I recently stated at the beginning of another article that it seemed to me that President Obama is on TV all the time but that I was too lazy to research if my perception squared with actual facts or not. Well, now somebody has done that for me, so I thought I would share that info with you. (And, yes, IMNSHO, it seems I was right.....again! And, no, I'm not one of those who falsely claims that I don't want to tell you that I told you so, either. Actually, I'm one of those who absolutely delights in telling you that I told you so....and that you should have listened to me in the first place. So there! All in good fun, though.)

According to a Forbes.com article headlined "Camera Hog in Chief," during the first six months of 2009, Obama was cited in 1.1 million stories in the mainstream, Internet, and social media. That's an average of 6,100 references A DAY! 

"That's more than triple what Obama's last two predecessors, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton, got in the mainstream press during their first six months," Forbes observed. Think about that now. That means that Obama has had THREE TIMES the exposure of not only EITHER ONE of his last two predecessors but THREE TIMES the exposure of BOTH OF THEM TOGETHER!  Now, I long ago pegged this guy as a world-class narcissist, but really, will somebody get a grip here and tell Obama to stay in the Oval Office and get some work done, at least some of the time?

According to Mark Knoller of CBS News, who has covered every president since Gerald Ford, Obama delivered 281 speeches, gave 88 interviews to journalists, hosted 30 news conferences, and emceed 14 town hall meetings in the first half of this year. Thank you, Mark, for totaling all that up for us. I knew it was a lot, because it seems a day doesn't go by without Obama being on TV about something, but I had no idea it was THAT much.

But there's evidence that Americans may be getting "Obummered." Obama's February address to Congress drew 52 million viewers, but his news conference on health care reform in late July (or was it already health insurance reform by then?) only drew 29 million. Could it be that the public may be tiring of too much of a good thing? Yes, Mr. Wonderful, even too much of you is, well, still too much. Try chillin' for a while and maybe just looking at yourself in the mirror more often (if that's possible), while giving the rest of us a little break from your, ah, magnificent munificence, your fascinating physiognomy, your brighter than the morning star brilliance, your, uh, yadda, yadda, yadda.

President Obama had another of his so-called press conferences last Wednesday night. But, um, when you rely so heavily on a teleprompter, pick which reporters you're going to call on ahead of time, basically have the questions and your responses scripted, and spend an inordinate amount of time giving non-answers to the few questions you are asked, it's not really much of a real "press conference," is it? It's just you, all stage-managed and perfectly lighted to look and sound presidential, before the TV cameras -- again. I sometimes wonder (but not enough to bother researching it), just how many days since being sworn in has Obama NOT been on TV? I can't think of any right now, but I'm sure there's GOT to be at least one or two. He's got to be the most visible president, with the most invisible agenda and the largest shadow government, ever.

Anyway, after using most of the "presser" to sell his health scare reform plan, Mr. Obama must have gotten an unscreened, unscripted, unteleprompted (read: "real") question right toward the end, when he was asked his opinion about a local police incident which occurred in Cambridge, Mass., this past week involving a Harvard professor, one Henry Louis Gates, Jr., who is also evidently a friend of Mr. Obama's.

After admitting that he was only vaguely familiar with what happened, Obama said the police involved had acted "stupidly." (Oopsie! See, Barack, that's what happens when you go off teleprompter!) As president of the United States, on national television, in prime time, at the end of a presidential press conference, Obama (arrogantly, foolishly, one might even say "stupidly") decided his not knowing the details was no bar to his denigrating a white Cambridge police sergeant in particular and the Cambridge police department in general in defense of his friend, the black professor. W-e-l-l-l-l, no contest, right? POTUS versus small town police sergeant? WRONG! And here's why (and you could not make this stuff up, folks, even if you tried):

(a) It seems that Sgt. James Crowley is a well-regarded, veteran officer who is himself an expert on racial profiling.
(b) It seems that Sgt. Crowley, for several years now, has voluntarily spent some of his own money and normal off-duty time teaching other police officers about racial profiling.
(c) It seems that Crowley was also the police officer who administered mouth-to-mouth resuscitation in trying to save the life of former Boston Celtics player Reggie Lewis, a black man, who collapsed and died during an off-season workout at Brandeis University.
(d) It seems that Sgt. Crowley responded to a call at the Cambridge home of Mr. Gates last week to investigate a report of a burglary made by a neighbor.
(e) In fact, it seems there had been a report of a burglary at that same location previously.
(f) Although Crowley, who is white, was the senior policeman on the scene, he was accompanied by two other police officers, one black and one Hispanic (See, how perfectly "tri-racial" is that? I told you, you can't make this stuff up.)
(g) Crowley confronted Gates and another man who appeared to have been forcing open the door of the house. Crowley asked Gates to show him identification. Gates at first refused and accused Crowley of racism.
(h) After Gates was finally identified as the home owner, he was not charged with burglary but was arrested for disorderly conduct for refusing to identify himself, for creating a disturbance by yelling at the police officers and accusing them of being racist, along with making derogatory comments about Crowley's mother, who, so far as it is known, Gates has never even met. (Real nice behavior for anyone, much less a Harvard professor, black, white or purple, don't you think?)
(i) Even the disorderly conduct charges against Gates, although seemingly warranted, were dropped by last Tuesday, the day before Obama felt compelled to comment on the incident. (Except for Gates claiming, rather brashly given the circumstances, that Crowley should apologize to him, instead of the other way around, the incident was all but over and done with. That is, until Obama commented on it and gave it renewed life in the news cycle. Duh!)
(j) It also seems that Obama may have had his own axe to grind with the Cambridge police department. Obama, who attended Harvard Law School from 1988 to 1991, lived in Cambridge, and apparently didn't like the fact he frequently received parking tickets. In all, he received 17 tickets for parking violations -- and never paid 15 of them until he was exposed by a local Massachusetts newspaper as a scofflaw. According to a 2007 Associated Press story, Obama was a parking ticket deadbeat for more than a decade and only felt the need to pay the 15 outstanding parking tickets as his presidential campaign began in earnest in January 2007. (Eerily reminiscent of when some of Obama's nominees for cabinet positions finally pay their income taxes, isn't it?)
(k) Obama concluded his comments by saying the incident "highlights ongoing problems with race relations in the U.S."

It sure does, Mr. President. When the U.S. president, especially a black, or at least bi-racial, and supposedly "post-racial" president, admits he knows little of the facts of an incident but still decides to denigrate a small town police sergeant, who happens to be white, on national television in defense of his friend, a black professor, that does highlight ongoing problems with race relations, sure enough, but probably not in the way you intended your comments. Why? Because you and your black professor friend come off as more racially "trigger happy" than the police sergeant did, that's why. 

And when someone seemingly engaged in unlawful activity not only refuses to identify himself to a police officer in the lawful execution of his duties but also creates a disturbance and raises the false charges of racism and racial profiling, it's just not enough any more that the officer is white and the "suspect" is black. Most Americans have moved beyond that kind of knee jerk reaction to the playing of the race card to which certain black "leaders" have conditioned many whites since the 1960s. In fact, that movement away from such knee jerk, "conditioned" reactions is one of the things which made your being elected possible, Mr. President.

It isn't "automatically" racism or racial profiling anymore just because a black man claims that it is -- even if he is a Harvard professor and even if he shouts it. And it's not any of that even if that black man happens to also be a friend of the president of the United States. And it's not any of that even if the "first black president" himself, who should, whether black, white, brown, red or yellow, hold himself, and his office, above commenting on things he obviously knows little about, suggests that it is, either. You should have known that, not only as a lawyer but as a highfalutin' Harvard lawyer, to boot, much less as president.

The alleged conservative columnist Kathleen Parker recently wrote an article entitled "A League of Her Own" about Sarah Plain. Herewith, my comments in response to Ms. Parker's article:

Comments From the Right? I think not. Kathleen's drifting Left again, just as she did, and over Palin then, too, during the campaign. I know guys allegedly sometimes have what may be called "weiner envy." I don't know what the equivalent is for gals, but I think Ms. Parker's got it where Palin is concerned.

Parker is another one who questions Palin's REAL reasons for resigning, most often characterized as "quitting," as governor. What does Kathleen really KNOW about Palin's current financial, or even overall, situation? It appears Parker is engaging in the same speculation as many others. Palin says it's cost her state and her individually hundreds of thousands of dollars to contend with the 18 or so ethics investigations and/or law suits which have been brought, not as Ms. Parker suggests by "normal" Alaskans dissatisfied with Palin's performance as governor, but by Democrats and some of her former defeated good ole boy Republican adversaries in the state legislature. In other words, not by people simply dissatisfied with Palin's performance but by people who want to "get her" any way they can -- much like liberals in general and the lamestream liberal media, and seemingly Ms. Parker, in particular.

Taking the time and money to fight all those investigations has not only cost her state and Palin personally thousands of dollars but has also interfered with and hampered her ability to effectively govern. And none of them -- not one -- has proven to have any merit.

Besides, she knows she has a stalwart Republican conservative in her lieutenant governor, so why not remove herself as a magnet for all the dysfunctionality and resign "for the sake of Alaska," so at least her lieutenant governor can get on with what needs to be done? Would that some Democrats -- and some other Republicans as well -- would "step down" for the betterment of their party, constituents, whatever. But, it takes real courage to do something like that, so who am I kidding?

So, I take Palin at her word -- that she is stepping down so her and her lieutenant governor's conservative program can progress for the sake of Alaska, that frivolous investigations have already cost her and her state too much money, and that she finally just got tired of all the negativity against her family in the media. That's her being a responsible office holder AND mom. And what she does next is entirely up to her, as it should be.

If you give President Obama the benefit of the doubt on so many things, as you have, Kathleen, why not give Palin the same benefit of the doubt? I mean, it's not like we don't already know that Obama has shown he often doesn't mean what he says, because he changes it so often to fit what he currently thinks we want to hear. I won't go into a list of all the things he's said and then changed -- is that the "change" we "hoped" for? -- but it's lengthy, and getting longer by the day, as anyone paying attention must acknowledge.

The White House's claim this month that 46 million Americans lack health insurance is false because that number includes almost 10 million people who are not “Americans” but are in fact citizens of foreign countries who happen to be present in the United States, according to U.S. Census Bureau data.

Add to that, that 11 - 13 million (nobody knows for sure) of the alleged 46 million are illegal immigrants who shouldn't be provided health insurance anyway, and you are left with perhaps 23 - 25 million so-called uninsured.

Reduce that by the number of households making over $75,000 per year (about 22 million) who can afford health insurance, and you have a remaining "uninsured" of 1 - 3 million. With a current population of about 300 million, 3 million is  .01 percent of the population.

Furthermore, the U.S. Census Bureau's 2006 American Community Survey found that there were 69,606,117 Americans in the 18 - 34-year-old demographic. If only half of this demographic chooses, wisely or unwisely, not to want health insurance because they are for the most part young and healthy, that's about another 35 million.

So, starting with a claim of 46 million, subtracting 10 million legal visitors equals 36 million; subtracting 12 million (average of 11 - 13 million) illegal immigrants equals 24 million; subtracting 22 million who can afford their own health insurance equals 2 million; subtracting 35 million who think they're too young and healthy to need health insurance equals........MINUS 33 million?! So, who's cooking the books, stretching the statistics, falsifying the figures, nullifying the numbers, altering the arithmetic, manipulating the math? And why?   

Now, there are doubtless Americans who, through no real fault of their own, cannot afford adequate health insurance and who should be helped. Undoubtedly, even .01 percent of the population who can't afford health insurance is still a lot of people. And undoubtedly, health care costs in general are too high and require moderating.

Then too, individual stories of the single, out-of-work mom or homeless person who suffers a catastrophic illness and can't afford medical treatment can be found and highlighted to make a point. But, as much as they tug at our heartstrings and anger us for the injustice, they are thankfully the exceptions rather than the rule, and no system as large as our health care system can ever be perfect. And it is often the involvement and control of local, state and/or HMO bureaucrats who only make things worse anyway. And now we want that on the federal level, administered by even more distant federal bureaucrats?

It's both ironic and hubristically hypocritical that President Obama and Congressional Democrats, as well as their liberal mainstream media handmaidens, so often say that Republicans and conservatives in general are "fearmongering" about this or that, while they "fearmonger" about hurrying to pass their massive nonstimulating stimulus plan, their massive "porky" budget, their massive automaker bailouts-bankruptcies-makeovers-takeovers, and now their massive hurry-up (again) health care reform.

So, instead of Obama and Congressional Democrats using false figures to "fearmonger" us into throwing at least another trillion dollars of our tax money (where DOES it stop?; WHEN does it stop?) into fixing what admittedly is a problem, perhaps we should first:

(a) determine what is the real number of uninsured who actually, legally and deservedly need help

(b) listen, debate and find out what's really wrong with the alternatives being offered by the so-called "Party of No" (or more accurately, the "Party of Not Listened To") Republicans

(c) attempt getting a handle on the runaway fraud and waste of millions of taxpayer dollars in the current, and already going bankrupt, MEDICARE and MEDICAID programs

(d) institute some realistic tort reform which will still allow victims of medical malpractice adequate but not exorbitant redress but without bankrupting doctors with medical malpractice insurance rates and career-ending lawsuits.

Oh, I know, I know, any, much less all, of that would be a lot of work and would take some time (something Obama and his Democrat Congress obviously don't like to do -- they don't even like taking the time to read what they vote on and sign). And it would cause deliberate and perhaps even deliberative action. And some favored special interest group supporters (like trial lawyers, for example) would have to be confronted, maybe even somewhat "disappointed."

Besides, gee-whiz, what a pain in the you-know-what to take the time and effort to do the job right, instead of just hurrying -- once again -- to simply throw still more taxpayer money at a complex set of problems and then claiming you've made it all better, huh? And done it all within your first 200 days, too! How ..... umm, ah ..... hmmm ..... "historic." Just remember, please, disasters can also be "historic."

Oh, how the increasingly irrelevant mainstream media (MSM) like to take very few facts and blow them up into a sensational story to garner TV ratings or gain some newsprint readership. Hence, some play in the liberal MSM lately that recent domestic terrorist attacks lend credence to, perhaps even "validate," the April DHS "intelligence report," which DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano had to subsequently "apologize" for and withdraw for revision and update.

First, keep in mind that the April DHS report was supposed to be secret and issued only to law enforcement agencies across the country. So much for transparency in government. Second, remember that DHS Secretary Napolitano had to ineptly "explain" the poorly written report only because it was leaked and became known to the public, ending in her nonapologetic "apology" -- the typical political, "If YOU were offended, then WE'RE sorry." What, sorry that you got caught putting out such a so-called "intelligence report"? Or sorry that it was so indefensible that you had to offer at least some kind of apology for it? Third, the report was insulting, not only to anyone who is legitimately against illegal immigration or holds anti-abortion positions but also to our veterans, our currently serving troops, and any conservatives who generally disagree with Obama's left-wing policies, his spendthrift ways and his fascist takeover of, so far, three major sectors of the American economy. In addition, the DHS report was largely based on speculation and opinion rather than on empirical information or credible, citable intelligence.

Next, "Civil rights activists say a string of recent attacks blamed on right-wing extremists..." Did I miss something in the news recently? Let's see, (1) there was the killing of Dr. George Tiller, the "Baby Killer," by a lone, right-wing, anti-abortion nutjob with a pre-existing history, (2) there was the random gunning down of an American soldier outside a recruiting station by an American Black Muslim domestic "jihadist" bent on revenging an eye for an eye for what U.S. soldiers are doing in Pakistan and Afghanistan, and (3) there was the killing of a security guard at the Holocaust Museum, again by a lone, right-wing, white supremacist nutjob with a long history of anti-Semitism, white supremacy and Holocaust denial.

Well, since one of the three incidents involved an American Black Muslim domestic "jihadist," he's obviously not exactly a right-winger. And although two of the three incidents involved right-wingers, I still fail to see how that becomes "a string of recent attacks." Don't you need more than just two for there to be "a string"?

And since even those two incidents were perpetrated by long-time right-wing nutjobs, how does that in any way lend any credence to the DHS report which predicted a rising, current or future danger from those with any of several conservative positions in opposition to Obama's policies? Obama hasn't even been in office that long.

No, the attacks by the two right-wingers were based on long-standing feelings and beliefs as much as anything to do with Obama or his policies, as amazing as that may seem to him and his adoringly slavish media pals. In fact, one could argue that the attacks by the two right-wingers were almost personal, instead of political. Tiller's killer no doubt personally hated Tiller himself, not only what he was doing in performing late-term abortions of convenience by the thousands and becoming a millionaire while doing it. And von Brunn, the right-winger who killed the Holocaust Museum guard, probably blamed any- and everybody working at the museum for the Holocaust which he schizophrenically both despised and denied. However, for the Black Muslim murderer, his act was ideological and his victim selection was random. For him, any soldier to shoot and kill as a "symbol" would do.

Case Number 1: Dr. George Tiller, the "Baby Killer," is murdered in his church by a lone, right-wing, anti-abortion gunman. President Obama, on the same day, issues a statement of outrage and condolences about this act of domestic terrorism. Case Number 2: An Army private is randomly gunned down and killed outside a recruiting office by a Black American, a so-called domestic Muslim jihadist, and there is no comment by the White House at all, to the point that reporters have to ask Obama's mouthpiece, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs, a day or two later if there is even going to be a statement. Case Number 3: An elderly, right-wing, white supremacist enters the Holocaust Museum and shoots a security guard, who later dies, and is in turn critically wounded himself. Once again, Obama is Johnny-on-the-spot, same day, with a statement condemning such an act of domestic terrorism.

So, who does it seem like Obama, and the mainstream media, for that matter, cares more about -- a late-term abortionist, a Black Muslim jihadist, or an American soldier? Oh, that's right, both of the killers of the abortionist and the security guard were right-wingers, whereas the killer of the Army private was simply a domestic Muslim terrorist who has said that he was extracting an eye for an eye for what American soldiers are doing in Afghanistan and Pakistan.

But, to me, all three of the perpetrators are murderers, or domestic terrorists, if you will, and should have been immediately and equally condemned by Obama and his slavish, liberal media pals. The fact that two were and one was not is telling, to say the least. So, tell me again, will you, Mr. President, how much you support, admire, value, etc., etc., our troops? Is that all of them all of the time, most of them most of the time, some of them some of the time, or one of them any of the time? Hmmm. Uh-huh.

Well, President Obama has appointed his latest "czar." This one's his so-called "Pay Czar," Kenneth Feinberg, the attorney who oversaw the federal government's compensation fund for victims of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, and who is also known as a "Special Master," whatever that is. His being a "Special Master" initially made me wonder if he was a senior member of some kind of secret society or fraternity -- and he just may be: the secret society of czars.

You see, one thing that worries me is just how many of these so-called czars are there now? Some newscasters say 12, some say 16 and others say 20. Twenty?! Really?! I don't know that anyone who's not on Team Obama really knows. And I suspect that may be the point -- we're not supposed to know. Just like we're not supposed to pay attention to what Obama's actually doing versus what he says he's doing.

Now, past presidents have used "czars" for special emphasis on various things, so probably nothing all that wrong with that -- but none ever like Obama.

Even if you consider however many czars there are, also don't forget there are some "czarinas" in the mix, too, as well as "special advisors," "task forces," "advisory boards," etc., etc., now seemingly out the kazoo. All appointed by Obama, all answerable to Obama, all loyal to Obama, none accountable to Congress (there have already been at least two cases where Obama czars requested to appear before Congressional committees simply didn't show up -- how rude!), and most of them, much less what they're doing behind the scenes, are mostly unknown to and by the American people. Transparency anyone?

And if you consider that, at least collectively, these czars, however many there are, oversee, direct, supervise, control, whatever it is that they do, about two trillion dollars in taxpayer money, then I think it's fair to ask: Accountability anyone? Oh, I forgot, they're accountable to Obama (just not to the Congress and therefore not to the American people which the Congress purportedly represents). So, no worries. Never mind.

And if you factor in that each of these czars, czarinas, special advisors, task forces, etc., have assistants and some kind of staff, then how many people are we talking about? How much are these czars, etc., paid for their services and how much taxpayer money is spent on their staffs? I'm sure none are working pro bono.

Quite the "shadow government," eh? Why does one need so many czars, etc., when one has multiple cabinet secretaries, each with numerous subordinate officials, who have not only been nominated and gone through some kind of public vetting process but also been approved and confirmed by the peoples' representatives in Congress, instead of an unknown number of individuals simply being designated by the president? Why does Obama need so many "extras"? How much is Obama's shadow government costing us taxpayers? And what is Obama's shadow government really doing behind the scenes?

It's all quite bizarre, really, that seemingly no one -- not Congress, not the Justice Department, not so-called national journalists, reporters or commentators, not government watch or waste groups -- is forcing Obama to address and clarify all of this. Or maybe I should simply say, in the upside down world of Obamaland, it's just another "be-czar" move toward -- what? -- socialism or fascism? Take your pick, but neither is very transparent, very accountable or very American.

Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist and President Obama’s Energy Secretary, recently told a conference of Nobel laureates in London: “If you look at all the buildings and if you make the roofs white and if you make the pavement more of a concrete type of color rather than a black type of color and if you do that uniformally [sic], that would be the equivalent of ... reducing the carbon emissions due to all the cars in the world by 11 years – just taking them off the road for 11 years."

Uhhhh, what? And just how much would it cost to paint all our residential and commercial and industrial rooftops white and redo about half of all our roads? What a lame-brained idea and an even dumber thing to say out loud in public! I guess it's a good thing that Chu's Nobel in physics had nothing to do with climatology. Instead he was one of three scientists who received a joint award for developing methods to cool and trap atoms with laser light.

Now, his being a physicist presumably means he's intelligent, but it may also be that he's like a couple of people with whom I went to college -- smart as a whip but no common sense. You know, the type who can discuss almost anything about anything but can't remember to tie his own shoelaces. Yeah, that guy. We've all known at least one.

Oh, and before you get too impressed by Chu having a Nobel, so does Al "the Goracle" Gore, who never struck me as even being all that super-intelligent about anything. In fact, a lot of people have been awarded the Nobel in a lot of different fields, a lot of them for highly specialized stuff. On the other hand, for example, Yassar Arafat also won a Nobel, and for peace, no less. He shared it in 1994 with Israeli leaders Yitzhak Rabin and Shimon Peres after their secret meetings in Norway resulted in a peace agreement between Israel and Arafat's Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO).

But Arafat was a life-long terrorist. And Chu, Nobel prize winner or not, certainly could use a healthy dose of good old common sense -- and maybe double-check that he tied his shoelaces. But, what worries me most is that this is who Obama chose to oversee our country's energy policy?

So, we've got Democrat Representative Henry Waxman and the Democrat Congress trying their best to hurry up and pass the draconian, minimally effective (for global climate change) but maximally damaging and costly (for American businesses and consumers) Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade scheme that Obama wants sooner rather than later -- and no common sense Chu is in charge of our energy policy? Great. Just great. Oh well, just something else to worry about, folks.