Although I extend condolences to the remaining Kennedys for the loss of the "last brother," the "last knight," if you will, of the media-created sham that was Camelot, I will not miss Senator Ted Kennedy, who was by far much more liberal than either of his brothers, JFK or RFK, one of whom I voted for and both of whom I admired, and therefore far too liberal for me.

However, having said that, what amazes me most about the so-called liberal lion's passing is how quick, how crass, how manipulative and mendacious, how unseemly and unwittingly ungracious Teddy's so-called "friends and fellow liberals" have been in using his death and his name to call for passing Obama's universal health care reform "for Teddy." Oh, please! How transparently Machiavellian.

Literally, within HOURS of Kennedy's death, liberal Democrat and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi issued a statement contending that everyone should now unite in passing ObamaCare "for the Gipper" in the name of Teddy Kennedy, who had for so long desired universal health care for all. What a crock! Hey, Miz Nancy, did some of that botox used on your face leak into your brain and paralyze part of it, too?

You can't "do it for Teddy." Teddy is dead. No one can do anything for him now, except show their respects and pray for his soul. You can try to do it in Teddy's name, but, to me, using his name and his reputation, instead of developing the measured and carefully crafted health care/insurance reform which the country needs and which will stand on its own, both cheapens his name, his reputation and his memory, as well as evidencing your own lack of sincere effort.

Yes, Teddy wanted health care for all, but, as liberal as he was, he would never have supported what you and Harry Reid and Obama are so far proposing. Teddy would have worked across the aisle to gain bipartisan support, even compromising to get it, and he would have at least given some consideration to how to pay for it all. That "doing of the hard work" and "making the hard trade-offs" was what made him such a successful negotiator and legislator over the almost 50 years he was in the Senate. You, Harry Reid and Obama, on the other hand, are "lazy legislators" who just want to "get it done and move on," often without even reading, much less taking time to carefully craft, what you're voting on.

I have little doubt that Obama, perhaps even in delivering his eulogy of Kennedy, will also shamelessly invoke Teddy's name and long-time goal to try to once again "sell" ObamaCare. It won't work, of course, because the American electorate is beyond sentimentality and false claims about this issue, Americans in growing numbers want real answers that make common sense to them, not just town hall talking points and vague reassurances.

Being Vegetarian Shrinks Brain

Becoming a vegetarian could be good for the planet, but it's bad for your brain. Scientists at England's Oxford University have found that vegetarians are six times more likely to have brain shrinkage than those who include meats in their diets. The cause could be a lack of vitamins. Vegetarians are more likely than meat-eaters to be deficient in vitamin B12, which is mainly found in meats, and a B12 deficiency is known to cause anemia and inflammation of the nervous system. Oxford researchers examined 107 people between the age of 61 and 87 using physical exams, memory tests and brain scans. When the same volunteers were retested five years later, those with the lowest amounts of B12 had the most brain atrophy. And here's the political twist -- you knew there had to be one, right? -- more liberals than conservatives are vegetarians. Ba-rump-bump!

Obama Claims Health Care Costs Will Be Reduced
 
Obama has secured the commitments of six major trade associations to reduce the cost of health care spending by 20% over the next 10 years. The groups involved say that the success of their commitments rests on the passage of Obama's health care reforms (well, of course they do -- they had a meeting with the president and he wants universal health care - besides, maybe they're afraid he might just take their companies over, too), but no concrete methods of reducing spending have been detailed (then, uh, how do they know they can reduce health care spending by 20% over the next 10 years?). Obama predicts cost savings of $2,500 a year for a family of four. Huh? If you don't yet have a plan (there's that pesky word again -- like with GITMO) and you therefore don't know if you can realize the 20% savings, how can you say that would result in savings of $2,500 for a family of four? Just because it sounds good? Guess so. It's something like Team Obama saying all the time that they will either create X-number of jobs or save X-number of jobs. Create, I can understand, because you can check to see how many they created, but saved gives me a problem, because it seems a lot like proving a negative. You know, like, here's how many we didn't lose. Again, huh? How do you know, even if you hadn't done whatever it was that you did, that you still wouldn't have lost them -- that they might have been saved, or survived, in spite of whatever you did? Just askin' - Just sayin'.

Obama's Budget

Consider these facts, compiled by the Institute for Policy Innovation: Under the Obama budget, the nonpartisan, non-ideological Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects the national debt will soar over the next 10 years from 40 percent of GDP today to 82.4 percent. Obama's budget also states that total federal borrowing will grow by $2.7 trillion this year alone, an increase of 27 percent in one year! The budget Obama proposed for this year increases federal spending by an incredible 34 percent, just compared to the previous year, with a total of $4 trillion in federal spending, the highest ever.

Pelosi's Tuna

Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San Francisco, Pelosi's home district. Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a major contributor to Pelosi. Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million dollars of Star-Kist stock. Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa, employing 75% of the Samoan work force. In January 2007, when the minimum wage was increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage, thereby making Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's. In 2008, when the huge bailout bill was passed, Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill for $33 million dollars for an "economic development credit in American Samoa." Can we all say "payback"? Or is that "payoff"? And Pelosi has called the Bush administration corrupt? Oh, please! So, remember to serve your next Star-Kist tuna dish with ample side dishes of hubris and hypocrisy, please. 

Napolitano Again

Obama's Secretary of Homeland Security Janet Napolitano recently declared that "...crossing the border illegally is not a crime per se." What? Makes me want to ask what part of "illegally" don't you understand? Or, if se didn't do it and it therefore wasn't per se, then who did it? I couldn't make this stuff up, folks. I'm just not that imaginative. Napolitano is definitely gaining on Biden for gaffes.....but I don't think she'll ever catch him. 

A little dated now, but still a goody -- my untiring communiques with my U.S. Representative and Senators

"I cannot believe you voted FOR the pork-laden Omnibus Act of 2009. At a time when our economy is struggling, at a time when President Obama has at least said he forswears earmarks, this legislation contained 8,500 - 9,000 of them, 60 percent by Democrats and 40 percent by Republicans. You all should be ashamed of yourselves.

At least President Obama was ashamed enough about going back on his promise to eliminate earmarks that he signed it into law behind closed doors instead of at a public signing. I guess even he doesn't have that much hubris.

And why pass the Omnibus bill anyway? Why not just do a CR (Continuing Resolution) to fund the government for the rest of the year? The Democrats set up the current half-year funding requirement by only appropriating enough for the first half of the FY, probably in hopes that 'their guy' would be in the White House by the time it was time to fund the second half and with the intention of loading it up with pork in the process.

Shame on all of you who voted for this abomination of an Omnibus Act and shame on President Obama for not sticking to his word. He should have taken his red Sharpie and lined the pork spending out, vetoed the bill and sent it back to Congress. Shame on all of you who voted for this overblown and 'oink-ful' legislation."
 
Guess it's a good thing I didn't feel like telling them what I really thought, huh?

AIG 90% Bonus Tax

Here's a "barn burner" I sent my U.S. Representative, Gerry Connolly, back in March. I got an automated reply thanking me for my "interest," but I haven't seen much change in his performance since then, sad to say:

"Although you're still a freshman Congressman, your voting record so far is making clear that you vote lockstep along Democratic party lines and in keeping with Speaker Pelosi's desires. Your motto seems to be -- No independent thinking or action here, thank you!

Have you ever thought that maybe you were elected to be a Blue Dog Democrat? One with a little independence, one at least sometimes more concerned about his district, his state and his country than just his party?

Your voting for the targeted and punitive AIG 90% Bonus Tax is just the latest example of your Democratic party compliant ways and was an outrageously flagrant abuse and overreaching of the Congressional taxing authority.

Not only was it ex post facto, a bill of attainder, and therefore an unconstitutional overreach by Congress, it was also Democratic party political posturing of the most obvious and egregious kind -- done to appease the public that its Congress identified with its outrage and was doing something, as well as, and more pointedly, to obfuscate how many Democrats (at least Senator Dodd, Secretary Geithner, and some senior White House staffer, if not the President himself) were involved in allowing the AIG bonuses in the first place. You know, tucked away in that legislation which nobody read but Democrats produced and rushed to overwhelmingly vote for? Haste does sometimes make waste, or at least cause problems, doesn't it?

It's one thing to cast a populous vote "for the people," to symbolize the outrage of Americans over bonuses being paid to the very people who caused their companies to collapse and necessitated the use of taxpayer money to bail them out. But it's quite another thing to connive to vote as "cover" and "distraction" for mistakes your party made, and still quite another thing yet to ensure that such a vote is at least constitutional. You were elected to not only do the popular thing, your party's thing, but also the right thing, the legal thing, the constitutional thing. Your oath of office says so.

This is not a time in our country when simply going along to get along will suffice, Congressman. Increasingly, the American people are dissatisfied with their Congress, and not only the two major political parties but also individual Senators and Representatives are being tracked and examined. Accountability is not now expected of only your party but also of you personally.

We are watching, Congressman Connolly, and counting on you to do only the right things."

I like Bob Beckel. He reminds me of a frumpy uncle who is a little intimidating but also lovable at the same time. He's a liberal, he's a Democrat, he's been a Democratic strategist, and he often appears on Fox News as a contributor and stands up for Team Obama and most people and things Democratic. He at least is normally rational and more or less reasonable as he recites Democratic talking points and argues the Democratic point of view - well, except for when he gets his head handed to him by that conservative, young woman Fox often has on opposite him, in keeping with their "fair and balanced" credo.

But good old Bob recently had an article on Real Clear Politics about whether the Pelosi-CIA kerfuffle would hurt Pelosi or the Republicans, and he was making the case, rather long-windedly, I might add, that it would ultimately hurt the Republicans.

My response:

Nice try, Mr. Beckel, but I'm not buying it. Pelosi lied for political advantage about what she knew and when she knew it, then she lied about the CIA lying to her, and then she lied about lying. (Need a bigger shovel, Miz Nancy, or is the hole you've dug for yourself deep enough already?) And there are LOTS of people who don't like a liar, no matter what party they're from.

So far as Democrats and Republicans go, it was Democrat Obama who summarily released Top Secret memos on enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs) in another SHOW of transparency but actually for POLITICAL reasons, to continue bashing (and hiding behind) the Bush administration bogeyman. So, let's see the other side, the specific documents which former VP Cheney has called for, showing the positive results of those EITs.

How can one have a full, fair and open debate on a subject without both sides being presented and considered? So, it was okay for Obama to "out" our EIT info and detail our methods to our enemies in the name of transparency. And, after much too much "secrecy," ONE photo of Air Force One's dumb photo op buzzing of New York City at taxpayer expense of about $340,000 was released. And, after way too much vacillating, Obama finally made the no-brainer, and correct, decision not to release photos of 5-year-old prison mistreatment incidents, which had already been investigated and the perpetrators long ago punished. But no release yet by Team Obama of the two specific documents which the former VP has called for? Why not? Could it be that Team Obama transparency only applies when it's politically advantageous transparency? Hmmm?

The U.S. Supreme Court recently said it wouldn't hear an appeal from former Congressman William Jefferson (D-LA) to throw out most of the criminal charges against him. This sets the stage for Jefferson's trial in Alexandria, VA, on political corruption charges in which he is accused of demanding and sometimes receiving payments from businesses seeking his help to land lucrative contracts in Western Africa.

It's a good decision, but my question is, why does it take so long to bring somebody who was found with an unexplainable $80,000 or so of cold cash in his freezer (couldn't resist the pun) to justice?

I just wish the justice were swifter, to make more of a point and to serve as more of an immediate example.

Now, on to Barney Frank (D-MA) for duplicity in the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac; Charlie Rangel (D-NY) for multiple tax problems; John Murtha (D-PA) for inside deals for himself and his son on government contracts; Chris Dodd (D-CT) for duplicity in the collapse of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, his sweetheart mortgage deal with Countrywide, and for lying about the AIG bonuses, first saying he knew nothing about them but then having to admit he not only knew about them but changed legislative language at the behest of Team Obama to facilitate their payment; Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) for lying about the CIA lying to her and for lying to the American people to make political points and then trying to cover her backside by lying about her lying (need a bigger shovel, Nancy?); Joe Biden (D-DE) for his latest slip of the lip in compromising classified information on the VP's secret (not anymore!) security bunker after a couple of drinks at a dinner party; multiple Obama administration officials and appointees for various "lax tax" troubles; and, last but not least, Harry Reid (D-NV) for the million dollar sweetheart land deal he made in Nevada about a year ago - and for just generally being an obstreperous old curmudgeon and sourpuss. Although that last is probably not a felony, just a misdemeanor.

Then too, there's Barack Obama (D-IL) and his pre-election sweetheart mortgage deal with now convicted federal felon Tony Rezko on Obama's Chicago mansion, his illegal campaign contributions, his ties to the previously convicted and now (again) multiple federally investigated ACORN organization, his still questionable natural born citizenship qualification to even become president, his unconstitutional act in firing GM's CEO, and his trying to unduly influence and dictate terms to a federal bankruptcy judge.

Gee, seems like the Democrat controlled House and the Democrat controlled Senate ethics committees, as well as our Democratic Attorney General Eric "Americans are cowards about race" Holder, had better get BUSY!

But don't hold your breath. Not only the courts but especially the Democrats seem to move really slowly on such matters - when it affects other Democrats, that is. If all those listed were Republicans, you can be sure the Democrats would be in full-throated, hot pursuit. 

Dear Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Charlie Rangel, Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, Chuck Schumer, et al.:

I've come to the point now where I'm wondering if you've all just gone stark, raving mad there in Washington, D.C. I just can't come up with any other plausible explanation for a federal government so unaccountably run amok. I mean, I want my government and my country to be successful, so I keep trying to believe the best of you, but you keep doing things that make me believe the worst.

Did some clever and nefarious terrorist - oh, sorry, "man-made disaster" - group conduct their own "overseas contingency operation" and sneak something into the White House and Capitol Hill drinking water? Or is there some odorless and colorless airborne vapor they've found a way to infuse into the already rarefied air in and around both ends of Pennsylvania Avenue?

Something has got to explain (logically and rationally would be nice) how you people think we can keep on spending, spending, spending for every bright and shiny new idea you come up with, with little to no regard for how much debt it all is heaping on this country and its current and future generations.

If any big or small business in this country, or any American family sitting around their kitchen table, tried to run their business or budget for their family like you idiots in Washington are running the federal government, they would be out of business and/or maybe going to jail in no time. I think that's what should happen, starting in 2010 and finishing in 2012 - you all need to be put "out of business" and some of you should probably go to jail as well.

And, of course, no businesses, much less America's families, can just print more money like you can - and have - and are. Have none of you, or your vaunted economic "experts," ever heard of "inflation"?

You have already run deficit spending up into the trillions of dollars over the next ten years, like it's some new national credit card account you just qualified for in the mail. You've passed a huge stimulus plan, which hasn't stimulated much of anything so far, and probably won't until about when the recession would have probably begun recovering on its own. You've passed a huge budget, filled to the brim with pork barrel projects of exactly the kind Obama said he would never tolerate - but did. You've bailed out companies which should have been allowed to fail, while letting others, perhaps deservedly, go down the tubes. You've said those you've saved with billions of our taxpayer dollars were "too big to fail," yet some of them you sought to "save" have failed or are failing anyway. And where's the return on investment for all that? Will the American taxpayer ever see any return, or are all those billions just "sunk costs"?

And what about the billions you can't even account for? Like about 80 billion in TARP funds. Just gone, eh? Poof! "Oh well, too bad, so sad, our bad." Is that it? I'm sorry, but that's at least misfeasance, or gross negligence and/or downright criminal. Somebody should be going to prison. Bernie Maddoff is, so why not someone in the government? After all, $80 billion "unaccounted for" is more than Maddoff ripped off. Do you know what would happen to the "average" person if they worked for an employer who discovered at the end of the day that only $80 was in the till, instead of the $100 which should be there? Yeah, you bet - that employee would at least be fired, if not prosecuted. How are you guys any different? The American people are YOUR employers and we want to know where OUR money went, and is going. 

Your governmental track record on running financial businesses and auto companies in particular has been, well, uh, lackluster at best and outright inept at worst. Tell me again who did or did not know what about the AIG bonuses and when? You know, those bonuses, the amount of which has grown over time from something like $170 million to over $430 million now? Do you people even know what's really going on? Well, that's what we pay you for, you know.

Maybe, instead of trying to run outfits for which you have no expertise and no qualifications, while firing CEOs, talking down Big Business and trying to influence federal bankruptcy judges to favor Big Union over other stakeholders, you should stick to just trying to run the government itself more efficiently.

You set aside billions of taxpayer dollars for something euphemistically called "health care reform," but without any plan for how you're going to actually achieve that health care reform. Cart before the horse comes to mind, just like with closing Guantanamo without any plan for what to do with the detainees. And now it comes out that you're considering inventing and/or increasing taxes on the half of Americans who actually pay all the taxes to provide "universal health care" for 40 million or so who don't have health care coverage, to include taxing the taxpaying public's health care to help pay for it! Are you NUTS?! Or are you just that drunk with the power of being in control of both the White House and Congress?

And you incredulously claim not to understand what the TEA Party protests were about April 15th? Unbelievable. Well, wait until July 4th. Then, it may begin to dawn on even you out-of-touch, so-called Washington elites. Actually, elitists would be more like it.

Despite the denigrating gay jokes many so-called "news" commentators and snarky "celebrities" made about the "teabaggers," TEA stands for "Taxed Enough Already." With estimates ranging from 360,000 to over 750,000, "ordinary Americans" turned out in a truly grassroots demonstration in thousands of communities all across America for the TEA Party protests, and you ain't seen nothin' yet. And if those protesters thought they were "Taxed Enough Already" in mid-April, just consider what they're probably thinking by now. Yet you still persist in dreaming up new things for which to spend and tax more and more? Incredible! It's like adding insult to injury. Either you just aren't listening, or you just don't care. Either way, you're not adequately responding to and representing hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions, of Americans and may sooner-than-later find yourselves looking for other employment, if not worse.

But, I want to give you all the benefit of any doubt, so please just tell me that it actually is something in the drinking water or something in the air which is making all of you act so crazy - irresponsible - unaccountable - detached - disingenuous - corrupt - and maybe even criminal. Any of you? Anyone? You know, sometimes insanity is a valid defense. Not always, but sometimes - even when the inmates are obviously in charge of the asylum.

David Axelrod, one of President Obama's chief White House advisors (who strangely looks like a door-to-door salesman of some kind to me), recently told CBS's "Face the Nation" that waterboarding and sleep deprivation were "one of the key tools al-Qaeda has used for recruitment."

Really? First, where's the proof of that? Did an al-Qaeda rep call and tell you that? Or is it just another unproven allegation, like "Bush lied, babies died"? Or, worse, is it simple speculation, like Democrat Senator Harry Reid's "The war is lost!, the war is lost!"?

Second, I wonder how al-Qaeda (and Democrats and other liberals) made us the bad guys for waterboarding (something we have done for years in training some of our own troops), while maintaining that they, al-Qaeda, were the good guys for beheading people. Oh yeah, because their cause is right and holy and we are the Great Satan. Well, whether we had waterboarded or not, wouldn't their cause, to them at least, still be right and holy and wouldn't we still be the Great Satan?

If these methods were already serving as a recruiting tool for al-Qaeda, as Axelrod claimed, why did Obama release the Top Secret details of the Bush waterboarding memos, thereby confirming whatever al-Qaeda was already saying to recruit more followers? It would seem that assists al-Qaeda in now saying, "See, we told you so. The American Satan has now admitted what it was doing. But, better than that, we now know in detail about their methods and can therefore train to resist them." Way to go, Team Obama! I feel so much safer now that our enemies, by our own admission, know our interrogation techniques in detail.

Obama banned "enhanced interrogation techniques" his first week in office, but that's obviously not enough for some Democrats and other liberals. They want a so-called Truth Commission and/or federal investigation (read: show trials), as Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT) stated, "so it never happens again." Well, Senator, you don't need a show trial to keep it from ever happening again, just better Congressional oversight. Don't forget, please, that Congressional leadership was briefed about 30 times by the Bush administration on what it was doing and why, and Congress not only went along with it but in some cases asked if what Bush was doing was enough. See, there may be the Catch 22 to insisting on so-called Truth Commissions and/or federal prosecutions - they may come back to haunt some Democratic leadership, as well as members of the Bush administration and the intelligence community, notwithstanding Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's blank-stare protestations of "I don't know what I knew or when I knew it" to the contrary. (May I get you a bigger shovel, Miz Nancy, or is the hole you've been digging for yourself getting deep enough already?)

There are several ironies involved in all this.

The first irony is that the CIA stopped waterboarding in March 2003, after using it on only three high-value al-Qaeda detainees in 2002 and 2003, and the practice was removed from the CIA authorized list of techniques altogether sometime around 2005. In other words, waterboarding not only began but also ended during the Bush administration, long before Obama "banned" its use in January 2009.

The second irony is that Obama ostensibly released the classified CIA methods in another show of "transparency" and "openness" but he calculatingly and politically really did it to further the Bush-bashing which he and Team Obama have engaged in (and hidden behind) before, during and ever since he became president, as well as offering it up as another sop to his left-wing base of supporters. Well, ironically, his "lefties," instead of being "placated," became emboldened and wanted still more. For them, Obama's naive miscalculation in releasing the previously classified techniques was like fresh blood in the water.

The third irony is that Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, his own hand-picked Director of CIA and four previous CIA directors all told him not to release the classified techniques, and why, yet he yielded to the pressure from the likes of liberal godfather George Soros, MoveOn.org and other far left agents and did it anyway. However, I will give him credit, so far at least, Obama has shown that he will listen to his military experts (a smart thing, especially when you yourself don't know much about "military things," like the difference between a battalion and a brigade). But an additional irony therefore is, why didn't he also listen to his intelligence experts?

The fourth irony is that, once Obama let the cat out of the bag, he found he couldn't put it back. Oopsie! My bad. Naivete and inexperience, sometimes described by Team Obama as boldness, showed themselves once again. He vacillated back and forth about what to do, a firestorm of criticism followed (something Obama has demonstrated an overly thin-skinned ability to handle in the past), and so he passed the problem off to his Attorney General, saying Eric "Americans are cowards about race" Holder would determine whether any prosecutions needed to take place or not. We're still waiting, Eric, but if you decide to prosecute anyone, make sure you include all those fellow-traveling Democrats in the House and Senate who were briefed on, approved, supported and funded what the CIA was doing, okay?

The fifth irony was Obama going to speak to the CIA intelligence community and telling them he supported them and not to worry about being prosecuted for doing what you were told, while they sat there knowing that he had compromised their classified techniques and would probably sell them out in a heartbeat if he had to for political expediency. The mere possibility of a new round of federal investigations has sent the real message to all U.S. intelligence agents that there is no upside in aggressive interrogation. To the contrary, it's not only a career killer but also may land you in prison.

The sixth irony is that the 9/11 commission was supposed to prevent intelligence lapses so that 9/11 could never happen again. Now, Senator Leahy and other Democrats want to "investigate" what they claim were post-9/11 intelligence "abuses." So, the 9/11 commission didn't really work? So, you want something similar done again? Let's be honest, this isn't about gathering more information to prevent any further "abuses." This is another attempt at Democratic payback for the liberally despised Bush administration, pure and simple. To call it anything else is.....well, ironic.

And, Heaven forbid, but what may become the most tragically ironic thing of all: If Obama plays politics and so dismantles what Bush assembled that we don't see another attack on our homeland coming. In other words, we are back to "not connecting the dots" again. Those who ignore history are not only ignorant but also doomed to repeat it, and tragic history usually repeats itself with a vengeance. Beware the irony - or ironies, as it were.

I sometimes "collect" items which individually don't warrant a whole article in and of themselves but which may still give an overall impression of things political. Hence, some of this and some of that, a little bit of this and that, or, in other words, some political potpourri.

Taxes
We already have a steeply progressive income tax, with the top 5 percent of earners paying 60 percent of the taxes (in 2006), and the top 25 percent paying 86 percent. So, how does President Obama claim to be giving a "tax cut" to 95 percent of Americans, when 40 percent of them don't even pay taxes? Because his "tax cuts" aren't really tax cuts, they're just issuing government checks (probably to retain votes or "buy" new ones). To have actual tax cuts, you have to change the tax code and reduce taxes by category on those who actually pay taxes. The fact is that Obama wants to perform an experiment by confiscating more of the income of the most productive earners (who create the overwhelming majority of jobs) and redistributing it to those who earn less. And, if that's not socialism, folks, it's at least socialistic.

Bipartisanship?
President Obama has talked a lot about wanting a new spirit of bipartisanship in Washington. Like the time he invited Republicans to the White House to discuss the so-called stimulus package which the Democratic Congress and our new Democratic President wanted out the door, like yesterday - you know, to help our struggling economy. Republicans cited the recent nonpartisan CBO (Congressional Budget Office) analysis showing that the proposed stimulus package wouldn't really stimulate much and that what it did stimulate wouldn't occur until 2010 or later, perhaps after the current recession is already ending itself. (Economists tell us that recessions in this country historically last about two years before they start working themselves out. Well, that is, unless the government intervenes, and then it might take longer. That last part was a joke - but maybe not.) And when Republican Congressman Eric Kantor of Virginia presented some actual tax cuts which Republicans think would help stimulate the economy right away, Obama basically said there was a philosophical difference between them about tax cuts and that since he won the election, that argument was over. Whoa! So philosophical differences (read: ideology) outweigh potentially practical solutions? Is that what that means? Well, despite all your talk, Mr. President, way to go on actually showing bipartisanship!

Pelosi-Obama Hypocrisy
- Democrat Speaker of the House Nancy "the princess" Pelosi wants all of us to reduce our carbon footprint. For example, she wants us to buy smaller cars. And she's doing such a good job of setting a good example, too. Since she, along with most of Congress, only works about three full days a week (Tuesday through Thursday), she goes "home" to California just about every weekend. Now, after 9-11, the Speaker of the House, being third in line to the presidency (I know, with Pelosi, that's really scary to think about, isn't it?), was authorized necessary travel by government, rather than commercial, aircraft for security reasons. I think Pelosi's Republican predecessor used something like a 10-passenger, corporate-style jet. But Pelosi, who lives farther away and doesn't want to be "bothered" by stopping en route to refuel, travels by jumbo jet. And this gas guzzling 200-passenger jet flies her, and often a gaggle of Congressional staffers and/or friends and relatives, home to California at a cost to the taxpayers of about $60,000, one way! And as some pundit wryly said, "Unfortunately, we (also) have to pay to bring her back on Monday night." So, that costs us another $60,000. Folks, that is $480,000 per month and an annual cost to the taxpayers of $5,760,000 (yes, you read that right, over 5 million taxpayer dollars)! No wonder she complains about the cost of us fighting the war on terror. It might cramp her style. But I don't think she really needs to worry about me driving a smaller car or about my carbon footprint, not when hers is obviously so large - and paid for by me and you.
- And Obama wants us to turn our thermostats down and wear sweaters to conserve energy, yet his own advisor (and door-to-door salesman look alike) David Axelrod says Obama dislikes the cold and keeps the temperature in the Oval Office high enough to raise orchids. I guess that's so he can be photographed "working hard" in his shirtsleeves. Or maybe it's just because he, like many other politicians, just wants us "ordinary Americans" to do as he says, not as he does. Ya think?

Obama White House Vetting Process?
James Hirsen previously wrote in the Left Coast Report a blurb entitled From Little Screen to Big Screen to Magazine to White House Scene. In it, he said: "Change has come to the White House staff. Alejandra Campoverdi, an assistant to one of President Obama’s deputy chiefs of staff, has an unusual resume, even by D.C. standards. Campoverdi has gone from being a contestant on a reality television show to acting in Hollywood films to posing in lingerie for a men's magazine to a high-level position in the Obama administration. After graduating from college, Campoverdi tried out for 'The Apprentice,' Donald Trump's reality TV show, but she didn't make the cut. However, she was able to get on as a contestant in the third season of NBC's 'For Love Or Money,' one of the clones of 'The Bachelor' on which young single women compete for an eligible man's affection. She managed to obtain minor roles in major movies, which include being a vampire who is pursued by Keanu Reeves (“Constantine”) and playing the girlfriend of a military character (“The Aviator”). Campoverdi also has the resume enhancement of having donned a corset for a Maxim magazine photo spread. In the fall of 2008, she worked as an intern on Obama's presidential campaign and was apparently able to leverage the position to become an assistant to a White House deputy chief of staff."
Well, my comment on Hirsen's article is simply that, with some of Obama's main cabinet designees already having had some, uh, vetting problems, I just wonder what the vetting process was like on THIS position?! But, presumably, Ms. Campoverdi has at least paid all her taxes, doesn't employ a nanny and is not currently the subject of a federal investigation of any kind. And if that's the case, then she's already way ahead of many of Obama's other nominees.

Obama's Health Care Board
Remember the "health care board" mentioned in the Obama stimulus package? I don't know if it made it into the final stimulus bill that was signed into law or not (heck, most of the Congressionals who voted for it didn't know what was in it, either), but I don't think we need Washington making our health care decisions for us. Besides, it was inappropriate to include provisions about health care in the so-called stimulus plan anyway. What is stimulative about health care provisions, except, that is, beyond creating more of a shadow government than President Obama has already been doing with czars and czarinas duplicating cabinet secretaries and this and that advisory board and/or task forces out the kazoo? Remember, the stimulus plan, by Team Obama's own definition, was supposed to be: timely, targeted and temporary. Sneaking health care provisions into the stimulus plan may arguably have been timely and targeted but it is not temporary, just as much of the other pork in the House and Senate proposals was not. If you're going to attempt to nationalize the health care system, do it the right way: conduct committee hearings, call in doctors, health care professionals, insurers and other experts, take testimony, have open and full debate on the merits, and conduct the business of the American people in the open. Remember, another watchword of the Obama administration is transparency. (Oops, sorry, we already have multiple examples of how that has gone so far.)

A Billion, A Trillion?
Dave Satre, political and social commentator, has written about how much a billion and a trillion dollars are:
"It is difficult to visualize just how many dollars there are in $1 billion.  The politicians who are spending fortunes in government money make it sound as though they are dealing in smaller numbers by removing quite a few digits. For example, Bush's budget deficit, which at the time of this writing is $422,000,000,000 is more simply stated as $422 billion.
To put it in a different perspective, a billion is a thousand million.
To place it in a better perspective, a billion seconds ago, it was the year 1959.
Humans first learned to write 252 billion seconds ago.
A billion minutes ago, Jesus was alive.
A billion hours ago, our ancestors were living in the Stone Age.
A billion dollars ago was only 8 hours and 20 minutes, at the rate Washington spends it.
A trillion dollars is even more incomprehensible.  A trillion is a thousand billion.
One trillion seconds equals 1,688 years.
The oldest known human was alive 110 trillion seconds ago.
The US National Debt at the time of this writing is $8,538,579,172,593, or more simply stated: $8.5 trillion. The number is so large that the $1.75 billion this debt is increasing per day seems minuscule by comparison.
So, the next time you hear a politician casually use the words 'billion' or 'trillion,' think about whether you really want that politician spending your tax money."

Make Your Voice Heard - Do Your Duty
Our country is in crisis. Our taxpayer money is being spent like never before in our history, much of it on pork barrel projects so politicians can be reelected. Our government is incurring debt which our children and grandchildren will not be able to pay off. Are you making sure your voice is being heard by the politicians? Are you writing/calling your Congressional representatives, the President, signing petitions, trying to make a difference? At no time in our recent history has good citizenship been more important - and good citizenship means staying informed, calling on your elected officials to do the right thing, and calling them out when they don't. Living in this great country of ours is a privilege, but good citizenship is a duty, and one which goes beyond just voting every once in a while. If you're already doing your duty, good for you - keep it up. But, if you're not, don't complain later if things get worse. It does little good to simply agree/disagree or complain among ourselves. Complain to the politicians. Let your voice be heard. One or two of us will not make a difference, but many of us together can. Do you duty - be a good citizen.

Card Check
Rarely has a piece of proposed legislation been more euphemistically and misleadingly named. The Employee Free Choice Act, my foot! Let's call it what it is: a Democrat Party payback to big unions for their support (you know, the type of union which is strangling GM right now) so the unions can use strong arm tactics to grow their membership. The ability of American workers to choose whether or not to unionize through federally supervised secret ballot elections should be protected. The proposed Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) is flawed. The bill consists of three provisions, each of which is unacceptable:
•  Elimination of the secret ballot: Trading the secret ballot process for one that invites intimidation and coercion and leads to widespread disenfranchisement of workers is not a step in the right direction and flies in the face of one of our most cherished rights, the right to a secret ballot.
•  Writing contracts through government imposed arbitration: Forced arbitration would impose unreasonable and inflexible terms and cause employers to lose control over their operations, preventing them from growing their businesses.
•  Unreasonable and one-sided penalty expansion: EFCA imposes dramatic new penalties on employers for violations of the National Labor Relations Act, but not a single new penalty on unions or labor organizers.
EFCA would have a particularly devastating impact on small business owners/employers who, as the primary source for new jobs (70%), are counted on to reverse the current economic downturn. This bill is an awful idea in good economic times and a catastrophic idea in the difficult economic times in which we currently find ourselves. Call on your elected representatives and insist they not support or cosponsor the Employee Free Choice Act.

A Quote for Our Time
Dr. Adrian Rogers (1931 - 2005), Christian radio and TV preacher who was a spiritual advisor to five U.S. presidents, said: "You cannot legislate the poor into freedom by legislating the wealthy out of freedom. What one person receives without working for, another person must work for without receiving. The government cannot give to anybody anything that the government does not first take from somebody else. When half of the people get the idea that they do not have to work because the other half is going to take care of them, and when the other half gets the idea that it does no good to work because somebody else is going to get what they work for, that, my dear friend, is about the end of any nation. You cannot multiply wealth by dividing it."
And note that Dr. Rogers died in 2005, before the era of Obama, so what he said was not directed particularly at Obama - but surely well could have been.

Another Applicable Quote
Joseph Joubert (1754-1824), French essayist, said, "When a nation gives birth to a man who is able to produce a great thought, another is born who is able to understand and admire it."
Our biggest problem is that Obama seems to think he's both of these guys.