Search This Blog

Sunday, August 30, 2015

Liberal Authoritarianism AKA sanctimonious hypocrisy

You've often heard the question ... if he or she was the enemy a terrorist or a KGB plant ... what would he/she be doing differently? As in, if Obama was deliberately seeking to destroy from within the United States of America—bankruptcy, military defenselessness, gangs, racial violence, anarchy (AKA black-lives-matter)—instead of being its president, what would he doing differently? The answer is of course nothing. If the answer is nothing then it doesn't matter what his intentions are. He is the enemy.

Suppose your father goes berserk, loses his job, doesn't pay the bills, maxes every credit card, pawns the title to his car, goes on a payday loan spending spree. Now your family is bankrupt. The apartment manager evicts you. You're homeless and destitute. You could say ... "well, we had some bad luck." You could say ... "well, we're the victims of capitalism and greedy rich people." You could say, "well, the government should have protected us." You could say, "well, if it hadn't been for those meddling kids..." The truth is your father was the enemy. By action or inaction he caused the chain of events that destroyed your way of life. As you beg for spare change and wait in line for your bowl of free soup, never forget who's to blame. Intention or desire doesn't matter at this point. If your army buddy shoots you because he's got PTSD, it doesn't matter to you or those who love you that it was all just a tragic mistake. If someone harms you—even accidently—the injury hurts, and continues to hurt.

To most people, intentions matter. If you deliberately injure or kill a person, this is vastly different than if the whole thing was just a big mistake. "Oh was the gun loaded? ... My bad." "So if I press this button—like this—we launch five-hundred nuclear missiles? Wait...did I just..." I hope that by now you're beginning to understand that intentions—or as I like to say alleged intentions—are irrelevant. Intentions are irrelevant. If you are the enemy willing or not, then you are the enemy, and we should have no compunction whatsoever in putting you down ... forever.

Right now, at this moment, there's a movement to destroy all of us. They may not know they're attempting to destroy us from within, but regardless of their intentions, that is exactly what they're working towards. Are you going to let that happen? Of course not. You're going to fight back, right?

Liberals are taking your children away from you! They're taking your language away from you! They're dismantling our military. Teaching your children that homosexuality is wonderful ... and hey, why not have your penis and testicles chopped off?

Liberal authoritarians are the problem. Let's drive the coal industry into bankruptcy! Let's demand car manufacturers meet impossible MPG standards.

I'll bring up my own pet peeve. Authoritarian drivers. Did you ever get stuck behind some guy that thinks the speed-limit is too high? In his own petty way he's Obama junior. You'll conform to his own below the law speed limit because frankly he's in front and there's only the one lane. He could go faster. He could pull off and allow a mile of cars waiting behind him to go ahead, but that's not the kind of person were dealing with. We're not dealing with a reasonable person who just wants everyone to be happy. Frankly, we're dealing with an asshole who enjoys the misery and/or fury of others. What are their intentions? They would claim they're just looking out for everyone else. They would claim that they know best. They would claim that all of us are going too fast and even though it seems to be an inconvenience, in the end, all of us will be better off. Who cares what this guy says. We know by the grin on his face that's he's having a great time leading the slow highway parade. The slow driver is not an aberration. In fact his kind dominate the establishment of both parties, but especially the Democratic party. He is the quintessential epitome of the hypocritical sanctimony that these liberal assholes—who enjoy watching the world suffer under their own authoritarian domination—represent.

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Coining a new term—and admitting to being one—"Stayers"

Hillary and her server are the talk of the nation. Obama, far from protecting her, is probably actively urging his people to go after this. I don't think Obama wants Clinton to be president. Actually I don't think Barack Hussein wants anybody but himself to be president. There's birthers and there's truthers, and to that I'll add the term "stayers." When Hillary Clinton implodes ... and the constant drumbeat in the mainstream media signals that this was always intended, who will be left to run? Well, there's always Michelle Obama. She could run and if Donald Trump ran as a 3rd party candidate, as I suspect he will, then Michelle Obama is virtually assured her golden crown.
The "extremely serious" investigation into Hillary Clinton's use of a private email server while she served as secretary of state is being led by an FBI "A-team," an intelligence source told Fox News.

The source said the investigation is "extremely serious" and is centered around 18 US Code 793, a section of the Espionage Act related to gathering and transmitting national-defense information.

Two emails reportedly found on Clinton's server from 2009 and 2011 contained information regarded as "Top Secret/Sensitive Compartmented Information," one of the highest levels of classification.

The two emails were drawn out of a batch of 40 randomly selected from about 30,000 "work-related" emails that Clinton turned over to the State Department from her time as secretary of state, from 2009 to 2013.

Some of the information — such as communications intercepted via satellite or drone — is protected under the law 18USC798, which means they have tighter rules and higher penalties. Massimo Calabresi of Time recently noted that the law "makes it a crime not just to knowingly mishandle such secrets, but also to use them 'in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States.'"

As a result, the FBI's investigation has gone "way beyond what the intelligence community's Inspector General ever would do," a senior intelligence official familiar with the case told Time.

Thursday, August 27, 2015

Is birthright citizenship merely a game of kick the can?

Megan Kelly grills Ted Cruz on birthright citizenship:

Did you ever play kick the can? The game works like this ... whoever is "it" closes his eyes and counts to a predetermined number. Meanwhile everybody hides. After Mr. "It" reaches the predetermined number he's going to hunt down all the people playing the game. There's a can on the ground that represents safety for those who aren't "it." If they can avoid "Mr. It" and successfully kick the can they are safe. They win. They won't end up being "Mr. It."

How sad is it that a vagina with a baby behind it is the modern day equivalent of a tin can? All an illegal immigrant needs to do is evade "Mr. It" long enough to 'kick the can' and they're safe ... forever! Megyn Kelly "a real womyn, by the way" wants to know would Ted Cruz deport American citizens. Yes it is a mainstream media question. Yes it is the first thing Chris Matthews would ask. Yes it is completely unequivocally and completely irrelevant, and yes it's an unfair question. So why would Megyn Kelly ask it? Is she secretly a female Chris Matthews, or is she merely preparing the candidates for what they'll face as they go forward? Maybe she thinks of herself as a sparring partner. She's not trying to knock anybody out, merely teaching them to keep their guard up. Okay, perhaps. But now it's time to look at the question. It doesn't look like anybody has. Point number one: Is birthright citizenship valid? Point number two: If birthright citizenship is valid, what do we do with the parents?

Unfortunately with the recent Supreme Court, if the decision went to them, "Kick the Can" would be the decision. This despite—for instance—the indisputable fact that children of foreign ambassadors have never been considered as Americans—they're not considered "SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF," the clause that every single mainstream media journalist, reporter, or pundit has forgotten, ignored, or never bothered to read.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
"SUBJECT TO THE JURISDICTION THEREOF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" So a can is kicked, a baby is born. Now they can apply for welfare and an EBT card? Let's not discuss or even entertain the possibility that birthright citizenship was never what the creators of the 14th amendment ever desired...okay obviously we are forced to discuss exactly that!
The 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution reads in part:

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and the State wherein they reside." Babies born to illegal alien mothers within U.S. borders are called anchor babies because under the 1965 immigration Act, they act as an anchor that pulls the illegal alien mother and eventually a host of other relatives into permanent U.S. residency. (Jackpot babies is another term).

Post-Civil War reforms focused on injustices to African Americans. The 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868 to protect the rights of native-born Black Americans, whose rights were being denied as recently-freed slaves. It was written in a manner so as to prevent state governments from ever denying citizenship to blacks born in the United States. But in 1868, the United States had no formal immigration policy, and the authors therefore saw no need to address immigration explicitly in the amendment.

In 1866, Senator Jacob Howard clearly spelled out the intent of the 14th Amendment by writing:

Every person born within the limits of the United States, and subject to their jurisdiction, is by virtue of natural law and national law a citizen of the United States. This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons. It settles the great question of citizenship and removes all doubt as to what persons are or are not citizens of the United States. This has long been a great desideratum in the jurisprudence and legislation of this country." The phrase "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was intended to exclude American-born persons from automatic citizenship whose allegiance to the United States was not complete. With illegal aliens who are unlawfully in the United States, their native country has a claim of allegiance on the child. Thus, the completeness of their allegiance to the United States is impaired, which therefore precludes automatic citizenship.

The correct interpretation of the 14th Amendment is that an illegal alien mother is subject to the jurisdiction of her native country, as is her baby.

Over a century ago, the Supreme Court correctly confirmed this restricted interpretation of citizenship in the so-called 'Slaughter-House cases' [83 US 36 (1873)] and in [112 US 94 (1884)]. In Elk v.Wilkins, the phrase 'subject to its jurisdiction' excluded from its operation 'children of ministers, consuls, and citizens of foreign states born within the United States.' In Elk, the American Indian claimant was considered not an American citizen because the law required him to be 'not merely subject in some respect or degree to the jurisdiction of the United States, but completely subject to their political jurisdiction and owing them direct and immediate allegiance.'

Congress subsequently passed a special act to grant full citizenship to American Indians, who were not citizens even through they were born within the borders of the United States. The Citizens Act of 1924, codified in 8USCSß1401, provides that:

The following shall be nationals and citizens of the United States at birth:
(a) a person born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof;
(b) a person born in the United States to a member of an Indian, Eskimo, Aleutian, or other aboriginal tribe.
The original intent of the 14th Amendment was clearly not to facilitate illegal aliens defying U.S. law and obtaining citizenship for their offspring, nor obtaining benefits at taxpayer expense. Current estimates indicate there may be over 300,000 anchor babies born each year in the U.S., thus causing illegal alien mothers to add more to the U.S. population each year than immigration from all sources in an average year before 1965.

Australia rescinded birthright citizenship in 2007, as did New Zealand in 2006, Ireland in 2005, France in 1993, and the United Kingdom in 1983. This leaves the United States and Canada as the only remaining industrialized nations to grant automatic citizenship to every person born within the borders of the country, irrespective of their parents' nationality or immigration status.

American citizens must be wary of elected politicians voting to illegally extend our generous social benefits to illegal aliens and other criminals.
I realize that the vast majority of the American electorate mistakenly believe in "birthright citizenship. If they merely contained theirselves with the belief that Santa Clause and the Tooth Fairy are watching our every move, the world would be a vastly better place to live. Alas, sadly that is not the case. Nevertheless, even if you believe in the Tooth-Fairy, Santa-Clause, and birthright citizenship, there still remains a commonsense answer to Megyn Kelly's question. If a baby born on this side of the border is automatically granted citizenship—AKA it kicked the can—then it is an American citizen. What if the police find an abandoned baby in a basket by the side of the road ... what do they do? It's common sense it's also called an orphanage. Alternatively it's called foster-care and it's also called adoption. If the illegal immigrant parents want to, they can certainly give their new child up for adoption, otherwise they can take themselves and their can-kicking infant back to wherever they came from. Please keep in mind that the can-kicking infant has an American birth-certificate. This would certainly be grounds later to prove United States citizenship whenever he/she desires to return—sans non-citizen parents of course. How Many People are Seeking to Adopt?
According to the data from the National Surveys of Family Growth from 1973, 1982, 1988, and 1995, that there were 9.9 million women who had ever considered adoption, 16% had taken steps towards adoption, and 31% of these had actually adopted a child. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1999)

The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth found that 500,000 women were currently seeking to adopt a child. (Freundlich, 1998)
Of the 500,000 women seeking to adopt, only 100,000 had actually applied to adopt a child. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1997)
The 1995 National Survey of Family Growth found that 232,000 women were currently taken concrete steps towards adoptions, compared to 204,000 in 1988. (National Center for Health Statistics, 1999)
According to the 1988 National Survey of Family Growth there are an estimated 3.3 adoption seekers for every actual adoption.
According to the 1988 National Survey on Family Growth, about 2 million women ages 15 to 44 (3.5%) had ever sought to adopt a child.
Of these, 1.3 million did not adopt and are no longer seeking.
620,000 have adopted one or more children.
204,000 are currently seeking to adopt.
(Bachrach, London, Maza, 1991)

Tuesday, August 25, 2015

Every eight years!

If you look at this historical Dow Jones Industrial Average chart going back to the 1980s, some frightening patterns stand out. Every eight years there's a big shakeup and the value of these stocks is cut in half. We're now in the eighth year once again. My prediction is the DJIA drops by half in the next couple of years and reaches its bottom at about 9250. It's also interesting that it coincides with the election cycle of a new president each time. Notice the tranquil easy pace from 1970 to 1995? That's 25 years of nothing much happening. Then all of a sudden in '95 the DJIA takes off. That's also when all of a sudden average joe could invest in the stock market all by himself using a computer. Without the requirement of sending every trade through a broker, the world jumped into the stock market. And it soared! But with all the people buying and selling came a never before seen degree of volatility. People fear change. They fear uncertain tomorrows, and apparently they fear having their money in the stock market when there's about to be a new president of the United States.

Sunday, August 23, 2015

I don't think we're in Kansas anymore, Toto

The stock market has plunged more than 1000 points in the past week. They're still calling it a correction. You can come back to this post in a few more weeks and let me know if it's still a "correction." We're eighteen trillion in debt with 127 in unfunded liabilities. ISIS wants your head in a box. Putin wants Europe to start with. China or perhaps Japan probably already owns you.

Apparently—according to a majority of supreme court justices, if you want to marry the guy who used to share your locker room during your high-school Pys-ed period ... that's okay because ... identity or something. Imagine the wedding reception ... the cake cutting ... and finally the denouement as one guy carries his groom across the threshold. "Oh they're perfect for each other! What lovely children they'll adopt." says an enthusiastic celebrant. My advise is stay home. However if you're thinking about a suitable wedding gift, I recommend Febreze ... a whole case of it, in fact.

I know it seems bad. The whole world hates the USA. Our military hasn't been this weak and demoralized since before WWII. Racial violence committed by blacks against whites has exploded beyond anything you could possibly imagine. The Social Security you were counting on to help fund your retirement has not only already been spent, but we've been borrowing money to pay for yesterday's and today's retirees for several decades. How long do you think other countries will keep lending money to a world-class bum like us?

But look on the bright side ...

When everything has already gone wrong, there's nothing left to go wrong.

Wednesday, August 19, 2015

Sadly, the USA is not run like a business.

At American Thinker I started to read an article about the economy. Immediately I was struck by how very wrong it was. The headline asked a question and the answer—according to John Horvat, II—was a resounding NO! We don't want a business model for our country.
With the nation polarized and unable to move forward, many people are suggesting that what our country needs is a business model for governing. Forget about the moral issues. Run the nation like a business and everything will come out all right. Find a candidate who gets things done in business and that person will do the same thing for America, Inc. You can’t argue with success.

Such a pragmatic proposal definitely resonates with those who are fed up with government. People are tired of not getting things done. They don’t like running the country in the red. Getting the country on a spreadsheet is an attractive idea.

The problem is we don’t need a business model for governing. We already have one and it’s not working.
Let me see if I understand—so far—what you are saying John, is that we the people desire something that works. We agree that the nation is polarized and unable to move forward ... and we agree that it's not working. That's about all we agree on. You say that we already have a business model for running the country and it's not working? Well, I hate to Fisk you, John, but if we had a "business model" for our country, then only the owners of the country would vote and everyone else could just shut the f*ck up. Instead, every Tom Dick and Julio—most without a scrap of skin in the game—has the ability via ballot, to change the game every couple of years. I think everyone reading this can agree that if John Doe—who doesn't own a single share of IBM—desired to appoint Silent Bob as Chief Executive Officer of IBM, he wouldn't have a vote. Therefore, right off the bat we have a massive difference in the business model and the American democratic model. Would you agree, John? What other differences can we find in a true business model and our own democracy?

In business, if a company loses money consistently and constantly, it would file for chapter 11 protection and its pieces would be sold off to the highest bidder. But we don't see that happening with the United States Postal Service. In business, if an employee doesn't work, or if his work is haphazard, shoddy, or even diametrically opposed to its originally designed result, an executive within the company would be forced to terminate that employee's relationship with the company. Those of us who pay attention know full well that a government employee—with the exception of those in the military—is automatically granted carte blanche to sneer and even blow snot from one nostril on the shoes of those who pay his salary. Their every interaction with we the people is like that of a monarch being forced to acknowledge a peasant begging for another bowl of gruel. So our American system of representative democracy is not at all a business model.
Our political system has always had something of a business model built into it. We already find in the literature of the Founding Fathers references to the nation as a “commercial republic,” a union of legitimate self-interest, aimed at providing progress, prosperity and security. American political rhetoric is full of economic references that hold progress and prosperity as the height of well-being. Anyone who strays from this narrative is quickly reminded, as was Bill Clinton in 1992, “It’s the economy, stupid!”

If there is an image that corresponds to our political model, think of a thriving farm co-op or public corporation of shareholders. Citizenship is a kind of a co-op membership full of legitimate benefits with distributed risks, voting privileges, few liabilities, and plenty of entertainment. The key to keeping everyone happy is a robust economic order that ensures that members renew their membership with great enthusiasm.

However, this business model for governing depends upon two important pillars. The first is a great consensus to get along and smooth over differences, which is assured by the outward appearance of prosperity and the promise of the American dream.

The second pillar is a vague moral code that ensures some kind of order and serves as the foundation of trust and confidence that allows business to flourish and the rule of law to prevail. As long as these two pillars stand, the system works well.

But when the economic dynamo stalls or sputters over a long period of time, the glue of consensus no longer holds. When the vague moral code falls into decay, trust and rule of law disappear. What we are witnessing today is the breakdown of this cooperative business model.

The problem, John Horvat, II, is not moral codes, nor is it some ephemeral glue of consensus. Neither is it stalling dynamos for that matter!. The problem is that our model of governing—not at all based on any kind of pragmatic system of what works and what doesn't—is fundamentally flawed. It's flawed because people who don't provide anything, who don't produce anything, nor in fact do anything at all ever!, people who hate America with every fiber of their being are allowed to have a say in how this country is run. John, will you at least agree that in the course of normal business the CEO of Burger King doesn't get to vote on who is going to run McDonalds?
That is why everything seems like a free-for-all. Everyone wants to blame the other for the failure of the co-op. Our elections have become like shareholder brawls where the officers are frequently changed. Opinion polls serve as quarterly earnings reports to which all scramble to adapt. Who wins is often the one who promises the most in the least amount of time. Americans are seeing a model that used to work so well now working contrary to their interests by not paying out dividends, but distributing uncertainties that cause anxiety, depression, and stress.

All this is reflected in the latest election cycle as candidates woo shareholders/voters with promises of change and benefits. We are again being subjected to the frenetic intemperance of sound bite politics, pandering to political correctness and media posturing. Like it or not, elections have become business ventures, more often decided not by who is the better candidate, but who can amass the largest war chest, employ the most mega data or engage in social media. Such razzle-dazzle elections are now a strange and superficial ritual that is exhausting the nation.

It’s not enough to run the country like a machine controlled by a spreadsheet. Without a consensus and a moral code, any business model becomes brutal and opportunistic, cold and impersonal, fast and frantic, mechanical and inflexible. Such models, whether industrial or political, all lead to bankruptcy.
Again we agree! We both agree that elections and opinion polls and promises are a big part of the problem, but what we can never Agree on, Mr. Horvat, II, is that consensuses, moral codes, and spreadsheet controlled machines are the real problem. We the people are the problem. Our own frailties, our own petty squabbles, partisanship, bickering, ego, sloth, and greed are why this country doesn't work and in fact can never work. I for one welcome rule by a machine armed with a quiver of spreadsheets. That sounds like something that actually works ... as opposed to about 52% of the USA.

Tuesday, August 4, 2015

Trump or Chump?

My first thought is that I want a younger president than Donald Trump or Hillary. My second is that I don't want Jeb Bush. My third thought is that I don't trust Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton or Jeb Bush. Of the three Donald Trump is the least predictable.

I know what Hillary would do. She would continue in the manner of Obama. She would continue to push the EPA to destroy the coal industry, an industry that employs 174,000 Americans. She would also continue the push to redistribute wealth from the makers to the takers. She would veto any bill that threatened Obamacare, that threatened the Obama environmental orders he has decreed, or that threatened to curb the flood of illegals crossing our southern border. In addition I suspect she would load a few more sacks of straw onto the back of that stumbling struggling camel known as the American tax payer. If she didn't have the support of congress—which I suspect she wouldn't—she'd do it by continuing to import—and support—even more millions of new illegals from the poverty stricken shores of countries where the people don't speak English—or even know how to read their own language for that matter. The next four—or eight—years would look like Obama versions 3.0 and 4.0. (A crappy operating system worse than Windows Millennium Edition) It would be an operating system that we have to re-pay for every year, that doesn't do anything but crash—shut down the government—for days or even weeks at a time, every time there's a budget vote, and ensures that those of us who work for a living will work longer hours for less money until the day we finally drop dead from some untreated disease that we didn't have the money to treat because we can't afford insurance and the "Affordable Care Act" is only affordable for the people who get it for free, or almost free.

I know what Jeb Bush would do also. No, he wouldn't repeal Obamacare. He might claim that he would, but he wouldn't. There are too many poor people already on it. There are too many illegal immigrants already on it. He'd try to tweak it. Every time the mainstream media criticized him, he'd cave and vacillate. When states complained about illegal immigration, Jeb Bush would promise to get right on that, and then he'd do nothing. He'd push for more money for the military, like his brother. He'd push for lower taxes, like his brother. In the end, he'd vote for a huge new unaffordable entitlement program, like his brother. Much like George Bush, his brother, he wouldn't have any grand plans of his own. His only goal would be to maintain the status quo by continuing to borrow the money from our children. For some people it's all a big popularity contest and nothing else matters. If the public seems to want something, then that's what Jeb will want. If the public seems to want something else ... ditto. Much like a weathervane, Jeb will swing whichever way the wind blows. Jeb Bush is a giant flapping sack of wind that swings in whatever direction the wind blows. He's like Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts. The honorable: "It's a tax. It's not a tax." "established by the state...or you know ... whatever." Jeb Bush is the Mini-Me of John Roberts:

I don't know what The Donald would do. He says he'll build a wall. Well, it's a start, but I'm not certain he'd even do that. What if what he really wants is Hillary for President? Do we trust this guy? He's a billionaire because he always makes the decisions that benefit him. It seems to me, that while what he says seems exciting, I'd pick somebody who doesn't just talk the talk but who's actually already walked the walk ... as in Governor Scott Walker.

(How'd you like that segue? pretty awesome, I'd say! ... Pats self on back. Takes imaginary bow ... etc.)

Sunday, August 2, 2015

A troubling letter I received from a "sister" and my reply

-----Original Message-----
From: Julie Herr
Sent: Thu, Jul 30, 2015 1:31 pm May God bless you as you read.

I am Mrs Julia Herr,suffering from cancerous ailment.I am married to Mr.Robert Herr,my husband worked with Chevron Corporation for twenty years before he died in the year 2008. My late husband deposited the sum of $7.5 Million (Seven Million Five Hundred United state dollars) with Finance Company.

Recently,my Doctor told me that I have limited days to live due to the stroke and cancerous problems I am suffering from.I have decided to donate this fund to you and want you to use this gift which comes from my husbands effort to fund the upkeep of widows and charities worldwide.

I took this decision because I do not have any child that will inherit this money and my husband relatives are bourgeois and very wealthy persons and I do not want my husband hard earned money to be misused.Kindle reply me through this email : ( ) .With God all things are possible.

Your Sister

Mrs.Julia Herr

Dear Mrs Herr

I'm so saddened and appalled and excited!

What kind of cancer? I'm an MD and also a dentist. Perhaps I can help diagnose your condition and recommend a proper method to control your condition. You say it's cancerous? There's a hemisphere in the northern sky near Leo and Gemini that could be indicative of your own predicament. Perhaps it's needless to say, but I obviously can't offer any kind of medical advise without a great deal of further information.

Needless to say, but your own offer of seven and a half million dollars to fund the upkeep of widows and charities worldwide is a welcome and entirely magnanimous offer which I wholeheartedly accept. It's been my own ambition to found a hospital, and if you were to provide the funding for this humanitarian project I would promise that this hospital would forever be named in honor of your late husband and be named the Robert Herr University Hospital. (RHUH)

I'm very excited about your offer while at the same time very alarmed and saddened by your own chances for continued survival. In a word I am irresolute! I don't know how I should respond. On the one hand I have your own life, which has inestimable value, I'm quite certain! On the other hand I have seven and a half million dollars which, needless to say, also has inestimable value. I don't know whether to pray for your own survival or the cancer's. You must it admit it is quite the quandary.

I can't decide.

I humbly request that you advise me on this matter. What should I do?

Humbly and irresolutely yours,

Jack the Baptist, MD, DDS.