Remember the "Good Old Days"?
Those BO (before Obama) days, when our Congress talked in terms of spending only billions, with a B, of taxpayer dollars, instead of everything seemingly needing to cost trillions, with a T, as it is now? When each successive piece of legislation didn't have to be longer than the last, accelerating from over a thousand pages to over two thousand pages per bill? When, it's true, some legislation was "voted on" or "supported" by hotlining, but at least somebody's staffer read it before it was finally voted on? When the president and Congress actually felt somewhat constrained by the Constitution? When you didn't have our president and Congress simply ignoring what the polls clearly told them the American people wanted or didn't want and rushing to "fix" things which weren't all that "broken"? Ah, yes, the days of some sanity, before Obama and the Democratically controlled 111th Congress -- the "good old days."

President "Saves" Us $100 Million
Remember this, from back around April of this year: President Obama recently announced that he has directed his Cabinet secretaries to each find $100 million in budget savings within the next 90 days. Wow, Mr. President! Don't be too bold about saving taxpayer money, now! The DHS subsequently announced that it can save around $52 million by buying its office supplies in bulk -- which makes one wonder, then, why it wasn't already doing that? A big "duh" to Secretary Janet "nitwit" Napolitano. Writing on National Review Online, Heritage Foundation budget expert Brian Riedl put the budget cut in perspective: "Out of $4 trillion in spending this year, this is the rounding error of a rounding error." It is 1/40,000 of the federal budget. It is 1/7,830 the size of the recent "stimulus" bill. It would close 1/1,845 of this year's budget deficit. It is the amount the federal government spends every 13 minutes. And for a family earning $40,000 annually, it is the equivalent of cutting $1 from their family budget. "So why bother?" Riedl asks. "Because it may enhance the president's 'budget-cutter' image. Seriously." And we should all know by now that image is everything to this president. Form, not substance. How he appears to be, rather than how he really is. What he says, and how pretty he says it, rather than what he does. And if you haven't caught onto that yet, keep watching. Sooner or later, it will (should) dawn on even the more deluded and deranged among you who are still his followers, just as it already has among us disillusioned. And, by the way, where's the Obama government's "transparent" follow-up on how many of those 14 secretaries of 22 presidential cabinet members were able to meet the president's task of saving that $100 million within 90 days? I mean, April was a long time ago now, and every little bit helps so far as saving some taxpayer money goes, you know what I mean? A $100 million here, a $100 million there, eventually it all adds up to some real money, you know. 

Deadly Donkeys
It is a matter of trivia fact that more people are killed by donkeys annually than are killed in plane crashes. Ironically but how totally appropriate, then, that it is liberal Democrats of the donkey party (or is that jack*ss?) in the current runaway, run amok Congress who are killing the American economy and our Constitution and killing the futures of our children and grandchildren. Them damn donkeys are damnably dangerous, and don'tcha doubt it.

Isn't it supposed to be those "fat cat" Republicans who always favor Big Business?
Let's see, we've got a very liberal Democrat president in the White House. A president who doesn't hesitate to label almost anyone he doesn't like as some kind of "fat cat" -- from corporate CEOs to Wall Street types to health insurance companies to bankers to Big Oil to Big Pharma to.....whatever and whomever. And we've got liberal Democrats running both the House and the Senate. And, according to liberal talking points of long-standing, Democrats are the ones who care about the "little guy," who care about Main Street and not Wall Street, who will extend and expand government to protect the "victims" and "help the helpless " from the cradle to the grave, whereas those nasty, uncaring "fat cat" Republicans just love Big Business and all those other "Biggies" and coldly and cruelly just expect the "little guy" to get out there and somehow make it on his own. Well, then, why is it that, with Democrats totally in charge of two of the three branches of our government, the only businesses with a higher IRS audit rate in 2009 than 2000 are small businesses? The audit rate of larger businesses is lower in 2009 than in 2000. Somebody 'splain that to me, please.
 
Obama's Pusillanimous Passivity
Remember a while back, when Iranians were rioting in the streets of Teheran, protesting their recent rigged reelection of Mahmoud "mad monkey man" Ahmadinejad, and Obama waited days before saying anything and then basically said we shouldn't meddle in the internal affairs of another sovereign country, while at the same time poking his nose directly into Honduras' internal affairs, another sovereign country, over Hondurans ousting a president who, while democratically elected, was trying to override the Honduran constitution and become a president-for-life a la Venezuela's Hugo Chavez? I don't know, maybe Obama just liked the president-for-life idea and wanted another example of such a move succeeding in this hemisphere, you know, to point to later, just in case he needed examples to cite in making his own case for the same. Ya think? (And if you think, nah, he would never try that, just consider what else he and his duplicitous left-wingers in Congress have done in just less than the past year -- which many of us didn't think they would do, either -- and then, think again.) Anyway, the Iranians are still demonstrating in the streets, protesting the current illegally reelected regime, as well as demonstrating for freedom generally. In fact, the Iranian regime opened fire into crowds of protesters just this past Sunday, killing 8 - 10 people. In other words, shooting them down in the street. We don't know exactly how many, because that same regime pulls the plug on Internet, cell phone and all and any other ways for Iranians to communicate with the outside world. And, again, after waiting a while (maybe this time because he's on his Hawaiian holiday vacation), Obama comes out and makes more milquetoast mumblings about how the regime in Iran shouldn't be doing things like that. Wow! Iranians are dying in the streets for their freedom and the most you can do, Super Prez, is say naughty, naughty to Iran's theocratic thugs? I sure hope, but sadly doubt it, that we are doing more behind the scenes to undermine the current Iranian regime, not only to eliminate it for the growing nuclear threat it poses to the region and to the West but also to simply help the Iranian people gain freedom from its repression.
   
Whatever happened to Obama's little red Sharpie pen?
You know, the one he said during the campaign he would use (like a scalpel) to line through waste, fraud and abuse, like earmarks, in any and all legislation before signing it into law? Although also true of all the legislation Obama has already signed since taking office -- the so-called Stimulus Plan, the Omnibus Bill, etc. -- the Defense appropriations bill he signed just this month has 97 pages listing nearly 1,000 congressional earmarks. I guess the prez's little red Sharpie went the same way as his transparency and accountability in government, huh?

The Simple and Clear Legislative Language Act (SCLLA) of 2010?
The Zogby polling firm recently asked this question in a national survey: “Some contend that the reason federal legislation is often thousands of pages long is because provisions to benefit special interests can be more easily buried in long bills, and so citizens cannot decipher the legislative language quickly enough to be able to communicate support or opposition to their Senators or Members of Congress before a vote is taken. Do you strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or strongly disagree with this opinion?” Remarkably, 83.5 percent of likely voters surveyed at least somewhat agreed and 61.2 percent strongly agreed. Among conservatives, 96.9 percent at least somewhat agreed, compared to 66.1 percent of liberals and 82.2 percent of moderates. The reasons for this are no doubt the massive bills the 111th Congress has rushed through to passage this year. The final version of the economic stimulus package -- the so-called American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 -- was more than 400 pages long. The so-called healthcare reform bill passed by the House was over 1,000 pages and the one by the Senate surpassed 2,000 pages. Senator Tom Carper (D-DE) said that he would not read the full text of the healthcare bill “...because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life.” And you can bet he's not the only Congressional member who feels that way. So, I think it would be a good idea if one of the first pieces of new legislation to be considered by both the House and Senate after the holiday break would be a bill which would limit the length of all future legislative bills and specify that they must be in plain, "American" English. If such a bill itself also avoided any and all "hidden language" for special interest groups, it could probably be written within a couple of hundred pages, at most. Then, once that was done and signed into law, one of the first items they should apply it to is the rewriting of.........the Tax Code, one of the biggest, most confusing and special interest-driven pieces of legislation there is.

Best quote I've found yet (which could be) about Obama's first year, aided and abetted by his henchmen and handmaidens in the Democratic 111th Congress
“You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift. You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help the wage earner by pulling down the wage payer. You cannot further the brotherhood of man by encouraging class hatred. You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich. You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn. You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative and independence. You cannot help men permanently by doing for them what they could and should be doing for themselves.” Unfortunately, that quote is not from anyone currently in government, much less in the current administration or Congress. Nor is it from anyone in the liberal lamestream media. It's not even from any of the so-called current Republican "leadership" or any other of today's conservatives. No, no, no. That's a quote from an earlier Republican -- Abraham Lincoln. What a truly wise man he was.....and how much he could say with so few words, too. Type that up for your teleprompter, Barry.

December 16, 2009
The day when, with a stroke of the pen and without any fanfare, much less coverage by his slobbering serfs and sycophants in the liberal lamestream media, Obama gave away some (more?) of our country's sovereignty. But, more about this in a future article.

HAPPY NEW YEAR, EVERYBODY! Let's hope 2010 is better than 2009 was. Starting to clean out Congress will certainly help. 

And one of them is David Corn, columnist and Washington bureau chief for Mother Jones magazine and previous Washington editor of The Nation magazine, who just wrote an "insightful" article, "Why the Right Hates Obama: He's a Liberal," focused on Obama's "ObamaCare" speech to Wednesday night's Joint Session of Congress and the nation -- well, to those of you in the nation who watched it, anyway. I didn't, because I didn't think I was going to hear anything new or that whatever I might hear that was new would probably also be untrue. And I just love it when I'm right!

Anyway, without taking too much of my time completely dissecting Corn's claims, here is my reply to some of them:

Hey, Corn, it's not only because he's a liberal; it's also because he's a LIAR!

You say Obama "...presented a strong case for his version of health care reform." The Heritage Foundation says he flat out lied about at least 10 things and presents his quotes and the applicable refuting facts to prove it.

You say his big finish came after presenting his health care reform plan in "pragmatic and reasonable-sounding terms." It's not "pragmatic" to claim you can spend more to save more or cover millions more people without increasing the number of doctors and nurses, and anyone who says it is a liar and anyone who believes it is an idiot. And regarding "reasonable-sounding," "sounding" is by far the operative word. But, of course, Obama has been "sounding" reasonable for a long time. In fact, he may be the most reasonable-SOUNDING liar I've ever heard.

You say he then embraced the No. 1 liberal crusader of recent decades, Ted Kennedy, and "wrapped his health care reform initiative in the Kennedy cloak." I say he shamefully wrapped his ObamaCare in Kennedy's burial shroud and tried to use the memory of one of the most liberal but at least really bipartisan Democrats in the Senate to sell his brand of ObamaCare snake oil.
 
I think you need to try selling your liberal Kool-Aid farther down the street and not on my corner, Corn, and you might want to consider stopping drinking so much of it, too.