I write regularly for American Thinker, Canada Free Press and others, and the behavior that you describe is very common. As I told a friend of mine, sometimes I feel like each article I write is like tossing raw meat among a pack of hyenas.

The key to dealing with this stuff is to just laugh at it. Another of Alinsky's rules -- ridicule your opponent

And exactly how did the unions "build" the middle class? By reducing profits for the entrepreneur? By forcing other citizens to pay more for the same quality of product that was made before the union secured representation at a factory? By shutting down production and forcing the closing of companies with a long history of providing employment?

Yeah, I can see how the unions really "built" the middle class.

My father was a union guy for years, through strikes, through shift changes, through assessments. Then he got laid off, not because of his work quality or quantity, but simply because he was the most junior man in his department -- after all he ONLY had 22 years seniority.

He went to work within a few months at a non-union firm, got a huge increase in salary and benefits, and was able to move the family into a much nicer home which certainly made my mother happier. So again, tell me again all about how unions "built" the middle class.

If someone needs to take a class in ethical behavior, it's already too late.

"No harm came"? I can't agree with that view. Harm was visited on this nation. If the power hungry get away with one excess, more will follow.

The Constitution was NOT drafted by some noble elitists to protect Americans. It is a document that clearly states that the governing of Americans is limited, since back in the day, the founders (and not just the founders) knew from personal experience with George III that uncontrolled power is power that will destroy everything it touches. Those in the Constitutional Convention could only write a draft. The individual state legislatures had to approve it, and they did so only after adding the Bill of Rights, to limit the government's power even more.

Think about the first few words of the Constitution: "We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union ..... ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Clearly, the people of this nation defined the government and what it was allowed to do. Anything that the government does which is not clearly defined in that Constitution it is not allowed to do. Kind of a simple concept, right?

But lawyers (and that includes every judge) try to stretch and twist and manipulate the Constitution to take those handcuffs off the government.

Our kids and grandkids must be able to read the original document in that context, and understand that unless they want to live a serfs, s***es, the peasants under Louis XIV or the kulaks in czarist Russia, they have to dedicate themselves to fighting the insidious rot that is infecting our country before it is gone forever.

Exactly so, Silverfox

It amazes me that these l*****t animal rights types haven't gotten the memo about g****l w*****g. That's based on science, isn't it? There's a consensus that trumps any who argue against g****l w*****g, right?

So why don't these misguided i***ts get a poll together to show that they have a consensus of "scientists" who think autism can't be cured by research? Isn't that the l*****t way?

Jacoby misses the point when he complains that online retailers are being forced to collect taxes for states where they have no representation.

Retailers collect taxes it's true. But it's the citizens and residents of each state that actually have to PAY that tax. Why are they never considered?

And if those cong*****l liars in the Capital really wanted "marketplace fairness" they have an alternative solution available to them -- eliminate ALL sales taxes. That way there is no advantage for online merchants versus local mom-and-pop merchants.

Yeah, I know. Like that would ever happen.

Sorry, but I have to disagree. All Democrats, regardless of g****r, think that way. The Party is all, and nothing else counts.

I have serious doubts that this "we're-really-not-raising-your-taxes" tax will pass if it makes it to the House. It appears that it's very likely just another political move on the part of Obama and the Democrats to tee up an attack on Republicans as not being "fair" to the locals in brick-and-mortar retail outlets.

Somehow the Republicans have to sell the idea that if the local state and county governments want "fairness" they should eliminate, or at least reduce radically, their local sales taxes.

Any sales tax is highly regressive. It hurts low income people much more than it hurts Obama's "millionaires and billionaires". So why not attack Dems for that? There is supposed to be a special tax on "Cadillac" health care plans right? Why not establish a sales tax on "Cadillac" everything else? Why? Because Dems have tried that in the past and it destroyed jobs. That's all taxes ever do.

"...charged with obstruction and disturbing the education process.." I've just got to wonder, obstruction of what, exactly? And exactly what education was taking place that this kid was "disturbing"?

Teachers can apparently have you tossed in jail for telling them that they are wrong? Seriously?

Suppose the kid walked into class carrying a book, say "The Road to Serfdom"...would that constitute "disturbing the education process", or would it be obstructing ongoing indoctrination and brain washing?

What a great article! Of course the "You have to pay a price for what you get" seems (in the so-called minds of these liberal-Progressives) to only work in one direction.

Suppose society worked the same way for everything. That would mean no more requirements for industries to pay for things like health care, g****r sensitivity training, providing parking lots for their employees, supporting those who want to finish their education through tuition reimbursement plans, and so on, and so on.

OK, seems fair to me, what about you. We pay for our use of energy, you pay for your own damn food. Since it would sort of eliminate the idea of "tax the rich", I'm sure George Soros and Mickey Bloomberg would be all for it.

I'm just sorry that she wasn't around when my kids were little. If she "owns" my kids, then why isn't she there to change the diapers, burp the kid, walk the floor with them at 2:00am when they start crying, teach them to ride a bike, make them clean up their rooms when they're teenagers (ok, I'll admit that maybe NO one can succeed there).

Mark,

Thank you so much for providing a perfect illustration of how liberal-progressive-Democrats deal with a question that they are unable to answer. The immediately change the subject and attack.

I'm going to make sure lots of my acquaintances see how you deal with a tough subject.

I, for one, am very tired of Barack Obama being blamed for these ideas as if they were his. He isn't bright enough to have an idea. He isn't bright enough to see that the ideas presented by his l*****t entourage are destructive. All he sees is that Republicans will most likely defeat this idea, and he can blame them.

When do you think this pathetic excuse will realize that he will never have to run for office again? When will he realize (assuming he ever actually does) that the time for campaigning is over and the time for governance has arrived.

The picture of the starving, dying child is heartbreaking to be sure, but what is the ultimate reason for this tragedy? Some PROGRESSIVES would lay the blame on g****l w*****g. Some PROGRESSIVES would say that the real blame is the imperialist policies of old, white, European men. Some PROGRESSIVES would blame capitalism, without bothering to explain the connection between capitalism and starvation.

But you will rarely see the lust for power among native Africans being mentioned as the root cause of this death and violence. Lacking any other description, let's call them tribal wars, such as the violence in Rwanda between the Hutus and the Tutsis that resulted in the deaths of between 500,000 and 1,000,000 people.

There have been civil wars in Chad, the Congo, the Ivory Coast, Djibuti, Eritrea, Kenya, Liberia, Mozambique, Nigeria, Somalia, Sudan (Darfur), Uganda and the always lovely tourist mecca of Zimbabwe. And this list ignores the generally Muslim-on-Muslim violence in Egypt and the Magrheb.

Can any rational person think that the raising of food, either through farming or raising animals, to feed that child in the photo could have happened when the world around the farmer is going up in flames? I fear that PROGRESSIVES want to allow this black-on-black violence to continue and simply provide food from western democracies to assuage their consciences, without addressing the underlying cause of starvation -- rampant and open aggression by armed men in the armies of power-hungry lunatics who themselves only want to rule. In these examples, they apparently want to rule at all costs, even if ruling means ruling over vast cemeteries.