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?"