Nancy Pelosi . . . so close to the truth

Chastising her fellow Democrats via mass media in an effort to get them to throw their political careers aside (not the mention the wishes and best interests of their constituents), House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Cal.) said . . . "We're not her just to perpetuate our service in Congress.  We're here to do the job for the American people."  (Link to story here.)

So close to the truth Madam Speaker.  What you meant/wanted to say is you and your fellow liberal Democrats are in Washington "to do a job on the American people."

Pelosi's take on the Tea Party movement

Nancy Pelosi is either stupid or a liar, bent on saying anything - true or not true - for political gain.  And I really doubt that any stupid person could rise to become Speaker of the House.

In this interview on ABC's This Week, Pelosi again indicated that at least "some" of the movement "is orchestrated from the Republican headquarters," which is "hijacking the good intentions of lots of people."  Pelosi thinks that the Democrats have much in common with the Tea Partiers "in terms of the role of special interest in Washington, D.C., as - it just has to stop.  And that's why I've fought the special interest, whether it's on energy, whether it's on health insurance, whether its on pharmaceuticals and the rest."

Ha!  Nancy Pelosi vs. special interests.  If she's fought any it has been on behalf of big government and not on behalf of the American people.

And, it is time for a reality check Ms. Pelosi . . . the Tea Party rose not to fight against health insurance companies on behalf of your socialized medicine schemes but, instead, it rose to fight your plans to tax and spend our country into oblivion.

Global Warming Crowd goes 1984

Today I read this stunning story about how last month was the "hottest January the world has ever seen."  It just doesn't square with reality.  

Cold is now hot.

Black is white.

In his classic book 1984, George Orwell described "blackwhite" . . . a "loyal willingness to say black is white when party discipline demands this.  It also means the ability to believe that black is white, and more, to know black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed to the contrary."  (Link here.)

I guess Neville Nicholls has invented "coldhot."

What a waste of time and talk

Today Barack Obama held his healthcare summit.  Nothing happened.  Neither the Democrats nor the Republicans budged from their pre-summit positions.  And, you know what, that was the expected result.  It was the Democrats intended result.

A Democrat source told Politico that the summit itself was held simply to "give a face to gridlock, in the form of House and Senate Republicans."  (Link to story here.)  It was never intended, at least by the Democrats, as a forum to share ideas or work toward some agreement.

Plans have already been made, according to the same Politico story, to push toward the shady, partisan, Democrats-only process of reconciliation next week.

Public opinion be damned.  (Sometimes a picture is worth a thousand words.)

Just in case you thought the British Healthcare system was a model . . .

Check out this story - a hospital in England, run by the government-funded National Health Service, "stopped providing safe care because they were preoccupied with government targets and cutting costs."  Because of staffing cutbacks, an independent inquiry reported that "patients went unwashed for weeks, were left without food or drink and were even unable to get the lavatory.  Some lay in soiled sheets that relatives had to take home to wash, others developed infections or had falls, occasionally fatal."

Hopefully the results of nationalized and government-run healthcare will be kept in mind as the debate over Obamacare continues.

Democrat Hypocrites

Or is that redundant?

Just in case you thought the Canadian Healthcare system was a model . . .

Check out this story - the Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador needed heart surgery.  Since Danny Williams, in his own words, "did not sign away my right to get the best possible health care for myself when I entered politics," he traveled to Miami to get heart surgery.  "This was my heart, my choice and my health."

Williams didn't stay in Canada to get his surgery because he "wanted to get in, get out fast, [and] get back to work in a short period of time."  Apparently in Canada he couldn't have gotten surgery without "jumping a line or a wait list."  Leaving the country for prompt and proper care "is not a unique phenomenon to me," said Williams.  "This is something that happens with lots of families throughout [Canada]."

Yet, according to Barack Obama and the other Democrats in Washington, America's healthcare system is the broken one and Canada's is to be emulated.

Obama's plan would use federal funds for abortion

Just when we thought we could sleep at night, Obamacare is back with a vengeance . . .

The rightly-hailed 41st Republican vote in the senate has already shown a willingness to vote with the Democrats.  (Link to story here.)

The White House has signaled its intention to railroad Obamacare into law with or without 60 votes in the Senate.  (Link to story here.)

And, according to Douglas Johnson, legislative director for the National Right to Life Committee, the "compromise" plan unveiled by President Obama today "would allow direct federal funding of abortion-on-demand through community health centers, would institute federal subsidies for private health plans that cover abortion-on-demand, including some federally administered plans, and would authorize federal mandates that would require even non-subsidized private plans to cover elective abortion."  (Link to story here.)

What's going on?  Can't Obama and his liberal friends see that the American people don't want this?

Of course they can.  They just don't care.  If the monstrosity known as healthcare "reform" passes this year, it will be so entrenched that it will be nearly impossible to roll back.  Though the GOP stands a chance gain control of Congress following the mid-term elections in November, it would take a major miracle to get a veto-proof majority.  So the Democrats know that whatever they pass this year cannot realistically be changed until after the 2012 presidential election and, by then, they are banking on Obamacare being an entitlement program as politically impossible to cut as social security.

To make this a reality, they're willing to risk their personal political fortunes.  Doing so would be anathema to the Democrats but reality may already have set in.  Their political lot has already been cast.  They know that they're doomed.  With the elections ahead already lost, they have nothing more to lose.

Massive - MASSIVE - public outcry is needed to stop Obamacare now.  Bigger than the town halls.  Bigger than the tea parties.

Unfortunately, even that may not be enough.  It may not be enough because Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, and the rest of the liberals in Washington really, really, don't care what you think.

A breathtakingly sick abortion story

It is so near unspeakable that I'm choosing not to write more.  Just read the story at this link to know what I'm talking or, should I say, not talking about.

Separated at birth?

Obama proposes price-fixing

Since the direct approach at a government takeover of the U.S. healthcare system appears to have failed (though I haven't popped a champagne cork yet), Barack Obama is proposing new regulations to prohibit private businesses from setting the price for their product.  According to this New York Times story, the president "will propose on Monday giving the federal government new power to block excessive rate increases by health insurance companies."

Obama is banking, of course, on the fact that the private businesses targeted - insurance companies - have been portrayed as big, bad, and evil throughout the media - the latest national boogieman - following the oil industry, the banking industry, the securities industry, the auto industry, heck - industry of any sort seems to be the enemy in Obama's eyes. 

The reality is that this is [or at least was] a market economy, with competition in the marketplace keeping costs in check.  But now, the government wants to take on that job.  If companies can no longer decide what to charge for their products, is this really a free country anymore?

Friends of Robin

Acorn & Robin Carnahan

The return of the Big Fat Who Cares Department: on religion and homosexuality.

According to Elton John, noted biblical scholar (ha!), Jesus Christ was gay . . .

"I think," Sir Elton said, "Jesus was a compassionate, super-intelligent gay man who understood human problems.  . . .  Jesus wanted us to be loving and forgiving."

Does the fact that Jesus was compassionate or the fact that he was super-intelligent or the fact that he understood human problems constitute evidence of homosexuality?  Does the fact that he wanted us to be loving and forgiving mean that he was gay?

Of course not.  

And, I really want to know, why do any of us care what Elton John thinks about the sexuality of Jesus?

Don't let the door hit you in the ___ on the way out.

Yvo de Boer, the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (I didn't make that title up - though somebody at Wikipedia might as well have) resigned today.  (Link to story here.)

Good riddance.  Maybe the entire bureaucracy should follow him out the door.

With apologies to lawyers everywhere . . .

I'm going to adapt my favorite old lawyer joke.  Here's the old version:

How can you tell if a lawyer is lying to you?  Look to see if his lips are moving.

Here's the 2010 version:

How can you tell if the president of the United States is lying to you?  Look to see if his lips are moving.

Link to the latest whopper here.

Obama's on the campaign trail and I couldn't be happier.

Barack Obama is heading out to stump for Democrat senators in Nevada and Colorado.  Both Harry Reid and Michael Bennet are trailing challengers in the polls so Obama's heading out on what has been dubbed his "Save the Senate" tour.  (Link to story here.)  

While the president can by raise boatloads of money for these candidates . . . apparently the Democrats have not yet learned the lessons of Massachusetts.  

The only thing that could make me happier about this story would be Obama coming to Missouri ahead of the mid-term elections to campaign for Robin Carnahan . . . 

And guess what . . . he is coming!  Not to campaign for Carnahan but to raise money for Claire McCaskill.  (Link here.)

Please, please Robin, go to this event and mug for the cameras.  Give us the photo op for Roy Blunt's campaign flyers.  Pretty please.

The blogger's absence explained . . .

But watch out liberals, I'm baaaack.

Evan Bayh apparently heard the news and got out while he could.  (Link here.)

A live tiger for Mizzou? I can think of better ways to spend $2 million

Tim Noce, the president of the Missouri Students Association is pushing to have a live tiger at Faurot Field for Mizzou football games.  According to Noce, a real tiger - as opposed to Truman - would "increase school spirit and draw attention to Missouri athletics."  The cost . . . ONLY two million dollars.  (Link to                                                                                  story here.)

Thankfully, Noce is looking for private donations and not tax dollars to pay for this idea but still, in the midst of a pretty big recession, two million dollars is a lot of money.

I would respectfully request that if this young man can attract two million dollars in donations, he ought to be doing it for a cause more worthy of the money than a new school pet.

Here are just a few such causes . . . 

starting scholarships for kids who want to get an education at Mizzou but can no longer afford it because of the recession,

donating to the American Red Cross's Haiti Relief and Development fund, or 

purchasing 200,000 mosquito nets to fight malaria, one of the largest killers of children in Africa, through Nothing But Nets.

Wouldn't you rather support a good cause, save a life, combat poverty, or provide an education to someone in need than look at an animal at a football game?  Rah, rah!

Here's hoping Mizzou gets its priorities in line.

Why is Washington responsible for school lunches?

Today, Michelle Obama took the reigns of the "Let's Move" campaign, described by the New York Times as "a sweeping initiative . . . aimed at revamping the way American children eat and play - reshaping school lunches, playgrounds and even medical checkups - with the goal of eliminating childhood obesity within a generation."  (Link to story here.)  

First Ladies have always had their causes from Nancy Reagan's "Just Say No" campaign to Hillary Clinton's failed attempt at socializing medicine in America to Laura Bush's promotion of literacy.  I have no particular problem with Mrs. Obama taking on childhood obesity.  And, frankly, I have no problem with nutritious lunches at school or exercise-promoting playgrounds.  I don't even have a problem with the First Lady using her status to encourage change in habits.

I do have a problem with this campaign coming from Washington, D.C.  It grates on me.  It grates on me because the role of the federal government has expanded so far into the daily lives of Americans that it is taking on the task of determining what to feed our children at school, bypassing state governments entirely and usurping the role of local school boards.

In an ideal world, or even in a country operating as this country's founders envisioned, most power would remain with the people; some would be given to local government entities - like cities, counties, or school boards; a smaller share would go to the states; and very little would be given to the federal government.  Why?  Because the closer the government is to the people, the more responsive the government is to the wants and needs of the people.  If I have a problem with my children's school lunches, or their playgrounds, etc., I should be able to take it up with a neighbor, a school board member who lives nearby and is elected to serve the school district.  Does anyone think that somebody in Washington would be more responsive to me than my neighbor?

Ours is no ideal world.  Everything has been (or is being) federalized.  Washington has its sticky fingers everywhere.  America has lost its way.  The distribution of power is upside-down and "Let's Move" is symptomatic.  

Nothing personal Mrs. Obama.  I hope that your campaign meets its goal.  I just wish the power to do something about the problem was closer to my home than yours.

Who is that running past Russ Carnahan?

Ed Martin.

Go Ed Go!

(Thanks to The Tim Man for alerting me to this video.)

44% Approval - 47% Disapproval

Barack Obama's job approval rating has crashed to a new low, just over a year after he took office.

I think the country knows the answer to Sarah Palin's question.  It isn't working out very well at all.

The 44% approval rating, by the way, comes from a poll of all registered voters - including dyed in the wool Democrats and liberals of all description.  Among independents, whose support thrust Obama into office, his job approval sits at 29%.  57% of independents disapprove.  (Link to story here.)

For America, election day can't come soon enough.

"Hows that hopey, changey stuff working out for ya'?" -Sarah Palin

Good question Sarah.  Good question.  (Link to story here.)

India gets it!

Tonight, SLC is flying the flag of India.  Why?  Because India's government has pulled out of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change because the IPCC has proven unreliable.  (Link to story here.)

The Indian "environment minister" said this . . . 

"There is a fine line between climate science and climate evangelism.  I am for climate science.  I think people misused [the] IPCC report, [the] IPCC doesn't do the original research which is one of the weaknesses . . . they just take published literature and then they derive assessments, so we had goof-ups on Amazon forest, glaciers, snow peaks."

That India would pull out of the IPCC is a real blow to its chairman, Dr. R.K. Pachauri, because he's Indian.  

But really now, how can any government really stand behind the IPCC or what it should be called, the IPCL - the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Lies - after the truth has been exposed.  (Recent examples here, here, and here.)

With apologies to Kipling . . . Science is science.  And politics is politics.  Never the twain shall meet.

What is $14.3 trillion? And why do I ask?

It is nearly impossible to comprehend big numbers.  Ten, no problem.  I've got that many fingers.  Twenty, add the toes.  A hundred, well, that gets harder but we all know what a hundred pennies look like and that we can get a double cheeseburger for that at the local burger king.  A thousand, well, we're starting to get big here.  What about a million?  Or a billion?  It is really not a concept we face on a daily basis.

So what is a trillion?  Time ran this article last January that quoted a guy named David Schwartz who wrote a children's book that tries to "wrap young minds around the concept [of a mere million]."  Schwartz said that his "favorite way to think of it is in terms of seconds.  . . . One million seconds comes out to be about 11 1/2 days.  A billion seconds is 32 years.  And a trillion seconds is 32,000 years."  Extending the math, 14.3 trillion seconds is 457,600 years!

Again, unfortunately, we've once again reached an incomprehensible number.  How long is 457,000 years?  Well, "archaeologists estimate that modern humans have been on the Earth for about 200,000 years."  Not wanting to to start a fight over evolution or creation, lets put it this way instead, one of the oldest discovered sites of human settlement is 160,000 years old.  So, if we double the proven time period that human beings have been walking on the planet, we won't have reached 457,000 years.  We'd still be a couple of trillion seconds short.

So, why do I ask?  Because the debt of the United States of America - our federal government - is expected to reach $14.3 trillion by the end of this month.  (Link to story here.)

Our government has no money.  We have borrowed more than the human mind can fathom.  Yet Washington Democrats want to borrow more and spend more.

Enough is enough.  Enough is too much.  2010 has got to be a referendum on this kind of thing - and put it to an end forever - or at least for a couple of trillion seconds.

Looking for a safe bet on your next trip to Vegas? Here's a sure thing . . .

Barack Obama won't carry Nevada in 2012.

Why not?

Exhibit A:  Last year, Obama said, "You cant take that trip to Las Vegas or go down to the Super Bowl on taxpayers' dime."  After those comments, Nevada tourism tanked.

Now, Exhibit B:  Today, Obama said, "When times are tough, you tighten your belts.  You don't go buying a boat when you can barely pay your mortgage.  You don't blow a bunch of cash on Vegas when you're trying to save for college."  (Link to story here.)

What happens when people don't go to Las Vegas and spend money?  The casinos lose revenue, yes.  But so do the hotels, tourist shops, and restaurants.  And the folks who work at casinos, hotels, tourist shops, and restaurants lose their jobs - and their ability to pay their mortgages or save for college tuition.

James Clyburn's words were right yesterday, but his meaning all wrong.  We do have to spend our way out of the recession.  But we is the American people and American business.  Not the American government.  Americans spending money, buying things from other people, churning dollars back and forth between one another, buying goods and services . . . economic activity, and a lot of it, is our only hope.

President Obama should get in the way of government spending and get out of the way of Americans and, yes, American corporations, spending their money in ways that they deem appropriate.

Democrat: "We've got to spend our way out of this recession."

Barack Obama has proposed a $3.8 trillion budget for 2010.  One third of that - ONE THIRD OF THE TOTAL BUDGET - is deficit spending, borrowing (or printing) money that we don't have.

Defending this irresponsible and reckless budget is Congressman James Clyburn (D-South Carolina), the majority whip in the U.S. House of Representatives.  Clyburn said, "we're not going to save our way out of this recession.  We've got to spend our way out of this recession, and I think most economists know that."  "You're not going to grow the economy by wishing it;" he said, "you've got to invest in it.  And that's what we're doing with this budget."  (Link to story here.)

You're not investing, Mr. Clyburn.  Investing is taking money that you have and putting it to work.  You're taking money that you don't have and funding a massive increase in government expenditures.  You're attempting to make more and more Americans dependent on feed from the public trough.  

Allow me to put it simply.  We don't have the money!

What the Democrats are advocating is akin to a family with annual income of $60,000 borrowing $30,000 more - on top of its already staggering debt load - and buying a new car or going on vacation.  It is irresponsible.

Again, we don't have the money!

The time is now to take a meat cleaver to this budget.  Cut.  Cut.  Cut!

Glaciergate leads Adolph Hitler to the breaking point

Thanks to Mr. Xyz for pointing me to this one.

Not as good as the original (link here) but funny indeed.