Twits and Town Halls

So what happens when you produce something so huge that it's virtually unreadable? Normally it's left unread. I call it the Harlot's Ghost maxim.

But what do you get when this strategy of over-delivering backfires? Pure comedy unmatched even by a Golden Girls marathon.

More specifically, you get pols who never read the health care bill faced with people who have. Witness the town hall meeting this past week with Senator Arlen Specter. The folks present didn't just read the bill, they're now quoting it - something even the titan of transparency never really wanted.

Even better, this level of discourse is coming from the non-Twitter crowd, the beyond Facebook folks more concerned with Lipitor side effects than Lady Gaga's lady parts. They are not motivated by racism, as the left wants everyone to believe, but by real concerns - some raised at the dinner table, some reasoned in books. None from Twitter, I imagine.

I only bring up Twitter, because as I watched the PA town meeting, I also came across an online column by Meghan McCain, i.e. Ron Reagan with curves. In a catty struggle for relevance among perceived rivals, she points out that while Michelle Malkin has the number one book on the New York Times bestseller list, McCain has "nearly twice as many Twitter followers as she does. And trust me, Twitter is more of an indication of where young people are than books published by the hyper-conservative publisher Regnery."

Maybe so, but did these "young people" read the health care proposal? Did they show up at town hall meetings? No – they're too busy Twittering about Twilight (yes, a dated reference, but I like how it sounds). Twitter might have been there for Iran, but in the end, the young people weren't.

And here is where McCain's crowing about Twitter reveals a mistake many people make: confusing mass for meaning; accumulation for content. The fact is, the phone book has everything I need to know about the world around me, but I don't take it to the beach to read. The phone book inspires no one, for it is (or was) a tool used by others to facilitate communication – much like Twitter. To confuse the messaging system with the message should tell Meghan her message needs work. Considering she just signed a hefty book deal, I'd get on that soon.

Which brings me back to those old coots railing at Arlen Specter. That was an honest spectacle generated by a generation unencumbered by the desire for "followers." Their concerns are bigger: increased government control, their family's well-being, and of course their own mortality. They realize that 5000 followers will not come to their funeral. And sadly for Megs, they probably don't buy books either.

Shills

So you remember Barbara Boxer's attack on the townhall protesters, calling them disruptive "plants," because they were too well dressed to be protesters.

She had a point: they were well dressed. And most protesters of the lefty persuasion are not - a marker of people who lack real professions allowing them to purchase clean clothes. Boxer believed that these outspoken, button-downed folks were all part of a right-wing plot meant to stir up anxiety, fear, and perhaps soup. And of course, this week, President Obama kept the joke alive at his own town hall meeting, saying he didn't "want people thinking I just have a bunch of plants in here."

How funny is it then, that when it comes to plants, the leftwing response is beginning to look like a spread in House and Garden. Michelle Malkin points out that the little girl that asked that key question about those old people "saying mean things" is actually the daughter of a major Obama campaigner, supporter and donor.

Now, never mind that using a kid to smear some old folks holding signs is a tad sleazy. If an adorable child is concerned over evil people saying mean things, how can you not agree? I mean, children are our future, as long as they agree with Obama.

And besides, old people are old: a drain on our resources. And they smell of Vicks.

Meanwhile, according to so many websites that I lost count, that jackass parading around a "Barack Obama as Hitler" poster at a John Dingell town hall may actually have been a John Dingell supporter. Remember, Dingell was the douche who compared health care protesters to the KKK. The KKK and Nazis – that's quite a coincidence, don't you think?

But hey, maybe I'm a plant. I do require regular sunlight and watering – and I'm often soiled.

Our New Surgeon General

So President Obama`s nominee for surgeon general has a dirty past – one so lurid it has many concerned experts wringing their hands in typical hand-wringing fashion.

What might this skeleton in Dr. Regina Benjamin's closet be? Did she run a meth lab out of her camper? Were the children running the meth lab doing so without health insurance? Did she use the proceeds from this meth lab to fund the world`s largest puppy mill? And was the puppy mill actually a puppy buffet for a puppy-devouring white power group? No, no, no, and uh, no.

Nope, what she did was far worse: she worked part-time for Burger King, as a scientific adviser.

Predictably, nutritional experts claim that nominating a doctor who worked for Burger King is a horrible conflict of interest - that someone in charge of public health should not be in the business of selling evil fast food. It`s like hiring the shoe bomber to manage a Footlocker.

But I disagree. The fact is, from a public health perspective, fast food restaurants like Burger King and McDonalds have done far more to help people than harm them. The fat-bottom line: people in America and around the world aren`t dying from malnutrition because places like BK have made food fresh, cheap and simple to prepare. Seriously, where ever you find a fast food restaurant, you'll find fat kids, but not starving ones. But in this easy age of value-free moralism, experts are more inclined to demonize Ronald McDonald than Robert Mugabe.

Granted, that clown makeup is kinda scary. Which is why I always ask him to remove it before we go to bed.

It's all about "The One".

The Democrats have really taken this healthcare reform argument to a new level. First we had the switch from healthcare reform to health insurance reform. That one happened in a matter of one day. One press conference. The talking points went out and the Democrats received their new marching orders .. this is no longer a battle over healthcare. We now have a new enemy to contend with: the insurance industry. Easy to figure out why ... Obama's behavioral scientists told him that people liked their doctors. It was the insurance companies they hated ... so shift the focus and demonize insurance.

Then the Democrats returned home to their districts for the August recess. They expected parades. They expected praise and accolades from their constituents, thanking them for working to make healthcare reform a reality. But what did they really get? A bunch of angry citizens who are starting to wake up and smell the koolaid. They realize that this healthcare reform debate isn't about their healthcare at all. They don't have faith in their government officials to reform the system for the better. Heck, maybe some of these constituents realize that the government isn't always the solution to every problem.

So now we pull out the big guns. Waging war against the insurance company hasn't hit deep enough with voters. So now, we put it all on Barack Obama's shoulders. Yep. Anyone who opposes this healthcare reform is only doing it because they want to hurt Barack Obama. That is according to Barbara "Call me Senator" Boxer. She told MSNBC's "Hardball," "All of this is a diversion by the people who, frankly, want to hurt President Obama." Then we have Princess Pelosi telling the media that these people are showing up to protest government health care "carrying swastikas." Yup! We learning form the Democrats that all of these people showing up at the Townhall meetings are "thugs" paid by insurance companies and other special interest groups. Their true goal is to "hurt" Obama.

So now we're supposed to sit back and quietly accept a government takeover of almost 20% of our economy in order to avoid hurting Barack Obama? We're supposed to accept the idea of rationing healthcare so Barack Obama won't be damaged? You're going to accept the news that you can't get a hip replacement with "Well, at least Barack Obama wasn't hurt." Yeah .. that would be the thought going through my mind if I had to wait four or five months for an MRI. "You know, I can go ahead and wait for this MRI. We won't find out what's wrong for a couple of months, but at least I won't be hurting Barack Obama.

Isn't that just dandy? Right now the Democrats are pinning their takeover of health care on the need to avoid hurting their president. Yeah ... works for me.

It's about power---not health care

An interesting report was prepared by a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution and a professor of radiology and chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical School by the name of Scott W. Atlas. He has prepared ten reasons why America's health care system is in better condition than you might suppose. Here's an overview, but the whole thing is worth a read. This is for all of your liberal friends who are convinced that a single-payer, government healthcare system is going to "save" our healthcare system.

1. Americans have better survival rates than Europeans for common cancers.

2. Americans have lower cancer mortality rates than Canadians.

3. Americans have better access to treatment for chronic diseases than patients in other developed countries.

4. Americans have better access to preventive cancer screening than Canadians.

5. Lower-income Americans are in better health than comparable Canadians.

6. Americans spend less time waiting for care than patients in Canada and the United Kingdom.

7. People in countries with more government control of health care are highly dissatisfied and believe reform is needed.

8. Americans are more satisfied with the care they receive than Canadians.

9. Americans have better access to important new technologies such as medical imaging than do patients in Canada or Britain.

10. Americans are responsible for the vast majority of all health care innovations.

Well .. remember. No matter how good our medical care is today, it simply doesn't empower politicians enough. That's the goal of ObamaCare, and the sooner you realize that the better prepared you are to fight for your freedom. ObamaCare is not about improving health care in the United States. It is ALL about increasing the power that political hacks have over your life and your bank accounts.

Killing those who want to kill you.

So according to the Wall Street Journal, the CIA had been kicking around a secret plan designed to off al-qaeda chieftains – something the Democrats say they were never told about.

The actual program was dropped early on – either because it was a dumb idea, or it didn`t work, or maybe something better came along. What bugs me is that the plan was probably canceled because it actually could work - but having to disclose the plan would have endangered those asked to carry it out.

I mean, if your job is to sneak around the globe killing really bad people, then it should be kept secret – which is something frowned upon by people who don`t understand that beating evil means eradicating it. We call them asshats. You see them now, trying to score political points out of something that didn't even happen (although, I wish it did).

Which brings me to a handy quiz you can take while you`re on a bus, a train, or perhaps even a plane!

Of the two statements below, check off the one you most agree with:

-The thought of the CIA contemplating a secret plan to kill terrorists behind 9/11 strikes you as wrong – so wrong in fact that those involved in it should be investigated for war crimes.

-The thought of the CIA contemplating a secret plan to kill terrorists behind 9/11 strikes you as something the CIA is paid to do, and if they don`t do it, they should probably be fired or at least relegated to running the sexual harrassment seminar in human resources.

If you agreed with the first statement, then get off that bus, train or plane. You don't deserve to be there. After all, the very actions that you want to see prosecuted are the actions guaranteeing your safety on those modes of transportation.

You should travel by foot. And, if you're in my neighborhood, be careful where you step. I have an active bladder.

Did you know we are an unhappy nation?

So over the weekend, while I was sunning myself by the pool, surrounded by all the things that make me happy (my masseuse Gertie Stoozt, my aromatherapist Tandelayo Schwartz and a hollowed-out gourd), a report was released ranking nations from least to most happy. According to the New Economics Foundation's "Happy Planet Index," Costa Rica came out on top – reporting the "highest life satisfaction" in the world.

Meanwhile America, the GREATEST country in the world - came in at 114th.

Guatemala, which is somewhere, came in second.

Okay. Let's look first at Costa Rica – whose primary source of income is tourism. Who goes there? Americans. So without miserable jerks like us who need to snorkle nude and do coke off the tails of shaved mules, Costa Rica would be nowhere. Guatemala? According to the World Bank, three quarters of its population live in poverty. Yeah, that's got to be fun.

So, forget the list. Let's look at its creator - the New Economics Foundation. It's a front for ecological cretins whose corrupt ideology drives them to link happiness to less consumption – a destructive, inhumane lie that most starving countries would take issue with if they weren't busy fighting flies for food.

So what's behind this dishonesty? Well, what do you think? Nic Marks, the founder of this joke of an organization, says less happy nations need to change their ways before their "high-consuming lifestyles plunge us into the chaos of irreversible climate change."

So there you have it. If you don't succumb to global warming hysteria, you're a selfish prick, living in an unhappy country. Please refer this information to all those Guatemalans and everyone else on the "happy" list risking their lives to get here.

Michael Jackson is still dead....

So if there`s one thing we learned recently, it`s that it`s not nuclear war that can wipe everything off the map. It`s the death of a pop star. Think about the things that mattered back in June: Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan, cap and trade, that insipid health care infomercial – and ask yourself what happened in regard to any of those issues in the last few weeks.

A.Nothing?
B.Anything?
C. A lot?

The answer is C, but we just didn`t see it.

We know that some of our brave troops died fighting for freedom. Protestors in Iran were violently silenced too, fighting for a glimmer of what we have. You can also be certain that the opportunity to actively undermine fascism in Iran has passed – our President choosing "wait and see" over "hope and change." He also snuck a few hundred pages of climate bill baloney past us in the dead of night.

No biggie, right?

But I`m not wagging my stubby, sausage-shaped finger. In that same span of time, I probably purchased about 50 bucks worth of music on iTunes. I saw a pile of movies (including "Up," and "Zoo." One is about tracking a rare bird; the other sleeping with a horse – please don`t confuse the two when making plans with the kids). I caught up on "Daisy of Love," "Charm School," and the clumsy replacement for "Project Runway," "The Fashion Show." I now know that Izrah could never replace Heidi.

Not to belittle the coverage of the passing of "the world`s greatest entertainer," in fact I`m in awe of it. But while Jackson took over the news, Obama made a deal with Russia - signing an agreement to reduce nuclear stockpiles by as much as a third.

Is this good or bad? Who cares? You can`t download nukes or fast forward to their best parts, so what good are they? Never mind that the whole point of having nuclear deterrents is HAVING them. And that by HAVING them, they are effectively a nuclear deterrent, whether or not the shrink wrap is removed.

In a way, nuclear weapons are like Stephen Hawking books. I have one on my coffee table. It`s never been opened, but it serves its purpose (it`s where I place the stromboli).

But here`s what do I know. if we are going reduce our nuclear warheads, let`s at least replace them with something we know can obliterate a city. I`m talking a years worth of The Hills, a million Transformer DVDs, and of course, the entire Michael Jackson catalogue. I`m thinking the only way to effectively beat our enemies is by making them as aimless and satisfied as we are.

It's the Jews

So on some recent radio show hosted by the Rev. Al Sharpton, a female caller phoned in with a theory about Michael Jackson`s death. Turns out he didn`t kill himself using a panoply of pharmaceuticals. It was all Sarah Palin`s doing.

Yep, according to the caller, "maybe she did something to Michael Jackson," and "maybe she`s stepping down because something`s about to come out."

Now, crazy people calling into radio shows isn`t anything special – I used to call Loveline ten to twenty times a night, just to complain about the pixies living in my urinary tract. However, what`s hilarious, is Sharpton`s thoughtful response to the caller`s intriguing theory. He says, "All right, thank you for your call, Ashley. That's interesting. I'll put it out, we'll see. I don't know."

"I'll put it out. We'll see. I don't know."

Nice.

Now, I said it's hilarious, but it`s not surprising, for Sharpton has never met a conspiracy he didn`t embrace, and possibly grope. After all, he was the man who helped push the Tawana Brawley hoax - a fabricated tale of rape and feces perpetrated by a 15 year old girl -used to racially bludgeon six white, innocent men.

But that was years ago, so who cares - right?

AnyHooo – I love conspiracies because they are as inevitable as death. When an event occurs that can be easily explained (like, say, a reclusive pop star overdoses on prescription narcotics), the demented emerge from the woodwork like lurid worms with complex explanations that defy logic and Pampers. Look at the Truthers, limping along under an impervious dome of self-inflicted idiocy, convinced that only they know the truth - when all they know really are twin beds, canned food purchased from the dented bin, and reusing their underwear on alternate days. You gotta love 'em, for they`re pure comedy.

My last point: why is it that people who cling to conspiracies, never put that much effort into the things that might benefit their actual lives? Like their school work? Their jobs? Their hygiene?

I blame the Jews. Only they could create a complex framework that keeps so many destructive minds busy contemplating nothing.

So---Still have that Obama sticker on your car????

I know, it's hard to admit that you were wrong, isn't it? I mean, after all, how in the world can you admit that voting for someone with absolutely no experience at all - a former ACORN street organizer - someone who gravitated to Marxist professors and communist student groups in college - someone with no record of significant accomplishment at any endeavor - and someone who ran for office on the basis of focus-group slogans - how can you ever admit that such a vote might have been a mistake?

Do you see our economy improving? Have you noticed the improving employment figures?

Are you impressed by the burgeoning national debt that your children are going to have to pay back?

Are you looking forward to seeing your health care rationed?

How about the nationalization of General Motors, Citigroup and others? That's why you put that bumper sticker on your car, isn't it? So Obama could use some of his immense business experience to run some of our major industries. You do know he will nationalize the banks soon, don't you? Is that the change you had in mind?

Don't you see how smart this "sort-of" God really is? He's raising taxes while other nations are lowering business and personal taxes to fight the economic downturn. You knew that he knew something that the other world leaders didn't know ... didn't you?

How about our shows of determination and strength to North Korea and Iran? Obama really has the Gargoyle and Shorty in a tizzy, doesn't he? And I'm sure you're very impressed by Obama's instantaneous backing of that wannabe dictator and Chavez acolyte from Honduras.

So ... still got that Obama bumper sticker on your car? It's one thing to have been so profoundly ignorant in the last election. It's quite another to advertise it.

The real Prezbo

So according to a new poll by WorldPublicOpinion.org, Barack Obama is the most trusted political leader in the world. The poll was of nearly 20,000 residents of the largest nations, including even Macau. Oh how I love Macau. From my own experience, the authorities tend to look the other way when it comes to so many things.

So Obama was right: he truly is the citizen of the world, even as his own country is left wandering and confused. I suppose it`s easy, however, for Jabrail in Azerbaijan to swoon over Obama, when he`s not faced with cap and trade, nationalized health care, and those new mandatory curly light bulbs. But then again, in Azerbaijan, I guess you`re just happy to have any kind of light bulb. Even if it`s a candle shaped like a light bulb.

But I digress. The poll looked at "confidence ratings," and found that while Obama had the highest, and would "do the right thing regarding world affairs," Vladimir Putin and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad had the lowest. Now, these standings might mean something, if Obama actually had the balls to take advantage of them. I mean, what`s the use of being loved, if you can`t actually scare the crap out of those who love you? It`s what confuses me most about our President. He chose initially to sit on the sidelines - as the people of Iran cried out for help - preferring to see which dude wins. A true leader, however, would know that it`s not the leaders who matter, but the people caught in the middle.

Which is why Obama`s recent response to the Honduran mess is even more bizarre. Immediately after the coup – Obama raced to condemn it. So our President develops a spine over an abducted politician in pajamas – but not about widespread bloodshed of innocent folks in Iran? Where the heck are his priorities, or his sense of proportion?

Does Obama make a list of things that piss him off, and if so - what`s at the top? Fascism or poorly inflated tires? The murder of innocent protestors, or midtown bodegas that sell cigarettes to teens? Nukes pointed at Hawaii, or sugary sodas at school? Our nation`s prosperity or his abs?

I don`t know. Which is why – at least for now - I`m taking down my Obama poster from the ceiling above my bunk bed. I`m replacing it with a poster of Sarkozy. He's got abs, and balls

If you (as I do) believe Golbal Warming is Bullshit --- you are committing treason

If you're against Global Warming... then you are against the world! Yep, this is the new line from liberals and Democrats. If you are against this climate change, cap-and-trade legislation that is making its way through Congress, then you are basically immoral.

Let's start with Henry Waxman, who is one of the chief architects of this cap-and-trade scheme. In response to the Republicans who voted against his plan, he says: "They [Republicans] want to play politics and see if they can keep any achievements from being accomplished that may be beneficial to the Democrats. They're rooting against the country and I think in this case, even rooting against the world because the world needs to get its act together to stop global warming."

Then, we get this from Paul Krugman in The New York Times. He writes, "A handful of these no votes came from representatives who considered the bill too weak, but most rejected the bill because they rejected the whole notion that we have to do something about greenhouse gases. And as I watched the deniers make their arguments, I couldn't help thinking that I was watching a form of treason -- treason against the planet. To fully appreciate the irresponsibility and immorality of climate-change denial, you need to know about the grim turn taken by the latest climate research."

Treason ... rooting against the world ... immorality ... wow, do these guys have a high opinion of their fraudulent cause or what?

Have you read Atlas Shrugged lately?

You Should!

PrezBo sides with a Wannabe Dictator

North Korea launches a missile and it takes Barack Obama and the UN five days to respond. Iran holds fraudulent elections, kills protesters and it takes weeks before Barack Obama can stand up and say that he is "concerned" about the situation.

Then the people of Honduras try to uphold their constitution and laws of the land from being trampled by a Chavez-wanna be ... and it takes Barack Obama one day to proclaim that this was not a legal coup.

Why the sudden decisiveness? Where were these strong opinions on foreign matters when Iranian authorities were trampling protestors and cutting off media access to the outside world? Where was this decisiveness when Kim Jong Ill decided that he was going to launch missiles toward Hawaii on the Fourth of July? Why ... NOW ... is Obama suddenly speaking out loudly

How about a little background. Are you really sure you know what has been going on in Honduras? Do you think that this was simply a coup? Let me give you a rough outline here, and then you can sit back and wonder just why PrezBO is in the weeds with Chavez and Castro on this one.

Mel Zelaya is, or was, the President of Honduras. He and Hugo Chaves were tight. So tight, it seems, that Zelaya wanted to emulate Hugo by changing the Honduran constitution to allow him to run for office until he durned well gets tired of it.

To change the constitution in Honduras you have to convene a constituent assembly. The president cannot do that. The Honduran congress must approve a national referendum calling for the constituent assembly to consider changes to the constitution. Zelaya didn't like the part about the constitution requiring approval of the congress before a national referendum could be called. So ... he decided to call one on his own.

OK .. so here we have President Zelaya calling for a national referendum when he doesn't have the power to do so. The next problem is obtaining ballots! Since the Honduran congress had not called for the referendum, as required by the constitution, the government certainly wasn't going to print the ballots! After all, how smart would it be to print ballots for an illegal referendum? So ... Zelaya had to get the ballots printed elsewhere. Here's an idea! Get his pall Hugo Chavez to print them! Yes! That will work!

So Chaves prints Zelaya's ballots and they're shipped to Honduras. Enter the Honduran Supreme Court. The court considers Zelaya's election in light of the requirements of the Honduran constitution, and rules the referendum illegal and unconstitutional. The court then issues an order to the Honduran military telling them not to do the logistical work associated with Zelaya's phony referendum. Remember, now ... all of this has one primary goal. To get rid of the term limits limiting Zelaya's rule in Honduras.

After the supreme court's decision, General Romeo Velasquez tells President Zelaya that he is subject to a proper order from the Supreme Court and will not be able to carry out Zelaya's referendum. So ... Zelaya fires him. The Supreme Court orders Zelaya to reinstate Velasquez, and Zelaya refuses to do so.

At this point Zelaya's ego is getting the better of him. If the military won't run his illegal referendum, he'll just do it himself. He gins up a mob and leads them to the military compound where Hugo's ballots are stored and then has his supporters begin distributing the ballots to the masses.

Based on the Supreme Court's ruling the Honduran attorney general said that the proposed referendum was illegal and said that he would arrest anyone attempting to carry out the election. Zelaya was arrested by the military and was escorted out of the country.

Now ... does this sound like a military coup-de-etat to you? The attorney general and the military were operating in accordance with the Honduran rule of law. They acted under a valid court order. Coup? The Honduran congress has convened and designated a successor president, all in accordance with the Honduran Constitution. Military coup? The presidential elections set for November .. the election that Zelaya was trying to get around ... will go on as scheduled. A blow for democracy?

Fidel Castro, Daniel Noriega, Hugo Chavez ... all on the side of Zelaya. But Obama? Obama fighting against the rule of law and for a wannabe dictator? What gives?

Jesus H. Christ....

Am I an old fart or am I right to be pissed that some jackass is skateboarding down the halls of the White House while all this Iranian shit is going down?

We truly have succumbed to the idiocy of the MTV/Mountain Dew/Road Rules backward hat and baggy short culture. Did I miss something, or is the White House the future set for the next Real World? Where are the wallet chains? Is Hot Topic handling our foreign policy? Obama should be grounded for a week for letting Tony Hawk play in OUR house. Where in hell are the adults?

Look: Tony Hawk is in his mid forties. He's a grown man...and he skateboards. Could you imagine your dad or anyone who lived during World War II treating a man who skateboards with anything less than scorn and ridicule?

Right now, people are risking their lives for the glimmer of freedom, and Tony Hawk is in the White House tweeting about Frosted Flakes.

Someone please dig up Reagan. I'd take a dead leader with balls over a living camp counselor who wants all the cool kids to like him.

What a screaming joke.

Sheesh!

Around 12:30 last Friday afternoon the switches were thrown and America's television stations turned off their analog signals. All that was left was digital. We've known about this for over a year. For over six months virtually all of these TV stations were broadcasting announcements about the switch. If you watch TV even a little you've seen hundreds of announcements telling you that the switch was coming and that you needed to take steps to make sure you could still watch your precious boob tube. The government was handing out coupons whereby the dumb masses could tap the taxpayers for the cost of a converter box. There were volunteers out there attaching the conversion boxes for people who still haven't managed to master the ballpoint pen. Everything that could be done was done. And yet ... on Friday afternoon the calls came pouring in to the TV stations .......

"What happened to my soap opera?"

"Where can you get one of them converter things?"

"I can't afford one of them converter things."

"Where is Barack Obama's birth certificate?"

"Why didn't you warn us this was going to happen?"

"I have a right to TV."

"The government needs to do something about this."

We are presented with a great opportunity here. Let's get the names of all of the ignoranuses who couldn't figure this thing out by Friday and get them converted to digital ... with one condition. They surrender their voter registration cards. We have enough idiots voting in this country ... and since there is no Constitutional right to vote in a federal election, we need to find ways to cull the herd. Clearly anyone who couldn't figure out this analog-to-digital conversion thing isn't bright enough to cast an intelligent vote. Sure ... we need them. Someone has to cook the French fries ... but we don't need them voting.

$12 million a head.

So President Obama finally figured out what to do with those detainees at Gitmo, and it only cost 12 million dollars per captive. That's right: we're sending those 17 Chinese muslim terror suspects currently at Gitmo to a place called Palau, in exchange for 200 million bucks in aid.

FYI: Palau is a little island somewhere near the Philippines, with a population of about 20 thousand people. It was also the site for Survivor, twice – so it`s obviously familiar with housing no-good, belligerent ass-hats.

So let me get this straight: Obama`s solution for fulfilling his promise to dismantle a prison camp in a foreign land... is to replace it with another prison camp in a foreign land.

Truly, this is change we can believe in.

And this is what happens when you make a campaign promise, without any actual plan behind it. You`re left with whatever you had before, except of course, it now costs us 200 million dollars. It really makes you wonder what the Messiah has planned for health care reform. Well, we already know. It will be no better - most likely worse - and it will costs more money they we can possibly imagine, or even afford.

And that`s what really pisses me off. If I had known what Obama was willing to pay to house these folks, I would have immediately volunteered my basement, which could easily take at least a dozen of these detainees. True, it would be a little tight, but that`s why I have all those double bunk beds. They can sleep four up and four across, with each person`s belly serving as another inmate`s pillow.

It's kind of like a bed and breakfast, if by "breakfast" you mean "ball gag."

Let's start a pool.. What's next to be nationalized?

On Monday it was General Motors. On Tuesday, the Senate advanced a bill giving the government some controls over the tobacco industry. Let's see what our imperial federal government can come up with today! Oh wait! Almost forgot. There's Citigroup too. And our health care industry. Are you keeping a list out there? Just how much of our economy is going to be under government control, if not ownership, by the end of Obama's first year. The question now is whether to call this guy a fascist or a socialist. He's certainly not a capitalist.

Well ... it's going to be OK, isn't it? After all, we all recognize that the government does a much better job of running businesses and enterprises than the private sector does. Right?

Let's use the insurance industry as an example here. How would things be different if the government were running our life insurance companies? As things stand the life insurance companies have to take premiums and invest them. The object is to obtain a decent return on those investments so that the company will not only be able to make money for its shareholders, but also have enough assets to pay death benefits as they come due. Now ... if the government was running a life insurance company it would set enough money aside in any given year to cover expected claims, and then spend the rest. There would be no investment accounts. An inability to sell new policies and collect new premiums to cover current claims would lead to failure. Sounds good, doesn't it?

I know you're tired of hearing this, but elections have consequences ... as does allowing ignoranuses to vote

Today's Reality Slap

Candidate Barack Obama, October 15, 2008, third presidential debate:

But there is no doubt that we’ve been living beyond our means and we’re going to have to make some adjustments.

Now, what I’ve done throughout this campaign is to propose a net spending cut.

Economist Kevin Hassett, May 19, 2009, Bloomberg News columnist:

Extrapolating out the 2007 CBO forecast, our government plans to spend about $5.6 trillion more between 2009 and 2018 than was projected to be spent when the Democrats took over control of Congress.

To put that number in perspective, at the start of the 2007 budget year, Democrats inherited $4.8 trillion in outstanding government debt. That means that all of the deficits that have been run through all of history, funds that were used to finance the Vietnam War and the Iraq War and everything else in between, would be smaller than the spending increases of Democrats over the next 10 years if they are permitted to stay in power and keep up this pace.

Reality Slap in the Face for Today

The federal income taxes for every taxpayer would have to rise by roughly 81% to pay all of the benefits promised by the government under current law.That is just Social Security and Medicare

How do you figure that? Bruce Bartlett will explain.

The Press is more than biased--They are INVESTED in "The One"

The Media Research Center did an analysis of the lamestream media's coverage of Obama's first 100 days. Guess what? Turns out that they have done a great job of sending tingles up their legs but a lousy job acting as watchdogs.

MRC analysts looked at all 982 broadcast evening news stories about Obama and his administration from Inauguration Day (January 20) through April 29. Here are some of the interesting, though not surprising, things that they found:

- Obama's first 100 days were defined by massive spending, aggressive intervention in the private sector and proposals for a huge expansion of the federal government. Yet none of the networks aired a single story on whether Obama's policies were pushing the U.S. toward socialism, and no reporter used the term "socialist" to describe Obama.

- Not only that, network reporters never used the word "liberal" to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days.

- The networks lavished good press on every major initiative of the early Obama administration, including the massive stimulus package, all of the various bailouts, health care, stem cells, the environment and foreign policy.

- In the days before the President unveiled his unprecedented $3.5 trillion budget -- with a record-shattering $1.75 trillion deficit -- four out of five statements on the evening newscasts parroted the White House spin that Obama was a deficit fighter.

- Reporters treated Obama's hugely expensive $787 billion stimulus bill to mainly positive coverage (58 percent positive, 42 percent negative).

- The networks applauded Obama's decision to use taxpayer money to fund embryo-destroying stem cell research (82% positive coverage).

- Network coverage of Obama's mortgage bailout was also positive -- 59% of statements supported the bailout or wanted even more intervention, compared to 41% who opposed the bailout as unfair to responsible homeowners.

- Reporters heavily skewed their coverage in favor of the President's actions on global warming (78% positive).

- President Obama's decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan was greeted by nearly unanimous (91%) positive coverage -- a far cry from the highly negative coverage of President Bush's successful troop surge in Iraq two years ago.

- Like Obama and the Democrats, the networks went on a feeding frenzy against big corporate bonuses. The networks aired six times more statements forwarding the "infuriated" reaction to business (104) than criticized politicians' grandstanding (16).

- The networks spent days decrying AIG's $165 million bonuses, but hardly mentioned the $210 million in bonuses handed out by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the bailed-out mortgage giants with strong Democratic ties). ABC and NBC completely ignored the Fannie and Freddie bonuses, while the CBS Evening News gave it 27 seconds.

They made him. They must support him.