We (including workers) still have a right of assembly and the right to join together. What is wrong is when the government eliminates the right to not join with some who have joined together. Closed shops and other such un-American concepts need to be abolished. Also if there are legitimate anti-monopoly laws, they need to be extended to all, including unions. The UAW representing Government Motors, Ford, and Chrysler should be allowed to work together only to the extent that GM, Ford, and Chrysler are. Note: all of these corporations are creations of the state and can be regulated as government creations.

Smoking a joint two weeks ago was still illegal. I suppose if you were in Amsterdam two weeks ago, it might have been legal, at least maybe for a Dutchman (although it may still be formally illegal in The Netherlands, just not enforced.)

Maybe "a few Democrats" and likely some of them will change their spots back if/when they get re-elected until the next campaign time.

http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet It was just over 7% in 1986 and dropped consistently through 1987 and 1988 to 5.3% by the end of 1988., I could not figure out when the stock market drop was in 1987 from the unemployment rate. Interesting observation.

Prof. Sowell What were the unemployment rate in the times around 1987

Making peace with Abbas and Fatah would not be making peace with Palestinians while Hamas and those in Gaza remain free to commit acts of terrorism since they are also (or claim to be) Palestinans. If Israel tries a truce for the duration of attacks, it should be made clear (and acted on immediately) that a truce is ONLY with those who are "talking." Retribution against Hamas is not only on the table but should be massive.

The Black victimocrats are promoted by the (mostly white) reporters in the main stream media (MSM) for sound bites and short quotes that are controversial and thus gain viewers and readers. The only reason that they are Black "leaders" is that they are chosen by MSM to sell advertising in order to pay salaries for their promoters.

Rather than the criterion to be able to vote being my like (or dislike) of a potential voter, I would suggest that anyone who receives more from the government than pays in taxes does not get the right to vote. While that might eliminate the 40-45% of citizens who no longer pay income taxes, it would mean that those who are paying the bills are deciding how "their" money is spent. If we consider that people (sort of) paid for Social Security retirement and Medicare, maybe those two benefits could be not counted but those receiving food stamps, welfare, Medicaid, would no longer be in a position to elect people to increase their benefits and (even further) decrease their taxes.

What it would really do is make our budget even more inscrutable with expenses moved "off-budget" and new phantom revenue increases.

Except atheistss actively believe that there is and can be no God (or gods or other supernatural beings). Those who don't know whether there might be a God or maybe not are called agnostics. Simply not believing it and claiming not to know/believe (agnosticism) is not the same as atheism which is actively believing there is and can be no God, Jesus (as divine), etc. Since atheism has a definite belief system (without repeatable, scientific evidence) is as much a religion as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Shinto, etc. Of course, atheists tend not to erect buildings in which to worship the lack of something.