One of Dear Ellen's "facts" in her article is: "Did only Jon Stewart catch Sean Hannity using video from one (large) teabag rally to illustrate another (small) rally?"

Well, first, I would remind both you and Jon Stewart (who, I'm told, a lot of college students who voted for Obama still think is a "real" newsman, instead of merely another liberal comedian) of something that you probably, if you were being honest, already know. And that is that the B-roll video accompanying any given feature story on TV, either news or commentary, may be sometimes mismatched by production staff, and that is not necessarily "evidence" of conservatives not being able to handle "facts," especially since, in the case cited, Hannity subsequently admitted "on air" that the B- roll footage was, in fact, uh, mismatched.

But, second, you know, liberal "journalists" just can't seem to help themselves. It's like playing poker with someone who has such obvious "tells" or "giveaway signs" that you know what they're going to do before they do it. And one obvious liberal lamestream media "tell" is referring to the TEA Party movement and its activities as "teabag" rallies, protests, marches, etc. It's either intentionally done to be a diminishing, dismissive and/or derisive term, or it's merely subconsciously done, without even thinking, for much the same reasons. In any case, it shows either a bias against or an ignorance about what the movement is all about, or both, which is, at one and the same time, both regrettable and unforgivable.....or would be to any "real" journalists, anyway. 

So, you go ahead and bewail the decline in "journalism" outlets in this country, Dear Ellen, while I will bemoan the decline in real "journalism" itself.

Dear Ellen also said: "When the reporters go, so do the facts. And their checkers."

Yes, and, for all the good you've done at your jobs lately, good riddance, because where have all the investigative "reporters" been for the last two years while Obama talked out of both sides of his mouth and claimed this and disclaimed that without challenge or proper vetting by your so-called vaunted "journalists"? Where were the "facts" then, Dear Ellen? Where were the "fact checkers" then?

Oh, I think I know. In fact, it's even still recently pretty revealing that more "news outlets" fact-checked Sarah Palin's new book than have fact-checked some of the monstrous nanny state legislation being forced through Congress, cobbled together in secret behind closed doors, by a stridently partisan liberal Democratic majority, in the dead of night, to what repeated polls clearly show is against the will of the American people. So, the liberal lamestream media is STILL not doing its job.

This may also be a contributing factor to why it took some news media types, who had been approved to cover the conference, over 8 hours to be registered and checked in.

This would simply be a funny fiasco if not for what is at stake: potentially trillions of dollars in regulatory actions and billions of dollars in aid to developing nations.

If by some miracle there were to be some kind of signed and binding agreement reached by the attending nations (there won't be, but Team Obama will be making noises about what a "breakthrough" deal The One brokered while there in just the last couple of days of a two-week conference -- "news" -- and spin -- at eleven), who would be in charge of monitoring all these agreed-to carbon reductions and oversight of all that development aid? Well, that would be the same entity that can't even figure out that 45,000 people won't fit into a 15,000-person building, the United Nations.

We've long known by how little they actually get done about world problems, and how long it takes them when and if they finally do, that the UN is more bureaucratic than effective.

And we know, at least from the "Oil for Food Program" scandal of a few years ago, if not many other indicators, that they are corrupt.

Now, we know they are also just plain inept.

So, ineffective, corrupt and inept? Uh, tell me again why do we give them a big, fancy, recently renovated, multi-million dollar building in New York to meet in, put up with their parking wherever they want and not paying their parking tickets, claiming diplomatic this and that all over the place, while we, as a single nation, also pay about 20 to 25 percent of the UN's operating costs?

I think we should remain a member (so we can retain some influence and keep tabs on what they're up to) but tell them that all member nations should pay the same amount for operating costs -- you know, make everybody "buy in" and make the UN operate on a budget -- and also that they should relocate to a new UN complex on some island somewhere.

I hear there are some in the South Pacific which the global warmers and some Copenhagen attendees are saying will be underwater in just a few years. Sounds good to me.

In the heat of an ambush in Afghanistan's most lawless province, 19-year-old Lance Cpl. Richard S. Weinmaster threw himself in front of a grenade to shield other marines in his platoon. Weinmaster was critically wounded by the blast, but the bloodied Nebraska native stayed in the fight, firing his weapon at the enemy position until he collapsed from his wounds. Looking back at the July 8, 2008, engagement, Weinmaster says, "I didn't do anything special. Everyone on my left and right would have done the same thing. I was just in the right place at the right time." For extraordinary heroism while serving as automatic rifleman, Weinmaster was awarded the Navy Cross.

Notice that Kutcher doesn't say "...of service to my country, or "...of service to my fellow Americans," just "...of service to our president."

Propaganda, anyone?

And I wonder how much Kutcher would actually inconvenience his Hollywood lifestyle to really be "of service" to anyone, anyway. During WWII, Hollywood actors his age, and older, were actually signing up to serve in uniform when we were at war. Clearly, "they just don't make them like they used to."

And I may be wrong, please correct me if I am, but I think about the only USO type of event that Kutcher has done was for the Coast Guard, at the U.S. Coast Guard Air Station at Ellington Field, Houston, Texas, and it was Kutcher, Kevin Costner and their movie director appearing there in conjunction with the making of their movie "The Guardian" about the Coast Guard Air Rescue Service.

So, who's your role model? Who's your hero? This guy, or this guy? You can probably guess who mine is.....and who mine is not.

(Yeah, the liberal lamestream media can cover this story and Tiger Woods' foibles all day long -- after all, tabloidism does sell -- but the Fort Hood massacre or the fraud perpetrated by climate warming "science" and its proponents, not so much.)

But, wait a minute. Let me get this straight. A House committee is holding hearings on the presidential state dinner gate crashers who the committee asked to come testify and is considering now subpoenaing for failure to appear; the head of the Secret Service is testifying before the committee and admitting Secret Service failures (probably after being told by some powerful part-timer in the current Obama administration that he, as a dedicated and loyal career federal employee, had to "fall on the sword" for this); at least three Secret Service agents have already been suspended, may be still further disciplined and their careers are probably already ruined; yet the Obama White House is claiming Executive Privilege to prevent its Social Secretary from even appearing and being questioned? The WH Social Secretary? Really?

Well, exactly what, or whom, is the WH really trying to protect here? Funny, but I would think the WH Social Secretary would NOT, in the normal course of her official duties, be privy to ANY national security or other classified information which might be inadvertently revealed if she testified before a Congressional committee.

Now, on the other hand, she might just know why she didn't have anyone from her office, or was not herself, helping the Secret Service agents identify properly invited arriving guests, which has been the norm in the past. And that would seem to be an important thing to learn about this whole fiasco. Maybe she and the other Social Secretary Office people just wanted to enjoy the dinner party instead and were therefore "too busy partying" to do their jobs. Or, to give her the benefit of the doubt, perhaps she was personally too busy checking flower arrangements, seating charts, table settings, or something else that social secretaries do, instead.

It's just a theory, mind you, but especially after all the incessant liberal carping about George Bush sometimes invoking Executive Privilege to prevent disclosure of real national defense and/or homeland security information in open Congressional committee hearings, it would seem Executive Privilege is not warranted simply to protect the WH Social Secretary from possibly being forced to admit she was at least complicit by omission in a social, as well as a security, faux pas and at least be subject to the embarrassment, if not the dismissal, which should rightfully accompany such an occurence.

"Have you ever shaken hands with an American vice president? If not, now is your chance. Meet Al Gore in Copenhagen during the UN Climate Change Conference," advertises the Danish tourism commission, which is helping the Goracle promote "Our Choice: A Plan to Solve the Climate Crisis," his newest book about global warming in all of its alarming modalities (no doubt, whether based on any real data or not).

"Tickets are available in different price ranges for the event. If you want it all, you can purchase a VIP ticket, where you get a chance to shake hands with Al Gore, get a copy of 'Our Choice' and have your picture taken with him. The VIP event costs DKK 5,999 and includes drinks and a light snack." Ohhh my, drinks AND a light snack, too! How wonderful!

How much is that in American dollars? The currency conversion equates 5,999 Danish kroners to $1,209 USD.

"If you do not want to spend that much money, but still want to hear Al Gore speak about his latest book about climate challenges, you can purchase general tickets, ranging in price from DKK 199 - 1,499 depending on where in the room you want to sit." "There will be large screens, so that everyone will get a good view." Thus, the Danes advise about the December 16 event. The Danes are so practical about these things.

But wait, there's still MORE.

The White House press office announced last week, "For the first time, the U.S. delegation will have a U.S. Center at the conference, providing a unique and interactive forum to share our story with the world."

Well, I think "our story" is already pretty well known to "the world." Some of "the world" may not like it, but they all know it. We are, currently at least, the only remaining world super power and in our 200-plus years, we've whipped the butts of about half of "the world," freed the other half and also along the way lent a helping hand wherever and whenever needed to friend and foe alike. We are the reason that the French speak French and not German, that the Germans were helped to rebuild, and the reason that the Japanese are now one of our strongest allies, instead of having been nuked into extinction in the mid-1940s. We are also the reason most of the Muslims in the world who are free, are free. We are the most powerful, most generous, most tolerant, most free and freedom-loving nation on the face of the Earth, and if we can get Obama and his left-wing henchmen out of the White House and the Congress soon enough, we may remain that way.

So, zippy-dee-do-dah, that's just peachy having a "unique and interactive" U.S. Center at the conference, but forgive cynical little ole me, I'm just wondering how much money Fat Al and the Danish tourist bureau hopes to make off of "greenies" affluent enough and stupid enough to spend their money to buy into all that hype, and, even more importantly, how much taxpayer money that "marvey" U.S. "unique and interactive" Center and all those traveling government bureaucrats are going to cost the American taxpayer while they're over there for a week, yakking and yukking it up, talking and trading, placating and promising, eating and effusing, drinking and discussing, posturing and posing, handshaking and hobnobbing.

And we (I mean Obama et al.) just might have, however obliquely, also "promised" to "trade away" our sovereignty while at the global climate conference as well. (But God help Obama if he does anything even close to that, and I sure hope he knows it, too. The American people will put up with a lot, but not everything all the time and not some things at all. Talk about some "lone wolf" crazy maybe really going "crazy" -- that kind of "betrayal" by Obama would be about all it would take. For most of us, it would be grounds to pursue impeachment, but for some, it would be that feared, long-range rifle shot that would set us all back decades in just all being Americans together, whether hyphenated ones or not. I don't like Obama or his policies, but I don't wish him dead -- just out of office.)

But the Copenhagen climate change conference is all just such a sham and a show, based on as much addle-brained alarmism as any accurate analyses. Ironically, maybe it's appropriate that the Goracle should show up with all his "greenie" gadflies, to add to the side-show, climatological carney atmosphere of it all (puns intended where appropriate). The so-called "settled science" of man-made climate change is NOT settled and becomes more shaky with each revelation of more and more scientists questioning its basic premises, coupled with increasing evidence of the climate change scientists themselves "cooking the books" to reinforce their theories and negate, or just plain ignore, any contradictory data. It's just too ironic for words that they, who denigrated all "non-believers" as deniers, turn out to be themselves the real "deniers" now.

So, to me at least, it's just another gross waste of taxpayer money by politicians and bureaucrats acting like elitist, globe-trotting gliterrati at a time when our country and its working people are still in pretty dire economic straits and that's where our pols and 'crats should be putting their focus, their effort and their energy. It's Obama's stupid upside-down economic plans, stupid! Stay home and in your jobs and working hard to fix that, you stupid political and bureaucratic snobs. Then, you can party, to celebrate actually having done something to help the American people, instead of just helping yourselves to more and more of their tax money.

To put it not too nicely, it all reminds me of something we sometimes used to say in the Army to illustrate when something struck you as disgusting or really made you sick: It's enough to gag a maggot.

Vogel's article is what I call a "wedge piece" -- one that purports to be objective (and which can often even appear sympathetic) but which actually is intended to drive a wedge of some kind between people or within and among a group, in this case the TEA Party movement, and thus weaken a position, a person or a group by suggesting that a weakness already exists -- sort of a "self-fulfilling prophecy" meme.
 
Vogel's first subtle attempt at "disparate delegitimization" is:

 "...the movement, which — depending on who's doing the telling — took its name either as an homage to the 1773 Boston tax revolt that played a major role in sparking the American Revolution or from an acronym standing for 'Taxed Enough Already.'”

My response:

It's not an either/or choice and to suggest so is proceeding from a false premise, whether intentionally or due to ignorance. First, TEA Parties originally took their name from the acronym for Taxed Enough Already, i.e., TEA, which is the reason, by the way, that it should always be presented that way -- "TEA Parties," and not merely "tea parties." Besides, if it were always correctly presented as the acronym TEA, it would make it at least more cumbersome for critics to use the gay sexual slur of "teabaggers" to describe and deride TEA Party participants.

TEA as an acronym captured the main points of that to which TEA Partiers originally objected, to wit, too big government bent on too much spending and therefore too much taxing, as exemplified first by the Bush/Obama $700 billion TARP bailouts and then exacerbated by the Obama $787 billion so-called stimulus plan. Just from October 2008 to February 2009, a mere four months, Americans had seen our national debt increased by a breathtaking $1.49 TRILLION. And we already had all indications (which have since proven all too true) that the new president, with his handmaiden Democratic Congress, was just getting started. And all and almost every one of them (the president et al.) were doing all this without listening to objections from We the People to slow down, have more debate and at least read the bills which they were pushing at breakneck speed through the Congress. So, we also had all this sudden debt increase, and therefore projected tax, without feeling we were even being heard, much less adequately represented, as well.

I don't remember U.S. presidents bowing to anyone before. Being polite, yes. Shaking hands, yes. Being gracious and friendly, yes. Sometimes even hugging people, yes. But bowing, no. I don't know if it's Obama's lack of understanding protocol or lack of backbone, coupled with too much interest or eagerness in currying favor, but I don't like my president -- uh, pardon me, the U.S. president -- bowing to anybody. A head nod, okay. Bending deeply from the waist, no.

No, Mr. President, it's better to (now, finally) keep wearing your U.S. flag pin, putting your hand over your heart whenever the National Anthem is played or our National Colors pass by, returning military salutes to the military if you like, but don't bow to anybody. Our country doesn't, or at least it hasn't so far, and neither should you.  

Well, I wasn't going to write anything about this, because as an old soldier and former Military Police officer I've got a lot of strong feelings and opinions about it, but it's finally gotten to a point where, with some of the other things I'm hearing said and claimed and assumed about it, I'll probably kick the dog, break something or shoot something if I don't write something. And now that I am, I'll probably write a lot.

Just say it, already: "Muslim terrorist." Say it again: "Muslim terrorist." There, see? Not really all that bad, was it? Well, not, that is, unless you have developed an absolute gag reflex to saying the word "terrorist," much less the phrase "Muslim terrorist," like Barack Obama's White House, Janet Napolitano's Department of Homeland Security, and, most recently it seems, the U.S. Army, or at least its top "leadership" in the form of General George W. Casey, Jr., current Chief of Staff of the Army.

It was a surreal few moments when, within three hours of Major (Dr.) Nidal Malik Hasan committing mass murder at Fort Hood on Thursday, November 5, 2009, President Obama first appeared before TV cameras in joining a meeting of Native Americans already ongoing at the White House. He spent the first few minutes giving "shoutouts," that is recognizing people in the audience before him, to include crediting one individual for receiving the Congressional Medal of Honor (a military award) who had never served in the military but who Obama himself had presented with the Freedom Medal (a civilian award) just months before (uh, right person, wrong award, Mr. President -- see what happens when you go off teleprompter?).

Then, he praised the Native American group's work on whatever it was they had been working on and pledged his undying support for what almost sounded like reparations for Native Americans for how badly they had been treated ("by the white man" was of course implied or at least understood). I guess he was "identifying" with them about their ancestors' dispossession, much as he, as a black man, no doubt "identifies" with his ancestors' slavery. (I can "identify," too, by the way, less because of some idealistic notion than because I actually am part Cherokee.)

Those first few minutes sounded like Obama was speaking before the local chapter of the Rotary Club. Then, he finally addressed the Fort Hood massacre, his main message being that we didn't know all the facts yet and should be careful not to jump to conclusions. (Maybe he did learn his lesson after all, after having jumped to conclusions himself about the professional white police sergeant arresting the big mouthed black college professor.) I don't recall now if Obama identified the Fort Hood murderer as a Muslim at that time, but I do clearly recall that the words "terrorist" or "terrorist attack" never passed his lips.

Then, later in the afternoon, we had another surreal TV appearance, this time by Army Chief of Staff, General Casey, who said: "What happened at Fort Hood was a tragedy, but I believe it would be an even greater tragedy if our diversity becomes a casualty here." What?! A greater tragedy?! Now, General Casey was talking about the shooter being Muslim, because he was making the point that we have and need Muslims in the Army and he was trying to forestall any backlash against Muslims in the military because the Fort Hood shooter had by then been named as a Muslim.....but, ah, still not as a terrorist. But "our diversity" being damaged would be an even greater tragedy than the mass murder of unarmed, innocent soldiers and civilians on an Army post?! This from the top "leadership" of our Army?! Are you nuts, General? Hmmm, sounds like the good general had been given his talking points by the White House and was being a good little general. Notably, he also did not say anything resembling the "T" word.

Well, let's hear it for political correctness by Obama, the White House AND the military, shall we? Maybe a whole bunch of PC by a whole bunch of people is what led to, or at least permitted, if not enabled, what Major Hasan did at Fort Hood. I've often said that I'm not too much of a PC guy, but I will be one of the first to give someone the benefit of the doubt. It seems, however, that a lot of PC and giving too much benefit of the doubt are what left Major Hasan free to do his killing.

Why was a medical officer who was supposed to give a major medical presentation to his doctor colleagues at Walter Reed Army Medical Center allowed instead to give an hour-long Power Point presentation about Islam? Why was an Army officer who often clashed with his peers and some of his superiors over the Army's missions in Iraq and Afghanistan not disciplined, or at least severely questioned about it? Why was an officer whose performance was lackluster and who had that verified in his Officer Efficiency Reports (OERs) still promoted to major? Could it be that something like "affirmative action" or "minority quotas" had anything to do with Army promotion boards? Why was a psychiatrist who was counseling soldiers returning from combat zones, many suffering with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), not also counseled himself? If his links to a radical Islamic imam and attempts to contact al-Qaeda were already known to the FBI for months, why wasn't he on some kind of watch list which would have prevented his going into a Killeen, Texas, gun shop in August and paying over $1,000 to buy a state-of-the-art FNH FiveseveN (5.7mm) semi-automatic pistol which comes with three 20-round magazines but for which you can also pay a little extra and get 30-round magazines? My gosh, if you get the 30-round mags, plus already have a round in the pistol's chamber, you're walking around with 91 rounds of ready-to-go firepower. 

Since that surreal Thursday morning more than a week ago now, I've listened to and seen much of the print and TV coverage about the Fort Hood massacre, what there has been of it by the so-called mainstream media, and noticed how the lamestream media have also avoided using the "T" word, much less coupled it with the modifier "Muslim" or "jihadist," and Heaven forbid that anyone should utter "Islamofascist," despite the fact that, with each passing day, more and more has come to light about Hasan's association with his former radical Muslim imam and attempts to contact al-Qaeda. In fact, some in the liberal media, out of their usual misguided "compassion" and "humanity," have predictably tried to make Hasan into some kind of victim.

For those who are covering the Fort Hood massacre at all, and especially for those who are covering it but ignoring or downplaying that the killer is a Muslim or who are trying to make the mass murderer out to be some kind of "victim," I have this to say:

She is also obviously an expert shot and a petite female version of any one of Clint Eastwood's characters on whose bad side you would NOT want to be. "Well, do ya,.....punk?"

"Could Sgt. Munley, hit in the wrist and both thighs, really be blamed if she'd ducked for cover? She didn't. From all reports, she stood her ground under fire, calmly reacquiring her sight picture, putting four rounds right where she wanted, in the advancing murderer's center of mass. She fired until he dropped. The killing ended."

A Democratic strategist said that shortly after an appearance on Fox News, he got a phone call from a White House official telling him not to be a guest on the show again.

He said the call had an intimidating tone. The message was, "We better not see you on again." An implicit suggestion, the strategist said, was that "clients might stop using you if you continue."

White House Communications Director Anita "I love Mao Tse Tung" Dunn said that she had checked with colleagues who "deal with TV issues" and that they had not told people to avoid Fox. This from a woman who lumps mass murderer Mao Tse Tung and Saint Mother Theresa together as her two favorite political philosophers and who does strange things with her tongue when giving a public speech. Maybe that's because it's forked, but I don't know for sure.

So, when she was asked about it, maybe she just checked with those "colleagues who deal with TV issues" that she already knew had not told people to avoid Fox. That way, her statement would be "technically true," don't you see? This president and this White House play that "technically not lying" game all the time. With them, and some other liberals, prevarication by parsing words is not a past-time; it's a passionately practiced procedure.

Oh, and in a related matter:

POLITICO's Michael Calderone reports that President Obama met with several journalists for lunch last Friday at the White House.

Administration officials David Axelrod (Senior Advisor), Anita Dunn (Communications Director), Bill Burton (Deputy Communications Director) and Robert Gibbs (Press Secretary) also attended. (Hey, why not? Free lunch, literally.)

The off-the-record lunch lasted about two hours, and included a green salad, halibut and a pear tart for dessert.

How nice! Well, first I'm just "dying" to know what they had to drink with that delicious sounding lunch. Kool-aid, perhaps? And did NYT's David Brooks check out the sharp crease in Obama's pants again -- to make sure he's still going to be an excellent president? No, don't tell me.

Second, I'm wondering why they all met in a government building, ate a meal prepared and served by government employees, at taxpayer's expense, and several government employees (yes, I mean the prez and gang) were present, yet the meeting was "off the record"? I'm guessing that's the only way they could ensure the White House talking points that were passed out would not have to be reported on, but I could just be being cynical again, as is sometimes my wont.

"In his midnight mission to honor the returning war dead, President Obama did more than personally extend the nation's condolences to grieving families gathered at Dover Air Force Base in Delaware."

"He silently saluted in the morning darkness as the remains of 18 Americans killed this week in Afghanistan were transferred from a military transport. He spent close to two hours talking in private with stricken families."

I don't want to be too cynical here, but I just can't help being at least a little bit so. First, as a military man for over 20 years, I've always been somewhat uncomfortable with presidents rendering the military salute anyway, not for the least reason that some of them don't do it very well. But then, I've come across some in the military who don't always, either. Still, I would prefer that our president, during ceremonies and such, render the civilian "salute" of placing the right hand over the heart, rather than render a military salute. The president is by constitutional requirement a civilian. The requirement that our president, albeit also our commander-in-chief, is a civilian exercising civilian control over our military is one of our basic checks and balances, so I want our president to look and act like a civilian. I guess that's part of what makes me feel more comfortable seeing only military personnel and veterans rendering the military salute. You know, people who've "been there, done that." But, alas, one of my favorite of all our presidents, Ronald Reagan, sort of started all this presidential military saluting stuff by asking his military advisor if he could return military salutes to those in the military who saluted him and was told that as the commander-in-chief he could salute whomever he wanted. Thus, presidents using the military salute almost wherever and whenever they want to was off to the races.

And here, in all fairness, I will give Obama credit. During his campaign, he didn't know the difference between a military battalion and a brigade, which is basically that a brigade may be three to four to even five times the size of a battalion and has a lot more equipment, and he may still not know much about the military. I suspect he doesn't. In fact, he may never know much more about it than he needs so that he sounds like he knows a lot by how he talks about it. But that military saluting thing, he's got that down. He's had someone instruct him and he's practiced in front of a mirror, and he renders the military salute as well as just about anybody. Well, probably except for those of us who've been on military drill teams when we were younger.

Anyway, I've digressed from my main point. I agree it was a nice gesture for Obama to go to Dover last week, but I think it was more photo op than anything else.

The last couple of weeks haven't gone too well for the campaigner-in-chief and he needed another distraction -- something other than his dithering over Afghanistan, his being embarrassed by Iran (again), his hypocritical hype about health care reform -- for the "newsers" to talk about for a while.

(I know, while I dither over Afghanistan, I'll do something to show my respect for the troops! How about some kind of photo op we can feed the media? Oh, Dover AFB? What about Dover? Oh, really? That sounds like just the thing. Set it up.)

He got permission from one of the families involved in welcoming home their dead hero at Dover AFB for the repatriation to be photographed and/or videotaped and had himself videotaped solemnly saluting the returning remains.

Of course, it was also something which liberal pundits have since repeatedly pointed out that Bush never did because he didn't want to call attention to how many flag covered coffins were coming home, despite the fact that how many casualties we had for any given day, week or month were all over TV and print media all the time.

It might just as well be said that Bush also didn't want to call attention to himself to the point of having himself photographed or videotaped all the many times he met in private with, comforted, and prayed and wept with the families of the fallen, either. But, hey, the liberal pundits don't say much about that. I guess, if it's not a photo op and it's not as much about you as it is about whomever you're "honoring," then it doesn't really count, huh?

But, once again, Obama, as much narcissist-in-chief as commander-in-chief, couldn't help making the Dover event as much about himself as the returning dead by having his solemn after-midnight and picture perfect salute recorded for the evening news. So, good for him for going but shame on him for making it as much about himself (again) as anything and for using it as a deceitful distraction during his dithering indecision about Afghanistan.

[I've got to hurry and fire this one off, so all of you know I made my predictions well in advance of today's election trends, much less the results. Otherwise, I don't get credit for being smart enough to be right, which I do so love when it happens.]

Today, even the liberal lamestream media are watching three elections as possible bellwethers for 2010, the two gubernatorial races in Virginia and New Jersey, and the District 23 race in upstate New York.

My predictions:

In the purple state of Virginia, which Obama carried in 2008 by a comfortable margin, I think the Republican candidate will not only win but will win by double digits, despite Obama having come here twice to support the Democratic candidate. In fact, I think it will be a Republican sweep across all races -- gubernatorial, attorney general and state delegates. Of course, if the Republican wins, Team Obama will blame the loss on a weak Democratic candidate, which even the president's star power could not help, who didn't run a good campaign. In fact, anticipating that outcome itself, the White House has already started distancing itself from the Democratic candidate. And also, of course, should the Democrat win, then that will be BECAUSE of Obama's star power in helping out. Team Obama likes to have its cake and eat it too, whenever possible.

In the deep blue liberal state of New Jersey, an even more telling race, I think the Republican candidate will narrowly defeat the incumbent Democrat, despite Obama having visited there three times in recent weeks in support of the Democrat. This loss, if it occurs, would be harder for Team Obama to "explain" (read: spin), but I'm sure they will try, and with their normal straight faces, too, looking right into the camera and lying. The fact is the incumbent Democrat Corsine is simply not very well liked around his state and I don't think Obama's coattails are long enough to offset that.

(Gee, I wonder how many millions in taxpayer dollars have been spent flying that big old Air Force One jumbo jet around to New Joysey and good ole Virginny so many times? Oh well, we all know by now that Obama doesn't mind spending other people's money.)

And in the upstate New York District 23 race, I think the Conservative Hoffman is poised to defeat the Democrat, even after the Republican in name only (RINO) candidate got almost a million dollars of Republican contribution money from the GOP, then dropped out of the race, and then swung her support to the Democrat! (Uh-huh, see, told ya, real birds of a feather, can't always tell a book by its cover, and all that. Talk about biting the hand that fed ya! Egg on the faces of the GOP leadership and some Republican former party stars who backed her -- big time! And, by the way, no more money from me to the GOP unless and until they show they know how to spend it better than wasting $900,000 of it on a RINO who then "turns" on the party.)

In other words, I'm predicting Democrat losses across all three races, and that should send several signals to both Republicans and Democrats.

To Republicans:

a. Stop worrying about making "the tent" so big by recruiting and supporting Democrat-lites and just get back to core conservative principles. It's nice to act so that everybody likes you, but in fact, no matter what you do, everybody isn't always going to like you. So, be who you are and you will at least be more able to count on those who do act like they like you, because they probably really do.

b. Stop "playing nice" just because the Democrats and other liberals shriek that you are the "Party of No," that you are obstructionists, or every time one of you says something they don't like or which they think they can make something out of. Be happy warriors, smile and then pin their ears back with logic and facts, two areas in which liberals are traditionally deficit. (I've long said that one main difference between liberals and conservatives is that liberals feel and conservative think.) In other words, don't take any crap. Each and every time a liberal makes a false charge or claim, jump on it, challenge it and show how it's false. Don't miss any. Instead of letting them dictate that you are the "Party of No," make them into the "Party of Liars." Instead of letting them bully you into "playing nice," less you be criticized for something real or imagined, make them paranoid about being challenged on any and every thing they say and do which is the least bit questionable. Attack, attack, attack.

c. If the TEA Party and 9/12 demonstrations and protests had not already given you a big enough clue (and the NY-23 RINO candidate pick indicates at least some of you certainly missed it, or at least badly misread it), they are nationwide, genuine grassroots, CONSERVATIVE (almost Federalist) movements. They are comprised of Republicans, moderate and disaffected (Obama voter's remorse) Democrats, Independents and Libertarians, as well as many people who have never had any party affiliation before, and almost all of them are folks who've never "organized," demonstrated or protested before, either. However, they are doing so now because they are disaffected with both political parties, they are either scared or angry, or both, about where they see Obama and the Democrat Congress taking the country, they are frustrated they are not being listened to, and they are not going away any time soon. In fact, they are becoming more and more organized and growing. But I think the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers have grassroots organized so far because they had to, because no one was representing or listening to their viewpoints and concerns. And I also think many of them are "looking for a home," an already existing organization which they feel will truly represent them and do something about their issues. We don't need a third major political party in this country. That could lead to more and more "splinter" parties and then we'd be in the same boat as many European and other countries around the world in having to always form often messy and unstable "coalition" governments. But, poll after poll still show that this is a center-right nation, and if Republicans can exhibit a real return to core conservative values and can capture the passion, and allegiance, of these grassroots protesters, "the tent" will not only be big enough but they will have channeled an energy across the country which cannot -- which will not -- be denied, or defeated.

To Democrats:

a. You have already badly overreached -- and, amazingly, you continue to do so. It's almost as if there's something in your drinking water and/or you just can't help yourselves. Okay, you elected the first black president and have control of both houses of Congress, so you have some reason to be euphoric but not enough permanent power to act stupidly elitist and continue to get away with it. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely, but then no power is permanent, either. Unless there really IS some secret and nefarious vast left-wing conspiracy, some pernicious "progressive" plan to permanently takeover the federal government and suspend future elections, you had better stop, or at least slow down, your unconstitutional overreach and arrogant abuse of authority. A day of reckoning is coming.

b. You ignore -- decry, deride and dismiss -- the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers at your own peril. The Democrat Party is the one which most often complains (sometimes accurately and sometimes falsely) about this or that faction of the electorate being "disenfranchised," usually by some wicked conservatives and/or Republicans (not always the same thing nowadays). You incessantly portray your party as the one which cares the most for the most "victim" groups, yet you hypocritically refuse to recognize that the TEA Partiers and 9/12ers are themselves feeling disenfranchised and victimized, in large part by you. They are not going away just because you pretend they are not there, or that they don't matter. In fact, that attitude by both political parties in not addressing their concerns is what got them fired up and grassroots organizing in the first place, most of them for the first time in their lives. And they are growing and becoming more and more organized every day.

c. The outcomes of today's elections, as well as what I've said about the TEA Party and 9/12 movements, should send a strong message of caution, if not to your arrogant and out-of-touch party leadership, at least to you Blue Dog, or moderate, Democrats, because 2010 is coming and you will be judged more closely than you might think by what you do, who and what you support and how you vote between now and then. Tenga cuidado, Senors, Senoras y Senoritas. Tenga cuidado.

Now, in more fairness to POLITICO than they give us in many of their liberally slanted stories, they aren't saying this "breaking news" is TRUE; only that they are "breaking" the "news" that this is what the White House is going to CLAIM.

But, anyway, I just LOVE "Breaking News," don't you? It always sounds so EXCITING.

"And, next, BREAKING NEWS! But, first, a word from our sponsors."

And it's always best if seriously intoned by a male with a good baritone voice, too. You know, the kind that gives MSNBC's Chris Matthews a "tingle" up his leg, or the voice in which Keith Olbermann -- known to me as Monsieur Pomposity d' Blowhard (pronounced with a French accent) -- "intones" almost any and every ridiculous thing he says.

(Side note on Olbermann's style: I learned years ago when teaching via facilitating small group dynamics in experiential learning that when you learn to fake sincerity, you've got it made.)

But, I digress. A good "breaking news" announcement hearkens back to earlier, more Golden Days of radio and TV, with such catchphrases as Walter Winchell's "Good evening, Mr. and Mrs. America, from border to border and coast to coast and all the ships at sea," or Edward R. Murrow's "Good night.....and good luck," and even Walter Cronkite's "And that's the way it is..."

Well, here's the REAL "breaking news." The Recovery Accountability and Transparency Board is the government watchdog group which oversees how the stimulus monies are spent. It reports that contractors who received money from Obama's failed $787 billion stimulus program "created or saved" 30,383 jobs (NOT "at least 1 million") by the beginning of October 2009.

Since the report covers only spending on infrastructure and social programs being carried out by private companies, which were awarded about $16 billion in stimulus funds, that amounts to $526,610 per job "created or saved."

That's roughly comparable to Spain's nation-wide failed experiment a couple of years ago in creating "green" jobs, which also cost about half a million dollars per job to create.....and many of them were not sustainable jobs, either, but only lasted for the life of the project which they were created to accomplish.....just like many "green" jobs currently being started up and touted in this country.

Hey, if you want to "save" my job or create a "green" one for me, don't bother. Just give me the half million outright and I'll be fine. Plus, I'll know a helluva lot better than the federal gub'ment seems to how to spend it, too.

So,

"And THAT'S the way it (really) is..."

1. ObamaCare alternatives?
Oh, I dunno, maybe some of the things the Republicans of the so-called "Party of No" have been proposing but which the Democrats have been ignoring, like:
Interstate insurance competition, medical savings accounts, tax free insurance or credits, tort reform, fee for service, rewarding outcomes, medical malpractice reform, prohibiting coverage denials based on preexisting conditions, guaranteeing portability, electronic prescriptions and medical records, streamlining billing codes and practices, price and quality transparency, pay-for-performance measures, one-stop primary-care “medical homes,” chronic disease management initiatives, tax equity for health insurance purchases, increased incentives for health savings accounts, or creating the ability to purchase insurance or form risk pools across state lines.
Our health care system and health insurance do need reform. Everyone agrees on that, But it's already the best in the world and just needs some tuning up, not a whole new and untested model of car. Especially when the federal government tends not to turn out Ferraris but Edsels, thank you very much.

2. Cap and Trade, Cap and Tax, Crap and Tax - what's the difference?
Once again, class: Everyone wants to ensure our kids grow up in a clean environment. Some just want to bankrupt us while doing it, and some of us would prefer a more logical approach. For the second group, The Heritage Foundation has some figures and charts that provide a helpful look at the immense costs associated with the Waxman-Markey cap-and-tax plan to forcibly cap carbon. According to the new report, “The Economic Consequences of Waxman-Markey: An Analysis of the American Clean Energy and Security Act of 2009," recently released:
a. Cumulative gross domestic product (GDP) losses are $9.4 trillion between 2012 and 2035;
b. Single-year GDP losses reach $400 billion by 2025 and will ultimately exceed $700 billion;
c. Net job losses approach 1.9 million in 2012 and could approach 2.5 million by 2035. Manufacturing loses would be 1.4 million jobs in 2035;
d. The annual cost of emissions permits to energy users will be at least $100 billion by 2012 and could exceed $390 billion by 2035;
e. A typical family of four will pay, on average, an additional $829 each year for energy-based utility costs; and
f. Gasoline prices will rise by 58 percent ($1.38 more per gallon) and average household electric rates will increase by 90 percent.
So, Waxman-Markey's Crap and Tax Plan does sound like a PLAN, but not a very GOOD plan.