Judicial Watch is a nonpartisan, public interest group that investigates and prosecutes government corruption, and it announced Thursday, May 28, that it had finally obtained U.S. Census Bureau documents detailing substantial involvement of the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) in the 2010 Census.

Judicial Watch obtained the documents after filing a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request with the Census Bureau on March 23, 2009, but after the Obama Commerce Department stonewalled releasing the information, Judicial Watch filed a lawsuit on May 14, 2009. The documents were released to Judicial Watch the next day, on May 15, 2009. I guess sometimes Team Obama's so-called and much touted "transparency" only happens after they're sued for it. 

In an official statement, the Obama Commerce Department discounted ACORN's participation in the Census, labeling the idea that ACORN would be involved in any Census count as "baseless." However, the Census Bureau had offered ACORN the opportunity to "recruit Census workers" who would participate in the count. Oh, so I guess one step removed makes it all okey-dokey. Not likely any influence peddling there, I'm sure!

Moreover, as an "executive level partner," ACORN has the ability to "organize and/or serve as a member on a Complete Count Committee," which, according to Census documents, helps "develop and implement locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns." Well, we already know that ACORN is all about "locally based outreach and recruitment campaigns," even alleged illegal ones.

Included among the documents is ACORN's original Census partnership application. The document describes 18 different areas of responsibility requested by the community organization, which is under investigation in multiple states for illegal activity during the 2008 election, including voter registration fraud. It's also strange that the documents show the decision to add ACORN as a partner occurred in February, long after the January 15th Census partnership application deadline. One can only surmise, then, that ACORN was given the "favor" of an exception, or extension, by someone.....in the Census Bureau.....or the Commerce Department.....or the White House.

Other conclusions from the documents:

a. The Census Bureau requested that ACORN "help us highlight [ACORN's] innovation and hard work and share best practices so other organizations can learn from your experiences." In what, fraudulent voter registration practices? Employing previously convicted felons to coerce people into signing multiple and therefore fraudulent voter registration applications? Intimidating banks into making risky loans by physically interrupting their board meetings, or by staging protests outside their places of business, or by following employees to their homes? 

b. Members of the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce staff assigned to organize the 2010 Census were evidently unaware of when the decision to involve ACORN was made, how the Census Bureau chooses and defines partners, or whether partners are paid. Oh, well, if the Census Bureau or the Department of Commerce staffs didn't know when ACORN was brought on board as an "executive level partner," then I guess that answers the question of where that "favorable" application exception or extension must have come from, because only the White House is left in the decision chain.

And if the Census Bureau and Department of Commerce staffs didn't know how the Census Bureau chooses and defines partners, or whether partners are paid, then I guess that means they just don't know what they're doing. Let's see, neither staff knows what it's doing but good old ACORN is going to be right there, as an "executive level partner," to help them. So, I guess that means the 2010 Census is off to a really good start.

c. Unless a preliminary name check provided a match, the Census Bureau did not conduct background checks on the 3.7 million people hired to conduct the 2000 Census. Overall, 8 percent of the applicants, or over 300,000 of the people who assisted in conducting the 2000 Census, were considered "risks for hire." I wonder how many (more) that will be with ACORN's involvement this time?

The Census is more important than many citizens realize. One, it's only conducted once every ten years, so whatever it concludes and publishes has pretty lasting effects. Two, among other things, Census data are used to allocate $300 billion in federal funds to the states. Three, and possibly the most important and far-reaching, the Census "determines how many seats each state will have in the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the redistricting of state legislatures, county and city councils, and voting districts." Read that underlined part again. That means Census data affect our governments at all levels, from the federal right down to the district and city or town in which you live and the place where you go to vote.

Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said, "Given its history of illegal activity and fraud, ACORN should be nowhere near the 2010 Census." He also said, "And shame on the Obama Commerce Department for continuing to demonize conservatives by lumping together law enforcement and anti-immigration groups with 'hate groups.' This discriminatory policy raises First Amendment concerns. Indeed, these documents provide further evidence that the Obama administration is politicizing the 2010 Census."

Politicizing the 2010 Census? Why, Team Obama would never politicize anything, would they? Much less something as important, impactful and far-reaching as the once-in-ten-years Census, right? The involvement of the federally investigated ACORN; Team Obama previously stating it would run the 2010 Census out of the White House, at least when a Republican was up for Secretary of Commerce; Obama's appointment of Robert Groves, a survey researcher at the University of Michigan who supports controversial methods of counting heads where workers estimate the number of individuals in a given area using statistical sampling and who thinks this is a better method of counting illegals who may confuse census workers with law enforcement officials and avoid them -- do you really think any or all of this means Team Obama may be politicizing (read: trying to manipulate and control) the 2010 Census?

And nowhere in the Constitution is the word "Census" used, anyway. It says, in Article I, Section 2, dealing with the legislative branch and the basis upon which the number of U.S. Representatives will be determined, that: "Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the several States ... within this Union, according to their respective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole number of Free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other persons (the three fifths reference to slaves was later changed by Section 2 of the Fourteenth Amendment). The actual enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent term of ten years, in such manner as they shall by law direct." So, in the Constitution, the Census of today is called an "actual enumeration," or, as defined by the dictionary, a counting -- not a statistical estimation, but a counting.    

So, in view of all of this, conservatives who claim Groves' method of estimating instead of counting is politically motivated and will result in over-counting the number of Democrats in the U.S. (legal and illegal -- or "documented" and "undocumented"), or that Team Obama is politicizing the Census -- why, they must just be looking for something to complain about, right? R-i-i-i-g-h-t!

And if you believe that, I've got this bridge in Brooklyn I want to sell you.

But, forget all that for a minute. By now, you've probably at least heard of the Waxman-Markey bill, or the "American Clean Energy and Security Act," also known as H.R. 2454. But did you know that, if enacted, H.R. 2454 would be the biggest government takeover of the economy since WWII, which is the last time energy, food and other basic commodities were rationed? It would also be the biggest tax increase in history and would cause a huge transfer of wealth from individual consumers to Big Business and Big Government.

It also is, at best, all based on possibly false, or at least highly questionable, "science" about man-made global warming -- but, oh, sorry, I didn't mean global warming -- I meant global climate change, as it has more recently and euphemistically been renamed -- which is supposedly "settled science." I guess "settled science" is supposed to be something like indisputable facts. But if that's the case, then why do over 33,000 other "scientists" worldwide, many of them internationally renowned, contest that man-made global climate change even exists, or that, if it does, that it's merely an insignificant contributor to what Planet Earth does normally, naturally and cyclically over time? Call me one of those crazy "deniers" about global warming alarmism, but if you couple that with the fact that studies have been done confirming that WRONG and INFLATED temperature readings were used in the computer models which advanced the man-made global warming/climate change argument in the first place, then I guess the old axiom about computers, and therefore computer models, is all-of-a-sudden wrong and that GIGO (garbage in, garbage out) no longer applies. Besides, some other "scientists" even argue that increased amounts of CO2 are good for plant life, you know, trees and shrubs and stuff like that. So, if "scientists" are confused among themselves, no wonder little ole me doesn't understand all there probably is to know. I'm just askin' - just sayin' here.

But, did you know that the Democrat Congress is working feverishly to pass Waxman-Markey, so they can hurry up and please their fearless leader, President Obama, by having it ready for him to sign into law before Congress recesses in August, as he requested?

[Hmmm, why does all legislation nowadays seem to have to be done in such an all-fired hurry? Have you noticed that with the Obama administration and this Democrat controlled Congress, or is it just me? Whatever happened to deliberation and debate, much less, as was the case with the so-called "stimulus plan," even reading what you're voting for? And why the rush to judgment about climate change itself when it obviously is NOT "settled science" but also the rush about what we must hurry up to do about it? Why, one might think -- especially a cynical person like me -- they were all trying to sneak something past the American voters, might one not?]

Waxman-Markey's stated purpose is to contain global warming by reducing carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions. This would be accomplished by a cap-and-trade scheme which would severely limit the amount of energy from the three carbon-dioxide producing fuels -- coal, oil and natural gas -- which Americans would be allowed to use.

That may sound okay, especially to those who still believe in global warming. And "believe" is the correct word, because for those who tout it, it is a near religion. "Don't confuse me with facts (or challenge mine). I know what I believe."

However, another one of those little inconvenient truths is that, currently, over 80 percent of U.S. energy comes from these three "bad" fuels, simply because they are the least expensive fuels available, as well as, practically, the most readily abundant here at home. Waxman-Markey would require cutting emissions by 17 percent below a 2005 baseline by 2020, 42 percent by 2030 and 83 percent by 2050.

That may all sound reasonable because it's "spaced out" over years, sort of like your mortgage or car payments, but it is, in fact, draconian. Why? Because, to meet those standards (which are significant enough in and of themselves), coal, oil and natural gas producers would have to substantially retool their facilities and at great costs. And if this bill becomes law and since retooling often takes a long time, they will begin doing that sooner rather than later.

And, typical of businesses everywhere, those producers may initially pay those costs but they will then pass them on to consumers in the form of higher rates and prices. So, the costs of meeting the standards becomes a tax on everyone, and pretty quickly, too.

It's hard to tell exactly how far energy prices might rise under Waxman-Markey, but even some energy committee Democrats think it may require more than doubling electric rates and sending gasoline to somewhere above five dollars a gallon. And a Heritage Foundation study says it could increase your family's energy costs about $1,500 to $3,000 a year.

Evidently, even President Obama agrees. When he was Candidate Obama, he told the San Francisco Chronicle on January 17, 2008, "Under my plan of a cap-and-trade system, electricity prices would necessarily skyrocket." Skyrocket? That means go up really high, really fast, right? Well, there you have it, folks, in the man's own words, the same man who made a mantra out of "words matter." And I think, in this case at least, those are words we actually can believe in -- yes, we can. 

That same week, former president Bill Clinton was in Spain talking about green jobs. And what did he say? As reported in the Spanish press:

"Former U.S. President turned ecologist Bill Clinton is aware of the impact on employment by the development on renewable energy. Even though he is, as a former dweller of the White House, one of the most visible supporters in that industry, the U.S. Democrat recognized yesterday that clean energies 'have cost many jobs' in Spain. Though without citing it directly, Clinton was acknowledging yesterday during his conference in Madrid that the study about the impact of public support on renewable energies, released by Universidad Rey Juan Carlos, has very valid conclusions. That report, which has received enormous coverage in U.S. media and been used against Barack Obama's energy policy, argues that every job in renewable energies created in Spain in the year 2000 has cost 571,138 Euros and has been the cause of the loss of 2.2 jobs elsewhere in the economy. Bill Clinton recognized yesterday that 'this commitment to clean energy has cost many jobs' while at the same time calling for Spain to intensify investment in this industry to be able to turn high costs into new jobs."

So, wait a minute now. Let me see if I've got all this straight:
a. The "science" underlying claims of man-made global climate change is still questionable at best and at least arguably false.
b. The cap-and-trade scheme in Waxman-Markey, although dramatically and rather quickly impacting our production means and overall economy, will actually only reduce global warming from greenhouse gases by a minuscule amount overall.
c. Countries like China and India are building fossil fuel plants as fast as they can bring them on line, with little to no concern for "clean technology," and even if man-made greenhouse gases are "bad," any reductions we make will be obviated by their increased and steadily increasing emissions.
d. Obama himself has said his cap-and-trade policy would cause electricity prices to skyrocket.
e.. Committee Democrats have estimated Waxman-Markey would more than double electric rates and send gasoline to above five dollars a gallon.
f. A Heritage Foundation study says it could increase your family's energy costs from about $1,500 to $3,000 a year.
g. And Clinton admits that Spain's experiment with "going green" has cost not only a lot of money (one U.S. dollar equals 0.7617 Euros, so 571,138 Euros equals $435,035.81 per green job created) but it's also cost a lot of regular jobs, yet he still advocates doing more of the same and to even intensify investment in the green jobs industry "to turn high costs into new jobs."

SO, TELL ME AGAIN WHY WE'RE IN SUCH A HAIR-ON-FIRE-HURRY TO ENACT THIS LEGISLATION?!

[My goodness, but it does sound a lot like Team Obama's "plan" to spend us out of the recession, doesn't it? But, of course, in typical liberal fashion, if you just "know you're right" and "trying to do the right thing" but it just hasn't worked so far (after all, it's "good intentions" that count, not "actual results," right?), then just "throw more money at it," and eventually it will all get better. And that seems a lot like a quote most often attributed to Albert Einstein but which I think harks back even further to a Roman philosopher in early AD, or maybe late BC, that doing the same thing over and over again, while expecting a different result, is a definition of insanity.]

Oh, and don't forget Spain's own Universidad Rey Juan Carlos' study which statistically documents that for every expensive green job created, 2.2 other jobs (read: regular, existing) were lost to the economy. Well, that's like taking one step forward and two steps backward, so far as the overall economy goes, isn't it?

And even that is exacerbated when you consider that many so-called "green jobs" are not sustainable but are green business/facility "start up" jobs which go away once that business/facility is up and running. In other words, it takes more "green jobbers" to build a green facility than it does to run it.

So, the Green Agenda, or, as I call it, the Going Green Gosh-awful Gamble, really seems to consist of the probability of a dramatic rise in overall unemployment, coupled with the biggest tax increase in world history, all because of, at most, the possibility of man-made, rather than natural, earthly cyclic, global climate change. And, even if Waxman-Markey is fully implemented, greenhouse gas "reductions" will be of a minuscule percentage of overall global greenhouse gases, while China, India and others continue building fossil fuel plants apace with little regard to "clean technology."

Gee, that's just swell, as they used to say back in the '40s or '50s: (a) Retard and restrict our normal production means before we have alternative energy sources on line, (b) cripple the American economy while still in a recession and (c) further burden the American taxpayer/consumer. Sound good to you? Yeah, let me hurry up and vote for that, too. "No, I don't need to think about it, much less read it. Obama says, so just gimme it and tell me where to sign."

Or do you think, just maybe, that YOU might want to contact YOUR Representative or Senator about all this BEFORE it becomes just ANOTHER DONE DEAL? Just a thought. But if they don't HEAR from you, how do they know what YOU want them to do, or NOT DO, as the case may be? Think about it.

 

Since President Obama signed the $787 billion stimulus plan in February, going on four months have passed and the states most in need of stimulus plan funds, those where unemployment is the highest, haven't seen most of the contracts worth only a comparatively paltry $4 billion in U.S. stimulus funds so far awarded. Four billion dollars is only .005 percent of $787 billion, and the states most in need haven't even seen much of that.

The so-called America Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 was intended, and tenaciously touted by Team Obama, to help turn the economy around by using federal money to create jobs, especially in states most severely affected by the recession. Most of the money is for state projects such as highway and infrastructure work, but federal agencies also are expected to spend billions on federal projects as well.

It seems the first so-called "shovel ready" project contracts were awarded unevenly for several reasons. Some federal agencies more quickly signed contracts than others, while some contracts were awarded to projects either already under way or to companies with a history of doing government work.

In other words, it seems that haste, rather than targeting (remember transparent, targeted and temporary?) was the byword. "Just get some of it out the door, so we can say we've done something. Don't worry about where it's going or for what." Which, in a strangely twisted way, seems almost appropriate for legislation: (a) for a massive amount of taxpayer money, (b) which was hastily cobbled together by the Democrat majorities in the House and Senate, while refusing input from Republicans (Bipartisanship, wherefore didst thou goest?), (c) which wasn't even read before it was voted on and passed by Democrat majorities in House and Senate, and (d) which was equally hastily signed into law by the Democratic president (without Obama's promised online 5-day transparency review by the American people -- oh my! But, I guess if the Congress which voted on it didn't read it and the president who signed it didn't read it, then Obama probably thought, why should we? Well, maybe because it's our money? Just a thought.).  

Team Obama spokeswoman Liz Oxhorn said that the stimulus plan is "providing unprecedented assistance at a record pace to benefit as many Americans as possible." Well, Liz, there's only three things wrong with that statement: (a) "providing unprecedented assistance..." -- not yet; (b) "....at a record pace..." -- definitely not yet; and (c) "...to benefit as many Americans as possible." -- tell that again to the unemployed in the hardest hit states.

Maybe Liz and other liberal Democrats, and especially President Obama himself, should remember that just saying something is so doesn't make it so. And, one might argue, saying something which is patently not so, is, well, euphemistically speaking, disingenuous, but in plainer words, just plain lying.

In addition to the comparatively measly $4 billion in contracts it has awarded so far, the federal government has also asked companies to bid on thousands of projects worth more than $30 billion. Once that is done, whenever it does get done, that would total $34 billion contracted, out of the $787 billion in the stimulus plan. Even that's only .04 percent. But, oh, somebody is already spending at least several hundred thousands of federal or state dollars on roadside signs which advertise the projects which are coming. (Hey, no jobs yet, but this is where they'll be, whenever there are some.) Must be the new, "nuanced" definition of "shovel ready."

Economists say that this recession actually started almost a year ago and that, historically, recessions in this country usually last about two years. So, it would seem the recession had a better chance of curing itself, if the federal government had mainly just stayed out of the way, than Obama's so-called "stimulus plan," which so far has "stimulated" little -- and in the wrong places, to boot.

 

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.