I was recently reading some posted comments online about President Obama's nomination of Judge Sonia Sotomayor for the Supreme Court, and one commenter suggested: "Could the case be made that the 'moderate Democrats' need to be the ones to step up here and do the right thing in opposing this nominee?"

My reaction:

First of all, that seems like a rational question to ask. And, yes, the case could be made, and should be made, but the watchword unfortunately seems to be: "Please don't hold your breath." In other words, no disrespect intended, but -- are you kidding?

For example, where were those "moderate Democrats," those so-called Blue Dog Democrats, when the UNREAD and NONstimulating "stimulus" bill was passed? Or when the PORK LADEN "budget" was passed? Or when still more billions, even trillions, in generational deficit and debt are spent -- and even Obama says such debt is "unsustainable" -- in a vain attempt to SPEND us out of a recession? Is that how YOUR checkbook works? Mine neither. But then, neither of us can just print more money, like Team Obama can, either.

However, I agree, it would seem that at least SOME Blue Dogs would show they have some common sense about all this, but, so far, not much of a whimper. They, like other Democrats, are too busy either wagging their tails over being in power or running around chasing their tails, fascinated, like a puppy with a squeaky ball, with any and all bright and shiny new spending ideas they can play with. So, sorry to say, don't expect any help from them on something like this Supreme Court nominee, either.

Sotomayor is "qualified" -- more so than Myers was but probably less so than Thomas, or even Bork, would have been -- because of her long time on the federal bench. But she certainly is not one of the "best qualified." She really is a twofer quota fill for Obama in payment for the Hispanic vote in particular and the liberal vote in general. She seems to lack the depth and breadth of legal intellect or personal charm to sway the current 5/4 court, which is good, making her basically a one-to-one replacement for the liberal Souter. So, as far as the Court is concerned, this nomination is probably a wash.

But watch out for Obama's NEXT nominee. THAT will be the deal-breaking nominee. There are lots of things I don't like about Obama, but I have to give credit where credit is due -- and he is a shrewd politician. The Sotomayor nomination could be his testing of the waters, to see how far and hard he can push an even more liberal pick next time around. Hopefully, he won't get another chance until 2010 or after and, by then, Republicans should have regained enough in the Senate, if not the Congress overall, to kill the chances, if appropriate, of whomever he nominates next.

Since the Renaissance, Justitia, also known as Lady Justice or simply Justice, has most frequently been depicted as a young matron carrying a sword and measuring balances, or scales, and wearing a blindfold.

Traditionally, particularly in the West, Justice has been considered blind to the particulars of those appearing before her -- whether rich or poor, mighty or meek, of whatever ethnicity, background or station in life. She hears the case, balancing only the merits of the case upon her scales, and is ready to strike with her double-edged sword whichever party to a case deserves it.

But, forget tradition. Forget custom. Forget precedent. Forget the oft quoted maxim for the same and equal consideration for all before the Law, that "Justice is blind." Because NOW, with the coming of The ONE, not only have the seas risen and the multitudes been blessed but also -- wait for it -- Justice's blindfold is to be REMOVED! And she can SEE! Glory hallelujah! It's an Oba-miracle! Justice Can See! To celebrate, please turn to page 363 in your hymnals and let's all sing "I Have Seen the Light" together.

You see, President Obama thinks that a litmus test for a U.S. Supreme Court justice should be that he or she can "empathize" with the condition of the people who are parties to the case at hand. Keep in mind now that "sympathize" is not enough. Sympathize only means that one can cognitively understand another's position and identify with it intellectually. Empathize means that one can "identify with," can "feel" another's position, can "stand in their shoes," as it were. That's one reason he gave for nominating Judge Sonia Sotomayor -- for the "richness" of her upbringing and background.

Well, I don't know about you, but I don't want judges, much less those comprising the U.S. Supreme Court, "feeling" that the law should be decided this way or that. What the law says, how the law reads, what considerations it takes into account for this or that person's or class of people's station in life is the purview of the legislative branch, NOT the judicial branch. I want judges and justices to "know," intellectually and dispassionately, what the law "means" as applied within the constraints of the Constitution in any given case.

I don't want justices who "feel" what a decision "ought" to be. Heck, I can do that. You can do that. Any of us can tell how we "feel" about how a case "should be" decided. That's not the point. And, besides, that's the formula for judicial activism, or "legislating from the bench," which is constitutionally NOT the purview of judges or justices. The point is what does the law say, is it constitutionally correct, and what does that mean as applied to the facts of the case at hand?

I want judges and justices who take the law as devised by the legislature and signed into law by the executive and apply it in accordance with the Constitution to the given set of facts in the case then before them. Let me say that again, to the given set of FACTS in the case THEN BEFORE THEM. Not the personal plight of plaintiff or defendant. Not this or that about the plaintiff's or defendant's station in life. And not whatever it might be "ivory tower theorized" could possibly happen as a follow-on ramification of this or that decision somewhere down the road.

No, no, no. Apply what the LAW SAYS to the FACTS in the case right THEN BEFORE THEM. That's all. That's it. If the judges or justices decide that what the law says is wrong, i.e., unconstitutional, then that law needs to go back to the legislative branch to be revised. It is not within the purview of the judicial branch to "modify" the law to "fit" whatever conditions or outcomes it "feels" the legislative branch "should have considered" in the first place. Not only is judicial activism itself, uh, unconstitutional, but it also leads to the infamous slippery slope, folks, and blurs the proscribed and preferred "balance" of powers between the legislative and judicial branches. If judges resent legislators acting like judges, then legislators have every right to resent judges trying to act like legislators.

Besides, this whole thing about an "empathy" litmus test for U.S. Supreme Court nominees, as well as the fact that many judges and justices do overreach their authority and are also political and/or social activists, somewhat reminds me of the town drunk, once again obviously as "drunk as a skunk," and appearing for the umpteenth time before the local magistrate. The drunk knows the judge is going to send him to jail -- again -- and so he pleads, "Your Honor, please, all I want is a little justice." To which the magistrate replies, "No, what you really want is mercy, and for that, you can see the chaplain. What you will get from me IS justice. That'll be 30 days."

Now, THAT'S a judge's or justice's job -- no more, no less. And, for that, Justice doesn't have to see the plaintiff or defendant, much less empathize with them. She only has to hear the case and decide it on the merits.

 

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."

In a blurb entitled "Janeane Garofalo’s Lefty Mindset," Left Coast Report's James Hirsen recently noted that Joel Surnow may rue the day Janeane Garofalo got a role on “24.” Garofalo’s recent public denouncements of the TEA Party protests may have lots of conservatives turning the hit TV series off.

Hirsen also points out that the politically outspoken comedian, actress and failed liberal TV talk show host does, however, provide a look through the lens with which liberals view any criticisms of President Obama. The left sees Obama solely within the historical context of being the first black president and, as such, his success in all of the micro and macro machinations of governing apparently has to be defended, perhaps even beyond the point of rationality. To the liberals, criticism of any issue, statement or policy of his must take a back seat to the historic achievement of his black presidency. Well, except perhaps for one of the truer (and less offensive) things comedian Wanda Sykes, who is black, said at the recent White House Correspondents Dinner when she talked about knowing that Obama is biracial but she just liked saying "The first black president" - that is, unless he messes up, at which time she said it would change to "Hey, what's up with the half-white dude?"

You may recall, however, during the 2008 presidential campaign, that candidate Obama himself told a fundraiser crowd in Jacksonville, Florida, “We know what kind of campaign they're going to run. They're going to try to make you afraid. They're going to try to make you afraid of me. He's young and inexperienced and he's got a funny name. And did I mention he's black?”  His "reverse psychology" yet deliberate playing of the race card caused many political pundits (I call them pol-dits) to wonder if any future negative comments about Obama’s words or actions would be dismissed as racist. Well, pol-dits, wonder no more.

This is exactly what Garofalo attempted to do on MSNBC's Countdown program with Keith Olbermann by insisting at some length and with a fair degree of vitriol that those who attended the recent anti-tax, anti-big government, anti-big spending rallies were “a bunch of teabagging rednecks.” She described attendees as being motivated by bigotry, adding “This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism, straight up.” I don't recall any actual proof of that offered by Ms. Garofalo, then or since, but of course she is entitled to her opinion - however erroneous and unsubstantiated it may be.

However, when pressed about it in a recent ambush interview by Fox News, she did mention one sign she saw displayed at one of the protest sites. I guess that's enough "proof" for her to paint almost three-quarter of a million protesters at about 40,000 different sites all across the country with the same broad brush of blame. Hey, please put her on my jury if I'm the plaintiff but not if I'm the defendant. She gives a whole new meaning to the legal term "scintilla of proof."

Her liberal "open-mindedness" and "tolerance" were also fully displayed at the idea of conservative radio icon Rush Limbaugh making a vist to the “24” set. As she told the Village Voice, “When Rush Limbaugh visited the set, and when Lynne Cheney visited the set, I refused to have my picture taken with them or meet them or anything.” Well, for one thing, Rush recently indicated that he had never visited the set while Garofalo was a member of the cast of “24.”  And, for another thing, it begs the question about what makes Garofalo think Rush Limbaugh or Lynne Cheney would actually want to meet her anyway? Get over yourself, Janeane.

I am not Catholic, nor do I claim to understand all things Catholic, but I have some sense of what the phrase "being a good Catholic" means.

And what that means to me, in the current political context, is that Obama, the most pro-abortion president we've ever had, should never have even been invited to speak at the recent commencement at Notre Dame, one of our most prestigious Catholic universities, much less receive an honorary doctorate degree.

And it is also incongruous to me that other politicians who claim to be Catholic, like Nancy Pelosi, John Kerry, Teddy Kennedy, etc., etc., etc., should on the one hand support abortion but on the other hand expect to participate in Holy Communion.

Holy Communion, whether in Protestantism or Catholicism, is only for the "faithful" who believe in and try to practice the church's teachings. And the Catholic church teaches that life begins at conception and therefore that abortion is wrong, period.

I know that Pride is one of the deadly sins, and plenty of our politicians have that in abundance, but what about Hypocrisy? Well, it seems that they, and Notre Shame, have that in abundance too.

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. 

This could also be subtitled, "They Just Don't Make 'Em Like They Used To," and is dedicated this Memorial Day to our veterans, past, present and future.

In contrast to the ideals, opinions and "feelings" of today's "Hollywonks" and "Hollyweirds," the real actors of yesteryear were also real patriots. They had both class and integrity. With the advent of World War II, many of our actors, as well as some from among our allies, went to fight rather than merely whine and complain. They gave up their wealth, position and fame to become service men and women, many in the enlisted ranks.

This article lists but a few, but from this group of only 18 men came over 70 medals in honor of their valor, from Bronze Stars, Silver Stars, Distinguish Service Crosses, Purple Hearts, to a Congressional Medal of Honor.

So remember, when you see and hear many of today's Hollywood elitist actors pontificating about all that's wrong with our country, there was a time when patriotism meant much more than mere criticism, especially while maintaining a cushy lifestyle. There was a time - and movie star men and women who made personal and professional sacrifices - when real patriotism called upon you to put your fame and fortune, if not your personal safety, where your mouth was.

Many people today need to be reminded of what the entertainers of 1943, many of whom have since passed on, were doing, 65 years ago:

Sir Alec Guinness [Bridge on the River Kwai, Star Wars] operated a British Royal Navy landing craft during the Normandy invasion on D-Day.

James Doohan [Scotty on Star Trek] landed in Normandy with the U. S. Army on D-Day.

Donald Pleasance [The Great Escape] really was an RAF pilot who was shot down, held prisoner and tortured by the Germans.

David Niven [Around the World in 80 Days, Curse of the Pink Panther, Trail of the Pink Panther] was a Sandhurst graduate and Lieutenant. Colonel of the British Commandos in Normandy.

James Stewart [The Philadelphia Story, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, It's a Wonderful Life, Winchester '73, Rear Window, Vertigo, Anatomy of a Murder, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance] entered the Army Air Force as a private and worked his way to the rank of colonel. During World War II, Stewart served as a bomber pilot, credited with leading more than 20 missions over Germany and taking part in hundreds of air strikes during his tour of duty. Stewart earned the Air Medal, the Distinguished Flying Cross, France's Croix de Guerre, and 7 Battle Stars during World War II. In peace time, Stewart continued to be an active member of the Air Force as a reservist, reaching the rank of Brigadier General before retiring in the late 1950s.

Clark Gable [It Happened One Night, Mutiny on the Bounty, Gone with the Wind] was already a mega-movie star when WWII broke out and although he was beyond the draft age at the time the U.S. entered WW II, enlisted as a private in the AAF in August 1942, in Los Angeles. He attended Officers' Candidate School at Miami Beach, Florida, and graduated as a second lieutenant in October 1942. He then attended aerial gunnery school and in February 1943 was assigned to the 351st Bomb Group at Polebrook where he flew operational missions over Europe in B-17s. Captain Gable returned to the U.S. in October 1943 and was relieved from active duty as a major in June 1944 at his own request, since he was by then over-age for combat.
 
Charlton Heston [Ben Hur and The Ten Commandments] was an Army Air Corps Sergeant in Kodiak, Alaska.

Ernest Borgnine [TV's McHale's Navy and many movies] was a U.S. Navy Gunners Mate from 1935-1945.
 
Charles Durning [TV and movie character actor] was a U.S. Army Ranger at Normandy, earning a Silver Star and awarded the Purple Heart.

Charles Bronson [Mr. Majestyk, Death Wish I - V (movies), Family of Cops I - III (TV)] was a tail gunner in the Army Air Corps, more specifically on B-29s in the 20th Air Force out of Guam, Tinian, and Saipan.

George C. Scott [The Changeling, Day of the Dolphin, A Christmas Carol, Patton] was a decorated U.S. Marine.

Eddie Albert [TV's Green Acres] was awarded a Bronze Star for his heroic action as a U.S. Naval officer in aiding Marines at the horrific battle on the island of Tarawa in the Pacific in November 1943.

Brian Keith [Family Affair and The Brian Keith Show (TV) and The Wind and the Lion and The Parent Trap (movies)] served as a U.S. Marine rear gunner in several actions against the Japanese on Rabal Island in the Pacific.
 
Lee Marvin [M Squad (TV) and Cat Ballou, The Dirty Dozen, Paint Your Wagon, The Big Red One (movies)] was a U.S. Marine on Saipan during the Marianas campaign when he was wounded, earning the Purple Heart.
 
John Russell [best known for playing Marshal Dan Troop in the western TV series Lawman] enlisted in the Marine Corps in 1942, received a battlefield commission and was wounded and highly decorated for valor at Guadalcanal.

Robert Ryan [The Longest Day, Battle of the Bulge, King of Kings, The Dirty Dozen, The Wild Bunch] was a U.S. Marine who served with the OSS in Yugoslavia.

Tyrone Power [The Mark of Zorro, Blood and Sand, The Black Rose, Captain from Castile, already an established movie star and leading man when Pearl Harbor was bombed] joined the U.S. Marines and was a pilot flying supplies into, and wounded Marines out of, Iwo Jima and Okinawa.

Audie Murphy, little 5'5" tall, 110 pound guy from Texas who played cowboy parts in multiple movies, was an Army infantry soldier and the most decorated U.S. serviceman of WWII who earned: The Congressional Medal of Honor, Distinguished Service Cross, 2 Silver Star Medals, Legion of Merit, 2 Bronze Star Medals with "V", 2 Purple Hearts, U.S. Army Outstanding Civilian Service Medal, Good Conduct Medal, 2 Distinguished Unit Emblems, American Campaign Medal, European-African-Middle Eastern Campaign Medal with One Silver Star, Four Bronze Service Stars (representing nine campaigns) and one Bronze Arrowhead.

Those were the days, and the times for our country, when real men played parts as actors, rather than just being actors who played the parts of being real men. Can you imagine a Sean Penn ever signing up for the Marines, a Tim Robbins ever serving as an Army sergeant, or a Danny Glover asking for an age-limit exception so he could serve?

How many of today's Hollywood so-called stars have ever worn our nation's uniform, in any service, for any length of time, at home or in any foreign theater? Just as importantly, and perhaps even more telling, how many of our elected officials in Washington have done so?

Hell, many of today's whiny, complaining stars won't even interrupt their comfortable lifestyles to go overseas to entertain and show support for our troops who are serving, whereas many of the stars of yesteryear who didn't actually serve did at least repeatedly tour with the USO in Asia, Europe and Africa during WWII, as well as during the Korean and Vietnam Conflicts. The only one who comes to mind who consistently does that today is Gary Sinese [Forest Gump (movie) and CSI-NY (TV)], who has made multiple trips overseas to entertain our troops with his Lt. Dan Band.

And can you imagine these real star patriots of yesteryear making anti-war speeches, marching in anti-American parades, being chums with tinhorn dictators who denigrate our country, or disparaging our president, our country or our flag?

I thought not. Neither can I. But that was "back in the day" when real men sometimes played actors' parts - not when so many actors just play at being real men.

God bless America! And God bless our veterans and those who serve today.

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.

May 18, 2009

Representative Gerald Connolly
Independence Avenue and 1st Street, SE
Washington, DC 20515-4611

Dear Representative Connolly,

 

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.

Global temperature is measured through thousands of temperature reading stations located around - well, the globe. The United States alone has more than 1,000, which are supposedly among the most reliable world-wide. But Anthony Watts, of the Watts Up With That blog, and a group of about 650 volunteers, found out very differently when they actually visited and examined 70% of the U.S. stations:

"We found stations located next to the exhaust fans of air conditioning units, surrounded by asphalt parking lots and roads, on blistering-hot rooftops, and near sidewalks and buildings that absorb and radiate heat. We found 68 stations located at wastewater treatment plants, where the process of waste digestion causes temperatures to be higher than in surrounding areas.

"In fact, we found that 89 percent of the stations - nearly 9 of every 10 - fail to meet the National Weather Service's own siting requirements that stations must be 30 meters (about 100 feet) or more away from an artificial heating or radiating/reflecting heat source. In other words, 9 of every 10 stations are likely reporting higher or rising temperatures because they are badly sited.

"It gets worse. We observed that changes in the technology of temperature stations over time also has caused them to report a false warming trend. We found major gaps in the data record that were filled in with data from nearby sites, a practice that propagates and compounds errors. We found that adjustments to the data by both NOAA and another government agency, NASA, cause recent temperatures to look even higher."

The conclusion is obvious: The U.S. temperature record is unreliable. And since it is based on what are supposed to be among the more reliable temperature readings from around the world, what does that potentially say about many other nations' readings?

So, with ground temperature data revealed as unreliable, what is it that we know that we know?  Well, satellite data indicate the earth warmed from the period 1979 to around 1998, and that it has cooled since 2002. That's 19 years of warming and at least the 7 most recent years of cooling. Yet, countries around the world are instituting disastrously business-damaging programs, like carbon taxes or cap-and-trade programs. 

The U.S. Congress is considering the Waxman-Markey bill, which would enact a cap-and-trade program: (a) that would impose draconian operating conditions and carbon emission taxes on businesses, (b) that would cause energy costs to skyrocket for everyone who turns on a light switch or drives a car, and (c) that even global warming alarmist James Hansen of NASA and consumer advocate Ralph Nader say won't work. Oh, and (d) that would also raise lots and lots of money in taxes for the government to spend.

Global warming proponents tell us "the science is settled" and that any who disagree with them are merely "deniers," the same type of ignorant or unsophisticated people who deny the Holocaust or that the Earth is round. Of course one of the most prominent of these proponents, former vice president Al "The Goracle" Gore (who can sometimes say the most preposterous things with a perfectly straight face - guess it sometimes actually helps to be a little "wooden"), is ironically, hypocritically and personally responsible for a huge "carbon footprint" himself. With a monster house in Tennessee which uses more energy in a month than those of his neighbors use in a year and with all of his jetting around in a private jet for speaking engagements, fund raising and global warming alarming, Gore, like many other liberal elites who preach to the rest of us about how we should live, creates more carbon emissions in a month than you or I do in a year. But, of course, I guess he, like some other rich people salving their own consciences for their extravagant and wasteful lifestyles, makes it all right by buying what are called "carbon credits" to offset his excessive carbon emissions.

You know, I've heard the carbon credits thing talked about a lot, normally just as if in passing, like, well, everybody understands about that, but I'll admit to having never understood exactly how that works. For example, how much does, say, one carbon credit cost? Who determines what that cost is? Is it market driven or determined and regulated by government bureaucrats? If I wanted to buy some carbon credits, to whom would I make out my check? Do they give me a piece of paper, perhaps a certificate of some kind, to prove that I paid for some carbon credits? Can I deduct buying some carbon credits from my taxes?

(If anyone reading this understands how it all works (if, in fact, it actually does at all), please 'splain it to me.)

But, enough philosophy. Back to science. If the science is "settled," then why do over 30,000 scientists, many of them world-renowned, disagree with the man-made global warming alarmism? First, that doesn't sound all that "settled" to me. And, second, it now turns out that the so-called "settled science" is based on flawed data. If temperature readings are inputted to computer models which then make global warming "predictions" and 8 or 9 out of 10 of those temperature readings are wrong, then aren't the computer model predictions necessarily also wrong? Or did a basic computer principle - garbage in, garbage out (GIGO) - change all of a sudden?
 
Besides, Richard Henry Lee at the American Thinker Blog probably asks a more important question:

"...the real question is why it took a dedicated group of volunteers to find the numerous faults in our temperature record rather than the heavily funded governmental and educational institutions which are continually warning us about global warming."

Well, I think part of the answer to Mr. Lee's question lies in his wording "heavily funded governmental and educational institutions." They don't get funded anymore if there is no man-made global warming or they "solve" the problem, do they?

Perhaps it's less "environmental science" and more "economic science" which has been the point all along - and still is really in play here.

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.