Why bother watching Olbermann or Maddow go after Sarah Palin, when you can get a two-fer by watching both Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity together in one interview ?!?! Here it is from the source, undiluted. Grab yourself a veggie burger and a soy latte, and get your hate on.

My favorite line ? Palin actually referred to the liberal elitist tabloid hate press as "the lamestream media." How can I not like that ? I use the term myself, and they haven't even attacked my family, as they have Palin's. She has earned the right.

Democratic Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) says those opposing terror trials in New York City for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other 9/11 plotters are unamerican:

"[Republicans] see this as an opportunity to demagogue," he said. "They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they'll even take a stand that's un-American."

"It's un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial," Moran added. "It's against our principles as a nation."

The feeble-minded Moran is demagoguing the issue even as he accuses others of the same thing. The "unamerican" opposition wants the 9/11 plotters tried, they just want them tried by military tribunals, instead of putting on media circus show trials in the Big Apple.

A CNN poll showed that 64% of Americans want KSM and friends tried by military tribunals. Who knew there were so many unamerican Americans ?

Among the unamerican Americans…..

The family of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded by KSM:

"We are sorry to learn of the Justice Department decision to try KSM in a NYC Federal Court.

We are respectful of the legal process, but believe that giving confessed terrorists a worldwide platform to publicize their ideology sends the wrong message to potential terrorists, inviting them in essence, to resort to violence and cruelty in order to gain publicity.

We believe that justice is better served if the trial of KSM, the confessed murderer of Daniel Pearl, be held in closed session."

Another unamerican American is the Democratic Governor of New York, David Paterson, who told the Daily News:

"This is not a decision that I would have made…Our country was attacked on its own soil on Sept. 11, 2001, and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost. It's very painful; we're still having trouble getting over it. We still haven't been able to rebuild that site, and having those terrorists tried so close to the attack is going to be an encumbrance on all of New Yorkers."

In my last post on this subject, I wrote about the hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who oppose holding the trials in NYC…what a bunch of lousy unamerican sob's they are.

To make all us unamericans feel even better, ACLU attorneys are saying it's probable that KSM and company will serve as their own attorneys during the trial. Fan-freaking-tastic !

"The chances are excellent that he [KSM] represents himself," said Ron Kuby, a defense lawyer known for taking on controversial clients.

"[KSM's] goal in the legal system is not to beat the rap. His goal is to use the legal system as a forum for his own ideas and to embrace martyrdom through that system."

"It's quite possible that these defendants will undertake to represent themselves," Ben Wizner said. "They've been trying to fire their lawyers the whole time so they can be executed."

Nothing like giving KSM his own personal soapbox, so he can serve as an inspiration to terrorists everywhere.

Noted defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz chimes in with some KSM defense strategy:

Lawyers could seize on the time it's taken to prosecute the accused terrorists, arguing that they were denied their constitutional rights to a speedy trial.

A crafty defense lawyer might also employ a tactic called "graymailing," demanding reams of classified information in the hope that prosecutors refuse to release them. That provides an opening for a lawyer to request the indictment be dismissed.

Torture is also likely to play a central role in the case.

That Mohammed was waterboarded more than 180 times by CIA investigators is no secret.

"The first thing they're going to do is challenge all of the evidence and say all of it is the fruit of waterboarding," Dershowitz said.

Some intrepid reporter somewhere has to ask Attorney General Eric Holder or President Obama if they plan to release KSM if he is acquitted. I'd love to hear the answer to that question.

Returning to Congressman Moran's statement about it being unamerican to hold detainees indefinitely without any type of trial, I'm wondering, which people are recommending such a thing ???

Well, there's THIS guy:

President Barack Obama has quietly decided to bypass Congress and allow the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without charges…Such a decision allows the president to unilaterally hold "combatants" without habeas corpus — a legal term literally meaning "you shall have the body" — which forces prosecutors to charge a suspect with a crime to justify the suspect's detention. Obama's decision was buried on page A 23 of The New York Times' New York edition on Thursday…"The administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban," the Times' Peter Baker writes. "In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies."

Looks like Congressman Moran, in his overzealous haste to attack Republicans, has inadvertently called his pal Obama unamerican. Oops.

When I found out that the Associated Press had eleven reporters furiously fact-checking Sarah Palin's new book, illustrating that Palin Derangement Syndrome has not yet subsided (and did you hear the over-the-top Palin attacks by MSNBC and CNN last night ?), I thought maybe we should examine some statements made by a more important person, namely (in Michael Buffer's boxing announcer voice)….the Leader Of The Free World, the Teleprompter In Chief, the Apologist To The World, the Fence-Sittter General, The Preeeeeeee-sident Of The United Staaates…Barack Husseeeeeeeeeeeeein Obama !

Let's look at some of his statements, since the press rarely does.

Obama: "I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

King: Except for your cigarette taxes, health care fines, health care reform taxes, cap-and-trade taxes, etc, etc.
—
Obama: "I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."

King: Whatever, Barry. You had lobbyists on your campaign, your transition team, and you have them in your White House. (link)
—
Obama: "I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office."

King: Yes, and now you're doubling it again, so shut up.
—
Obama: "I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

King: I'll let Obama rebut himself on this one (he rebuts himself a LOT).

Obama: "No one is pro-abortion."

King: You are, Mr. President. You didn't even vote against partial birth abortions.
—
Obama: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

King: Keep your bigoted sentiments to yourself, sir.
—
Obama: "John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded."

King: I guess so, if you consider it "hard work" to make your name by trashing your own troops in Vietnam and then marrying two different rich heiresses, as John Kerry did.
—
Obama: "My administration is the only thing between you [CEO's] and the pitchforks."

King: Um, was that a threat ? Stay classy, President Thug.
—
Obama: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

King: I wonder what would have happened had Sarah Palin made this statement ??? Can you say 'media feeding frenzy' ? But with Obama, it's more like media blackout.
—
Obama: "People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time."

King: Diagnosis – narcissist. Delusions of grandeur. Pretty creepy.
—
Obama: "The thing about hip-hop today is it's smart, it's insightful. The way they can communicate a complex message in a very short space is remarkable."

King: And all that misogynistic 'b*tches,' 'ho's,' 'back that a** up,' and "n-word' stuff is very insightful as well.
—
Obama: "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America – there's the United States of America."

King: Then why do you spend so much time excluding and trashing conservative America ?
—
Obama: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times… and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

King: Dictators R' Us. Other countries are supposed to tell us what we can drive, eat, and how we can heat our homes ? Nope. Don't think so. I'm not going to check with Belgium and Japan before I have a cheeseburger.
—
Obama: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

King: Yeah, and we can have them wear, oh, I don't know, how about Brownshirts!!! With all due respect, screw you, Mr. President. Dictators R' Us, Part Two.
—
Obama: "We need earmark reform, and when I'm President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

King: LOL. Most of your stimulus spending was nothing but earmarks. You've set a new record for earmarks, even though you called them something else. Dishonesty on steroids.
—
Obama: "I'm proud of the fact that I stood up early and unequivocally in opposition to Bush's foreign policy (and was the only U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois to do so). That opposition hasn't changed."

King: Then why are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan still going on ?
—
Obama: "I reject that notion [that forcing people to purchase health insurance or fining them is a tax increase]. Telling people to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase."

King: Do the fines come out of people's pockets and flow to the government coffers ? Yes, they do. That's a tax increase, President Pinocchio, no matter what you want to call it in Spinville.
—
Obama: [debating Hillary] "Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don’t have health insurance to buy it."

King: And so do you. At least Hillary was honest about it. How do you get that Pinocchio nose through the door, Mr. President ?
—
Obama: "Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow."

King: What a comedian. This one didn't pass the laugh test to begin with, and Obama has abandoned the idea.
—
Obama: “And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care … That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.”

King: It makes sense and might save lives, but study after study indicates that preventive care will increase medical costs, not decrease them. It really only requires simple logic to make the determination. More care means more costs, and the overwhelming majority of preventive medicine DOESN'T uncover some dire illness. The overwhelming majority of people are healthy.
—
Obama: "And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

King: I already dealt with this one in a recent post, but until the Stupak Amendment, it was obvious that federal funds, in the form of insurance subsidies, would have funded abortions under ObamaCare.
—
Obama: "They [I assume he means honest people] argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.”

King: Same phony argument by Obama as with abortion. Because the public option insurance would be subsidized by the taxpayers for low income persons, just as private insurance would be, Obama actually refuted his own point here. The taxpayers would be subsidizing the public option.
—
Obama: "“Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this [health care reform] plan.”

King: Now, that is some funny stuff. What's the name of that Michael McDonald song ???? Oh yeah, What A Fool Believes. Maybe Obama should get a side gig at the Laugh Factory. Nothing less than the entire history of our federal government tells us this can't possibly be true.
—
Obama: "I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth."

King: Ta da ! Hi-larious. You're killing me, Barry. Can you do any Jack Nicholson impressions ?
—
I can go on with these examples all day, but this post is running long, so I'll give President Pinocchio a break and stop embarassing him with the facts (for now).

One final quote, however.
—
Obama: "If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost."

King: Well then, it looks like all is lost, because I sure don't trust someone like Obama who lies to me all the time.
—

“After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York—New York — to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks from where the twin towers once stood.” – Attorney General Eric Holder.

Eric Holder is mistaken. Those terrorists coming to New York for trial were brought to justice years ago. They aren't on vacation down there in Guantanamo Bay. They are prisoners of a war Al Qaeda declared against the United States in 1996. Self-confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in 2003. All five of the terrorists coming to New York for trial were already set to be tried before military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. What Holder has done is to grant foreign warriors the full rights of American citizenship by putting them into our civilian court system. Holder is seeking the death penalty, but KSM also faced the death penalty under the military commissions system.

What is to be gained from this ?

It isn't to console the families of 9/11 victims. Hundreds of them are already protesting this decision:

“Families are furious about this,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother Chic Burlingame was the American Airlines pilot of one of the planes hijacked on Sept. 11. She said more than 300 family members have implored the administration not to move the trial to New York. “They know we don’t support this. We support military commissions but they are going to see a wave of fury, and I don’t think they’re prepared for it,” she said Friday after the decision became public.

Bringing the terrorists to New York and trying them only blocks away from the World Trade Center site will guarantee one thing – a media circus, perhaps unlike any we have yet seen. Won't it be fun to watch the terrorists exercise their new array of civil rights ? I know I can't wait for KSM's attorneys to say he should be freed because we didn't read him his Miranda rights. I also can't wait for his lawyers to ask for the evidence against him to be thrown out due to the enhanced interrogation techniques, aka torture. I can't wait for KSM to become the victim. I definitely look forward to KSM taking the stand to urge his followers to continue their jihad against the Great Satan, and having the media instantly spread his message across the globe. And what will happen when KSM's attorneys request access to classified intelligence materials as part of his defense ? There's a reason crimes and wars are treated differently, even if Eric Holder and Barack Obama don't know there is a difference.

Last week, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) tried to pass legislation that would have forced the administration to try 9/11 plotters in military courts. Democrats voted that legislation down by a vote of 54-45. We've spent years insuring that the military commissions pass Constitutional muster, and Obama has said he will try terrorism cases with military commissions, but then he brings the highest profile cases possible into federal court. Why ?

It's not that I think we can't try terrorists in federal court. We've done that before successfully lots of times, and in KSM's case we should be able to prevail, though how we'll get an impartial jury blocks away from the WTC site should be a circus all it's own. It's just that WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THIS. We could have avoided the circus.

UPDATE**

Here's President Obama from earlier this year:

"When this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who’ve received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture — like other prisoners of war — must be prevented from attacking us again."

Obama admits KSM and company are prisoners of war who will not be released. Sooooo, why bring them into civilian court ? You know darn well that KSM will NEVER be released. That would be political suicide for Obama and the Democrats. This decision makes no sense to me.

If what I read today is accurate, President Obama wants to freeze government spending and/or cut the spending of some departments by 5% in next year's budget.

For the very first time, I'll give Obama a 'Yes We Can !' without being satirical. It this happens, it's a baby step in the right direction. A very teeny, weeny baby step, but a step nonetheless.

Kinda. It might be only one more illusion from our President in an attempt to win the 2010 elections. Here's why….

As the Wall Street Journal noted a couple weeks ago, House Democrats are planning lots of spending INCREASES for 2010, and Democrats have been spending faster than drunken sailors ever dreamed:

The White House disclosed the other day that the fiscal 2009 budget deficit clocked in at $1.4 trillion, amid the usual promises to do something about it. Yet even as budget director Peter Orszag was speaking, House Democrats were moving on a dozen spending bills for fiscal 2010 that total 12.1% in more domestic discretionary increases.

Yes, 12.1%.

Remember, inflation is running close to zero, or 0.8%. The good news, if we can call it that, is that Senate Democrats only want to increase nondefense appropriations by 8% for 2010. Because these funding increases become part of the permanent baseline for future appropriations, the 2010 House budget bills would permanently raise annual outlays for discretionary programs by about $75 billion a year from now until, well, forever.

These spending hikes do not include the so-called mandatory spending programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which exploded by 9.8% and 24.7%, respectively, in the just-ended 2009 fiscal year. All of this largesse is also on top of the stimulus funding that agencies received in 2009. The budget for the Environmental Protection Agency rose 126%, the Department of Education budget 209% and energy programs 146%.

House Republicans on the Budget Committee added up the 2009 appropriations, the stimulus funding and 2010 budgets and found that federal agencies will, on average, receive a 57% increase in appropriated funds from 2008-2010. By contrast, real family incomes fell by 3.6% last year. There's no recession in Washington.

More broadly, the White House and the 111th Congress have already enacted or proposed $3.4 trillion of new spending through 2019 for things like the health-care plan, cap and tax, and the children's health bill passed earlier this year. Very little of this has been financed with offsetting spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.

Throughout the era of Republican rule in Washington, we scored GOP lawmakers for their overspending and earmarks—and so did Nancy Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats. So how do their records compare? From 2001-2008 the average annual increase in appropriations bills came in at 6.4%—or about double the rate of inflation. In this Congress spending is now growing six times faster than inflation.

So, even if Obama does reign in federal spending for one year, the net effect is still massive increases in the size of government. Still, I'm so disgusted by both major parties in Washington D.C. that anything at all resembling fiscal responsibility sounds like manna from heaven to me. I know I'm being manipulated by the President, but I'll take it anyway. At least it's better than him increasing spending even more in 2010.

Also, this means that the tragic, country-killing deficit/debt situation is on Obama's radar screen for 2010, and hopefully beyond. Maybe our rookie left-wing community organizer Prez is beginning to learn something about economics. I certainly hope so. I pray he does. I pray he realizes those Tea Party protesters are NOT a bunch of nuts. Those Tea Party protesters are the ones who would save this country from certain economic doom. They are the ones shouting the loudest that this country is way off-track, and has been for some time. Yes, there are a few birthers in that crowd, like there are a few nuts in any crowd, but the message is one of fiscal responsibility. The real nuts are the people who don't see there is an enormous problem. You can recognize the real nuts easily, because they are the ones calling the Tea Partiers names.

Score one for Obama if he accomplishes this.

Calling all big government advocates !!! It's time to do your patriotic duty for your country. As VP Joe Biden would say, "step up and be part of the deal."

As the Christmas season approaches, what better present could all you compassionate statists, leftists, socialists, communists, marxists, maoists, progressives, and liberals give us than to pay down the massive federal debt that all this out-of-control government spending has rained down upon our heads ? Show those mean old conservative grinches that you big government types are standup people who have the courage of your convictions. Send a big fat check to Uncle Sam to brighten the holidays for all us recession stressed Americans. We know you are the good people (because you keep telling us you are), so I'm going to tell you where to send your money. No need to thank me. Remember to dig deep, and give until it hurts. Your country needs you. The poor and oppressed need you, now more than ever.

Reuters has helpfully written an article on this subject. Here is the essential info:

The U.S. Treasury Department accepts gifts, payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt. Just mail them to the attention of Department G, Post Office Box 2188, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-2188. Make a note in the memo section that it is a gift to reduce the debt held by the public.

The info is also contained on the U.S. Treasury website here.

I'll even help you big government lovers calculate the amount you should send in. According to the U.S. debt clock, the federal debt is just short of $12 trillion. Now I have to figure out how many liberals we have. Let's see…..we have about 250 million adults over the age of 18 living in the United States, and about 20% of the people refer to themselves as liberals according to polling……….soooo, that means there are around 50 million caring liberals in our broke country.

Dividing $12 trillion by 50 million liberals comes to…………

If you all would send in a check for $240,000, then voila!, our debt problem is solved.

Man, this is gonna be great !!! You liberals just paid for health care reform and lots more, because by paying off the federal debt, you saved America from paying over $330 billion a year in interest on that debt. We can use that savings to pay for health care reform, AND have lots left over to institute massive tax cuts, thereby revving up the economy !!! God bless you, every one !!! The recession will be over and jobs will be created !!! It'll be morning in America again !!!

Of course, there's always the possibility that you will think only of yourselves instead of helping others, and not send in any money, but no way do I think you good liberal people would be that selfish. I have complete confidence in you. I'm so excited.

Oh, wait a sec. There is one other thing. Even if you pay off the debt, we'll still have that $106 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities hanging over our heads. Rats. Still, I know how you good liberals love your entitlements. You'll certainly want to pay for those, so allow me to recalculate the amount of money you need to send in….$106 trillion plus $12 trillion equals $118 trillion. If I divide that by the 50 million liberals in America……….

You all need to send in a check for $2,360,000. Then we'll be good.

I offer my heartfelt thanks on behalf of all Americans. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all.

"Under our [health care reform] plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." – President Obama, addressing a joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009. (link)

Obama spent most of this year repeating the above words, and he characterized anybody who said otherwise, namely Republicans, as divisive peddlers of "outrageous myths."

But, in what has become an all too familiar game of misdirection, the peddler of myths was Obama himself. The Stupak Amendment proved the dishonesty of Obama's previous words. Prior to that amendment to the House health care bill, health care subsidies (federal funds) would have been used to fund private health care plans that cover abortions. With the adoption of the Stupak Amendment, no federal funds would be used to fund abortions in any health care plan. The Stupak Amendment was adopted because that was the only way the Democrats could pass the health care bill in the House of Representatives. Without it, they were 10 votes short.

Once abortions were REALLY not covered under ObamaCare (as opposed to Obama and other Democrats only pretending they weren't covered), the debate moved to the Senate, and a firestorm erupted in the Democratic party between the pro-choice liberal wing and the pro-life moderate/conservative wing. The pro-choicers argue that the Stupak Amendment is a sea change on abortion rights, restricting federal funds that were available under the previous Hyde Amendment. And the pro-choicers seem to be right. It is a sea change. The Hyde Amendment forbids use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund Medicaid abortions except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother’s life, but it also allows states to use their own Medicaid money (90% of which comes from federal funds) to fund other abortions, which about 17 states currently do. The Stupak Amendment negates that federal funding, as I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Dems find themselves between a rock and a hard place. If the pro-life wing prevails, about 40 Democrats say they won't support the health care plan. If the pro-choice wing prevails, they lose support from the pro-lifers. In either case, the Democratic filibuster-proof majority evaporates, and with almost all Republicans against ObamaCare, the current health care reform bills could die over the abortion issue split.

In light of this dilemma, Obama seems to support the pro-choice position, even though he's making split-the-baby (no unfortunate pun intended) comments on the issue. Here's Obama saying, um, something, to ABC's Jake Tapper today:

You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it's not going to change.

There. Hope that clears things up. According to Obama, we're not going to have federal funding for abortions. Except when we do. I think. Or not.

I use the word "jihadist" in this post, seeing as how our liberal friends objected so much to the accurate use of the word "terrorist" in my last post about the Fort Hood terrorist jihadist. I know how delicate are the sensibilities of our liberal friends. They are easily offended by words, unless the subject is conservatives, of course. Then, any and all pejorative language is highly recommended.

But….the Fort Hood terrorist jihadist is a Muslim, not a conservative, so maybe the word "jihadist" is too harsh for liberal sensibilities as well. I apologize for using the term. To avoid any possibility of liberals experiencing feelings of victimization and sadness, which sends them into desperate searches for moral equivalency and results in them defending mass murderers, I will also refrain from using the word "jihadist." Instead, I will refer to the Fort Hood terrorist jihadist mass murderer as "cuddly bunny."

According to ABC News, the FBI knew Nidal M. Hasan, the Fort Hood terrorist jihadist cuddly bunny had been trying to contact Al Qaeda several months ago:

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.

I assume it's not standard operating procedure for a U.S. Army Major, a psychiatrist, to be trying to contact Al Qaeda, even if he is merely a cuddly bunny. ABC could be referring only to the 10 to 20 e-mails cuddly bunny sent to the radical imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, which the FBI said was consistent with cuddly bunny's research project (huh ??), but ABC said cuddly bunny was trying to contact "people" in Al Qaeda, as in, more than one. The FBI said it never delved into cuddly bunny's communiques with Al-Awlaki because there was no indication that cuddly bunny was planning any violence. I guess soldiers contacting Al Qaeda associates is hunky-dory with the FBI, as long as you don't say "I plan to kill a whole bunch of Americans" in your e-mail message. Oy vey.

On the morning of his mass murder, Hasan the terrorist jihadist cuddly bunny handed his neighbor a copy of the Koran and told her, "I’m going to do good work for God.” Note that terrorists jihadists cuddly bunnies think that killing infidels IS doing good work for God.

The aforementioned radical imam Al-Awlaki was quite impressed with the way cuddly bunny did God's work at Fort Hood. Here's Al-Awlaki's complete statement about cuddly bunny's Fort Hood "heroics":

"Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn't exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.
Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal's operation.

The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.

Allah(swt) says: Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment – Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely. (al-Nisa 136-137) [Koran 4:136-137]

The inconsistency of being a Muslim today and living in America and the West in general reveals the wisdom behind the opinions that call for migration from the West. It is becoming more and more difficult to hold on to Islam in an environment that is becoming more hostile towards Muslims.

May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Amen"

Al-Awlaki is someone cuddly bunny greatly admired. A colleague said cuddly bunny's "eyes lit up" when he talked about Al-Awlaki.

Not only did the military and FBI fail to connect the dots here, but judging from the comments to my last post, liberals don't even want to admit there are any dots to connect (unlike the runup to 9/11). Even President Obama said we shouldn't leap to any conclusions (unlike the Henry Louis Gates case, where Obama leapt to conclusions).

Sorry libs, but cuddly bunny is a jihadist terrorist, much as it might pain you to hear it. Allah Akhbar.

Now cuddly bunny is lawyered up, and is apparently speaking. I'm sure cuddly bunny expected to die gloriously at Fort Hood, and is probably disappointed that he hasn't gotten to his 72 virgins yet. Maybe that was the way cuddly bunny chose to get the wife he couldn't find here on earth, I don't know. I only wonder if cuddly bunny will have the courage of his jihadist convictions, or if he will punk out and claim temporary insanity, as his legal eagle is probably advising him to do.

As for my opinion………..can we still use firing squads ?

Then it probably is Islamic terrorism.

Here's the evidence.

1) The American-born fundamentalist Muslim, Major Nidal Hasan, shouted "Allahu Akhbar" (God is great) as he opened fire on soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 and wounding 38. This is corroborated by several witnesses.

2) Hasan allegedly made internet postings sympathetic to Muslim suicide bombers, even calling such bombers herioic. These postings came to the attention of federal authorities six months ago, but were not pursued.

3) Hasan considered the war on terror to be a war against Islam, and considered himself to be a Muslim first and an American second.

4) Hasan gave a presentation on the Koran where he said the Koran commands infidels to be decapitated, burned, etc.

5) According to the London Telegraph, Hasan attended a mosque in Virginia in 2001 that was led by the radical imam Anwar Al-Awlaki. The mosque was attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers during the same period. Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an "al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen".

6) Hasan gave away copies of the Koran to neighbors prior to his murderous shooting spree.

Got the picture yet ?

Hasan told relatives that he was horrified at the thought of going to Afghanistan later this year, and he was trying to get discharged from the Army.

With so many signs that this was an Islamic terrorist attack, the Lame Stream Media initially called it Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, even though Hasan had never been in combat (maybe they should have tried out Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a brand new condition). Or, as Chris Matthews of MSNBC said, "we may never know if religion was a factor at Fort Hood." I assume MSNBC is still considered a news network, per the White House definition. The Lames shied away from the word "terrorist," for some reason. If only Hasan had a copy of Glenn Beck's book on his nightstand, then the Lames probably would have figured out this was a terrorist act.

Let me issue the standard caveats here. Lord knows I don't want to be politically incorrect. Just because Major Nidal Hasan killed a bunch of people due to his religious beliefs doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists. The vast majority of us know this already, but certain political leaners with short left legs get very uncomfortable if we don't point it out every time there's a terrorist attack. There are a billion Muslims in the world, so obviously, only an infinitesimal percentage of them are terrorists. We should never condone any reprisals against Muslim people in general due to the actions of a few. That would be bigotry. It would be like hating the entire Catholic church due to a few pedophile priests, or hating the entire Tea Party movement because one or two protesters carried signs comparing Obama to Hilter. Only irrational folks like the Reverend at the Blog Of Mass Destruction do things like that.

Here we preach tolerance.

We also don't have a problem with calling something what it is, and what happened at Fort Hood was an act of religious-based terrorism. The biggest question we have to answer is why the military missed so many red flags with Nidal M. Hasan, especially after 9/11, when we started looking specifically for those exact red flags.

Once upon a time, when I was nineteen years old, I read J.R. Tolkien's 1100-page Lord Of The Rings trilogy in about a week. I only accomplished that because I was in the hospital in traction at the time, and didn't have anything else to do. It was either hobbits or soap operas. I was thankful for the hobbits.

But what if, instead of Lord Of The Rings, I had undertaken to read the 1990-page House health care reform bill, filled with the wonders of it's arcane legalese ? Would I have been able to read and comprehend all the ramifications of that in one short week ? Very doubtful, but that's what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi expects her congressional representatives to do. Pelosi wants a vote on the health care reform bill on saturday, eight days after it was written. Could it be that Pelosi and company want a quick vote because they desire to pass the bill before people really figure out what's in it ? That has been the modus operandi of the liberal Democrat wing all year regarding health care reform. Remember that President Obama wanted a bill passed by july, but the bluedog Democrats and Republicans stopped that mistake from happening. Ironically, the longer congressional Democrats work on health care reform bills, the bigger and more convoluted they get (it ain't easy to cater to so many special interests at once). The House health care bill is now over a trillion dollars, above Obama's low, low bargain cost ceiling of $900 billion, not that it matters. We shouldn't believe anything Obama says about health care anyway. You know he'll sign anything called health care reform that gets to his desk, no matter how bad it is, just so he can claim victory.

Hey, here's an idea. Let's have Nancy Pelosi give a couple hour long press conference about the House health care reform bill on saturday, so Americans can find out exactly what the Democrats are trying to pass (assuming Nancy even knows) ? 'We The People' and all that. That would be quite helpful, and very transparent of the Dems, seeing as how they never quite got around to having the health care negotiations on CSPAN, as candidate Obama falsely promised. Obama also falsely claimed he wouldn't force people to buy health care insurance, but that's pretty much the centerpiece of ObamaCare now. Our dishonest prez has even taken to telling such outrageous and obvious lies about health care reform that it takes an entire liberal media not to notice them. Here's one from yesterday, per the Washington Times:

The president said that AARP, the nation's largest seniors organization, has signed on to the House bill because it knows that the legislation will "strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it. They know it will protect the benefits our seniors receive, not cut them," Mr. Obama said.

Um, the House health care bill cuts $472.8 billion from Medicare, Mr. President. That's a real whopper you just told. What's next ? Will you tell us that round thing in the sky at night isn't the moon, it's actually the Obama logo ? I'm sure only the "naysayers" who are responsible for "the failed policies of the past" would disagree with you, like those Fox "non" News people with their "viewpoints." (Side question – have you ever met a person who didn't have a viewpoint, outside of the comatose ?)

In the President's defense, he probably hasn't read the House health care bill either, so maybe he doesn't know about the cuts, or maybe he puts his hands over his ears and yells "na, na, na, na" when his staff members try to inform him. Obama leaves the petty details to others. He's just there for the big picture stuff. He's busy fundamentally transforming America (into a shell of it's former self). Obama makes the grand proclamations, like "reform health care," or "close Guantanamo Bay," or "limit carbon emissions." He can't be bothered to figure out how to do any of those things. After all, Obama has never run a country, state, county, city, or township before. He's never run a business, never managed employees. He doesn't have any expertise in health care, military, economic, or environmental matters. He never even accomplished much of anything in hist short Senate career, or even during his years in the Illinois state legislature. He was one of those guys who votes "present," so as not to be pinned down to a position. Obama is the entry-level president who charmed the media in 2008 with the sound of his voice, his sappy inspirational rhetoric, and his historic nature. That, and the fact he is a liberal Democrat. The media LOVES that, even though America really doesn't. That's why Obama hid behind all that tripe about post-partisanship. Obama is as far from post-partisan as can be. He's hyper-partisan. He can barely speak without denigrating his opposition and blaming everything on them. He's also utterly without shame, and, as I've outlined quite a bit on this blog, will tell any lie at any time, with absolute conviction. On the rare occasions when a journalist actually gets to ask him about one of his falsehoods (like Stephanopolous did when asking if the health care mandate was a tax), Obama flashes that winning smile and then acts like the journalist just crapped in his own pants by asking such a silly question, one that only the "tired opposition" or "entrenched special interests" would ask. Obama is dishonest and then acts like we're idiots for pointing out that he's being dishonest. Sorry, Mr. O, but you ain't that slick, even if you and your adoring media have fooled many into believing you are.

Uh, what was I talking about ? Oh yeah, health care reform. Sorry I roamed a bit off topic there. It's just that I'm getting tired of all the deceptions coming from the White House, as the Democrats try to pass bigger and better boondoggles off on the rest of us.

When the Republican party scored big gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia yesterday, emerging victorious in those two blue states that voted for Obama only one short year ago, I couldn't help but think of all the pundits and talking heads who giddily predicted years and years of GOP'ers scrounging for food in the political wilderness after Obama's historic 2008 victory and the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress. 'The political landscape has shifted forever !' proclaimed these sages of punditry (who almost all happen to be Democrats). 'The Reagan Revolution is over ! The GOP is marginalized !,' intoned these bellwethers of bombastic buffoonery (who almost all happen to be Democrats).

As it turns out, forever isn't a very long time when it comes to politics. The Republicans won almost everything yesterday. They even won the one race they lost. I'll get back to that in a minute.

Despite being outspent by a margin of 3-to-1, and despite President Obama bringing his star power to bear by campaigning for his opponent, Republican challenger Chris Christie defeated the Democratic incumbent governor of New Jersey, the billionaire Jon Corzine. New Jersey has been a solid blue state for years, so this was a major 'get' for the GOP. In Virginia, a traditional swing state, the Republicans won the governorship by a landslide. They also won the Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General races by landslides. In New York city, Republican Michael Bloomberg (or is he an Independent now ?) won a third term. My liberal television station du jour (I chose to watch CNN attempt to explain the voting results away), kept saying that the wealthy Bloomberg "bought the vote." Notably, I never heard CNN say a word about the wealthy Democrat Corzine attempting to buy the vote in New Jersey, which is one reason I'm referring to them as my liberal television station du jour.

CNN came up with a variety of rationalizations in an attempt to explain away yesterday's GOP wins. Here are the top few:

1) The Democrats weren't energized like they were in 2008. They have a post-Obama hangover.
2) The opposition party always wins the year after a presidential election.
3) These are only local races with no national significance, and no significance in 2010.
4) Crazed wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Partiers have whipped the conservatives up into conniptions, causing them to turn out at the voting booth (and may I add, we're lucky nobody was hurt).

What CNN seems unable to grasp are the actual facts. The economy stinks, Obama is running the deficit through the roof, Americans are against ObamaCare, Americans don't want a bunch of new taxes during a recession, Americans don't want their electricity bills to go up, Americans are alarmed at all the government expansion and overreach, joblessness is around 17%, etc, etc.

Now let me get back to the one significant bright spot for the Democrats in yesterday's elections, if you can call it a bright spot (CNN certainly tried to make the claim). In New York state's 23rd congressional district, Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman and Republican party candidate Dede Scozzafava in what can only be termed a comedy of errors by the Republican keystone cops in New York. The GOP really had to bollux things up to lose this race. The 23rd district had been controlled by Republicans for a century. All the GOP had to do was nominate an actual Republican and this race was theirs, but they couldn't even manage that much. Instead, they stuck Scozzafava on the ballot, a Democrat in Republican clothing. Predictably, most Republicans didn't like her, though Newt Gingrich proved he cares more about party power than principle by backing her. Shame on Newt. Scozzafava faltered badly in the polls and unknown third party candidate Hoffman surged into the lead as several prominent Republicans supported him. The Republicans still would have won the race with Hoffman, but then Scozzafava dropped out and stabbed the stumblebum GOP in the back by supporting the Democrat Owens. With Scozzafava dropping out so late in the race, her name still appeared on the ballot, and enough party line Republicans voted for her to hand the race to the Democrat. Just brilliant, GOP. Just brilliant. Owens wins without a majority of the vote, even though the majority of the voters were against him. I only hope the Republican party bosses in New York stay away from sharp objects, or they might hurt themselves.

In a mind-numbing bit of illogical gymnastics, CNN claimed the Owens win illustrated that the GOP can't win with far right candidates like Hoffman. I kid you not. Here's Hoffman, who has never run for political office in his life, who is not anywhere close to being a polished politician (which is a plus in my book), running as a third party candidate against a career Democrat, with a Republican candidate scraping off critical votes and endorsing his opponent, and Hoffman still almost pulls it off, losing by only 3-4 points. And CNN decides Hoffman is one of the wingnut fringe. Such "analysis" makes CNN the wingnut fringe, if you ask me. Larry King couldn't say Hoffman's name without referring to him as "far right" or "wingnut," due to Hoffman's affinity for the Tea Party movement. Hoffman, btw, stands for fiscal responsiblity, reducing the debt, low taxes, etc. You know, all those "wingnutty" ideas that all sane people favor.

I'm just glad I didn't watch MSNBC. Has that station accused any Republicans of stealing elections yet ? If not, give them time. I'm sure they will, as soon as Keith Olbermann finds out there was a Republican working for the Board of Elections somewhere in New Jersey.

There's an old political truism that says you don't raise taxes during a recession. The reason is, raising taxes during a recession tends to make the recession worse. They used to call that – economics.

But that was before the Age Of Obama and Pelosi, where economic rules no longer apply. Obama and Pelosi just love to raise them some taxes, recession or not. It's full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes with those two. The enormous 1990-page House health care bill is no exception. Following are the taxes contained in that bill, courtesy of Americans For Tax Reform:

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs [Flexible Spending Accounts] would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).

Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA [Health Savings Accounts] Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act

Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.

That's thirteen new taxes in all, which are supposed to generate $540 billion in new revenue over 10 years to pay for health care reform (though it seems little is actually being reformed with this health care "reform." Mostly, we're just creating a big new welfare program combined with a government mandate for all to purchase health insurance). There is a public option in the House bill, but it is not one which ties reimbursement rates to Medicare rates. It allows for providers to negotiate reimbursement rates. The other interesting thing about ObamaCare is that the health care taxes begin immediately, but the benefits don't kick in for four years or so. That's how ObamaCare "doesn't add one dime to the federal deficit." Ten years of taxes pay for six years of benefits. You aren't supposed to notice that, just as you aren't supposed to notice that ObamaCare cuts over $400 billion from Medicare to pay for itself, something that has never been accomplished before in the history of Medicare. Historically, it's been the Democrats who said Republicans were trying to kill grandma by proposing much smaller Medicare cuts than ObamaCare proposes. Now it's the Democrats proposing the cuts, and the Republicans are the ones saying the Democrats are trying to kill grandma. Things have come full circle. Go figure.

Many of these new taxes will be either implemented against the middle class or passed down to them (non-insurance penalty, tax on medical devices, employer taxes, limits on FSA's and HSA's). This reminds me of something President Obama said on the campaign trail last year:

I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Sure Barry, whatever you say. The One broke that pledge a couple weeks after being inaugurated by raising the tax on cigarettes, and now he wants to break it again with health care reform. Then he wants to break his pledge again with cap and trade, which would be a huge tax increase that filters down to every American household. Various other Democrats want to tax sodas, gasoline, fast foods, heating oil, cigarettes some more, expensive health care plans (Senate health care plan), and anything else they can dream up. Democrats are engaged in the game of 1,001 ways to raise your taxes without you knowing they've raised your taxes.

And all this during what Democrats themselves term as the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong ?

Hey, I know. We can just keep passing $800 billion stimulus packages every single year, basically forever. That will "create or save" lots of jobs. Then everything will be just fine.

Just kidding. That would be a recipe for destruction, as any fifth grader could figure out. The problem is, that seems to BE the actual economic plan of the Democrats, at least until those millions of green jobs kick in sometime in the next couple decades.

That Obama sure is a good public speaker though. There's that.

"As Politico reported, there's growing concern among some GOP leaders that controversial commentators and far-right conservatives have hijacked the message. People like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin appeal to the base – and you certainly need that base to win elections. But in an age when 42 percent of Americans call themselves Independents – you can't win with just the base, either." – Katie Couric, CBS News (link)

This is typical of the advice liberals like Katie Couric have for the Republican party. It always boils down to an appeal for Republicans to become more like…Democrats. You know, moderate (ha ha). Some fainthearted GOP leaders agree, fearing they will lose elections if they don't become Democrats in Repubican clothing, aka RINO's (Republicans In Name Only). Former Republican Arlen Specter (?-PA) is a perfect example of a Republican who wanted to become more like a Democrat to win an election, and Specter finally did complete his Democratic sex change operation, though it doesn't appear that Specter's political chameleon routine is working. Some voters actually can remember what happened prior to yesterday, and Specter is trailing in the polls. What a great loss it would be to cull a distinguished gentleman like Arlen Specter from the ranks of Congress. And by "great loss," I mean, good riddance (along with about 500 other Congressional denizens I'd like to kick to the curb).

Katie Couric and "some GOP leaders" are concerned that conservative commentators and far-right conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and Sarah Palin have "hijacked the message."

Hijacked the message ? Hijacked what message ? The message that was rejected halfway through George W. Bush's second term ? The message that led to $4 trillion more in federal debt, the creation of the first new (unfunded) Medicare program in 40 years, two long term wars, massive increases in government spending in nearly every department, massive pork barrel spending, and corruption ? You mean, THAT message ?

Yes, God forbid that Sarah Palin would hijack that message. The problem of the Republicans isn't that their message might be hijacked by Palin, Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, or anyone else. The problem of the Republicans is that they hijacked the message themselves. They sold out their conservative principles on nearly every front, and used divisive social issues like gay marriage and abortion to gin up the base come election time (note – the GOP never really tries to reverse Roe v. Wade by proposing a Constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, if you notice. They only use it as a wedge issue. Therefore, they must like the wedge issue being in place to be used as a political football).
The Republicans have their version of the divide and conquer strategy, just like the Democrats do. The Dems use class warfare, phony racism charges, etc.

My advice to the Republicans would be just the opposite of Katie Couric's. My advice would be to listen to those conservative commentators. Listen to those "far-right conservatives," and listen to those Tea Party protesters (who are independents, btw). My advice would be – return to the long abandoned ideas of limited government, low taxes, and individual liberty. Get the government out of everybody's personal business. Foster the free market to help small business, not to help the mega-corporations and the government destroy the market via their hegemonic dominance. Balance the budget and start paying down the debt, so America's future isn't being washed down the drain. Tell the American people the truth, for once. We've had enough of the lies and spin for political gain. Start implementing policies that benefit America and American workers, instead of policies that benefit foreign nations. That, in turn, will reduce the cancer of government dependency that the Democrats love to foster. Don't become more like Democrats. Become the ANSWER to the ennui of the Democrats fatal socialist policies.

The Republicans don't need to worry about their message being hijacked. They need to worry about formulating a message, because right now, it isn't being articulated, if it exists at all.

Alternately, the Republicans could just dissolve and make way for something new. I wouldn't mind that either. This country needs something new. The majority of this country disagrees with the Democrats on most issues, but the Republicans are a lousy alternative. The two parties are selling us down the river, and I don't see any healthy change coming from either of them. All I see is continual change for the worse, with the public relations figurehead Obama being but the latest example. The citizens are always faced with the same political Coke vs. Pepsi choice. What we aren't told is that both Coke and Pepsi are bad for you.

Here's Valerie Jarrett, senior advisor to President Barack Obama, speaking to CNN about Fox News:

I don't know how a clip could illustrated the dishonesty of politics any more than this clip does. When Jarrett is asked if Fox News is biased, she immediately answers "Of course they are biased. Of course they are." When CNN interviewer Campbell Brown follows up immediately by asking if MSNBC is also biased, Jarrett starts backtracking and deflecting, never answering the question (correct answer – Of course MSNBC is biased. Of course they are). Jarrett said, "Actually, I don't want to generalize all of Fox is biased or that another station is biased. I think what we want to do is look at it on a case-by-case basis. When we see a pattern of distortion, we're going to be honest about that pattern of distortion….We're actually calling everybody out. So this isn't anything that's simply directed at Fox. We just want the American people to have a really clear understanding."

Well, that's funny. I haven't heard the Obama administration call out any other network than Fox News. In fact, MSNBC's opinion show anchors were invited to the White House for a cozy little chat with Obama. Liar, liar, pants of fire, Ms. Jarrett.

And did you get a load of Jarrett saying on the video that the White House is "going to speak truth to power" ????? Um, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm pretty sure the White House IS THE POWER.

Valerie Jarrett admitted what this was really about. It's about health care reform, and the fact that Obama is having a difficult go of it. The majority of the American people are against it, and the majority of the American people are turning against Obama on the issues in general. It has become a disturbing trend of this administration to demonize anyone and everyone who gets in it's way. The insurance companies, the drug companies, the Chamber of Commerce, doctors, whomever. Obama even sank so low as to say doctors were cutting people's feet off for profit, for chrissakes. If you have to resort to demonizing people whose job is literally to save other people's lives, then you have a problem.

Politicians are professional liars by trade. You can choose to believe in the current bunch of liars if you wish, but I sure don't. You may think it's fine for the government to force all Americans to buy health insurance as a condition of residency, but I don't. I guess we better change that old saying about death and taxes to death, taxes, and health insurance. The current bunch of professional liars is also bankrupting the country faster than any other. This administration also seems more partisan than any other in memory. I don't hear Obama talk about a problem that he doesn't blame on someone else first. To hear Obama talk, it seems there was no America prior to George W. Bush, because all the problems seem to have originated from that one man.

And do any of you really believe that ObamaCare won't add one dime to the deficit ??? Really ??? Do you really believe Congress will cut $400-500 billion from Medicare to make that happen ? Really ???

If you are naive enough to believe that, check out this article on the "doctor fix" for Medicare, which would have added $247 billion to the deficit if the Republicans and thirteen Democrats hadn't voted it down. The Democrats tried to separate that $247 billion in debt out of ObamaCare and pass it as a standalone measure, so that ObamaCare "wouldn't add a dime to the deficit." (except for the $247 billion, of course).

Like I said, politicians are professional liars. The current group of liars isn't even particularly good at lying. It's just that the media has, to date, let them get away with it. It's time for that to stop. It's time for the press to be the ones speaking truth to power, as is their job. The White House is only speaking THEIR truth. That's not necessarily THE truth.

Earlier this week, I posted about the White House Enemies List, which consists mainly of Fox News and conservative talk radio. I assume ABC's Jake Tapper is also now on that list for daring to question the Great And Powerful Oz-bama team about bashing any media that isn't in Oz-bama's back pocket.

In that earlier post, my major complaint with Oz-bama's selective media bashing was this:

What really gets my goat about this is that Team Obama doesn't mind one bit when the media furiously spins things in Obama's favor. Everything the White House is saying about Fox News is true in reverse about MSNBC, who ceaselessly bashes the right, but no complaints from the administration about MSNBC's opinion journalism. No sir. They're perfectly fine with that. The White House is alright with opinion journalism when it represents the opinion of the White House.

Now it has come to light that not only is Oz-bama perfectly fine with HIS opinion journalists operating on news stations, he even calls them in for, let me make sure I quote this correctly, "two-and-a-half-hour off-the-record chats" to tell them what to say:

On Monday, MSNBC's Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow were among several people who attended an off-the-record briefing with Pres. Obama at the White House. Sources tell us other attendees at the two-and-a-half hour chat included Eugene Robinson of the Washington Post, Maureen Dowd of the New York Times, Gwen Ifill of PBS and Gloria Borger of CNN. Perhaps not surprisingly, no one from Fox News was in the room.

Here's the full list of opinion journalist attendees at Oz-bama's "chat."

The White House has sent TVNewser the complete list of those who attended the off-the-record briefing Monday: Eugene Robinson, E.J. Dionne, Ron Brownstein, John Dickerson, Rachel Maddow, Frank Rich, Jerry Seib, Maureen Dowd, Keith Olbermann, Bob Herbert, Gloria Borger, and Gwen Ifill. Several members of the staff also attended.

The hypocrisy of the White House is off the charts. Notice that Oz-bama's off-the-record briefing with liberal opinion journalists came ONE DAY after Oz-bama's apparatchiks made the rounds demonizing Fox News on the sunday political talk shows. Team Oz-bama is so tuned in to MSNBC (the official White House news network), that it even e-mails corrections to MSNBC while it's talking heads are on-air. Un-be-liev-able. Meanwhile, Glenn Beck has been asking daily on his program for the White House to call and correct any errors Beck might be making. So far, nada.

On the heels of his "chat" with liberal opinion journalists, Oz-bama had this to say in an NBC exclusive interview, when asked if it was appropriate for the White House to determine what is or isn't a news organization:

"we are going to take media as it comes, and if media is operating basically as a talk radio format, that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet, that's another. But it's not something I'm losing a lot of sleep over."

Sorry, Mr. President. That simply isn't credible. The man behind the curtain has been exposed. The President doesn't send out his flying monkeys to demonize one news outlet and then have two-and-a-half-hour meetings with friendly opinion media unless it's part of a media control strategy. If the prez wasn't losing sleep over Fox News, he could have spent that two-and-a-half-hours in more productive fashion…like, say, coming up with a strategy for the Afghanistan War or fixing the economy.

To prove further how much the White House DOESN'T "take the media as it comes," as if any further proof is needed, the White House tried to exclude Fox News from this week's interview with the Pay Czar, until the rest of the media objected. Even Oz-bama's media pals are objecting to his exclusionary tactics now, knowing what an outrageous and horrible precedent this would set:

Team Oz-bama. Creepier and creepier. Let's click our heels together three times and say "there's no place like America," where freedom of the press is considered a Constitutional right. I don't like this strange new land of Oz.

If you want to know why the White House wishes to discredit Fox News, look no further than this post. Today, I'm going to post something I first heard from Glenn Beck (cue the liberal wailing and gnashing of teeth). This is from a 2008 speech by Ron Bloom, President Obama's Manufacturing Czar:

Here's are Ron Bloom's relevant words from that video again:

"Generally speaking we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system, to beat the market, or at least find someone who will pay you a lot of money because they're convinced that there is a free lunch. We know this is largely about power, that it's an adults only, no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend, you should get a dog."

Here we have Obama's Manufacturing Czar saying the free market is nonsense. This is the guy who's in charge of creating jobs in the manufacturing sector (yikes. Maybe the Associated Press is right when they say higher unemployment is "the new normal" for America). Bloom has a heavy union background, which is fine, but I'm left to wonder where Bloom thinks those union manufactured products are going to be sold, if not on that nonsensical free market. What is Bloom's alternative ? Is his alternative some type of government-controlled market ? When Bloom says in his next breath that he agrees with Mao that political power comes from the end of a gun, it does sound like government control is what he's talking about. If so, that's pretty frightening stuff, and about as unamerican as you can get.

I actually don't want to believe this. I hope there's some other explanation for Ron Bloom's words, and there could be. I hope this video is taken out of context, and he meant something else altogether, but I couldn't find anything on the internet to counter or provide more context to his statements. I really hope we don't have people in positions of authority in this country who believe such things.

Several conservatives are now running around saying, 'oh, look. Here's another Obama official endorsing Chairman Mao.' I have to take some issue with that, based upon my current knowledge. This isn't the same thing as Van Jones, Obama's former Green Jobs Czar, being an avowed communist. This isn't the same thing as Anita Dunn, Obama's communications director, saying Mao is one of her two favorite political philosophers. This is just Ron Bloom agreeing with one thing Mao said, and I actually agree with Bloom and Mao about that one thing. Political power often DOES come from the end of a gun. That's why our founding fathers designed a Constitution to limit government power. That's why I believe in that Constitution, and believe in limiting government power as much as humanly possible. The more power we cede to the government, the more powerful that government gun becomes. That's also why the free market is NOT nonsense, as Bloom would have us believe. The free market is essential to a free country. There is no acceptable alternative. As our founding documents state, our rights do not come from men, they come from a higher power. Our government exists to secure those rights, not to trample all over them.

The Nixon administration is back. Team Obama has identified the enemies, and found most of them working for Fox News. First, White House communications director Anita Dunn opined that Fox News was "opinion journalism masquerading as news." I took Dunn's initial criticism with a grain of salt, because this is a woman also cited the mass murderer Mao Tse-Tung as one of "my favorite political philosophers." Dunn ain't gonna make it with anyone anyhow, but unfortunately, it has now become clear that Dunn wasn't just expressing her opinion. It has become clear that her words are part of the Nixon Obama administration's orchestrated attempt to marginalize and shut out a single media outlet, one that coincidentally happens to be more critical of the Obama administration than the rest. When asked about Dunn's comment, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said of Fox News, "I have watched many stories on that network that I have found not to be true." It would have been helpful if Gibbs named even one of those news stories, but he did not. On sunday, more White House officials joined the Team Obama 'Blackball Fox News' movement. White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel lectured CNN, telling it that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox." White House senior advisor David Axelrod urged other media outlets not to recognize Fox News as a news organization, by telling ABC's George Stephanopoulos, "Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way. We're not going to treat them that way."

The Obama administration's blackball of Fox started in August. As Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday said on his show, "We wanted to ask Dunn about her criticism, but, as they've done every week since August, the White House refused to make any administration officials available to 'FOX News Sunday' to talk about this or anything else." The White House stopped making itself available to Fox News Sunday, (which, for the record, is not a right-wing show), after Wallace had the audacity to act like a journalist by fact-checking statements made by Tammy Duckworth, the assistant secretary of the Department of Veteran Affairs. Anita Dunn said fact-checking an administration official was "something I've never seen a Sunday show do." I can only assume Dunn never watched Meet The Press or any number of other sunday political shows in her entire Mao-worshipping life, because they fact-check politicians routinely. Tim Russert made a career out of it. Chris Wallace added, "They didn't say that our fact-checking was wrong. They just said that we had dared to fact-check."

Yes, how DARE Fox News question the great and powerful Obama administration. The last thing we need in this country are media outlets questioning the politicians in charge. What we need is a complacent and non-questioning media that blindly follows the party line disseminated by the Obamans. That's how Mao did it, and that's how almost every dictatorial government does it. They try to suppress and intimidate the media. Stalin, Castro, Chavez, and on down the line. It's standard operating procedure for practically every propaganda-spewing banana republic tyrant.

What really gets my goat about this is that Team Obama doesn't mind one bit when the media furiously spins things in Obama's favor. Everything the White House is saying about Fox News is true in reverse about MSNBC, who ceaselessly bashes the right, but no complaints from the administration about MSNBC's opinion journalism. No sir. They're perfectly fine with that. The White House is alright with opinion journalism when it represents the opinion of the White House.

Of course, the Duckworth fact-checking isn't really the issue. The Obama team isn't going to blackball an entire news organization over a couple statements by Wallace that contradict statements from a Veterans Affairs representative. The other phony excuse for blackballing Fox News is that they didn't carry one Obama speech (even though Obama has been on television more than any President in history, by far) . Democratic operative Terry Mcauliffe, who said he had spoken to White House officials, used that lame excuse on this week's Fox News Sunday program, but in fact, Fox News DID carry that Obama speech. It was the Fox network affiliate that didn't carry it. Mcauliffe also brought up Glenn Beck calling Obama a racist. I didn't like it when Beck said that, but think about this for a second. The left routinely calls people on the right racist, from the Tea Party protesters, to Rush Limbaugh (by attributing false quotes to Limbaugh), to a number of southern politicians, and on and on. Playing the race card is one of the left's standard political tactics. If it's reprehensible when Glenn Beck does it, it's reprehensible when liberals do it too, and liberals do it far, far, far more often. Even Obama did it. His operatives played the race card against both Bill and Hillary Clinton during the Democratic primaries. Obama spouted that "typical white person" remark, not to mention this almost universally ignored comment from Obama, "Are some voters not going to vote for me because I’m African-American ? Those are the same voters who probably wouldn’t vote for me because of my politics.” What is that, but Obama calling conservatives racists ??? And I'm not even going to go into Obama's Pastor, Reverend Wright, who Obama said was "like a member of my family" (until he became a political liability, after which Obama removed him from the family).

In retrospect, perhaps my Nixon administration reference is incorrect. Nixon had an enemies list, but I don't recall him or any other American president blackballing a major news organization before. I'm not saying it never happened. I'm just saying I don't remember it happening. This makes the Obama administration appear petty and small at best.

Oh, and guess who's NOT on the White House enemies list any longer ? The indicted war criminal Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese leader who has engineered genocide and slavery in Darfur. Obama has dramatically softened his previous position on the Sudan. Maybe Fox News should slaughter huge numbers of people like al-Bashir or Mao to get Obama to push the reset button with them too. I don't know. I can't figure out the formula. The One pursues diplomatic relations with Iran and a genocidal beast, but those Fox News conservatives right here in America…nope, can't handle them. They must be blackballed.

The creepy factor with this administration continues to rise.

It has been quite a ride for Barack Hussein Obama. In addition to becoming the first Kenyan-born American President after stealing the 2008 Democratic primary from Hillary Clinton and having ACORN fix the general election in a dozen states, Obama won the prestidigitous Nobel Peace Prize for saying "Hopey" stuff to foreigners. (This just in – Peace Prize winner Obama authorized a drone attack in Pakistan, killing four people). What has not been so widely reported are a number of other awards our wunderkind President has received. In a worldwide scoop of imaginary proportions, All Da King's Men takes pleasure in reporting the following:

For playing in pickup basketball games, Obama has won the NBA Most Valuable Player award. For appearing on television, Obama has been awarded an Emmy for Best Dramatic Actor, and also for the new Best Teleprompter Performance category. For throwing out the first pitch at a baseball game, Obama has been awarded the MLB Cy Young award (in the special 'throws like a girl' division). For going to Copenhagen to speak to the Olympic Committee on behalf of Chicago, Obama has been awarded the Gold Medal in the high hurdles. Obama has also been named Dog Owner of the Year by the American Kennel Club, Best Dressed Man by GQ, Sexiest Man Alive by People Magazine, Time Magazine Man of the Century, and Best Person In The World by Keith Olbermann for a record 492 days in a row. Obama was also named the Businessman Of The Year by Moveon.org for "saving" 375 million American jobs with his stimulus package, though 3 million American jobs were actually lost overall. Kudos to Mr. Obama, whose rallying cry of "it could have been even worse" has brought untold comfort to so many of the unemployed.

Inexplicably, President Obama did NOT win the Oscar for Best Actor In A Motion Picture, sparking immediate complaints of bias from the mainstream media. The Justice Department is investigating possible ballot box stuffing by Fox News after Glenn Beck's underdog victory against the heavily favored Obama. A vast, right wing conspiracy is suspected. MSNBC talker Chis Matthews attributed this "unparalleled slap in the face" to racism and the "de facto leader of the Republican party," Rush Limbaugh. Matthews' call to kill Limbaugh by exploding a CO2 canister inside Limbaugh's head was widely endorsed in liberal circles, due to Limbaugh's tendency to engage in rhetoric that, according to liberals, "contains veiled code words that incite violence." No Limbaugh-related violence has yet taken place during the radio talker's 21-year career, but media pundits expect the lid to blow of that simmering cauldron of rage any day now. The media also added that Limbaugh was a fat racist drug addict, could stick his NFL bid up his blowhole, and called for an immediate end to his divisive rhetoric.

In related news, former Alaskan governor Sarah Palin was named Wingnut of the Year, Worst Mother of the Year, and Complete and Total B*tch of the Year by Soros-affiliate Media Matters, who called for an immediate end to her divisive rhetoric.

Former President George W. Bush was named Nazi of the Decade for overthrowing the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, thereby freeing 55 million people from tyranny. Bush also won the Unilateral Cowboy Yahoo award for invading Iraq along with 33 other countries and the authorization of the United States Congress. President Bush was unavailable for comment, but former Veep Dick Cheney unleashed a string of profanity when asked about the ignominious awards by non-partisan investigative journalist Janeane Garofalo, who queried "who is the biggest Nazi, you or Dubya ?". Garofalo was treated for birdshot wounds later at a local hospital.

The Nobel Prize for Economics went to independent filmmaker Michael Moore, who developed the brand new economic theory that "the alternative to capitalism is democracy." This groundbreaking theory is so deep and profound that nobody can figure out what the heck Mr. Moore is talking about, being that capitalism is an economic system, and democracy is a system of government. And here I always thought the alternative to capitalism was the House Of Representatives. Darn. Mr. Moore has bonafide credentials as a high school graduate and is a workingman's hero, having worked at a General Motors plant for one day (not kidding). Then he filed for workmens's compensation and SSI. He's the real deal. Fellow Nobel laureate economist Paul Krugman of the New York Times, who won the award for his "liberals are smarter than you" economic theory, said Michael Moore was deserving of the Nobel prize, unlike those hacks Milton Friedman and Adam Smith, who believed in some shadowy concept known as the stupid free market.

The White House has decided to wage war against Fox News (but is still trying to decide if the Taliban is the enemy), and named it the Most Irritating News Network Of The Year. White House spokesman Robert Gibbs declared "Fox News keeps saying stuff we don't like. That must stop, or we'll launch a drone attack against them. They're jihadists". When reached for comment, rival cable news network MSNBC asserted, "nyah, nyah, na, na, na". MSNBC's Keith Olbermann is expected to deliver an hour-long, emotive, and heartfelt special comment about Fox called "Fixed Noise Is Satan, But Far Worse, And I Should Know, I'm Kind Of An Ivy Leaguer," though only six people will actually see Keith Olbermann's program. Fellow MSNBC'er Rachel Maddow insists that Olbermann's histrionics are very important and not to be missed (and she said it with her serious face, so she really means it).

Winner of Hollywood's Favorite Pedophile Of The Year is acclaimed filmmaker/convicted child rapist Roman Polanski, who, upon hearing of his honor, said, "Guilty as hell, free as a bird." No, wait. That's what William Ayers said after he got off on domestic terrorism charges on a technicality. Polanski said "Guilty as hell, free as a JAIL bird". Polanski remains in the pokey, even though celeb-o-crat Whoopi Goldberg claims that Polanski didn't commit "rape rape." No, it was more like pretend rape, but still with the rape part. It's nuanced.

In an effort to remake the tragically unhip GOP maxi-zoomed dweebies into a bunch of super-cool hep cats, Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has won the Welcome To This Century award for discovering….blogging [golf clap]. Steele's blog is called Change The Game, winning out over his other possible blog name choices, such as, "Don't Be A GOP Playa Hater," "A Steele In The Hand Is Worth Two Of Bush," "The GOP Is Dyn-O-Mite !," and my personal favorite, "Repub-We-Can !". No word yet on who will be replacing Michael Steele as RNC chairman.

People always act in their own financial self-interest. Ditto for organizations. For instance, let's say you have a choice between two competing health care plans with the same coverage. Company A offers the plan for $200 per month, and Company B offers the plan for $400 per month. It's pretty obvious you'd choose Company A, and Company B wouldn't make any sales. Organizations act in exactly the same way. When the Senate Finance Committee passed a health care reform bill that taxes medical devices at a rate of $39 billion over 10 years (raising the cost of health care), lobbyists for the medical industry descend on Washington D.C. to fight for their self-interest, against those taxes. When the Senate health care bill imposes a $6.1 billion fee on health insurers (raising the cost of health care), lobbyists for the insurance companies descend on Washington D.C. to fight for their self-interest, against those taxes. When the Senate health care bill imposes 40% taxes on so-called "Cadillac" health care insurance plans, the lobbyists for the unions descend on Washington D.C. to fight for their self-interest, against those taxes. When the Senate Health Care bill cuts $100 billion from Medicare Advantage programs (lowering the cost and quality of health care), lobbyists for the insurers who provide those plans descend on Washington D.C. When the Senate Finance health care bill has a provision to create a commission to oversee cuts in Medicare (lowering the cost and quality of health care), lobbyists for doctors descend on Washington D.C. to complain that their Medicare reimbursement rates are being cut.

This is one of the difficulties in passing something as large as health care reform. We have an array of varied business concerns all bargaining in their own self-interest. They all agree somebody must be taxed, they just don't want it to be them. You can't blame any of them, really. They are just looking out for their own financial well-being.

There is another organization that I believe is looking out for it's self-interest in the health care debate as well, but nobody talks about it. It's a very large organization known as the federal government. In my last post, I wrote about how the government is so deeply in debt that it will ultimately destroy the American economy. The government is fully aware of this, though they seldom mention it, and seldom seem to prioritize it unless it's around election time, after which they forget all about it, and continue merrily spending us into oblivion. The government, like every other self-interested concern, doesn't want to cut the size of government. They don't want to rein themselves in by cutting government spending. They want to increase government spending, and boy, do they. That's what a big portion of Obama's stimulus package was for, to keep the government from having to make the painful cuts that every other business concern in the country had to make during this recession. Government is the one organization that has actually grown during the recession. When the government says things would have been even worse without the stimulus package, this is mostly what they mean. The stimulus package was largely a bailout of government, unpaid for and added to the national debt. The taxpayers will have to make up that money at some unspecified future point.

This leads me to the health care reform bill(s), and the incentives included therein. Health care reform started out as a moral mandate to achieve universal health care coverage, but that goal has been abandoned. Instead, we have a mandate from the government that employers and individuals must purchase health care insurance or pay a penalty (tax) to the government. President Obama continues to say that nobody will be "required" to change their health insurance if they like it. The word "required" is key. The President is correct, nobody will be required to change their health insurance, but what will they be incentivized to do ? In other words, what will be the response of employers and individuals according to their own self-interest ? To understand that, all we have to do is look at the size of the penalty tax versus the cost of health insurance. It's also vitally important to keep in mind the reason everybody doesn't have health insurance now. It's because THEY CAN'T AFFORD IT, or they just choose not to buy it. Here's how Business Week describes the individual penalties:

In the bill approved by the Senate Finance Committee on Oct. 13, there are no fines at all the first year it goes into effect, in 2013. In 2014 individuals would have to shell out $200 in annual penalties if they choose to forgo insurance, and by 2017, the number jumps to $750. That's starting to sound like a meaningful sum. But consider that the average yearly insurance premium for an individual policy is around $5,000. For just a few hundred dollars during the first years the law is in place, a healthy person might decide to forgo the costly security of insurance

Paying a fine of $200-$750 to the government, as opposed to shelling out $5,000 in health care insurance premiums seems to incentivize many people to just pay the far smaller amount to the government. Good for the government, because it raises their revenues, but not so good if universal health care is really the goal. I'm against the whole idea of government forcing people in the first place, but if they are forcing people, shouldn't they at least force them in the right direction, instead of setting up a system that incentivizes people to just pay more in taxes ?

The incentives for employers are even worse. The Senate Finance health reform bill would require employers with 50 or more employees to cover their employees or pay a fine of up to $400 per employee. That's far less than the actual cost of health care insurance, so employers would be incentivized to drop health insurance coverage for their employees altogether and just pay the penalty tax instead. That would be in the employers self-interest, and again, the government cashes in with more tax revenue. Then all those uncovered employees are required to buy their own insurance or pay the individual penalty, and the government cashes in one more time.

In conclusion, I ask, who is the government really looking out for – you, or itself ?

The reason I hold the fiscally conservative political beliefs I do has nothing to do with political parties. Really, I could care less if a Democrat or a Republican is in office. I don't hold an allegiance to either of those tribes. What I look for above all is a politician who is economically intelligent. I look for someone who may provide us a way out of the economic mess we are in, someone who will reverse this unsustainable fiscal course we are embarked upon. We are all in this mess collectively, regardless of political stripe, and I don't care where the solution comes from. I just want a solution. Lately, I haven't seen one. Lately, I've only seen politicians arrive on the scene who make things worse. Barack Obama is making our fiscal situation far worse. George W. Bush made our fiscal situation far worse. During the last couple years of his presidency, Bill Clinton and his GOP-led Congress actually made things a little better, however short-lived it turned out to be. As much of the country squares off along lines of left-right tribal warfare like a bunch of ignorant savages, the real threat to the future of America almost always seems to remain unaddressed amidst the partisan smokescreen. We fiddle while Rome burns.

An article in the Wall Street Journal called 'Taking The National Debt Seriously" outlines this unaddressed threat:

If you think those town hall meetings over health care were fierce, wait until Americans come to understand the threat to our national financial survival posed by the interest on the government's credit card.

When the government spends more than its revenue, there is a budget deficit. These deficits are paid for by Washington selling interest bearing Treasury securities. If the government were ever to default on its promise to pay periodic interest payments or to repay the debt at maturity, the United States economy would plunge into a level of chaos that would make the Lehman bankruptcy look like a nonevent.

It is the interest on the national debt that makes our future unstable. The exploding size of that burden suggests that, short of devaluing the dollar and taking a large bite out of the middle class through inflation and taxation, there is no way to ever pay down that bill.

As of Sept. 30, 2009, the national debt was almost $12 trillion and interest on that debt was $383 billion for the year, according to the Treasury Department's Bureau of the Public Debt. The Congressional Budget Office on Oct. 7 estimated the 2009 budget deficit to be almost $1.4 trillion (about 10% of GDP). In August, the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) estimated total government revenues at about $2 trillion. The revenue estimate included $904 billion from individual income taxes. This means the cost of interest on the debt represented more than 40 cents of every dollar that came in from individual income taxes.

Except for a few years in the late 1990s, for decades Washington has spent more than it has taken in each year and borrowed the rest. Taxpayer dollars that could have paid off debt each year have instead been spent on interest to finance debt. Unfortunately, that's a vicious cycle that will likely only get worse.

Imagine that. 40% of our individual income taxes did nothing but pay interest on the federal debt. None of that money paved a road, provided health care, went toward job creation, or helped a single American in any way. That is money we just throw away.

And the only thing our current President has done so far is to make it twice as bad as it was before he arrived on the scene. Get a load of this:

The OMB projects deficits of about $9 trillion over the next 10 years. If that occurs, the national debt will be almost $21 trillion by 2019. However, the actual amount could be much higher. The OMB also optimistically projects $13.5 trillion of revenue increases over the next decade, while minimizing the inevitable rise in interest rates that will come with an expanding national debt.

Forget the political rhetoric, no matter how soaring and inspirational it may sound on the surface. Forget the Democrat vs. Republican horse manure. We are heading for disaster. Look at the actions of our politicians, not the words, not the party. We don't function on hope. We function on a successful economic foundation. That economy is teetering on the brink, and was even before the current recession got under way. Our long term economic forecast would have to get better to be called dismal.

Here is will happen if we don't reverse course immediately, if not sooner.

In stark but simple terms, unless Americans are made aware of this financial crisis and demand accountability, the very fabric of our society will be destroyed. Interest rates and interest costs will soar and government revenues will be devoured by interest on the national debt. Eventually, most of what we spend on Social Security, Medicare, education, national defense and much more may have to come from new borrowing, if such funding can be obtained. Left unchecked, this destructive deficit-debt cycle will leave the White House and Congress with either having to default on the national debt or instruct the Treasury to run the printing presses into a policy of hyperinflation.

Faced with this ever-growing financial house of cards that we call America, what is our government doing ???????

Why, creating ever more social and federal programs we can't afford, of course. Massively EXPANDING the cost of government. The federal government is like Alfred E. Newman of Mad Magazine. "What, me worry ?" Our government is so out of touch that it can't even figure out what the real problem is, or if they do know, they won't admit to it. That would require HARD political choices, and our politicians know you don't get elected by making hard choices, you get elected by pretending to be Santa Claus, giving all the kiddies their presents for free. We don't have statesmen running things, we have carnival barkers. We have propaganda.

Wake up, America. Take your country back. Time is running out, faster than you know.

Let's get the crazy train rolling at high speed right off the bat with this first quote…

“The Republican Party has thrown in its lot with the terrorists – the Taliban and Hamas this morning – in criticizing the President for receiving the Nobel Peace prize.” – Democratic National Committee communications director Brad Woodhouse (link).

Let me get this straight. After years and years of Democrats attempting to undermine President Bush at every turn in the War On Terror, er, I mean the Overseas Contingency Operation, including attempts to lose the Iraq war, a DNC spokesman now has the nerve to say Republicans have thrown in with the terrorists because some Republicans opined that Obama didn't deserve the Nobel Peace Prize (which he most assuredly didn't, as Obama himself even said). Wow-freakedy-wow-wow. Words fail me. I literally can't think of a negative adjective strong enough to convey how wrong this remark is. I can't even think of a way to equate an opinion on the Nobel Prize with throwing in with terrorists, but evidently Brad Woodhouse can.

And Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) seems to agree. I expect this stuff from dolts like Keith Olbermann or the other lib-nuts on MSNBC, who routinely compare Republicans to jihadis, but not from Democratic Senators or the DNC.

Also, somebody better hip Woodhouse to the fact that the Obama administration has decided the Taliban isn't our enemy any longer. Or Hamas either, for that matter. I bet that'll do wonders for the morale of our troops who've been fighting against the Taliban and dying in Afghanistan for the last seven years. Acceptance of the Taliban is also a major step backwards for human rights, especially from a President who just won the Nobel Peace Prize here on Planet Orwell. Sigh. Is the world turning on it's ear, or is it just me ?
===
Next up is this very conscientous Democratic Senator, who is fully committed to doing his job:

"I don't expect to actually read the legislative language [of the health care bill] because reading the legislative language is among the more confusing things I've ever read in my life." –Sen. Thomas Carper (D-DE)

Yes, being a Congressman is soooo hard, and now they expect Sen. Carper to read AND understand the legislation he's voting upon ? What's a poor Senator to do ? Study or something ? I presume Carper's state of confusion over the legislation won't prevent him from voting "Yea" on the health care bill. You just don't see integrity like Carper's anymore. On second thought, yes you do, all the time on Capitol Hill, and that's the problem.
===
Now we move on to another patriotic Senator, John Kerry (D-NVA). Here's what Kerry said about cap-and-trade legislation:

"Let me emphasize something very strongly as we begin this discussion. The United States has already this year alone achieved a 6 percent reduction in emissions simply because of the downturn in the economy, so we are effectively saying we need to go another 14 percent."

Yeah, baby ! We're fundamentally transforming America !!! If we can only make this recession a lot worse, and make it last forever, we can help the environment ! And golly gee, if we go into a full-fledged permanent Great Depression II, maybe we can even reach the Kyoto emission standards ! Victory is at hand ! Yes We Can ! Yes We Can ! Yes We Can, Destroy The Economy !!!! C'mon, everybody sing !

"Obama ! mmmm mmmm mmmm."

I can't stand it. Where did I put that hammer ?

Now that I know you don't have to actually accomplish anything to win a Nobel Peace Prize, that you can just give a speech and win, I am submitting my own entry for next year's prize. I call this speech, 'Imagine The Peace.'

Without further ado, here's my 2010 Nobel-winning peace speech.
—
Dear Nobel committee,
First, to every country in the world, I'd like to apologize on behalf of America. We are very sorry for whatever you think we should be sorry for, and we will pay reparations in whatever amount each country deems fit, to atone for our past sins. No longer will America act in it's own interests without the express written consent of the entire international community. I propose the establishment of a new world governing body to oversee America and approve her actions. We'll call it the G-195. The G-195's absolute authority will overrule America's Constitution and laws. This is the only fair way to prevent us from acting "unilaterally."

As an act of good faith, America will leave Iraq and Afghanistan immediately, and withdraw all our troops from foreign soil. We will release all prisoners of war and terrorists from Guantanamo Bay and other sites, and return them to their home countries. We will also dismantle all of our nuclear weapons, and we kindly request other countries do the same, if that's alright with the G-195, of course. We desire a nuclear-free world.

We will slash our defense budget by 90%, and use that money as foreign aid instead. We will open our borders and allow anyone in who wants to come to America, bar none. Equality for all the world's people.

In order to combat global warming, we will immediately ban all non-emergency, non-electric passenger cars, and we will ban all CO2 emissions from our manufacturing plants. We will only use our electrical power grid to recharge our electric automobiles, except during the coldest winter months, December thru March, when the government will allow the citizens to heat their homes. All government offices and buildings are exempted from this requirement, in order to keep the government operating at maximum efficiency, which is critical. The government is good and wise in all things.

We will require that all official American documents be provided in every language known to mankind. This requirement will also be mandated for every American business that interacts with the public. This is true multiculturalism.

All persons residing in America, who will all be considered legal American citizens upon entry, will receive health care free of charge, and whatever size monthly welfare stipend each citizen thinks he/she needs to prosper, up to $10,000 monthly. We'll use the honor system. This is social justice.

Knowing that the children are our future, America will increase it's education budget tenfold, and the children will attend school all year round, with a couple weeks off during the non-religion specific holiday period at the end of December. Graduation from college is mandated for all American citizens, followed by five years of government service. Our goal is to produce the most well-educated and civil people on the planet.

In order to combat obesity and improve health, all American food will be subject to government approval. No more fast food, burgers, pizza, fried foods, milkshakes, meat, chicken, candy, chips, crackers, or any of that other junk. No more tobacco or alcohol either. Our goal is to become the healthiest and longest-lived people on earth.

In order to promote religious freedom, all religious symbols in American must have the religious symbols of every other world religion placed right beside them, or they will be in violation of the law. A symbol for atheists will be produced and included in with the religious symbols. Ditto for agnostics, whose quasi-religious symbol will be the question mark.

Animals will no longer be used for food or fur, because that's mean. Animals and people will have equal rights from now forward. The word "pet" will be outlawed. From now on, animals will be known as "differently abled friends." Humans are required to feed all animals that venture onto their property.

The Second Amendment will be repealed. No more guns. We don't believe in violence. No more knives, baseball bats, tire irons, saws, rope, metal, or any other materials that could be used for violence either. All purchases of items will therefore be subject to government approval.

Every person in America will be given a house upon demand.

All inmates of our country's jails and prisons will be released, because we are a compassionate people and believe in second chances.

Above all, we believe in world peace and a non-violent world. We will fight in no more wars, because war hurts children and other living things. If our country is invaded by tyrants, we will surrender immediately and then show the invaders what good people we are. That will illustrate to them the error of their ways. If other countries are invaded by tyrants, I know we used to help you fight those tyrants, but we don't believe in that anymore. We're non-violent now. America wishes you good luck.

Peace and love to all mankind,
Da King

P.S. – Once America implements all the above changes, I estimate it will be about a year before America collapses into chaos and ruin, and Americans will all be living like a bunch of Bangladesh wannabees. At that point, any and all input from the G-195 will be greatly appreciated. Peace be with you.
–
There it is. I think it'a winner. Ooh. I can hardly wait for my Nobel cash prize. Maybe I'll use it to buy an electric golf cart.

Okay, I'm lying. Obama wasn't named the greatest person since Jesus. Not yet, anyway. Instead, he was awarded the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize. When I first heard about Obama's tremendous "accomplishment," I thought it was some kind of a joke, especially because everybody on MSNBC's Morning Joe program was laughing as they made the announcement. Once I realized Obama really did win the prize, I immediately thought…….FOR WHAT ? I'm still trying to figure out FOR WHAT, even after hearing the Nobel spokeman's explanation, which follows:

"Only very rarely has a person to the same extent as Obama captured the world's attention and given its people hope for a better future," the committee said. "His diplomacy is founded in the concept that those who are to lead the world must do so on the basis of values and attitudes that are shared by the majority of the world's population."

The committee said it attached special importance to Obama's vision of, and work for, a world without nuclear weapons.

"Obama has as president created a new climate in international politics. Multilateral diplomacy has regained a central position, with emphasis on the role that the United Nations and other international institutions can play," the committee said.

Hopenchange gone global. What's even more interesting about Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize is that the nomination deadline for this year's prize was February 1st, EIGHT DAYS after Obama's inauguration. For what did Obama get nominated EIGHT DAYS after his inauguration ? For not being George W. Bush ? It seems so. Not that the Nobel committee is political or anything.

Regarding Obama's "accomplishments," as stated by the Nobel committee, no nuclear weapons have been dismantled, and we are still fighting two wars in the Middle East. All that has changed from the Bush administration is the rhetoric. Obama won the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize For Rhetoric. That sets the bar pretty low, in my opinion. Maybe the field of candidates this year was really weak. I don't know.

Three other American presidents have been awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, and, unlike Obama, they all did something to earn it. The first was Teddy Roosevelt, who negotiated an end to the Russo-Japanese war. The second was Woodrow Wilson, who founded the League Of Nations. The third was Jimmy Carter, who mediated the Camp David Accords between Israel and Egypt. When Carter won the award in 2002, the Nobel Organization cited the following:

The Norwegian Nobel Committee has decided to award the Nobel Peace Prize for 2002 to Jimmy Carter, for his decades of untiring effort to find peaceful solutions to international conflicts, to advance democracy and human rights, and to promote economic and social development.

And to think, what took Carter "decades" to accomplish, Obama did in only EIGHT DAYS.

Hmmm. Maybe Obama really is the greatest person since Jesus. I wonder why he hasn't turned water into jobs yet.

Or maybe the Nobel Committee is a joke. They've given Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize because he's Barack Obama. They've given him the Nobel Peace Prize for making a few speeches.

Gimme a break.

Our Supreme Court Justices are very learned people. They come from the finest schools and study for years and years to master the law. They work their way up through the legal system, and these "best of the best" reach the pinnacle of their profession in order to decide the most difficult and pressing legal issues of the day…

Like whether a cross should be allowed to stand on a rocky outcrop in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free.

The ACLU says no, and lower courts have agreed. I guess one painted cross in the middle of nowhere means we are a theocratic state, like Iran. The ACLU thinks such things because they are such reasonable people.

Here's a photo of the offending cross. (Warning – the religious content may cause small children to go blind or start speaking in tongues.)

I apologize for subjecting you to such offensive imagery, and I sincerely hope it caused no permanent scars. I wish I could have shown you a Mapplethorpe crucifix in a jar of urine instead, something, you know, "artistic."

The offensive cross pictured above is so offensive that it's been covered up for the last few years. Here's what the offensive cross has looked like recently.

There, that's better. Now the cross looks more like a billboard. Nothing is more American than a billboard (which reminds me, please keep shopping to help us out of the recession.) Maybe we can get a Mapplethorpe-like "artist" to paint a picture of a cross in jar of urine on the blank billboard-cross that stands in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free. The ACLU wouldn't object to that. The ACLU would defend that. That's because the ACLU is filled with very reasonable folks. They are looking out for your freedoms by, um, censoring stuff.

The problem with the offensive cross is that it is on federal land in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert. Because federal land is not like regular land, federal land has certain conditions. I know federal land looks just like regular land, consisting of dirt, rocks, bushes, and stuff, but it's not. Federal land is very special land in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free. You can tell federal land is not the same as regular land because it has the word "federal" attached right to it. That makes it sacred land. Strike that. The word "sacred" is also probably offensive when speaking of federal land. Federal land is too special to be referred to as sacred.

We can't allow this one cross to remain on very special federal land in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free, because it could have very serious negative consequences, like this:

The above offensive crosses are on federal land at the Arlington National Cemetery. Somebody better alert the ACLU to this outrage. Personally, I can't wait for the ACLU to try to take on Arlington. Why they are messing around with one trivial cross in the middle of nowhere in the Mojave Desert here in the land of the free is beyond me. Why go for that one cross when the motherload is right outside of Washington D.C. ? C'mon ACLU, man up. Go after Arlington. I dare you.

The USA is making progress with Iran on the nuclear issue.

That's what I keep hearing, anyway. Progress in this case is defined as Iran allowing the UN's nuclear watchdog, the IAEA, to inspect it's uranium processing facility outside Qom on October 25th. IAEA head Mohammed El Baradei said the inspection is to insure Iran's nuclear plant is "for peaceful purposes." This is interesting, because the Iranians attempted to hide that "peaceful" nuclear facility from the outside world for years, and didn't acknowledge it's existence until very recently, after several Western intelligence agencies blew Iran's cover. I'm going to go out on a limb here and predict that the IAEA will not find nuclear weapons sitting around at the Qom facility during their inspection. I'm basing my prediction on the fact that the Iranians are not the Three Stooges. They are not THAT dumb. They just think we are.

Even more interesting is the fact that we don't know how many other secret nuclear enrichment plants Iran has. Back in january, the NY Times reported the following about a 2007 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) that concluded Iran had suspended it's pursuit of nuclear weapons in 2003:

The public version [of the NIE] made only glancing reference to evidence described at great length in the 140-page classified version of the assessment: the suspicion that Iran had 10 or 15 other nuclear-related facilities, never opened to international inspectors, where enrichment activity, weapons work or the manufacturing of centrifuges might be taking place.

The Israelis didn't buy the American conclusion in 2007 that Iran had stopped working on nuclear weapons, and reportedly presented evidence to the U.S. that Iran was still pursuing nukes. Israel requested bunker-busting bombs from the U.S. in 2008, which were capable of penetrating Iran's underground nuclear facilities. Israel also requested refueling equipment that would allow Israeli aircraft to fly to Iran and back to Israel, along with the right to fly over Iran. Obviously, Israel wanted to take out Iran's nuclear sites. President Bush turned the requests down. Bush pursued further covert ops instead. Israel wasn't the only one who thought the CIA's 2007 NIE was wrong. British intelligence agreed.

So here we are in 2009, knowing for certain that Iran has engaged in deception regarding it's nuclear ambitions, and the problem has been kicked down the road to President Obama. The Iranians continue with their nuclear plans unabated, while America and the UN continue the same path as always, negotiations and threats of sanctions. In the meantime, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is meeting with Vladimir Putin to ask Russia to stop helping Iran build a nuclear bomb. I assume Russia cannot stop helping unless they have already BEEN helping.

The problem with negotiating with Iran is simple – the Iranians lie.

The problem with sanctions against Iran are mainly two – Russia and China, who have shared economic interests with Iran, namely, oil. India is also heavily interwined with Iran's oil industry, along with many other countries. The Russians and the Chinese help Iran negate the power of any sanctions. One of the sanctions being discussed against Iran now is a ban on importation of oil products to Iran. Even though Iran is an oil-rich country, a lack of oil refining facilities causes Iran to import much of it's gasoline and other petroleum products. China opposes those sanctions and has restated it's prioritization of Iranian oil. Russia said recently it will "consider" new sanctions against Iran (my translation: Russia will vote against any truly harsh sanctions, or will continue to help Iran get around them. I'd love to be wrong about this).

If negotiations are fruitless, and sanctions can be gotten around, what's left ? Military action against Iran ? Non-military regime change ? Can anyone see Obama or the UN actually taking military action against Iran ? Very doubtful, and the American people are extremely war weary already. The way I see it, Israel is the only one who'd be willing to take military action, but they'd most likely have to do it without American or UN approval, which makes that a lot more dicey, and since we don't even know how many nuclear facilities Iran has, it may not even work.

In conclusion, welcome to the dawning of a new age – an Iranian theocratic, terrorist-supporting government, with a holocaust-denying, apocalyptic President who openly states that he wants to destroy Israel, having nuclear weapons. What could possibly go wrong ? Besides everything. Various experts say Iran could have a bomb between next year and 2013, but the experts have been wrong about quite a lot in the Middle East in recent years, so who knows ?

I sure hope I'm wrong. We need your help, President Obama. This is way beyond partisanship or political ideology. If Iran acquires nuclear weapons, it could and probably would start an arms race throughout the Middle East. I can barely think of a less desirable outcome.