Subject #242 * sigh *

I got another "Fwd" e-mail the other day:

-----

----- Start Original Message -----

If each person sends this to a minimum of twenty people on their address list, in three days, all people in The United States of America would have the message. I believe this is one proposal that really should be passed around.

[IMAGE -- sorry, I do not know how to add a picture here, but it was of then-candidate Barak Obama carrying a book]

The name of the book Obama is reading is called: "The Post-American World," and it was written by a fellow Muslim. "Post" America means the world after America! Please forward this picture to everyone you know, conservative or liberal. We must expose Obama's radical ideas and his intent to bring down our beloved America!

----- End Forwarded Message -----

-----

http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/postamerican.asp

The author is NOT Muslim; the book is NOT about America defeated....

* sigh *

The author has brown skin and a strange name -- therefore, he's a Muslim. I guess that sums up the intellectual firepower of the 'loyal opposition,' eh?

Why must peeps get their news from e-mail? Stick to blogs. :p

Or 'real' news:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38786992/

The quiet resurgence of George W. Bush? Well, the article does not advocate --note the "?." So, l rest easy, right? But, if ya read the comments, it seems that a lot of folks get their news from e-mail.

I got one 'nutty' e-mail not long ago that included a link to info about the e-mail at " snopes.com " and claimed that the info was true because it was at " snopes.com ." Being the curious type, I clicked the link... and found the e-mail was %100 false. How many of the 1000s who got that e-mail bothered to click that link? Um, I do not really want to know.

* sigh *

Post #241 The Mosque: A Sensitive Opinion

President Barack Obama should not express an opinion on the 'Ground Zero' mosque. Neither should anybody else who holds an elected office nor anybody who wants to be President or hold any other elected office.

The Constitution of the United States clearly states in the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" -- government should stay out of religion. Article 6, Section 3, states: "[N]o religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States" -- religion should stay out of government. What could be clearer than that!?!

This issue is about sensitivity: Let's be sensitive to the Constitution, shall we? Do not let the mob rule. In a free society, the only legitimate role of government is to protect liberty.

If you believe that we are at war with Islam, then opposition to the mosque makes sense. If you believe that we are at war with a bunch of thugs who (mis)use Islam to justify their terrorist acts, then the whole debate is a waste of time. Indeed, the protests are a recruiting tool for terrorists and their 'holy war.' The protesters are giving aid and comfort to the enemy, our real enemy.

I believe we must kill them before they kill us. I also believe that we must correctly identify 'them.' If we do not, if we act as tho a religion is our enemy, we risk becoming terrorists ourselves.

It does me no injury if Obama prays to Jesus or Allah or an oak tree. But there seems to a religious test going on. I'm not sure how Jesus got into the public discourse. Oh, fudge, I know exactly: The specter of Jesus stirs up fears and resentments... and votes -- 'they' is getting ahead 'us.'

Post #240: :D

I've been cleaning out my e-box, and I just got to blog this....

That "almost a woman" line -- ;O

Johnstown, PA (GlossyNews) - Local and state police scoured the hills outside rural Johnstown, Pennsylvania, after reports of three animal rights activists missing after attempting to protest the wearing of leather at a large motorcycle gang rally this weekend. Two others, previously reported missing, were discovered by fast food workers "duct taped inside several fast food restaurant dumpsters," according to police
officials. "Something just went wrong," said a still visibly shaken organizer of the protest. "Something just went horribly, horribly, wrong."

The organizer said a group of concerned animal rights activist groups, "growing tired of throwing fake blood and shouting profanities at older women wearing leather or fur coats," decided to protest the annual motorcycle club event "in a hope to show them our outrage at their wanton use of leather in their clothing and motor bike seats." "In fact," said the organizer, "motorcycle gangs are one of the biggest abusers of wearing leather, and we decided it was high time that we let them know that we disagree with them using it... ergo, they should stop."

According to witnesses, protesters arrived at the event in a vintage 1960's era Volkswagen van and began to pelt the gang members with alloons filled with red colored water, simulating blood, and shouting "you're murderers" to passers by. This, evidently, is when the brouhaha began.

"They peed on me!!!" charged one activist. "They grabbed me, said I looked like I was French, started calling me 'La Trene', and duct taped me to a tree so they could pee on me all day!"

"I... I was trying to show my outrage at a man with a heavy leather jacket, and he... he didn't even care. I called him a murderer, and all he said was, 'You can't prove that.' Next thing I know he forced me to ride on the back of his motorcycle all day, and would not let me off, because his girl friend was out of town and I was almost a woman."

Still others claimed they were forced to eat hamburgers and hot dogs under duress. Those who resisted were allegedly held down while several bikers "farted on their heads."

Police officials declined comments on any leads or arrests due to the ongoing nature of the investigation, however, organizers for the motorcycle club rally expressed "surprise" at the allegations.

"That's preposterous," said one high-ranking member of the biker organizing committee. "We were having a party, and these people showed up and were very rude to us. They threw things at us, called us names, and tried to ruin the entire event. So, what did we do? We invited them to the party! What could be more friendly than that? You know, just because we are all members of motorcycle clubs does not mean we do not care about inclusiveness. Personally, I think it shows a lack of character for them
to be saying such nasty things about us after we bent over backwards to make them feel welcome."

When confronted with the allegations of force-feeding the activists meat, using them as ad hoc latrines, leaving them incapacitated in fast food restaurant dumpsters, and 'farting on their heads,' the organizer declined to comment in detail. "That's just our secret handshake," assured the organizer.

Post #239 Modest Proposals For Arizona

I've been doing a lot of thinking about Arizona lately -- which is probably not a good thing. :p

My first proposal for Arizona immigration reform is based on the idea that carrying your 'papers' is not a big inconvenience -- an opinion I've heard expressed a lot. OK, based on the fact that most illegal immigrants jump the fence, so to speak, at night, I propose a dusk to dawn curfew. After all, decent people are home at night anyway.

Maybe something can be worked out for when the Suns play at home -- armed escorts for fans?

Oh, of course, I'm not serious. I just wanted to point out that one man's minor inconvenience is another man's big hassle.

I am disappointed that libertarian/conservatives who rail against big government support Arizona 1070 with its expansion of police powers. In the name of Barry Goldwater, where is the voice that will cry "Don't shred my Constitution for your security" -- who will that be?

A serious proposal -- which I've had this idea for quite a while, by the way -- involves amending the Constitution to change the requirements for citizenship. I'm not sure why this idea has created such a stir lately.

Indeed, the Founding Fathers provided a way for the Constitution to be amended. If you could bring 'em back in a time machine, I'm sure the Founding Fathers would be proud tnat we're still using their Constitution and appalled that we haven't amended it more since we are no longer a 17th century rural society.

Look, the 'born here' part was put in the Constitution to protect former slaves -- well, their children. It should have been changed in 1920 when we began to have an immigration policy and any former slaves were beyond child-bearing years -- "Any child born in the United States with at least one parent being a citizen of the United States shall be a citizen of the United States, too." And that should take care of the 'anchor babies' problem.

In contrast, I also propose -- and I haven't decided yet whether I'm serious or not -- opening the doors to everybody, a pre-1920 immigration policy. "Give me your tired, your poor, your huddled masses yearning to breathe free" -- a nice ring, huh?

Post #238 Revolution

;O Read this piece -- it's funny:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/if-life-hands-you-lemons-dont-make-lemonade-without-a-permit/

Sadly, some of the commentators seemed too have taken this a little too seriously.

To all politicians and political supporters: Either have the balls to kill a program -- stand up and take responsibility, or fully fund the program. To cut off funds -- 'to starve the beast,' as one commentator eloquently put it -- is the coward's way.

I'm not sure where all the anti-government paranoia comes from. At least, the girl was not taken by the Black Helicopters. And neither will you be.

Post #238 All Is Quiet On The Arizona Front

My TV was on the news the other night -- I was not really paying attention, but some flashing police lights caught my eye. There were two police cars with their lights flashing pulled around a -- I presumed -- dead body, and there were several cops standing around. And a voice of doom said, "War rages in Arizona. Details next."

Well, during the commercials, I thought about the 'invasion' -- 1000s of armored vehicles pouring over the border, house-to-house combat, search-and-destroy missions, right? Well, Ft. Sumter has not been fired upon; Pearl Harbor has not been bombed; there has been no Bunker Hill.

But the 'invasion?' "This is a media-created event," Pima County Sheriff Clarence Dupnik said. "I hear politicians on TV saying the border has gotten worse. Well, the fact of the matter is that the border has never been more secure."

Oh, pardon me, surely, there is a crime wave that's got 'talking heads' talking. I did a quick 'google' -- Arizona crime rate -- and found that the hype is overblown. Indeed, the crime rates in Arizona are at their lowest point in decades. The violent crime rate in Arizona is lower than any year since 1983. The property crime rate in Arizona is lower than any year since 1968. Simply, there is no war raging in Arizona... or even a crime wave.

Why listen to the 'talking heads' in Washington and New York with their overheated rhetoric? Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris: "Proponents of [1070] have repeatedly said that the new law provides a tool for local law enforcement. But I don't really believe that that's true or accurate. We have the tools that we need to enforce laws in this state to reduce property crime and to reduce violent crime, to go after criminals that are responsible for human smuggling, to go after criminals that are responsible for those home invasions, kidnappings, robberies, murders. We have those tools."

The 'invasion' is a scam -- it stirs up fears and resentments... and votes. Ask Arizona Governor Jan Brewer where her poll numbers are now.

Oh, by the way, that scene on my TV had nothing to do with immigration. I guess they just liked the dramatic lights.

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #237 George W. Bush is a Towel-Head *

Well, well, well, it makes sense now Connect the dots, peeps.

Who was the President who issued a Christmas stamp for Muslims on 9/01 in 2001?

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of the Marine barracks in Lebanon?

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of Pan Am Flight 103.

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of the WorldTradeCenter in 1993..

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of the American embassies in Africa.

Who forgot the Muslim bombing of the USS Cole.

And who forgot the Muslim bombing of 9/11 and renewed the stamp in 2002, 2006, 2007 and 2008?

Who was the President who let Osama bin Laden go and turned his attention to the secular Saddam Hussein?

I think, when George W. Bush gave up alcohol and began 'paling around' with Daddy's Saudi friends, that he converted. I hope he enjoys his 72 virgins when he gets to heaven.

* This is satire aimed at those who get their news from e-mail. If you'd like to know more about the e-mail I'm making fun of:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/stamps/eidstamp.asp

Post #236 Human Decency

"conformity with the commonly accepted standards of what is right and respectable"

In life, there are certain things you just do not do. You do not mock somebody's religion. You do not make fun of someone's handicap. You do not take pot shots at race. Some things are off limits because of basic human decency.

Mark Williams is indecent. A Tea Party Express spokesman, he wrote an online post of a fictional letter from what he called "Colored People" to President Abraham Lincoln. He called it satire.

I'm sure that many will breathlessly jump to defend Williams' Constitutional right to write satire Nobody is arguing against Williams' Constitutional right to be indecent -- just as surely nobody is arguing that Williams should be accepted and his views endorsed.

Now, I like satire and enjoy all sorts of humor. Of course, Williams can joke. Nobody has to laugh.

That's why the National Tea Party Federation expelling a member group after it failed to rebuke and remove Williams was the right thing to do. "They have no intention of taking the action we required for their group to continue as a member of the National Tea Party Federation," the federation stated. "Therefore, effective immediately the National Tea Party Federation is expelling Tea Party Express from the ranks of our membership."

Federation spokesman David Webb, interviewed Sunday on CBS' "Face the Nation," called the blog post "clearly offensive."

Yes, it was. The racial hatred shown by some at Tea Party events dooms the overall movement. Many moderates would much rather vote for a Democrat than a Tea Party candidate -- probably some Republicans, too.

Good call, David -- keep it up!

Post #235 The Haircut

One day a florist went to a barber for a haircut. After the cut, he asked about his bill, and the barber replied,'I cannot accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week.' The florist was pleased and left the shop. When the barber went to open his shop the next morning, there was a 'thank you' card and a dozen roses waiting for him at his door.

Later, a cop came in for a haircut, and when he tried to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I cannot accept money from you, I'm doing community service this week.' The cop was happy and left the shop. The next morning when the barber went to open up, there was a'thank you' card and a dozen donuts waiting for him at his door.

Then a Congressman came in for a haircut, and when he went to pay his bill, the barber again replied, 'I can not accept money from you. I'm doing community service this week.' The Congressman was very happy and left the shop. The next morning, when the barber went to open up, there were adozen Congressmen lined up waiting for a free haircut....

Post #234 God Bless Texas -- Texans Need It

"It does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God."
--Thomas Jefferson, 1782

Hmph! That attitude makes it harder for people who believe correctly to impose their beliefs on those heathens who do not.

One female school board member in Texas, who home-schools own her children, by the way, and therefore doesn't have a dog in this fight, said, "There seems to be a denial that this was a nation founded under God. We had to go back and make some corrections."

I got news for ya, lady: Ya wouldn't recognize the God of most of the Founding Fathers.

For example, Jefferson, that guy ya want to downplay in history, said, "... the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

Ooo, dang, there is that confounded idea again. No wonder Jefferson is to be downplayed in the history taught to Texas children -- they might get the idea that religion is nobody's business.

I remember the assignment I had in 4th grade U.S. History class: Who are the four Presidents on Mt. Rushmore, and why were they chosen? Maybe Mt. Rushmore can be downplayed, too.

Post #233 Newt says "maybe;" America yawns

Former U.S. House Speaker Newt Gingrich said Monday he's seriously considering seeking the Republican presidential nomination and will announce his decision early next year.

Why? What will Gingrich bring to the table as a candidate? And why make this announcement now?

Gingrich, 67, said that he would focus on helping Republican candidates through the midterm elections in November, then decide in February or March whether to seek the GOP nomination.

"I've never been this serious," Gingrich said. "It's fair to say that by February the groundwork will have been laid to consider seriously whether or not to run."

Gingrich predicted President Barack Obama would be a one-term president. Obama's poll numbers have dropped below 50 percent, and Gingrich predicted they would continue to fall, making him vulnerable in 2012.

But why, Newt, why? You smell opportunity and...

Gingrich had a long congressional career and was House speaker from 1995 to 1999. He was given much of the credit for the Republican takeover of the House in 1994. But he abruptly resigned from Congress in 1998 after his party faired poorly in midterm elections. He also was reprimanded by the House ethics panel for using tax-exempt funding to advance his political goals.

The former speaker, who championed a family values agenda, spearheaded efforts to impeach President Bill Clinton for perjury over his affair with White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Ah, yes, that is why the Republicans faired poorly in midterm elections. So much for Gingrich's political nose. :p

I, personally, was proud to see Lindsey Graham on the House floor reading the impeachment charges -- the rule of law, ya know. I also was proud that the Senate voted NOT to remove Clinton -- a political smear is what it was, ya know. Is Gingrich proud of his role?

Gingrich later admitted having an extramarital affair of his own in 1998 with a former congressional aide. He married her after divorcing his second wife whom, I believe, had also been a former congressional aide. His second wife was dying anyway.

Is that Gingrich's calling card, a hypocritical political opportunist?

Post #232 Merry 4th!

The signers of the Declaration of Independence showed courage -- by putting their names on a document that repudiated their own government, they had every reason to believe at the time that they might well be hanged for having done so. We should honor that.

I got a stirring "Fwd" e-mail that told of the hardships some of the signers endured. Unfortunately, the e-mail was full of 'embellishments,' politely speaking.

Have you ever wondered what really happened to the 56 men who signed The Declaration of Independence?

Five signers were captured by the British.

Four were captured during battle and served time as a prisoner of war. George Walton was captured after being wounded while commanding militia at the Battle of Savannah in December 1778, and Thomas Heyward, Jr., Arthur Middleton, and Edward Rutledge -- three of the four signers from South Carolina -- were taken prisoner at the Siege of Charleston in May 1780. All four men were eventually released.

Only one signer -- Richard Stockton of New Jersey -- was taken prisoner specifically because he signed the Declaration of Independence. He was able to get a pardon and his release from imprisonment by disavowing his signature on the Declaration and signing an oath of allegiance to King George III.

Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned -- as did thousands of other colonists who lived in the war zone.

One lost his son serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. John Witherspoon of New Jersey had his eldest son, James, killed in the Battle of Germantown in October 1777. Abraham Clark of New Jersey had two of his sons captured.

Nine died during course of the Revolutionary War. Eight died of natural causes, and Button Gwinnett of Georgia died of wounds received in duel in May 1777.

They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor. Men of means, well educated, but they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty could be death if they were captured.

But no one was hanged, tortured or died in poverty -- as all the signers were able to recover at least some of their fortune. To 'embellish' the hardships of the signers diminishes the courage and sacrifices to support the revolutionary cause by people whose names are not immortalized on a piece of parchment.

Let's honor them all.

If you'd like to know more about the e-mail I got:

http://snopes.com/history/american/pricepaid.asp

Post #231 ... more from FOX News

I saw Anne Coulter on FOX News* today, and she was spewing some garbage about President Obama playing golf while that oil well is still spewing in the Gulf of Mexico. I thought surely that she was full of crap -- much like Bill O'Reilly had been when he claimed to have the socialistic ramblings of Barak Obama's college thesis. That turned out not to true, but O'Reilly "stood by the document" as it sounded like what he believed Obama would say.

But then I saw the video.

My apologies to Coulter: For there on the video, President Obama was playing golf.

Megyn Kelly -- who is not just another pretty face -- smartly asked if the President wasn't deserving of a break, we don't need a President who is cooped up in the Oval Office, 24/7. right? Of course, said Coulter, but he shouldn't take a break during a "crisis."

Uh, what was a bigger "crisis" than 9/11? And where was your criticism of the President who took breaks while Osama was on the lose?

Consistency, please.

* I still have a crush on Megyn Kelly, OK?

Post #230 Stop the Ignorance!

I do not know whether to laugh or cry. I got another "Fwd" e-mail the other day.

Jt was about immigration -- more specifically, the idea that 'they' are taking over 'our' country. It lists 10 facts that were published in the "Los Angeles Times" -- it said, as tho that made facts true. Well, only one fact was from the "L.A. Times" and all of them were in dispute.

http://snopes.com/politics/immigration/taxes.asp

But I was in luck: I got two 'nutty' e-mails in one.

The second half was about Nancy Pelosi and her proposed windfall profits tax on retirement income... which is %100 false -- the quotes attributed to Pelosi are %100 made-up.

http://snopes.com/politics/pelosi/windfall.asp

The e-mail ironically asks, "WHERE DO WE GET THESE MORONS?"

Post #229 Secure Communities?

http://news.yahoo.com/s/csm/20100610/cm_csm/307078

And how does using fingerprints in a database constitute racial profiling? Obviously, there are flaws here -- NO way to fight detention, %5 of the 'hits' are wrong.

But I think the author just wants to criticize President Obama. He says that Janet Napolitano should appear before the Senate and House Judiciary Committees to answer questions about this program. Yes -- and the obvious implication is that Obama is hiding her.

The real problem is that NOBODY has asked -- Congress should be criticized for not asking.

My Dad has said that people often get into trouble at their jobs because they do not know what their duties are and that it is the responsibility of the boss to explain those duties. Well, guess what? We the people are the boss.

Post #228 OBAMAMAN! *

Our tall lanky hero work as President during the day,...

On the White House backporch watching the sunset, his ears tune in: "Help us, Mr. President. Help us." Barack Obama steps back into the living quarters and ducks into the closet, He emerges in green tights, white trunks and with a gold shield covering his chest and abdomen labeled with a big red "O" -- OBAMAMAN! He emerges, puts one foot on the porch railing and... takes off.

On a beach in Louisiana, a small boy points and says, "Look. Up in the air. It's a bird." A girl chimes in, "It's a plane." A black man steps forward, "It's OBAMAMAN!"

OBAMAMAN plunges to the depths of the chilly Gulf of Mexico, wraps his lips around that spewing oil pipe and blows -- creating enough pressure to stop the flow. He then pinches the pipe and covers it with sand. OBAMAMAN flies back to the White House.

As he enters the living quarters, there is a knock at the door: "Daddy, can you help with my spelling list?" Into the closet goes OBAMAMAN; out comes Barak Obama: "Sure, sweetie."

Obama puts his daughter on his knee and picks up the list. "The first word is 'superior.'" "What does that mean, Daddy?" Obama looks at the audience and winks.

* patent pending

Post #227 Shocked, Appalled, Dismayed, Pt. III

Re: immigration

I've got no dog in this fight -- regarding immigration -- unless the price of food goes up! No experience here with legal or illegal immigration. A good thing, tho, to realize is that every law effects real people.

Prior to 1921, anybody could show up in the United States and be a legal immigrant. If we had the same rules for citizenship for everybody that are in place for immigrants today, we could eliminate some idiots from sucking up social programs that are available only to citizens.

We apply much tighter rules for immigration today on our neighbors from Mexico than our own ancestors faced. Indeed, the irony is that we acquired much of the southwest, including Arizona, by illegal immigration. In the 1820s, after Mexico gained independence from Spain, immigrants from the United States poured in. Those 'settlers' declared independence and eventually were able to 'secede' from Mexico with half of Mexico's original territory and 'unite' with the United States.

Which, of course, doesn't make the Arizona immigration law bad. But you now have something to think about when somebody shouts "ILLEGAL IS ILLEGAL!"

But the Arizona law stinks -- smells like politics. I think 'Bumper Sticker' politics came into play.

Arizona Governor Jan Brewer remained silent on the measure while weighing the consequences. During the bill's development, her staff had gone over its language line by line with the bill's author, State Senator Russell Pearce -- tho tellingly not with her attorney general. But she has claimed that she also had concerns about several of its provisions.

A poll showed wide support for the bill among likely voters in the state -- 70 percent in favor and 23 percent opposed. Governor Brewer faced an upcoming Republican Party primary in the 2010 Arizona gubernatorial election from other conservative opponents supporting the bill.

United States Senator from Arizona John McCain faced a primary battle against the more conservative J. D. Hayworth -- who had made measures against illegal immigration a central point of his candidacy. McCain said, "It's the drivers of cars with illegals in it that are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway. Look, our border is not secured. Our citizens are not safe." Uh, it sounds like McCain is criticizing the Arizona Highway Patrol for not doing its job.

McCain has been saying that the state had been forced to take action given the federal government's inability to control the border. He is correct. But who has been a part of that federal government, Senator McCain?

Look, I don't know what to do about immigration -- only that it should be comprehensive covering all issues, from 'anchor babies' to the greedy capitalists who hire illegals. But I do know the Arizona law stinks -- it allows each individual cop to decide how much his own prejudice goes into law enforcement. If the Arizona lawmakers could not define "reasonable suspicion," they just should have stayed home that day.

Post #226 Shocked, Appalled, Dismayed, Pt. II

Re: Arizona immigration law

UnConstitutional? I don't think so. I understand the arguments about the federal government taking the lead in immigration and violations of civil rights. But let's face it: This Supreme Court will not throw out a law that is popular with the Republican base.

The Arizona immigration law makes it a crime to be caught in Arizona without your 'papers.' Police must make an attempt, when practicable during a "lawful stop, detention or arrest made by a law enforcement official," to determine a person's immigration status.

It is not well-thought-out. It is vague and may have unintended negative consequences. The problem with this law is it gives too much power to the cop on the street -- prosecutor, judge, jury, executioner. It calls for racial profiling -- despite language against that -- under the guise of "reasonable suspicion."

Let's be honest: There is NOTHING a person can do that will create a reasonable suspicion of being an illegal immigrant -- except for having brown skin. Even a "I'm an illegal immigrant" T-shirt should be reasonably seen as a political statement -- especially when worn by Megan McCain. :p The legal definition of "reasonable suspicion" will be tied up in court for years.

I criticize the Arizona lawmakers for coming up with a week law that will drain the resources of Arizona's courts.

And other resources. The Arizona Association of Chiefs of Police criticized the legislation, saying that it will negatively affect the ability of law enforcement agencies across the state to fulfill their many responsibilities in a timely manner. Simply, solving crimes against Arizona citizens gets harder as you scare a portion of the population into not cooperating.

However, there is still no reason to applaud the Mexican President's criticism before Congress.

P.S.: There are two things I learned while researching this topic:
1. No illegal immigrant is living 'the American Dream.'
2. It's harder to become legal than I thought.

Post #225 Shocked, Appalled, Dismayed

I saw Anne Coulter on FOX News* the other day, and she was spewing some garbage about Dems cheering when the Mexican President criticized the Arizona immigration law before a joint session of Congress. I thought surely that she was full of crap -- much like Bill O'Reilly had been when he claimed to have the socialistic ramblings of Barak Obama's college thesis. That turned out not to true, but O'Reilly "stood by the document" as it sounded like what he believed Obama would say.

But then I saw the video.

My apologies to Coulter: For there on the video, the Democratic side of the joint session of Congress cheered -- a standing ovation, for goodness sake -- the Mexican President's criticism.

That was an unpatriotic act -- no matter how you feel about the Arizona immigration law. And politically stupid, too, for Republicans will play that video over and over for the November 2010 eletions -- as well they should.

There are two places where it is appropriate to applaud during a speeh by a foreign dignitary before a joint session of Congress: the beginning and the end. Is that too hard to understand?

If I was President Obama, I'd fire every Cabinet member who participated in the spectacle and fire my vice-president. If he does not, well, that says a lot.

* I have a crush on Megyn Kelly, OK?

Post #224 'Where I be from?'

I never thought it was important, but, recently, I was doing some research and....

I've tried to be fair in this blog. I've tried to always treat everybody with respect -- even when George Weasel Bush didn't deserve it! :p

My guiding quote in this blog... and life: "Every man is my superior in that I may learn from him." And, of course, the opposite: "I am every man's superior in that he may learn from me."

Anyway, I am from North Carolina. We were the last state to secede from the Union in 1861 and join the Confederacy. We knew it was a bad idea -- not swayed by the overheated rhetoric of our cousins in South Carolina.

Indeed, North Carolina's aversion to overheated rhetoric continues today... and, hopefully, reflected in this blog.

Which brings up the Tea Party.

In Charlotte, North Carolina's largest city, recently, the Tea Party organized a 'human chain' to surround the Bank of America headquarters to protest that the Bank of America has repaid its 'bailout.' The event drew seven protesters to form the chain.

[rolleyes]

North Carolina only joined the Confederacy after we were surrounded by Confederate states and the War had actually started -- we realized it was not in our best interests to be a Union outpost. Once we joined, North Carolina lost more troops supporting 'the cause' -- despite ranking #7 in slaves.

The moral: Listening to overheated rhetoric will burn.

Post #223 If The Tea Party Was Black, Pt. II

I usually don't talk about race because the concept of 'white privilege' is so difficult to explain -- especially to somebody who has been called a "honkie." But not talking about race is probably the biggest example there is of 'white privilege.'

http://www.dickshovel.com/priv.html

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #222 If The Tea Party Was Black...

Too bad people can't be forced to 'walk a mile in my shoes' -- they might learn something....

http://ephphatha-poetry.blogspot.com/2010/04/imagine-if-tea-party-was-black-tim-wise.html

Post #221 I, too, am tired

I got an "Fwd" e-mail -- "I'm 63 and I'm Tired" -- in which a tough-talking straight-shooter with 'problems' that most people would trade for proceeds to blame his 'problems' on nearly every aspect of modern society.

I believe people should take responsibility for their own actions and inactions. I am tired of hearing them blame mysterious forces such as "the economy' or Government actions they don't understand or the media and celebrities -- ! -- for their problems. So, no, I was not impressed by that rant.

First, the guy lists his credentials of being a hard worker. Then, he says, "Givn the economy, there's no retirement in sight." Huh? Has this guy never heard of Social Security Insurance?

The question is, what has this guy been doing for 40 years to plan for his retirement? There is no law against having a 'private' retirement account -- or a 'Vegas vacation' account, for that matter. Surely, he has not been relying on the Government to take of his needs, huh?

Well, no -- he has a "paid-off $250,000 condo" as a nest egg -- that's $10,000 a year for 25 years, almost twice as much as my Grandma draws from Social Security. Plus, his nest egg is probably bigger now than my nest egg from my own 'private' retirement account will be when I am 65.

Why is he whining?

He goes on: "I'm tired of being told that I have to 'spread the wealth' to people who don't have my work ethic. I'm tired of being told the government will take the money I earned, by force if necessary, and give it to people too lazy to earn it." Wow. Who told him that? Glen Beck?

Which brings us to the housing bubble. He blames the Community Reinvestment Act and suggests that "the left-wing Congress-critters" who passed that Act pay.

Uh, the Community Reinvestment Act was passed in 1977. It survived amending and tweaking during 12 years of Reagan/Bush and 8 years of Clinton just fine. It wasn't until the Republican Congress and the Republican President after 2001 had their way that we had a mess.

And don't forget the Fed chairman -- appointed by a Republican President, by the way -- who 'pumped up' the money supply by lowering interest rates to a 45 year low. How many Republicans will seek office in November 2010 calling for higher interest rates?

Well, everybody's favorite kicking toy -- the media -- gets a few kicks. He blames the media for his vote for George W. Bush in 2004. The media, he says, "picked over every line of Bush's military records, but never demanded that Kerry release his."

I'm sorry that our e-mail writer missed the 'swift boat' ads during the summer of 2004 which prompted the media to go over and over and over John Kerry's daily activities in Vietnam. All I learned about Bush was that he worked on a political campaign instead of protecting our southern flank against the hostile Mexican Air Force.

And, by the way, what kind of military records does an individual soldier have that the Pentagon doesn't? It sounds like a made up controversy to justify his notions -- much like the 'birthers.'

Oh, well, the whole e-mail hits all the 'hot buttons,'but a little bit of thinking calns.

A little bit of thinking, please. Is that too much to ask?

Post #220 Weapons of Mass Destruction Found

German authorities shut down Berlin's main international airport this past Wednesday after construction workers discovered a quarter-ton Weapon of Mass Destruction. They claimed it was a World War II bomb.

But we know better.

Obviously, Saddam Hussein faked his own execution, fled to Germany and has gone back into the WMD business to arm his world-wide network of terrorists who do his bidding.

Obviously, too, we must invade Germany, capture Hussein, destroy WMD, nurture democracy and watch peace bloom.

Can I get an "Amen," Dick Cheney?

Post #219 "Obama, Obama, he da Man!," Pt. II

Conservatives have one last legitimate hope to derail health care reform: The activist, right-wing Supreme Court. As we've seen in "Bush vs. Gore," the Supreme Court has no problem sticking its nose where it doesn't belong. As we've seen with D.C. gun ban, the Supreme Court has no problem seeing a policy it doesn't like and declaring that policy unConstitutional -- no matter how dubious the Constitutional reasoning.

If I was a gambling man, I'd give it 3-to-1 odds that the Supreme Court will ride to the rescue.

Questions arise if the Supreme Court rules against health care reform: Will I still be legally required to buy car insurance? Will my Grandma get a refund from Plan D of Medicare? After all, Plan D was passed by a Republican Congress and signed into law by a Republican President.

Of course, the BIG question: How is adding 32 million Americans to health insurance rolls a bad thing?

Oh, the theory is that adding 32 million poor Americans to health insurance rolls will make everybody's quality of health care go down. If that is so, why not eliminate the poorest 32 million Americans who are now on health insurance rolls to improve the quality of health care. Everything is honkey-dorey -- unless you're one of the 64 million of the poorest Americans.

I criticize President Obama for a too-complex bill and too-long debate -- not pretty watching sausage being made. I would have just opened Medicare to everybody. But I'm happy it's here.

The good news is that the issue of health care is here to stay. And the Republican plan is...?

Post #218 FOX News Bleach Blonde Bobble-Heads!

Where can I buy 'em? :p

Post #217 "Obama, Obama, he da Man!"

Post #217 "Obama, Obama, he da Man!"

President Barack Obama signed a health care bill just this past Tuesday that will for the first time cement insurance coverage as the right of every U.S. citizen and begin to reshape the way virtually all Americans receive and pay for treatment. Obama said, "After a century of striving, after a year of debate, after a historic vote, health care reform is no longer an unmet promise. It is the law of the land."

Thank You.

It as literally a lifesaver for countless Americans. The extension of health care coverage to 32 million who now lack it is to be achieved through a complex cocktail of new mandates for individuals and employers, subsidies for people who can't afford to buy coverage on their own, consumer-friendly rules clamped on insurers, tax breaks, and marketplaces to shop for health plans.

Many thought you couldn't do it -- me, too. And when you said not to bet against you, I thought you were blowing smoke.

Take your victory lap, Mr. President!

And where are our friends, the loyal opposition? David Frum, former speechwriter to President George W. Bush:

"Conservatives and Republicans suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

"It's hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they'll compensate for today with a big win in the November 2010 elections.

"No illusions please: This bill will not be repealed. Even if Republicans scored a 1994 style landslide in November, how many votes could we muster to re-open the "doughnut hole" and charge seniors more for prescription drugs? How many votes to re-allow insurers to rescind policies when they discover a pre-existing condition? How many votes to banish 25 year olds from their parents' insurance coverage? And even if the votes were there; would President Obama sign such a repeal?

"We followed the most radical voices in the party and the movement, and they led us to abject and irreversible defeat.

"So the defeat for free-market economics and Republican values is a huge win for the conservative entertainment industry. Their listeners and viewers will now be even more enraged, even more frustrated, even more disappointed in everybody except the responsibility-free talkers on television and radio. For them, it's mission accomplished. For the cause they purport to represent, it's Waterloo all right: ours."

Post #216 ... revised, 2010

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal (to corporations), that they are endowed by their Creator (or certified public accountant), with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men (or corporations), deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed (or corporations of some of the governed), That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People (or corporations), to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government,....

-- John Roberts, chief justice, SCOTUS

Post #215 Charles Krauthammer Jumps The Shark

"Jumps The Shark" is a phrase used to describe a TV series which has run out of fresh ideas. The phrase stems from the episode of "Happy Days" in which the gang visits California and 'the Fonz' jumps a shark with his motorcycle.

In his "War? What War?" column of January 01, 2010, Charles Krauthammer jumps the shark -- he repeats the same ol' tired and discredited neo-con world view.

Krauthammer says, "The reason the country is uneasy about the Obama administration's response to this attack is a distinct sense of not just incompetence but incomprehension." Um, nobody is uneasy. Of course, Republicans are uneasy about being out-of-power, but nobody leaves their house scanning the skies for falling planes.

Krauthammer also says, "From the very beginning, President Obama has relentlessly tried to downplay and deny the nature of the terrorist threat we continue to face." Um, no. In his inaugural address, Obama said: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." The threat comes from al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than a tactic, "terrorism."

"And just to make sure even the dimmest understand," Krauthammer adds, "Obama banishes the term 'war on terror.'"

Well, "jihadists." Krauthammer's favorite term, means 'holy warrior.' What could give more aid and comfort to the enemy than having our President say we are fighting 'holy warriors?'

Krauthammer gives more aid and comfort to the enemy with his, uh, smirkiness. :p He sneers: "Guantanamo will close, CIA interrogators will face a special prosecutor, and Khalid Sheik Mohammed will bask in a civilian trial in New York -- a trifecta of political correctness and image management." Every major military commander on the ground understands the need to close Guantanamo as it acts as a recruiting poster for al Qaeda. Surely, we shouldn't ignore our military commanders on the ground. Surely, too, we shouldn't ignore the rule of law. Surely, three, we should have confidence in our judicial system.

Why does Krauthammer seem to devalue so much about what is right with America? Simple. He and only he and his neo-con allies know how to fight terrorism. But, of course, reality says otherwise. If Krauthammer and his pals know so much, why did 9/11 happen? And why hasn't al Qaeda been eliminated?

However, let me agree with Krauthammer on one point: "[The underwear bomber is] an enemy combatant -- an illegal combatant under the laws of war: no uniform, direct attack on civilians." But the title of his "War? What War?" column hints at the problem.

Nobody has declared war -- well, nobody with the Constitutional authority to. It is my opinion that we were attacked with an act of war; it is Dick Cheney's opinion that we are at war; George W. Bush told us to go shopping.

Until we get that -- War? What war? -- cleared up, we will continue to flounder. God help us all.

Post #214 Happy 2010!

Well, well, well, don't Republicans feel embarrassed and ashamed? Health care reform has passed both the House and the Senate, and the party of "NO" is left to hoping that the bill falls apart in conference committee. But yet there have been no earthquakes or volcanoes or any other end-of-time scenarios.

Washington, D.C., is like a giant pre-school. Lil' Barack Obama showed up and spread his toys on the table, and Lil' Republican kicked the table over and then cried that Obama wasn't sharing. Like a five year old who wants to sulk, Lil' Republican ignored the numbers which said that health care reform was inevitable -- now, Republicans are on the outside looking in and crying that they wanted health care reform all along.

Don't believe it. Consistency, please.

It's like Sarah Palin's bailout support -- ya know, George W. Bush's bank bailout that she supported during the '08 campaign but bad-mouthed in her book. Now that banks are paying back the money -- it looks like the bailout is working, expect Palin to say any day; "I was for it before I was against it."

Don't believe it. Consistency, please.

'Ah,' ya ask, 'do you believe Sarah Palin is qualified to be President?' Yes, of course, she is -- Sarah Palin is qualified to be President. There is no test -- just present a valid birth certificate. :p After all, we just had the governor of a large state who was not intellectually curious, politely speaking, as President -- wait, that did not turn so well.

Anywho, consider inconsistent former Vice President Dick Cheney who said "[W]e are at war and when President Obama pretends we aren't, it makes us less safe." Indeed, Cheney and his pals have been passing around a recording of a statement by Obama that shows he is weak on terror:

On Nov. 21, 2007, while taking calls on New Hampshire Public Radio, Obama said, "I truly believe that the day I'm inaugurated, that not only does the country look at itself differently, but the world looks at America differently. If I'm reaching out to the Muslim world, they understand that I've lived in a Muslim country and I may be a Christian, but I also can understand their point of view. The world will have confidence that I am listening to them, and that our future and our security is tied up with our ability to work with other countries in the world. That will ultimately make us safer. And that's something that this administration has failed to understand."

Um, that is correct. How does that make us less safe?

In his inaugural address, Obama said: "Our nation is at war against a far-reaching network of violence and hatred." In other words, we are at war with that which is tangible -- Al Qaeda, violent extremists, and terrorists -- rather than at war with a tactic, "terrorism," or a religion, Gawd-forbid.

How does that make us less safe?

The inconsistent Peter King of New York, ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee and a member of the Intelligence Committee, chimed in: "I think that the administration has made a mistake by treating this terrorist as a common criminal, by putting him into the criminal-justice system."

How does that make us less safe? And how does the underwear bomber differ from the shoe bomber -- who, of course, was placed in the criminal-justice system by Bush/Cheney?

Consistency, please.

[rolleyes]

Post #213 Sarah Palin is the anti-Christ!

Thought that would get your attention. :p

I don't follow too closely the end-of-time commotion -- beyond knowing that December 21, 2012 is THE day -- and the search for the anti-Christ. But I do know there are three things to look for.

First, the anti-Christ will seduce people. Who can forget Palin's performance during the debate? I felt seduced.

Second, the anti-Christ will be seen as a savior. Well, Palin is already seen as savior of the GOP.

Third, the anti-Christ will wear a green hat.

I have a cousin who is all excited about Palin's book tour. Will she ask about the differences between reality and Pality?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/33918869/ns/today-today_books

Or if Palin has a green hat?

America 2009 [rolleyes]

When the shooting at Ft. Hood happened on a Thursday, I figured that out of respect for the dead it'd be at least until the round of Sunday talk shows BEFORE somebody blamed President Barak Obama. I was wrong. It was Friday afternoon, and I heard that Obama was "directly and personally" responsible.

I've tried and tried, but I just can't wrap my mind around that idea that Obama is to blame. It seems more reasonable to blame the previous President for starting the wars that set off the shooter.

But, of course, it is only reasonable to blame the shooter.

Speaking of reason, I thought Republicans were the 'law and order' crowd and would be cheering the trial of 9/11 mastermind. But no. Since we had a Republican in the White House whose policy was to ignore justice, Republicans are upset that a Democrat in the White House would show faith in our judicial system.

Don't Republicans realize the policy of the previous administration amounted to 'no consequence for terror' -- speeding? Ya want a trial? Kill thousands? Ha! Go to Miami Beach and ask Osama how effective the long arm of American justice is.

Speaking of Osama and his pals, why do they hate us? Why did they attack us on 9/11? I thought the answer was clear: They hate us because we are over there. They have probably never read the Constitution nor understand our government -- just as Russia was opposed during the '80s, not because of their government but because they were over there.

But I saw on TV just the other day some congressman doing his best impersonation of a 2002 George W. Bush: "They attacked us on 9/11 because they hate our freedoms, our values and our way of life."

America 2009 * sigh *

Has our educational system failed so badly -- in regards to both the congressman and the voters who elected a dolt? We need a savior. I wonder if Sarah Palin is busy?

Post #212 'KeepAmericaSafe:' Under Construction, Pt. III

I am so disappointed. Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' is still not finished. The eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney has a rallying place for opposition to the "radical" foreign policy of the President Barack Obama, but yet there is still no update about joining the military. Or learning a new language -- Arabic? -- and joining the CIA.

But the website still incites a call to talk radio. Surely, the 'God, guns and country' crowd that Cheney is speaking to does not value a call to talk radio over a call to national service. The cynic in me says that Cheney does know her audience -- "ignorance is bliss."

But I am really disappointed because Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' ignores the big story of the week: Last week's release of an FBI interview summary of Dick Cheney's answers in the criminal investigation in the Valerie Plame affair -- on 72 occasions, Cheney equivocated, politely speaking, during his three-hour May 2004 interview. That is why Federal prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald declared that "there is a cloud over the vice president."

Don't worry, Liz, I doubt the crowd you're speaking to has ever heard of Fitzgerald or even \Valerie Plame -- I'm sure they know that Obama is a Muslim! :p

But please explain, Liz:

How did 'Scooter' Libby find out that the wife of Bush administration war critic Joseph Wilson worked at the CIA? Libby's own handwritten notes suggest Libby found out from Cheney, and Libby talked to Cheney about this, according his grand jury testimony. Cheney "cannot recall Libby telling him how he first heard of Valerie Wilson," according to the FBI summary.

How long has ol' Dick suffered from a diminished mental capacity? Should somebody with a diminished mental capacity serve as Vice President!?!

[Insert your own 'diminished mental capacity-as-President' joke here.]

Rest easy, Liz: 'Your' crowd will not consider the implications -- either Dick Cheney has a diminished mental capacity, or he is full of crap! 'Your' crowd will never know.

By the way, the Cheney interview summary was released last Friday to the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. At least somebody wants an informed electorate.

Post #211 'KeepAmericaSafe:' Under Construction, Pt. II

Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' is still not finished. The eldest daughter of former Vice President Dick Cheney has a rallying place for opposition to the "radical" foreign policy of the President Barack Obama which it says has succeeded only in undermining the nation's security by moving away from the Bush era foreign policy. Yet there is no update about joining the military. Ya know, I'm beginning to think that Liz is as dismissive of the military as her father. :p

How many deferments did ol' Dick get during the Vietnam War!?! Four or five?

"I dismiss men like [Dick] Cheney who inject partisan politics into the profound deliberations our Commander-in-Chief and commanders on the ground are having to develop a cohesive and comprehensive strategy, bringing to bear the economic and diplomatic as well as the military power, for Afghanistan -- something Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld never did."

Who could be so disrespectful? Retired General Paul Eaton who served more than 30 years in the United States Army and from 2003-2004 oversaw the training of the Iraqi military. Ya know, one of those wishy-washy military guys.

Eaton continued: "The record is clear: Dick Cheney and the Bush administration were incompetent war fighters. They ignored Afghanistan for 7 years with a crude approach to counter-insurgency warfare best illustrated by: 1. Deny it. 2. Ignore it. 3. Bomb it. While our intelligence agencies called the region the greatest threat to America, the Bush White House under-resourced our military efforts, shifted attention to Iraq, and failed to bring to justice the masterminds of September 11.

"The only time Cheney and his cabal of foreign policy 'experts' have anything to say is when they feel compelled to protect this failed legacy. While President Obama is tasked with cleaning up the considerable mess they left behind, they continue to defend torture or rewrite a legacy of indifference on Afghanistan. Simply put, Mr. Cheney sees history throughout extremely myopic and partisan eyes."

Of course, Liz repeats the same ol,' same ol:' "Since 9/11, the United States Government, through our armed forces and our intelligence and law enforcement professionals, has succeeded in preventing any further attacks on the American homeland. This is a major achievement." Almost as major as being asleep before 9/11. In August 2009, according to the "Washington Post," after first learning of the alleged Zazi plot, President Obama got briefings three times a day on it. In August 2001, where was ol' Dick?

From Eaton: "As one deeply invested in the Armed Forces of this country, I am grateful for the senior military commanders assigned to leading this fight and the men and women fighting on the ground. ... No human endeavor can be as profound as sending a nation's youth to war. I am very happy to see serious men and women working hard to get it right."

Post #210 disturbing trend

----- Start Forwarded Message -----

The photo below captures a disturbing trend that is beginning to affect US wildlife....

[Picture is of a bear sitting at a picnic table. I've never had the time nor inclination to learn how to add a pic to this blog.]

Animals that were formerly self-sufficient are now showing signs of belonging to the Democrat Party... as they have apparently learned to just sit and wait for the government to step in and provide for their care and sustenance.

This photo is of a Democrat black bear in Montana nicknamed... Bearack Obearma.

----- End Forwarded Message -----

I chuckled. But then I also wondered: How many peeps who chuckled do not recognize their own paws seeking the aid and comfort of government? I have diabetes and am covered by Medicare. Ya?

Post #209 'KeepAmericaSafe:' Under Construction

Liz Cheney's website, 'KeepAmericaSafe,' is not finished.

Take Action Now, the website extorts:

1) Join Keep America Safe -- give 'em your e-mail address and your home address so that ya can enjoy all sorts of right-wing propaganda (including, I bet, an offer to subscribe to "The Weekly Standard," the neo-con magazine by 'KeepAmericaSafe' co-founder Bill Krystol);
2) Contribute -- the low-end amounts are $25 or $10 per month (anything less means ya is a communist);
3) Write a letter to a news editor -- repeat "invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Torturing suspects is OK and should not be prosecuted. Detaining suspects forever is OK. We need wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia. Keep America Safe;"
4) Call talk radio -- repeat "invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Torturing suspects is OK and should not be prosecuted. Detaining suspects forever is OK. We need wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia. Keep America Safe;"
5) Write a letter to your congressman -- repeat "invading Iraq was the right thing to do. Torturing suspects is OK and should not be prosecuted. Detaining suspects forever is OK. We need wars with Iran, North Korea, Syria, Sudan, Somalia. Keep America Safe."

What is missing? How about joining the military? Or learning a new language -- Arabic? -- and joining the CIA? Surely, the 'God, guns and country' crowd that Cheney is speaking to does not value a call to talk radio over a call to national service.

I'm going to give Liz Cheney the benefit of the doubt. I'm sure that she's busy, not dismissive of the military like her father.

Post #208 Who Killed Stephen Hawking?, Pt. II

One complaint against my writing -- but not the only complaint, by the way -- is that I'm too short. Guilty. I happen to think that anybody who is smart enough to connect to the 'net is smart enough to get a point in one sentence -- no need to beat 'em over the head.

However, I'm forgetting the tip from freshman English 25 years ago: If something is important, repeat it. If something is important, repeat it. By repeating the same something a third time in a different way shows that it is really important.

So, I'm going to expand my Post #200, "Who Killed Stephen Hawking?"

* * *

Well, he is not dead. Stephen Hawking, the renowned British theoretical physicist with a neuro muscular dystrophy, is alive -- just on TV getting the "Presidential Medal of Freedom."

So, the question really is: "Who is keeping Stephen Hawking alive?" The answer: Government, BIG, s-l-o-w and inefficient government. I'm sure that his health care is expensive, probably too expensive for Hawking to handle by himself/

It seems ironic to me that the same peeps who rant about government' theoretical future role in life and death decisions have nothing to say regarding private insurers' real current role. Tho the government is keeping Stephen Hawking alive, they want to cite Hawking -- ignoring the fact that he is not dead. But at least government will respond and change its ways. If we, the people, don't want 'death panels,' there won't be 'death panels' deciding the value of life and when to pull the plug on Hawking or Charles Krauthammer or Grandma.

"Who would kill Stephen Hawking?" Private insurers.

It is private insurers who make life and death decisions every day. If ya can't afford insurance, too bad. If Stephen Hawking had to rely on a private insurer....

Or Charles Krauthammer or Grandma. A private company will resist any change that may affect its bottom-line. Their 'death panels' -- which consist of accountants reading balance sheets -- are OK with them.

In 1995, Taiwan wanted to have universal health care -- they scoured the world for the best-run government health care to copy and choose the United States' Medicare. Taiwan of course opened their Medicare to everybody. Why can't we do that? Isn't it the best strategy to copy an already-existing program? That is why the search for an "uniquely American" solution makes no sense -- our "uniquely American" solution is under our noses.

Universal health care is a pro-business stance -- leveling the playing field of the world market. As Charles Krauthammer said in my Post #206, "There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless." What is good for General Motors is good for America, and government-run healh care is good for General Motors.

Universal health care is also pro-workers. As Charles Krauthammer said in my Post #206, "It [private insurance thro employers] makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness." -- government-run health care would mean nobody to be held hostage to a job because of the health benefits.

"Socialism" is the cry -- ignoring last November's election results. That is the same crowd who slurps at the troughs of Medicare and Social Security, Ignore 'em, I say -- they had their chance to be heard.

* * *

Better?

Post #207 Aaarrrggghhh!!!

I've come to really value my time on the 'net -- which seems to be getting less and less these days. And then I get crap in my e-box.

There are plenty of good and true and valid points on which to oppose Nancy Pelosi -- I have a few myself. But her new plane is NOT one.

Ya know the e-mail, the one that says Pelosi requested a "big fat jumbo jet" to ferry big supporters across country. That e-mail is a couple of years old. I'd gotten several over time but not recently. I thought it'd been thoroughly discredited and had died.

But there it was, again, in my e-box just the other day. The peeps who mindlessly -- without checking ar least at snopes.com -- hit "Fwd" on every rant don't realize what a disservice they're doing to their 'cause.' Whatever the 'cause' may be.

My Pelosi-hating e-pal had already lost credibility with me -- this was not his first error-filled "anti-Pelosi" e-mail. I don't know what his problem is, and I don't really care to know.

My advice is to NOT hit "Fwd" on a rant that doesn't have a link to show where it came from. Go to townhall.com or huffingtonpost.com and find a column ya agree with and e-mail that. Peeps who sign their columns have an interest in maintaining credibility. Keep in mind, tho, some columnists thrive on being over-the-top and playing fast and loose with the facts -- they usually claim to be a "comedian."

If ya lie down with dogs, ya get fleas. If ya send a column by a comedian, don't be surprised when peeps laugh at ya.

Post #206 Charles Krauthammer's Health-Care Reform Plan

QUICK! CALL 9-1-1!! LET'S RUSH THE CONSTITUTION TO THE HOSPITAL!!!

Charles Krauthammer wants to take away your Constitutional right to have your day in court. "[I'd a]bolish the entire medical-malpractice system. Create a new social pool from which people injured in medical errors or accidents can draw. The adjudication would be done by medical experts, not lay juries."

I'll agree with Krauthammer that Obamacare "simply multiplies the current inefficiencies and arbitrariness, thus producing staggering deficits with less choice and lower-quality care."

But unConstitutional socialism is not the way to go.

Neo-cons. [rolleyes] No wonder the complaint is that Republicans have no plan. All that is heard is nonsense.

There are two components to Krauthammer's plan: 1) Tear up the Constitution; 2) Raise taxes. "The plan is so simple it doesn't even have the requisite three parts," Krauthammer said. "Just two: radical tort reform and radically severing the link between health insurance and employment.

"There is no logical reason to get health insurance through your employer. This entire system is an accident of World War II wage and price controls. It's economically senseless. It makes people stay in jobs they hate, decreasing labor mobility and therefore overall productivity. And it needlessly increases the anxiety of losing your job by raising the additional specter of going bankrupt through illness."

Yep, but the solution is -- well....

"Tax employer-provided health-care benefits," Krauthammer said, "and return the money to the employee."

I must have been asleep that day during 'Conservatism 101,' but how does taxing businesses -- big and small, I'm guessing -- help? I appreciate the willingness to mention taxes -- taxes = services, after all. But I think my idea in my Post #203 to tax the individuals who use Obamacare is better.

Look, Obamacare is just too complicated. We ought to just copy an already-existing program -- Medicare, the plan for only Senators and congressmen, Charles Krauthammer's plan (not his neo-con fantasy but what he currently uses)....

Post #205 Don't want no socialism 'round here....

I have a few cows. I sell 'em for meat. What I really hate is the way the government sends a 'Agriculture Extension Officer' to tell me how to raise cows.

We need to get the government out of agriculture. Let's end the socialism of agri-welfare. Just think of the tax-savings for everybody, and I can pass my savings in the cost of raising cows along to ya. Wouldn't ya like cheaper hamburger?

I know what ya is thinking. But I promise to have a vet check out my cows every week -- keep 'Mad Cow disease' out of the food supply. Unless of course that is the week lil' BobbiSue needs braces. But, hey, the chances of ya getting sick is small.

No, sir, no socialism for me! :p

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #204 9/11, revisited, Pt. III

As I said in my Post #175, every time I think about forgiving George W. Bush for 9/11, I read my Post #104 -- which follows. It is a Damning indictment of the Weasel's ineptitude and doesn't even include some of the most obvious examples -- Condi Rice's July '01 meeting with George Tenet or the August '01 Presidential Daily Briefing. Nor did I mention Bush's opposition to the 9/11 Commission or his refusal to give a formal interview.

The most depressing thing I saw on TV during MSNBC's replay of the coverage of that morning was, before 12 noon, Tom Brokaw identified the prime suspect, Osama bin Laden, and cited a speech he had given in London the month before in which he threatened the United States.

Why wasn't Bush all over this?

* * *

Post #104

Subject: 9/11, revisited

President George W. Bush stood atop the rubble of the World Trade Center, wrapped his arm around a firefighter and said, "These terrorists shall hear from us. But, if we can't get 'em, we will invade a country that did not attack us and does not threaten us."

Wait -- was that a dream or a nightmare?

Richard Clarke, former counterterrorism czar, had a meeting with the deputies of Cabinet Secretaries in April of 2001, when, he says, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz insisted the real terrorism threat was not al Qaeda but Iraq

Why a meeting with the deputies and not the Secretaries? Bush had downgraded counterterrorism from a cabinet-level job, so Clarke now dealt instead with deputy secretaries. As Clarke told the 9'11 Commission, "It slowed it down enormously, by months. First of all, the deputies' committee didn't meet urgently in January or February."

The Secretaries' first meeting on al Qaeda was not until after Labor Day, on September 4, 2001.

On January 25, 2001, five days after Bush took office, Clarke sent Condoleezza Rice a memo, attaching to it a document entitled "Strategy for Eliminating the Threat of al Qaeda" It was, Clarke wrote, "developed by the last administration to give to you, incorporating diplomatic, economic, military, public diplomacy, and intelligence tools."

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, January 17, 2001)

SANDY BERGER, NATIONAL SECURITY ADVISER: With survivors of the U.S.S. Cole reinforced the reality that America is in a deadly struggle with a new breed of anti-Western jihadists. Nothing less than a war, I think, is fair to describe this.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

As Senator Carl Levin said, "I'm concerned that we may not be putting enough emphasis on countering the most likely threats to our national security and to the security of our forces deployed around the world, those asymmetric threats, like terrorist attacks on the U.S.S. Cole on our barracks and our embassies around the world, on the World Trade Center."

And where was Bush?

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, February 27, 2001)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: The Taliban in Afghanistan, they have offered that they are ready to hand over Osama bin Laden to Saudi Arabia if the United States drops its sanctions, and they have a kind of deal that they want to make with the United States. Do you have any comments?

ARI FLEISCHER, WHITE HOUSE PRESS SECRETARY: Let me take that and get back to you on that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

Ari never did.

On February 26, 2001, Paul Bremer said of the administration, "What they will do is stagger along until there's a major incident, and then suddenly say, Oh, my God, shouldn't we be organized to deal with this?"

And they gave us Iraq instead....

* * *

Bill Clinton knew. In Australia on 9/11, the former President immediately knew who the culprit was. But yet in the White House on 9/12, there was an obsession with Saddam
Hussein as there was an obsession with Saddam on 9/10 -- 9/11 just gave an excuse to take out the bad man. So what if there had to be lies about the actual connection between Saddam and Osama? There was a get-Saddam mindset BEFORE 9/11.

Post #203 Why Leadership Has Failed On Health Care Reform

The mistake President Obama is making in regard to health care reform is that he is being too timid -- there should be a government-takeover of health care. As the Preamble to the Constitution states: "promote the general Welfare."

The public-option that Obama wants is a time-consuming ruse -- the government will choke private insurers out of business. The eight [8] consumer protections that David Axelrod outlined in my post #201 are fine and dandy, but they are how the insurance companies make money and stay in business. Private insurers cannot compete with public coffers. All so that Obama can claim that he allowed the free market to work.

We have already had years and years and years of the free market; we need more now. Yes, that means government. Some problems are so big that government is the only answer. Even George Will agrees with me -- read his column about the success of Phoenix, Arizona.

I'm no fool, * heh * -- I realize that BIG government is just that -- BIG, s-l-o-w and inefficient. But at least government will respond and change its ways. A private company will resist change.

As a Libertarian blue dog Democrat, * huh? * I realize that it is in the governments interest to run health care -- a pro-business stance. What is good for General Motors is good for America, and government-run healh care is good for General Motors. Whoever decided that businesses should be in charge of their employee's health care acted stupidly.

However, I cannot support anything that's not paid for -- beyond "we'll cut waste and fraud" or other voodoo.

I think a %10 'medical tax' on everbody who files an income tax return would do -- Ned the Wino who draws $10,000 in Social Security would pay $1000 for his 'Obamacare' card while Bill Gates would pay $5 billion. Or some kind of graduation -- Ned would pay %5, $500; Bill would pay %20, $10 billion.

Make it optional -- if anybody objects to "socialism," make 'em give up Social Security, Medicare, the use of federally-funded highways, etc.

I am disappointed that Obama is not shooting straight -- playing the free market game to outwit conservatives. We need more.

Post #202 Dick Cheney Terrorizes America

Dick Cheney, former Vice President who was asleep on 9/11, said that the Obama administration's respect for the rule of law and the decision to investigate the CIA serve as a reminder "if any were needed, of why so many Americans have doubts about this administration's ability to be responsible for our nation's security."

Sweating, Dick? :p

Post #201 Fwd: Something Worth "Fwd"

----- Start Forwarded Message -----

This is probably one of the longest emails Ive ever sent, but it could be the most important.

Across the country we are seeing vigorous debate about health insurance reform. Unfortunately, some of the old tactics we know so well are back even the viral emails that fly unchecked and under the radar, spreading all sorts of lies and distortions.

As President Obama said at the town hall in New Hampshire, where we do disagree, let's disagree over things that are real, not these wild misrepresentations that bear no resemblance to anything that's actually been proposed.

So lets start a chain email of our own. At the end of my email, youll find a lot of information about health insurance reform, distilled into 8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage, 8 common myths about reform and 8 reasons we need health insurance reform now.

Right now, someone you know probably has a question about reform that could be answered by whats below. So what are you waiting for? Forward this email.

Thanks,
David

David Axelrod
Senior Adviser to the President

P.S. We launched www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck this week to knock down the rumors and lies that are floating around the internet. You can find the information below, and much more, there. For example, we've just added a video of Nancy-Ann DeParle from our Health Reform Office tackling a viral email head on. Check it out:

Health Insurance Reform Reality Check

8 ways reform provides security and stability to those with or without coverage

1. Ends Discrimination for Pre-Existing Conditions: Insurance companies will be prohibited from refusing you coverage because of your medical history.

2. Ends Exorbitant Out-of-Pocket Expenses, Deductibles or Co-Pays: Insurance companies will have to abide by yearly caps on how much they can charge for out-of-pocket expenses.

3. Ends Cost-Sharing for Preventive Care: Insurance companies must fully cover, without charge, regular checkups and tests that help you prevent illness, such as mammograms or eye and foot exams for diabetics.

4. Ends Dropping of Coverage for Seriously Ill: Insurance companies will be prohibited from dropping or watering down insurance coverage for those who become seriously ill.

5. Ends Gender Discrimination: Insurance companies will be prohibited from charging you more because of your gender.

6. Ends Annual or Lifetime Caps on Coverage: Insurance companies will be prevented from placing annual or lifetime caps on the coverage you receive.

7. Extends Coverage for Young Adults: Children would continue to be eligible for family coverage through the age of 26.

8. Guarantees Insurance Renewal: Insurance companies will be required to renew any policy as long as the policyholder pays their premium in full. Insurance companies won't be allowed to refuse renewal because someone became sick.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/health-insurance-consumer-protections/

8 common myths about health insurance reform

1. Reform will stop "rationing" - not increase it: Its a myth that reform will mean a "government takeover" of health care or lead to "rationing." To the contrary, reform will forbid many forms of rationing that are currently being used by insurance companies.

2. We cant afford reform: It's the status quo we can't afford. Its a myth that reform will bust the budget. To the contrary, the President has identified ways to pay for the vast majority of the
up-front costs by cutting waste, fraud, and abuse within existing government health programs; ending big subsidies to insurance companies; and increasing efficiency with such steps as coordinating care and streamlining paperwork. In the long term, reform can help bring down costs that will otherwise lead to a fiscal crisis.

3. Reform would encourage "euthanasia": It does not. Its a malicious myth that reform would encourage or even require euthanasia for seniors. For seniors who want to consult with their family and physicians about end-of life decisions, reform will help to cover these voluntary, private consultations for those who want help with these personal and difficult family decisions.

4. Vets' health care is safe and sound: Its a myth that health insurance reform will affect veterans' access to the care they get now. To the contrary, the President's budget significantly expands coverage under the VA, extending care to 500,000 more veterans who were previously excluded. The VA Healthcare system will continue to be available for all eligible veterans.

5. Reform will benefit small business - not burden it: Its a myth that health insurance reform will hurt small businesses. To the contrary, reform will ease the burdens on small businesses, provide tax credits to help them pay for employee coverage and help level the playing field with big firms who pay much less to cover their employees on average.

6. Your Medicare is safe, and stronger with reform: Its myth that Health Insurance Reform would be financed by cutting Medicare benefits. To the contrary, reform will improve the long-term financial health of Medicare, ensure better coordination, eliminate waste and unnecessary subsidies to insurance companies, and help to close the Medicare "doughnut" hole to make prescription drugs more affordable for seniors.

7. You can keep your own insurance: Its myth that reform will force you out of your current insurance plan or force you to change doctors. To the contrary, reform will expand your choices, not eliminate them.

8. No, government will not do anything with your bank account: It is an absurd myth that government will be in charge of your bank accounts. Health insurance reform will simplify administration, making it easier and more convenient for you to pay bills in a method that you choose. Just like paying a phone bill or a utility bill, you can pay by traditional check, or by a direct electronic payment. And forms will be standardized so they will be easier to understand. The choice is up to you and the same rules of privacy will apply as they do for all other electronic payments that people make.

Learn more and get details:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/realitycheck/faq

8 Reasons We Need Health Insurance Reform Now

1. Coverage Denied to Millions: A recent national survey estimated that 12.6 million non-elderly adults 36 percent of those who tried to purchase health insurance directly from an insurance company in the individual insurance market were in fact discriminated against because of a pre-existing condition in the previous three years or dropped from coverage when they became seriously ill. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/denied_coverage/index.html

2. Less Care for More Costs: With each passing year, Americans are paying more for health care coverage. Employer-sponsored health insurance premiums have nearly doubled since 2000, a rate three times faster than wages. In 2008, the average premium for a family plan purchased through an employer was $12,680, nearly the annual earnings of a full-time minimum wage job. Americans pay more than ever for health insurance, but get less coverage. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hiddencosts/index.html

3. Roadblocks to Care for Women: Womens reproductive health requires more regular contact with health care providers, including yearly pap smears, mammograms, and obstetric care. Women are also more likely to report fair or poor health than men (9.5% versus 9.0%). While rates of chronic conditions such as diabetes and high blood pressure are similar to men, women are twice as likely to suffer from headaches and are more likely to experience joint, back or neck pain. These chronic conditions often require regular and frequent treatment and follow-up care. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/women/index.html

4. Hard Times in the Heartland: Throughout rural America, there are nearly 50 million people who face challenges in accessing health care. The past several decades have consistently shown higher rates of poverty, mortality, uninsurance, and limited access to a primary health care provider in rural areas. With the recent economic downturn, there is potential for an increase in many of the health disparities and access concerns that are already elevated in rural communities. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/hardtimes

5. Small Businesses Struggle to Provide Health Coverage: Nearly one-third of the uninsured 2013 million people are employees of firms with less than 100 workers. From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. Much of this decline stems from small business. The percentage of small businesses offering coverage dropped from 68% to 59%, while large firms held stable at 99%. About a third of such workers in firms with fewer than 50 employees obtain insurance through a spoe. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/helpbottomline

6. The Tragedies are Personal: Half of all personal bankruptcies are at least partly the result of medical expenses. The typical elderly couple may have to save nearly $300,000 to pay for health costs not covered by Medicare alone. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction

7. Diminishing Access to Care: From 2000 to 2007, the proportion of non-elderly Americans covered by employer-based health insurance fell from 66% to 61%. An estimated 87 million people - one in every three Americans under the age of 65 - were uninsured at some point in 2007 and 2008. More than 80% of the uninsured are in working families. Learn more:
http://www.healthreform.gov/reports/inaction/diminishing/index.html

8. The Trends are Troubling: Without reform, health care costs will continue to skyrocket unabated, putting unbearable strain on families, businesses, and state and federal government budgets. Perhaps the most visible sign of the need for health care reform is the 46 million Americans currently without health insurance - projections suggest that this number will rise to about 72 million in 2040 in the absence of reform. Learn more:
http://www.WhiteHouse.gov/assets/documents/CEA_Health_Care_Report.pdf

Visit WhiteHouse.gov

----- End Forwarded Message -----

Post #200 Who Killed Stephen Hawking?

Well, he is not dead. Stephen Hawking, the renowned British theoretical physicist with a neuro muscular dystrophy, is alive -- just on TV getting the "Presidential Medal of Freedom."

So, the question really is: "Who is keeping Stephen Hawking alive?" The answer: Government.

"Who would kill Stephen Hawking?" Private insurers.

It seems ironic to me that the same peeps who rant about government's theoretical future role in life and death decisions have nothing to say regarding private insurers' real current role. They want to cite Stephen Hawking -- ignoring the fact that he is not dead. All the while, it is private insurers who make life and death decisions every day. If ya can't afford insurance, too bad.

In 1995, Taiwan wanted to have universal health care -- they scoured the world for the best-run government health care to copy and choose the United States' Medicare. Taiwan of course opened their Medicare to everybody. Why can't we do that?

Universal health care is a pro-business stance -- leveling the playing field of the world market. Universal health care is also pro-workers -- nobody to be held hostage to a job because of the health benefits.

"Socialism" is the cry -- ignoring last November's election results. That is the same crowd who slurps at the troughs of Medicare and Social Security, Ignore 'em, I say -- they had their chance to be heard.

Post #199 Why I'm Opposed to Same-Sex Marriage

Well, it's the same reason I oppose all marriages: The government has no interest in promoting unions of any kind -- thro tax breaks or any incentives.

It can be argued that, during the 19th century, the government had an interest in promoting unions and therefore children. The country needed to be populated, and government codifying the value of religious marriage was the way to go. But that changed sometime during the 20th century.

However, the government does have an interest in promoting the establishments of homes to raise children as this would be cheaper than government-financed orphanages.

Please note that my argument as of today has nothing to do with religion -- neither for nor against a religious definition of marriage. Separation of church and state, ya know....

Post #198 Conservatives Against Crowley

Sergeant James Crowley wasted government money when he arrested Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. -- there was no crime. Crowley "got" his man -- but at what cost?

Did Gates raise his cane in a threatening manner? No. Did Gates punch Crowley? No! Did Gates throw a book? NO! There is no crime described in Crowley's official version. That is why the charges had to be dropped.

Crowley says explicitly that he arrested Gates for yelling. Guess what? Yelling is not a crime. Yelling does not meet the definition of disorderly conduct in Massachusetts. If Gates had of confessed to a crime or threatened to commit a crime, there would have been cause for an arrest. But nothing that Crowley has attributed to Gates amounts to disorderly conduct.

Ya have a Constitutional right to engage in what Crowley refers to as "continued tumultuous behavior." Ya can call a cop fat, ugly and stupid -- he is paid to have the good judgment and ignore that, not act "stupidly."

And how were the good people of Cambridge protected and served by one of their finest being "downtown" instead of on the mean streets? Conseratives, if ya can get beyond your prefernce for the white man, ya will recognize this case for what it is -- wasteful government spending.

Post #197 Speaking of Dick Cheney...

... and wasteful government spending, Secret Service protection for former Vice President Dick Cheney has been extended.

Normally, former vice presidents only receive Secret Service protection for the first six months after leaving office. This is the first time a former vice president's security detail has been extended beyond the standard duration.

How long? Not being said. It seems that Cheney whined and was officially authorized for extra protection by Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on July 17.

So, Cheney sought the aid and comfort of government. As Joe the Plumber would say, "Sounds like socialism to me." No word yet on whether Cheney plans to reimburse the government.

Why the extension? Cheney's paranoia -- the extension was not based on a specific threat against the former vice president. Rather, 1) the ongoing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, 2) the political debate about the Bush administration's strategies, 3) Cheney's active public schedule -- his refusal to stay 'undisclosed' -- and 4) Scooter Libby is out there, and he didn't get a pardon. Who knows what Evil lurks in the heart of a man who writes about bestiality in a novel!?! :p

Post #196 War Is Over, Dick!

Tuesday, June 30, 2009, was the beginning of the end, the deadline for withdrawing American forces from Iraq's cities. It was an occasion for rejoicing, despite some continuing violence. The prime minister there declaring it a national holiday, a day of sovereignty.

Former Vice President Dick Cheney expressed concern Monday that the insurgents were just waiting for U.S. forces to pull out to renew their attacks. "I would not want to see the U.S. waste all the tremendous sacrifice that has gotten us to this point," he said.

Um, you had over five years, a trillion or so dollars, over 4000 American lives, tens of thousands Iraq lives to get it right, Dick! And now we are left to clean up your mess.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BARACK OBAMA, (D) PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: So the Iraqi people are rightly treating this day as a cause for celebration. This is an important step forward as a sovereign and united Iraq continues to take control of its own destiny.

And there is more work to be done, but we've made important progress in supporting a sovereign, stable, and self-reliant Iraq. And everyone who has served there, both in uniform as well as our civilians, deserves our thanks.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

But, take heart, Dick -- FAUX NEWS continues to spew.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP, "Fox Report," June 30, 2009)

CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER, SYNDICATED COLUMNIST: But he referred to what we have achieved as a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq. He left out one word, and he left it out because it was a George Bush word -- democracy. That was a Bush idea was to lant a democracy in Iraq.

If we had wanted to have merely a sovereign, stable, self-reliant Iraq, we could have chosen a Saddamist general to succeed Saddam after the war and gotten out.

It's true that the democracy established here is a fragile one. It's still struggling, and we will argue for decades over whether it was worth the 4,000 American lives, as we still argue half a century later with whether or not it was worth 36,000 lives to salvage a democracy in half of the Korean Peninsula.

Nonetheless, it is a democracy, and that's what makes it unique and distinctive, and an amazing achievement in a sea of autocracies and dictatorships, having an effect, by example, on Lebanon, on the gulf states, and even on Iran, where Iranians look to their west and see a country which is also Shiite, Arab, which the Persians consider
culturally inferior, and yet it has a democracy, it has elections, it has an Ayatollah Sistani who says the clerics ought to stay out of politics, nd the Iranians are living under a sixth century dictatorship run by mullahs.

So it's a remarkable achievement, and we ought to emphasize what we have achieved in terms of democracy.

And it's a pity that the president ignores that because the democratic nature of Iraq will establish the basis for a strategic alliance between America and Iraq in the future.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

So, did we take our eye off the ball with a misguided act based on false premises that caused more damage than good? Or will we ultimately have a more democratic Middle East?

It's hard not to believe that we lost sight of the terrorists in Afghanistan because of Dick Cheney's paranoia.

But, until the U.S. completes its withdrawal and the full shape of postwar Iraq becomes clear, ultimate judgment is impossible. But even future successes must take into account American and Iraqi blood and treasure lost from a war of choice.

The problem with democracy is that the outcome of elections is not always desirable. Who do ya think will win the next Iraqi election? An American puppet or an Iraqi for the Iraqis!?! Then, there will be moaning on FAUX NEWS -- and curses for Dick Cheney....

Post #195 Tainted, Pt. II

"Why is the [Republican] party in trouble? Simple. Dubya got a hold of the keys, got high on neocon hooch, and crashed and rolled the family SUV.

"He launched an unnecessary war against a country that had not attacked us. With his utopian No Child Left Behind scheme and his Medicare drug plan, he did his passable imitation of LBJ, and blew a hole in the budget.

"Touting globalism, he presided over the loss of one in every four U.S. manufacturing jobs and ran up $5 trillion in trade deficits. He refused to defend the Mexican border against an invasion, then pushed an amnesty for the invaders.

"This was no Reaganite. This was the neocons' apprentice."

So said Pat Buchanan, May 8, 2009.

Every Republican should repeat that and then explain why ya supported amending the Constitution without an Amendment and why ya supported budget deficit after deficit and why ya supprted globalism. Explain what Reagan believed and why ya believe that.

I think Republicans' newly-found 'principles' have more to do with eing out-of-power than reading and researching about 'conservatism' and what it means.

Post #194, Tainted?

"Do you really believe that we lost 18-to-34-year-olds by 19 percent, or we lost Hispanic voters, because we are not conservative enough? No. This is a ridiculous line of thought. The truth is we lost young people because our Republican brand is tainted."

So said Senator Lindsay Graham, Republican of South Carolina.

Tainted? With tax cuts and torture? :p

Graham also said: "We are not losing blue states and shrinking as a party because we are not conservative enough. If we pursue a party that has no place for someone who agrees with me 70 percent of the time, that is based on an ideological purity test rather than a coalition test, then we are going to keep losing."

The debate rages: Should the Republican Party purge moderate voices like newly-Democrat Arlen Specter and embrace its conservative roots or seek to broaden its appeal to regain a competitive position against Democrats?

Please, please, I say, embrace 'conservative roots' and explain yourself for the past eight years, Mr. Republican. Michael Reagan, the son of former President Ronald Reagan and a conservative talk show host said, "We've been closeted for the last eight years; it's time for the right to come out of the closet."

Oh, dear. What exactly closet have ya been the victim of? Who put ya there!?! :p

Where were you when George W. Bush asked to take more than a trillion dollars out of the treasury in the form of tax cuts? Whatever happened to 'fiscal responsibility?'

Where were you when Bush wanted to expand the government's reach into your private life by the Patriot Act? Apparently, the belief in limited government only applies when a Democrat is in the White House.

Where were you when Bush wanted to appropriate the Constitutional authority to declare war for himself? Did your support go only as long as it was 'off-budget?'

Where were you when Bush extended prescription drug coverage to seniors, the largest expansion of government into health care since the birth of Medicare?

The question continue.

Where are you on war crimes? Ignore? Investigate? Prosecute?

Any Republican today who wants to lead that mob has a lot to answer for. Now, I think a 'conservative' party can bring a lot to the table, but they need to understand that History has taken another step to the Left -- todays Republicans do not understand that, nor do they understand their own complicity in that.

Post #193

Subject: My work here is done….

Now that George W. Bush is in exile in Texas, tossing and turning every night, fearing that every bump in the night is the posse coming to hold his sorry ass accountable for the war crimes of his administration, I can close this blog. I began this blog to take a few swipes at the Weasel before he left office. I will leave this blog here -- as long as blogspot agrees -- so that peeps can read it and say “Never again.” Never again will the voters be fooled by a charming ignorance.

I may add from time to time, especially as lame excuses for the Bush administration are offered -- such as Dick Cheney’s recent ‘civics lesson.’ What Dick does not seem to understand is that America is all about following the rules -- to torture is to become terrorists ourselves, a losing strategy. Thanks, Dick [rolleyes].