Imagine the hand-wringing and teeth gnashing that must be going on in newsrooms throughout the country as the Obama Administration continues to lurch and stumble through its first term. Editors and producers must be pulling hair out by the roots as they watch the incredible incompetence of the incumbent executive branch and the breathtaking corruption of the Congress, while they remain powerless to do anything about it.

They could be reporting on the incompetence and corruption if they were not wholly handcuffed by their fealty to the historic president and the liberal Congress. Think of all the potential Pulitzer Prizes they have allowed to circle the drain as they hold fast to their rigid support of the Hope and Change Administration.

They could be reporting stories about the incompetence of President Obama to run a war, as they did with such joy with George W. Bush. They might even find fault with Mr Obama for his apparent total failure to manage the American economy, as they did with Mr. Bush, despite tax cuts that added 7 million jobs to a booming economy (largely unreported by the press). They could have addressed the real reason for the economic collapse last year: the mindless lending of money to people who could never hope to repay it, sponsored by the likes of Representative Barney Frank (D-MA) and Senator Chris Dodd (D-CT).

They might want to peek into the workings of Hilary Clinton’s State Department to determine how avowed Islamic radicals like the Christmas Skivvy Bomber are granted entry visas to the United States. Even more fun could be had by the denizens of the press if they took two seconds to examine the incredible corruption of the Reid-Pelosi congress, who are busy ramming a Health Care takeover through congress with the help of hundreds of billions dollars of bribes despite the overwhelming opposition of the American people.

Alas, the loyal leftists and socialists in the American press are simply unable to wade into the plethora of potential Pulitzer Prizes and do their jobs: reporting the facts to the American people. They are so beholden to the radical leftists in the Obama Administration and the Reid-Pelosi Congress that they continue to turn their backs on that Prize, for which journalist used to strive for their entire careers.

Editors nationwide must be pining for the good old days when a Republican administration was in town and would allow them to do their jobs. They might be able to report that the administration was dropping the ball on protecting the nation from terrorist attack. They could be reporting on the hopelessly inept dealings of the Obama Administration with the Iranian Theocracy, that is about to introduce nuclear weapons to Middle East.

Maybe the New York Times and the Washington Post will endorse the Republican candidate in 2012, so they can get back to work.

TSA is on the Job!

The recent terrorist attempt to destroy Northwest Airlines Flight 253, enroute from Amsterdam to Detroit on Christmas Day has caused expected spasms in the airport security practices at U.S. airports.

Headlines have announced that passengers will now face “tightened security” when preparing to board flights. Hmmm, I thought that’s the kind of security we have been facing since the 9/11 attacks? Newspapers are reporting that passengers should now report up to four hours prior to a flight; they should expect to be patted down by security personnel, who already X-Ray shoes and confiscate water bottles.

The fact is the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) has focused on removing objects from airplanes rather than removing potential hijackers and suicide bombers. It is analogous to stopping gun violence by banning guns instead of jailing criminals who use guns.

Boston Globe columnist Jeff Jacoby hit the nail on the head in his August 23, 2006 column when he compared the U.S. version of airport security and real airport security as practiced by Israel. (http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2006/08/23/what_israeli_security_could_teach_us/)

In the United States, we concentrate on removing bottled water and nail clippers from elderly ladies. In Israel, trained security personnel actively monitor the behavior of passengers, looking for actions that may be out of the ordinary. They look for furtive behavior or facial expressions that may betray hostile intent, or clothing that may conceal a weapon. Then, each passenger is personally interviewed by a security officer, who engages the passenger in a protracted conversation intended to reveal nefarious intent. The interviewers are called what they are: profilers. They operate on the certain knowledge that while all muslims are not terrorists, virtually all terrorists are muslim, and they focus their efforts accordingly.

Their efforts have apparently paid off handsomely for Israel. No El Al airliner has been hijacked for more than thirty years and no airliner has ever been hijacked from Ben Gurion Airport in Israel.

So, could we not institute the same, effective method of implementing airport security in the United States? No, we could not for two distinct reasons:

1. We have fallen victim to the straw dog of Political Correctness, which prevents us from profiling Arab or Muslim men.
2. We would need to hire a professional, well-educated, well-trained, and well-paid airport security force capable of professionally profiling all airport passengers.

We are capable of doing neither. Firstly, political correctness has gripped us so tightly that the press and the Obama Administration spent ridiculous amounts of time and ink to attribute the Fort Hood Massacre to anything other than radical Islamic jihad. Secondly, we have chosen to recruit TSA personnel from the barely educated, minimum wage earning group who are barely capable of confiscating water bottles from old ladies.

The current TSA is staffed by personnel like those in Philadelphia who recently required a U.S. Marine Corps honor guard, in dress blue uniforms and with orders in hand, who were escorting the remains of a Marine killed in action home to his family to submit to an intrusive search. To staff each airport with personnel trained and qualified to profile passengers legally would require many more highly paid employees than the TSA currently employs. It might mean that the TSA would have to release some of the highly compensated executive staff to make room for them. It would mean that actual, proven security techniques were being employed rather than the minimum wage window dressing we currently enjoy.

And we could make their jobs a little easier by pre-screening passengers. In effect, we could issue airport security clearances to people who are willing to submit to a background check to enhance airport security. That way, elderly women might be able to avoid the need to remove their shoes and hand in their water bottles.

But what would be done with the current employees of the TSA if we made the switch to trained, qualified profilers? No problem there. We will be needing lots of personnel to begin making medical decisions once made by doctors when the government takes over the health care system.

Prostitution Legalized in DC

A gang of thieves

As the Senate Health Care “Reform” legislation makes its halting way through a Senate choked with payoffs to compliant members, popular opposition to the measure continues to grow.

Yet, despite the vocal opposition of more than 60% of the American people, the Obama Administration, with congressional assistance from the Reid-Pelosi cabal, continue to push for the health care takeover. Senate Majority Leader Harry (D-NV), told reporters after a recent vote in the small hours of the morning that once the people knew the provisions of the bill, they would support it.

Huh? Did I hear the Senate Majority Leader say that he is pushing a one trillion dollar takeover of the U.S. health care industry, and the details of the bill are unknown to the people?

How could it be that the details of the bill remain unknown? In fact, the details of the bill are unknown to many of the democrat senators who will vote for it, let alone the republican senators or anyone else. How can this be true?

Do we not have a vigorous and curious adversary press, eager to find the steamy details of every bill appropriating the people’s money? Do we not have a dauntless press digging into every story to reveal the truth, to shine the light of day on the workings of government? Do we not have a press corps working diligently to scrub corruption and privilege from the workings of congress? Do we not have a press corps working tirelessly to claim the next breaking front page story or to win the Pulitzer Prize for Journalism?

Regrettably, the answer is decidedly NO! What we have is a compliant press corps, reduced to cheer leading the Obama Administration and passing over any details that may cause a blemish on the historic president. Instead of a vigorous watch dog press corps, we have a lapdog press corps content to roll over on its back and beg for crumbs. As an institution, the American press is guilty of gross, near-criminal dereliction of its duty to the people. Because it is the people to whom the press has a duty. It is not their duty to prop up the presidency of Barak Obama as an arm of the state-sponsored propaganda industry. It is their duty to reveal the truth to the people of the republic.

How else could the president make such definitive claims about a health care “reform” bill, about which no details have been made public? How can he claim definitively that there are no provision to fund abortions with taxpayer funds, that people who are satisfied with their health care plans can keep them, that the “reform” is deficit neutral? (What government plan to do anything has ever been deficit neutral?)

What would have been the response of the lapdogs if George Bush had attempted such a blatant power grab?

Reid to American people: Merry Christmas

Senate majority leader Harry Reid, (D-NV) had a special Christmas greeting for the American people, after ramming a test vote on the Senate’s Health Care Bill through that body in the early hours of Monday morning.

Reid, despite the overwhelming majority of Americans who reject the Health Care takeover, claimed the American people would support the bill once they knew what is in it. Unfortunately, no one will find out about what is actually in the bill until long after the bill becomes law. Reid has thus far refused to make provisions of the bill public.

Speaking to reporters in defense of the bill after the Senate completed its work after one o’clock in the morning, Reid said,” One American dies from inadequate health insurance every ten seconds.”

Reid failed to mention why the proposed health care “reform” would not provide any health insurance to Americans until four years from now, in 2013. If the bill is so good, Harry, why not allow those hapless Americans to live? Why wait until after the next presidential election to allow us to enjoy the benefits?

Don’t worry Harry. You’ll be retired several years by then.

I have been struck by a certain pose, often used by the new president on the podium. Note the upthrust chin, indicating great confidence in his message. There is more there, however. It also demonstrates an air of superiority and an arrogance and condescension often seen in photographs of a politician of a previous age, one who also shared the current president’s penchant for government control of his nation’s economy.

If providing all Americans with decent, government-provided health care was the real objective of the Obama Administration, it might be a laudable, if ill-conceived and unrealistic proposal.

The president, and his henchmen in the Congress, will certainly provide some level of health care to Americans, but that health care will be sub-standard and rationed, despite their wailing to the contrary. But the danger of this program lies in the real intentions of the democrat's radical socialist agenda. The Obama Administration is hostile to the idea of American Exceptionalism. It views the United States as an Imperialist bully that has unfairly gathered the wealth of the world at the expense of the poor, the down-trodden, and the Third World.

In a recent speech before the United Nations General Assembly, Mr Obama indicated that he considered the United States to be only one nation among equals; no better than any other nation. To Mr Obama, there is no difference between the United States, where we enjoy a per capita GDP of $47,000, and the quaint little land-locked African nation of Burkina Faso (Per capita GDP of $1200). While it is demonstrably false that we are the same as all other nations, President Obama’s intention is that eventually we will be. It is the motivating factor to the new president’s agenda. Why else would he be so inclined to travel the world apologizing for our country?

Mr. Obama’s real objective is to make the United States the equal of all other countries in the world, not by raising the GDPs of all other countries through investment, free trade, fiscal and monetary incentives, but rather by destroying our economic strength. He has the perfect model to guide his actions. He is following the design of the Socialist Party in the United Kingdom, and following it to perfection.

At the end of WWII, the United Kingdom was a powerful nation, one of the Big Four (arguably the Big Three) of the United States, United Kingdom, France, and the Soviet Union. But, no sooner was the war over than the British people rejected the government of Winston Churchill and elected the Socialist Clement Atlee as Prime Minister. The Atlee government wasted no time in passing into law the National Health Service while at the same time nationalizing some industries (coal mining, for instance).

The key point of the National Health Service, as with Obamacare, is that the service is an entitlement. An entitlement is available to everyone who meets eligibility requirements. Naturally, the cost of providing “free” health care to all Britons exploded beyond all estimates, as all entitlements will do as people become aware that they can avail themselves of the public treasury to pay their bills.

The problem arises when a government must make a decision on how to allocate the scarce resources of the public treasury. The government of the UK had to cover the cost of the NHS, which was, after all an entitlement. The obvious area to make up the difference is in areas of the budget that are discretionary, areas where the government is not required to outlay money, such as defense. Defense spending is something a wise government should do, but is not required to do. And this is precisely where the British went to find the money to pay for the NHS.

The Royal Navy went from a near-equal of the U.S. Navy at the end of WWII, to the laughable contingent that sortied to the Falkland Islands in 1982. They went from a fleet of great fixed-wing aircraft carriers to the miniature carriers of the size of pre-World War II vessels and capable of carrying only a handful of small jump jets and helicopters. The current HMS Illustrious is tiny seen beside the Nimitz Class US carrier USS John C. Stennis, above left. The British made the conscious decision to step off the world stage as a major player, and accept the station of a second rate power subject to the depredations of more powerful nations. Today the government of the United Kingdom spends 5% of its budget on defense, while shelling out nearly one fifth of their budget on the National Health Service.

This is the dream of the Obama Administration. They want to cut the US down to size and ensure that we are no longer the world’s lone superpower. They are willing to expose our nation, our people, and our children to the mercy of those nations that will choose to use their national power in their own interests and not in our best interests. How better to affect that reduction in national strength but to impose Obamacare National Health Care on the American people?

The Obama Administration knows that once the American people get used to the idea that health care is “free,” it will be very hard to argue for raising the revenue to provide both health care and a viable defense. Defense will become a second rate budget item, and the United States will no longer be a power in the world.

Game, set, match Obama.

To Russia, with ignorance

In the space of little more than one week, President Obama has made two incredible mistakes in attempting to manage the foreign policy of the United States. The first was his unilateral decision to forgo the installation of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. The second was his offer, made at the United Nations, to enter a new disarmament agreement with Russia in which he offered to cut the size of America’s nuclear arsenal.

Mr Obama has handed the Russians two incredible diplomatic victories and he has done so at no cost to the Russians. Even if he was committed to the idea of a defenseless Eastern Europe and reducing the American nuclear arsenal, an effective Chief Executive, who was acting in the best interests of the nation he has sworn to defend, would have extracted huge concessions out of the Russians before handing them everything they desire on a silver platter.

He might have demanded Russian support for a united effort to limit the Iranian nuclear weapon program. He might have sought Russian assistance in dealing with the rogue dictatorship in North Korea. He might have demanded that the Russians desist in their efforts to cozy up with South American dictators. He might even have suggested, dare I mention, that the Russians also reduce their own nuclear arsenal.

The fact is that the Russians need these deals with the United States desperately. They need U.S. cooperation to maintain nuclear parity, or face an expensive arms race they cannot afford, and cannot win. They would have been willing to go a long way to get the deal that Mr. Obama has given them, for free. Vladimir Putin must be chuckling to himself at Mr Obama’s incredible stupidity, even as the President said in his speech before the United Nations, ” I am not naïve.”

Saying so doesn’t make it so, Mr President. This is just another example from the Neville Chamberlin school of international diplomacy; these are acts of an inept and inexperienced bumbler who is rapidly becoming a laughing stock in the international community.

President Barack Obama has gone to great lengths to improve the “image” of the United States in the world. He is concerned that our image is less than it might be. To that end he has traveled extensively making apologies for the bad behavior of his (Republican) predecessors.

So how is the campaign to improve our image working out? That depends upon whose opinion we examine. In the United Kingdom, our oldest and staunchest friend and ally, one pundit has referred to our president in terms less than endearing:
“Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.
President Pantywaist’s recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America’s enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans.”

(http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/9614177/Barack_Obama_and_the_CIA_why_does_President_Pantywaist_hate_America_so_badly/)

On another front, Mr Obama has cancelled plans to construct a missile defense shield in Eastern Europe, consisting of a radar complex in the Czech Republic and a battery of anti-missile missiles based in Poland. This decision has evoked mixed reviews. The Russian government loves it. The Czech and Polish governments have been stiffed yet again by a Western government intent on currying favor with the Russians.

As reported in the Times of London, Russia's Foreign Ministry welcomed reports of the US decision. A spokesman said: "Such a development would be in line with the interests of our relations with the United States."

While the Russians loved the Obama move, the Czech government had a different take on the cancellation of the program.

“This is not good news for the Czech state, for Czech freedom and independence," said Mirek Topolanek, the former Czech Prime Minister. "It puts us in a position where we are not firmly anchored in terms of partnership, security and alliance, and that’s a certain threat."

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article6838058.ece


It is pretty clear from recent events just whose opinion President Obama’s campaign of image improvement is designed for. He is concerned with improving our image with our enemies, and the devil take the hindmost of our allies.

If Eastern Europe is left wide open to the intimidation and threats of the Russian giant and its Iranian proxy, I guess they will get over it, as they have before. Can anyone say Warsaw Pact?

This would be funny if it was not so deadly serious. The Obama Administration is conducting foreign policy like other democrat administrations have in the past. They are trying to make nice with our enemies on the theory that our enemies will reciprocate with sweetness and all will live happily ever after.

Such naiveté may be understandable if not for the wealth of historical examples of how powerful nations deal with weakness in other governments.

Unions Be Damned

A recent story in the Charleston Post and Courier revealed an interesting development on the labor relations front. Union workers at a Boeing Company aircraft fabrication plant in North Charleston, SC voted in overwhelming numbers to de-certify their union, the International Association of Machinists, and return their plant to non-union status.

The Boeing Workers voted by a 3-1 margin to discontinue their affiliation with the union, apparently hoping to persuade the Boeing Company to name their plant one of the Boeing 787 assembly plants. Currently, the plant fabricates the rear fuselage sections of the B-787.

In the middle of a deep recession, and with major support from the White House and Congress for making union certification easier, workers are rejecting unions and hoping to protect their jobs with their own productivity and initiative rather than by collective bargaining.

Individual initiative and productivity? Wonder if that will work?

http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/sep/14/boeing-co-employees-vote-to-disband-union/

Health care, for all my friends....

Why would the Obama Administration be so adamant in its insistence to force Government Health Care down the throats of American, despite the overwhelming evidence that the people do not support this radical approach?

It’s really quite simple. The imposition of Government Health Care would spell the death of political opposition to the Democrat Party’s radical socialist agenda for all time. How, you might ask?

While everyone seems to be worrying about the so-called “death panels” that will exercise life or death authority over older Americans, the real danger of granting the government authority to make health care decisions lies in the fact that those decisions will be made by government bureaucrats (think of the blue-shirted TSA all-stars at every airport). What is the chance that these bureaucrats will be politically motivated? Close to 100%.

When you present yourself before the “Health care panel” for a decision on your needed medical care, will that panel have access to the voter registration data from the city or county in which you reside. Imagine the following exchange:

Citizen: Good morning, I need you to approve my back surgery. I’m so excited. I can go back to work. I can provide for my family. I can get back to normal living, finally!

Health Care Bureaucrat: That’s great news, citizen, let’s just have a look at your records here (calling up the local voter registration records, and noticing that the citizen in question is a registered Republican). Oh, I’m sorry citizen, I’m afraid that your treatment is going to have to wait. You should be able to get it within the next six months to a year, however. Come back and try again then.

Citizen: But why can’t I start it now? If I wait six months, my back is going to get worse. I may need a wheelchair to get around. I won’t be able to work. You just approved the same treatment for the last person in line. Why can’t I have my surgery?

Health Care Bureaucrat: (Chuckling to himself, and knowing that the last person in line was wearing an Obama button) Sorry about that. The last person needed the surgery a little more than you do. She needs you get back to work as well. We can’t give everyone everything they want, you know. We’ll see you in six months. I’m sure you’ll be fine.


How long will it take the average American to learn that the way to get health care will be to support the democrat party? How long will it take for membership in the republican party to drop to zero? It’s one thing when political support for a party meant little presents from Washington, like roads and bridges, and fat government contracts. When the preservation of life itself is dependent on these people, that’s a whole different matter.

What is Going on in the Cialis Picture?

In a continuing effort to explain just what is happening in this picture, Pizza Night considers yet another explanation………….



Lady: Sweetie…Do we have to sit in separate bathtubs all night again? Wouldn’t it be nice if,
you know, we got in the same bathtub? It could be reeeeally nice.

Dude: Darling, I just took the little magic pill and I’m waiting for it to work, you know, to be
re-invigorated like the 58 year old bull I used to be.

Lady: But dear, you are a bull. Why are we in separate tubs? I could be, ahh, helping with your
re-invigoration, couldn’t I?

Dude: How should I know, my dear. This is what the beautiful people do on the advertisement. They sit in separate tubs and look at the sunset. Everyone must do it, I’ve seen it on TV.

Lady: But, Homer, I have never seen anything like this done before. I have never even heard of
such a thing before. I seriously doubt if anyone actually does this in real life. Who has two bathtubs sitting side by side on their deck?

Dude: Don’t be silly, Gladys, they have it on TV all the time. Do you think they just made it
up, and cool people don’t always do this? Just because we never heard of it, that doesn’t
mean that cool celebrities don’t do it. They must. Why else would they have it on TV?
We’ve just led sheltered lives.

Lady: Are you some kind of dope?. No one sits in a separate freaking tub with his date in
another one. Do you think I got naked to sit in a separate tub, you moron? Tell you
what, DEAR, you just sit in your bathtub right there, and if something comes up, you
can handle it yourself, in your own little tub. I’M GONE………

Speaker Shocked

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, (D-CA), was shocked earlier today when she discovered that the Senate Finance Committee has been discussing a potential 10 percent tax on cosmetic surgery that is deemed unnecessary for medical purposes. Speaker Pelosi immediately grabbed a phone and made a call to Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus to complain, just prior to calling her plastic surgeon for a quick tune-up prior to the new tax becoming effective.

I doubt the Speaker has anything to worry about. In her case, any cosmetic surgery she might have can ONLY be considered necessary.

Read the Bill Congressman Conyers

Congressman John Conyers, (D-MI), the Chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, gave an illuminating look into the true legislative process at work in Congress. Rep. Conyers, referring to President Obama’s Universal Single Payer Health Care Plan in a speech before the National Press Club, said, “What good is reading the bill if it’s a thousand pages and you don’t have two days and two lawyers to find out what it means after you read the bill?”

Conyer’s question was delivered as an intended laugh line, but it was received in total silence by an audience that had been generously chuckling at his remarks. Conyer’s off-handed remark lays bare the negligent attitude of a Congress that is seeking to gain absolute control of medical care in the United States, while hiding the true provisions of the bill from public scrutiny.

You don’t have two days and two lawyers to look over the bill, Congressman Conyers? If you are willing to pass a bill of over one thousand pages, filled with paragraphs and clauses that could affect the liberty, health, and prosperity of 300 million Americans, and you are not willing to read the bill, does that constitute criminal negligence? What about that interesting clause in the Congressional Oath of Office, which states that you will “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office I am about to enter. So help me God.” Does not actually reading the bill that will shackle the American people with government health care constitute "well and faithful service, " Congressman?

Congressman Conyer’s remark should send every freedom-loving American shrieking in horror from the gang of bumbling, incompetent politicians now inhabiting the capital city. If this bill is so important to the well-being of the American people, why not take several months to allow the people to dissect it and learn every provision you are about to enact? Why not, as the Founders did with the original Constitution, take the provisions of the bill home to your state and let the people there approve or disapprove as they see fit? If the bill were an act with merit, no Congressman would be shy of doing just that. The fact that they desire to ram it through Congress without even reading it illustrates the merits of the bill quite well. Why, one wonders, does an inquisitive press not do some simple reading and (holding my breath) actually report on the contents of the bill to an interested public?

Instead the speed and secrecy of the current legislative process, illuminated in a casual remark before the National Press Club, where Congressmen vote for legislation they have not read, illustrates that this legislation is a naked power grab, intended to hamstring the economy, and shackle the American people to a government intent on “caring” for them from cradle to grave.




(See Congressman Conyer’s entire speech at:
http://npc.press.org/video/player.cfm?type=lunch&id=18298)

A Criminally Negligent Press

The guardians of the republic

The Death of Journalism



When I was a young college student during the turbulent decade of the 1970’s, all of the budding Journalism students were panting for a chance to cover a major story like the one dominating the front pages of the time: The Watergate scandal.

We all thought that Pulitzer Prizes were out there waiting for reporters dedicated enough to ferret out the major stories and bring them to press. “Politicians haven’t changed in 2000 years,” one professor was fond of saying, ”they will provide you plenty of material that’ll get you to the front page.”

Journalism students of the day considered the profession a noble one, a profession that had always been prominent in safeguarding our republic. The Founders of our country considered an active and inquisitive press so vital to the maintenance of our republic that they included freedom of the press in the First Amendment to the Constitution.

During the Constitution’s ratification process, the Philadelphia Freeman’s Journal wrote, “As long as the liberty of the press continues un-violated, and the people have the right of expressing and publishing their sentiments upon every public measure, it is next to impossible to enslave a free nation.”

And yet the arrival of the Obama Administration has led to the death of journalism in the United States. The American press has shamelessly affiliated itself with the success of the new president, and has completely turned its back on bringing the facts to the American people. With the wealth of crucial issues facing the republic, such as the economy, health care, climate change legislation, to say nothing of a war on terrorists world-wide, the American press has become a rhetorical cheering section for this administration.

The press could be researching the proposed legislation on the government take-over of health care, advising the people exactly how such a proposal could ever lower health care costs when no government program has ever reduced the cost of anything. They could be delving into the bill to determine just how the government will serve millions upon millions of new patients that will flood medical facilities when the services there become “free.” They could be attempting to describe how these new millions will receive service without the need to institute medical health care rationing for us all.

Likewise, the press could be reporting on whether the government health care will lead to halting medical treatment for the elderly in an effort to make the suddenly scarce resources available to young people who have, after all, longer to live. The press could be reporting stories about the government-sponsored medical plans in Europe or Canada, to give us an idea about what we have to expect with our own plan. They could be reporting human interst stories on the unfortunate people who die before getting treatment for diseases they could be treated here for tomorrow.

Instead, the American press has chosen to abrogate its Constitutionally-protected duty to inform the American people. While they could not control their glee at hammering George W. Bush at every turn, they are so invested in this president they are totally incapable of effective Journalism. The sycophants of the American press corps think they will have a seat at the table of power as a reward for their “loyalty” to Mr Obama. They should study history to learn who the first people to lose their heads are when totalitarians achieve total power. It’ll be them.

What is Obama's Real Goal?

President Obama has spent nearly $800 billion in an attempt to revive a slumping economy, and attempt which resulted in 9.5% unemployment. Double digit unemployment is just around the corner. The trouble with his approach to ending the recession and decreasing unemployment is that it is a purely ideological approach. Despite mountains of evidence indicating a contrary approach is warranted, Mr Obama has chosen to spend taxpayer’s money himself instead of “allowing” taxpayers to keep their money and use it to their own ends.

If his intention really was to end the recession, kick start economic activity, and return people to work, he could have taken a path followed by previous presidents. John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, and George W. Bush each presided over substantial reductions in the tax burdens of Americans. Each was rewarded with significant periods of economic growth and low unemployment.

As depicted in the chart above, courtesy of the Heritage Foundation, the number of employed Americans began a steep climb almost from the moment the so-called Bush “tax cuts for the wealthy” were signed into law in May of 2003, adding nearly nine million jobs to a growing economy in four years. It is not a mystery or some form of magic. It is rational economics. Lower taxes allow people to make their own decisions about how to spend their money. Businessmen can reasonably expect to make money from investing in their businesses, increasing production, hiring new employees, and growing the economy in general.

And what is the result of the increase in economic activity? Increased revenue to the federal treasury, a reduction in the size of the annual budget deficit, high employment and growing wealth in the nation at large. The chart indicates that the change is nearly instantaneous. If, instead of forcing the pork-laden stimulus bill on the nation, Mr Obama had simply stated that he would continue the Bush tax cuts beyond their expiration next year, that would have sent a powerful message to the business community that would have resulted in an employment curve similar to the one depicted in the chart above.

Instead, Mr Obama has chosen to remain true to his ideological heritage, radical socialism, and sought a government funded solution. One really has to ask the question: Is it Mr Obama’s intention to end the recession and put Americans back to work? Or is there another goal in his mind? Better yet, one could ask the question: “If Mr Obama wanted to destroy the economic system of the United State (Free Market Capitalism) and replace it with a government-run command economy (Socialism), what would he do differently?

Obama Care ?

Obama-Care For All My Friends


Everything we need to know about the democrat-sponsored universal health care plan is expressed in the reaction of democratic legislators to a House Resolution by Louisiana Congressman John Fleming, himself a medical doctor. Congressman Fleming’s resolution proposes that members of the House of Representatives withdraw from their current Federal Employees Health Benefits Program (FEHBP) and agree to enroll in the public health care option that has come to be called Obama-Care.

While some 40 republican congressmen have signed on, including House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-OH), NOT ONE democrat congressman has agreed to support this resolution. However, they have spared no expense urging immediate passage of this plan for our benefit. If this plan to place the best health care system in the world under government control was beneficial to its intended recipients in any way, congressmen should be lining up in great numbers to get aboard. The failure of democrats to do so speaks out loudly and clearly. This is just another naked attempt to gain control of the crucial health care sector to guarantee an endless supply of voters looking for a free lunch.

We might examine another recently established bureaucracy to get a flavor of how Obama-Care might play out for us. Let’s take a look at the Transportation Security Administration, of the Department of Homeland Security. This group was established in the wake of 9/11 to provide security in airports. These are the ladies and gentlemen who search baggage, check driver’s licenses and boarding passes, and make us remove our potential shoe bombs before proceeding to the gate at the airport.

How has the Department of Homeland Security staffed this new administration? They have gone out and hired thousands of personnel at entry-level pay grades. They have given them the positional authority to choose whom to admit to the passenger gates, whom to harass, and whom to wave on undeterred. These are the folks who remove elderly women from the queue for extensive searches, in case one of these grandmothers was interested in conducting a terrorist attack. These same people would be reticent to remove a young Arab male from the same queue for fear of being charged with profiling. Many of these people perform their jobs admirably. But the fact that they must deal with thousands of customers each day, and the fact that they are the Privates and PFCs of the Department of Homeland Security, minimizes the latitude with which they can operate. That’s why they must rigidly confiscate water bottles instead of letting you demonstrate that the contents are potable and not explosive. That’s too much latitude for entry-level employees.

How would the Obama-Care Administration be staffed? It would be staffed in exactly the same way. Of course, the upper level staff would be all political appointees receiving tenured and highly-compensated executive positions. But the majority of the new staff would be entry-level functionaries, who will be entrusted with the authority to determine what doctors we may visit, what medications we would be allowed to take, what procedures are appropriate for our treatment. Indeed, these people will have the authority to deny us health care if we don’t “qualify.” They could refuse health care to those of us who smoke, skydive, scuba dive, climb mountains, drive SUVs, ski, or drink alcohol. Will we have the same access to health care as the “domesticated” health care consumers?

Just ask the TSA guy at the airport if you can fly with your water bottle?

What is going on here?

With the economy going to hell in a hand basket, the new administration nationalizing the entire American economy, to say nothing of nuclear missiles flying out of North Korea and young ladies being gunned down in the street in Teheran, I have to ask the question. Just what is going on in this picture? Apparently, a man and a woman are occupying separate tubs, presumably sans clothing. While the gent seems to be staring off into space, the lady is looking his way while reaching out to touch the lad suggestively. But what is she suggesting? Honey, pass the soap? Why are they occupying separate bath tubs? If the gent has used the prescribed medicine, why is he sitting in such a docile state instead of persuing the object of his lust, his manhood in full flower. Perhaps they're in separate tubs because of the dreaded four hour erection? Perhaps they are relaxing after employing the little rejuvenating pill. Maybe she has had all of our hero that she can stand. By itself, however, this picture asks more questions than it answers.

But, just where in the world do you find side by side claw foot bath tubs, placed strategically on a deck over looking the broad ocean? What do you say to the plumber who has shown up to perform the installation? "Yeah Guido, right out there on the deck, side by side. How hard can it be to run those pipes out there?" "Guido, whay are you looking at me like that?"

And how does a middle-aged couple arrive in the side by side tubs? "Honey, I have a great idea. Let's get naked and hop into the side by side tubs. I'm not sure what will happen after that, but it sounds great, huh?"