad one. I fail to see how throwing away a sure thing in favor of a stock market gamble is a good idea. It would seem to me that this is not in the best interest of the aging baby boomers.

I remember that it was because of the stock market crash of 1929 that social security became part of FDR's new deal. By turning social security over to the robber Barron's on wall street, we would be spitting on the legacy of FDR's post depression era reforms. FDR was a great man to the same degree of magnitude as Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, and Ben Franklin. I respect his history of compassion in caring for the needs of the elderly.

It was because of the abuses of Wall Street that Social Security came into being. It is because I revere the intent of FDR that I do not desire to turn the chicken coop over to the weasels of Wall Street and watch history repeat itself when the next depression destroys the nest-egg of the elderly. The economy is cyclic in nature, and what has happened before will happen again. Kindly inform President Bush to forget the Alamo and remember 1929.