i know this has been posted before but it bears a look now and then.
This will give you nightmares tonight. Only view if you have a strong stomach.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/
It's long but worth the read!
The Worst Bill Ever
Epic new spending and taxes, pricier insurance, rationed care, dishonest accounting: The Pelosi health bill has it all.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi has reportedly told fellow Democrats that she's prepared to lose seats in 2010 if that's what it takes to pass ObamaCare, and little wonder. The health bill she unwrapped last Thursday, which President Obama hailed as a "critical milestone," may well be the worst piece of post-New Deal legislation ever introduced.
In a rational political world, this 1,990-page runaway train would have been derailed months ago. With spending and debt already at record peacetime levels, the bill creates a new and probably unrepealable middle-class entitlement that is designed to expand over time. Taxes will need to rise precipitously, even as ObamaCare so dramatically expands government control of health care that eventually all medicine will be rationed via politics.
Yet at this point, Democrats have dumped any pretense of genuine bipartisan "reform" and moved into the realm of pure power politics as they race against the unpopularity of their own agenda. The goal is to ram through whatever income-redistribution scheme they can claim to be "universal coverage." The result will be destructive on every level—for the health-care system, for the country's fiscal condition, and ultimately for American freedom and prosperity.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.
•The spending surge. The Congressional Budget Office figures the House program will cost $1.055 trillion over a decade, which while far above the $829 billion net cost that Mrs. Pelosi fed to credulous reporters is still a low-ball estimate. Most of the money goes into government-run "exchanges" where people earning between 150% and 400% of the poverty level—that is, up to about $96,000 for a family of four in 2016—could buy coverage at heavily subsidized rates, tied to income. The government would pay for 93% of insurance costs for a family making $42,000, 72% for another making $78,000, and so forth.
At least at first, these benefits would be offered only to those whose employers don't provide insurance or work for small businesses with 100 or fewer workers. The taxpayer costs would be far higher if not for this "firewall"—which is sure to cave in when people see the deal their neighbors are getting on "free" health care. Mrs. Pelosi knows this, like everyone else in Washington.
Even so, the House disguises hundreds of billions of dollars in additional costs with budget gimmicks. It "pays for" about six years of program with a decade of revenue, with the heaviest costs concentrated in the second five years. The House also pretends Medicare payments to doctors will be cut by 21.5% next year and deeper after that, "saving" about $250 billion. ObamaCare will be lucky to cost under $2 trillion over 10 years; it will grow more after that.
• Expanding Medicaid, gutting private Medicare. All this is particularly reckless given the unfunded liabilities of Medicare—now north of $37 trillion over 75 years. Mrs. Pelosi wants to steal $426 billion from future Medicare spending to "pay for" universal coverage. While Medicare's price controls on doctors and hospitals are certain to be tightened, the only cut that is a sure thing in practice is gutting Medicare Advantage to the tune of $170 billion. Democrats loathe this program because it gives one of out five seniors private insurance options.
As for Medicaid, the House will expand eligibility to everyone below 150% of the poverty level, meaning that some 15 million new people will be added to the rolls as private insurance gets crowded out at a cost of $425 billion. A decade from now more than a quarter of the population will be on a program originally intended for poor women, children and the disabled.
Even though the House will assume 91% of the "matching rate" for this joint state-federal program—up from today's 57%—governors would still be forced to take on $34 billion in new burdens when budgets from Albany to Sacramento are in fiscal collapse. Washington's budget will collapse too, if anything like the House bill passes.
• European levels of taxation. All told, the House favors $572 billion in new taxes, mostly by imposing a 5.4-percentage-point "surcharge" on joint filers earning over $1 million, $500,000 for singles. This tax will raise the top marginal rate to 45% in 2011 from 39.6% when the Bush tax cuts expire—not counting state income taxes and the phase-out of certain deductions and exemptions. The burden will mostly fall on the small businesses that have organized as Subchapter S or limited liability corporations, since the truly wealthy won't have any difficulty sheltering their incomes.
This surtax could hit ever more earners because, like the alternative minimum tax, it isn't indexed for inflation. Yet it still won't be nearly enough. Even if Congress had confiscated 100% of the taxable income of people earning over $500,000 in the boom year of 2006, it would have only raised $1.3 trillion. When Democrats end up soaking the middle class, perhaps via the European-style value-added tax that Mrs. Pelosi has endorsed, they'll claim the deficits that they created made them do it.
Under another new tax, businesses would have to surrender 8% of their payroll to government if they don't offer insurance or pay at least 72.5% of their workers' premiums, which eat into wages. Such "play or pay" taxes always become "pay or pay" and will rise over time, with severe consequences for hiring, job creation and ultimately growth. While the U.S. already has one of the highest corporate income tax rates in the world, Democrats are on the way to creating a high structural unemployment rate, much as Europe has done by expanding its welfare states.
Meanwhile, a tax equal to 2.5% of adjusted gross income will also be imposed on some 18 million people who CBO expects still won't buy insurance in 2019. Democrats could make this penalty even higher, but that is politically unacceptable, or they could make the subsidies even higher, but that would expose the (already ludicrous) illusion that ObamaCare will reduce the deficit.
• The insurance takeover. A new "health choices commissioner" will decide what counts as "essential benefits," which all insurers will have to offer as first-dollar coverage. Private insurers will also be told how much they are allowed to charge even as they will have to offer coverage at virtually the same price to anyone who applies, regardless of health status or medical history.
The cost of insurance, naturally, will skyrocket. The insurer WellPoint estimates based on its own market data that some premiums in the individual market will triple under these new burdens. The same is likely to prove true for the employer-sponsored plans that provide private coverage to about 177 million people today. Over time, the new mandates will apply to all contracts, including for the large businesses currently given a safe harbor from bureaucratic tampering under a 1974 law called Erisa.
The political incentive will always be for government to expand benefits and reduce cost-sharing, trampling any chance of giving individuals financial incentives to economize on care. Essentially, all insurers will become government contractors, in the business of fulfilling political demands: There will be no such thing as "private" health insurance.
***
All of this is intentional, even if it isn't explicitly acknowledged. The overriding liberal ambition is to finish the work began decades ago as the Great Society of converting health care into a government responsibility. Mr. Obama's own Medicare actuaries estimate that the federal share of U.S. health dollars will quickly climb beyond 60% from 46% today. One reason Mrs. Pelosi has fought so ferociously against her own Blue Dog colleagues to include at least a scaled-back "public option" entitlement program is so that the architecture is in place for future Congresses to expand this share even further.
As Congress's balance sheet drowns in trillions of dollars in new obligations, the political system will have no choice but to start making cost-minded decisions about which treatments patients are allowed to receive. Democrats can't regulate their way out of the reality that we live in a world of finite resources and infinite wants. Once health care is nationalized, or mostly nationalized, medical rationing is inevitable—especially for the innovative high-cost technologies and drugs that are the future of medicine.
Mr. Obama rode into office on a wave of "change," but we doubt most voters realized that the change Democrats had in mind was making health care even more expensive and rigid than the status quo. Critics will say we are exaggerating, but we believe it is no stretch to say that Mrs. Pelosi's handiwork ranks with the Smoot-Hawley tariff and FDR's National Industrial Recovery Act as among the worst bills Congress has ever seriously contemplated.
Dr. Vinay Goyal is an MBBS,DRM,DNB (Intensivist and Thyroid specialist) having clinical experience of over 20 years. He has worked in institutions like Hinduja Hospital , Bombay Hospital , Saifee Hospital , Tata Memorial etc. Presently, he is heading our Nuclear Medicine Department and Thyroid clinic at Riddhivinayak Cardiac and Critical Centre, Malad (W).
The following message given by him, I feel makes a lot of sense and is important for all to know
The only portals of entry are the nostrils and mouth/throat. In a global epidemic of this nature, it's almost impossible to avoid coming into contact with H1N1 in spite of all precautions. Contact with H1N1 is not so much of a problem as proliferation is.
While you are still healthy and not showing any symptoms of H1N1 infection, in order to prevent prol iferation, aggravation of symptoms and development of secondary infections, some very simple steps, not fully highlighted in most official communications, can be practiced (instead of focusing on how to stock N95 or Tamiflu):
1. Frequent hand-washing (well highlighted in all official communications).
2. "Hands-off-the-face" approach. Resist all temptations to touch any part of face (unless you want to eat, bathe or slap).
3. *Gargle twice a day with warm salt water (use Listerine if you don't trust salt). *H1N1 takes 2-3 days after initial infection in the throat/ nasal cavity to proliferate and show characteristic symptoms. Simple gargling prevents proliferation. In a way, gargling with salt water has the same effect on a healthy individual that Tamiflu has on an infected o ne. Don't underestimate this simple, inexpensive and powerful preventative method.
4. Similar to 3 above, *clean your nostrils at least once every day with warm salt water. *Not everybody may be good at Jala Neti or Sutra Neti (very good Yoga asanas to clean nasal cavities), but *blowing the nose hard once a day and swabbing both nostrils with cotton buds dipped in warm salt water is very effective in bringing down viral population.*
5. *Boost your natural immunity with foods that are rich in Vitamin C (Amla and other citrus fruits). *If you have to supplement with Vitamin C tablets, make sure that it also has Zinc to boost absorption.
6. *Drink as much of warm liquids (tea, coffee, etc) as you can. *Drinking warm liquids has the same effect as gargling, but in the reverse direction. They wash off proliferating viruses from the throat into the stomach where they cannot survive, proliferate or do any harm.
Neti pots and sinus rinse kits are available at the drug store and relatively inexpensive….under $15.
You know you are too old to Trick or Treat when:
10. You get winded from knocking on the door.
9. You have to have another kid chew the candy for you.
8. You ask for high fiber candy only.
7. When someone drops a candy bar in your bag,
you lose your balance and fall over.
6. People say: "Great Boris Karloff Mask,"
And you're not wearing a mask.
5. When the door opens you yell, "Trick or..."
And can't remember the rest.
4. By the end of the night, you have a bag
full of restraining orders.
3. You have to carefully choose a costume that
won't dislodge your hairpiece.
2. You're the only Power Ranger in the
neighborhood with a walker.
And the number one reason Seniors should not go Trick Or Treating...
*
*
*
1. You keep having to go home to pee.
No matter, have a HAPPY HALLOWEEN anyway.
______________
Congressional Second Graders
10/22/2009
Changing the locks usually signals a bad break-up.
If that is what it means on Capitol Hill, it is a bad sign for bipartisanship.
Rep. Edolphus Towns (D-N.Y.), chairman of the House Oversight Committee, changed the locks on the committee’s main chamber, a decision made without the Republican members of the committee. The Republicans were later informed that the Democrats would control access to the room by holding the only set of keys.
When questioned about his actions, Towns said it was a response to a video entitled “Hit the Road Jack: Oversight Democrats Run Away From Countrywide Bribe Program Vote” that was posted on YouTube and linked on Rep. Darrell Issa’s (R-Calif.) Twitter feed.
This is the state of U.S. politics, folks.
The House oversight committee was scheduled to meet on Thursday, Oct. 15 for a mark-up meeting also expected to include a call to vote. Towns wanted to subpoena Countrywide Financial documents from Bank of America. (Bank of America bought Countrywide last year after it had been one of the biggest mortgage bankers to collapse in the housing crisis.) Issa has been investigating the connections between Countrywide’s VIP loan program and Washington legislators, who may have been influenced by Countrywide deals, especially Connecticut Dem Sen. Chris Dodd, who got a “special friend” loan from Countrywide.
At meeting time last Thursday, however, the Republicans showed up while the chairs of the Democrat members remained empty (shown in the video). The original excuse given was a schedule conflict with another committee meeting. Complicating that explanation, however, was the video taped by Issa staff members of Democratic members of the committee exiting a private meeting in a separate chamber after the committee meeting had been scheduled to start.
Towns’ response to the humorous video, which is set to music and narrated with text, was to accuse the Republicans of bad behavior.
Issa’s office retaliated by calling the lock-changing maneuver “juvenile.” Issa spokesman Kurt Bardella said the video will remain posted on the official YouTube channel.
"If only they would use their creative energy to do some actual oversight and maybe hold a hearing rather than resorting to immature tactics,” he said.
The committee was scheduled to meet again today, but according to Bardella, Democrats have cancelled the hearing.
Meanwhile, the Republican Study Committee is channeling their creativity toward something useful by issuing Waste Action Alerts. The RSC Sunset Caucus, launched June 17, highlights wasteful spending, “working to sunset programs that taxpayers shouldn’t be paying for,” according to their mission statement. The first Action Alert highlights legislation introduced by Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R.-Utah) to end mohair subsidies.
Mohair: the silky fabric or yarn made from the hair of the Angora goat; possibly used to make expensive sweaters to keep congressmen warm during the winter, although some people find it itchy.
Regardless, Chaffetz and other members have seen fit to question the importance of mohair as part of the federal budget. According to the Action Alert issued by the RSC, the subsidies cost about $1 million per year. Price support for wool and mohair has existed since 1947, according to the Congressional Research Service. At the time, military uniforms were made of a wool and mohair blend.
The proposed bill, which would amend the Food, Conservation, and Energy Act of 2008, has been referred to the House Committee on Agriculture. Time will tell whether mohair will spin into bipartisan agreement or heated debate, but hopefully at least Chairman Collin C. Peterson (D.-Minn.) will not see fit to change the locks on the committee chamber in order to keep the goats in.
I didn't write this and do not know who did but it make a good point and I agree with it.
Today a friend and I were discussing the controversy that is stirring up between the Obama administration and the Fox Network Channel. I am not going to get into any discussions on if Fox is biased or not, if their reporting is "fair and accurate" or not. I think these arguments are childish and unrealistic. Any media outlet is going to reflect the political and ideological attitude of that media outlet's editorial staff and the political and ideological attitude of whoever owns or controls that media outlet. Media outlets are part of a free market economy, and privately owned or publicly traded, they're still in the private sector. If I put up an Internet Forum, and I invest in hardware and servers, my time, my effort, and my expense in bandwidth, I should have pretty much exclusive rights to publish more or less what I see fit on that site - filtered through whatever ideological or philosophical filter as I see fit. Expand that to a newspaper or TV network, and the same basic principle should still exist. The minute you say this ISN'T the case, for whatever reason, you might as well throw out the entire concept of "Freedom of the Press", so think this point through before you start arguing moral obligations to society or any other nonsense. As soon as some external force is telling a media outlet, ANY media outlet, what it should or shouldn't publish, think, broadcast or print, we're moving away from Freedom of the Press. There is NO gray here - it is non-negotiable, and if you would like to argue this with me on this particular point, really, just renounce your citizenship now and move to North Korea or Iran. So, this alone, in and of itself is an *excellent* point, a DAMNING point to the current position of the Obama administration, all by itself. But it goes beyond this.
For years, for DECADES, literally, conservatives complained about a hostile, liberal media. Ted Danson, Whoppi Goldberg, Alec Baldwin, Robin Williams, Rob Reiner, Bono and a host of other major motion picture and music industry artists have taken every opportunity to exploit their position of fame to influence national politics. Likewise, almost every media outlet and network, including the entire Turner Network empire, (who still has a huge part in CNN, for example) have had a clear preference for liberal politics. Newspaper and Television news is no different. Conservative Republicans have been largely relegated to AM talk radio and the Rush Limbaugh show for the last 30 + years. And, they have complained mightily about it.
The entire time, liberal DEMOCRATS have accused Republicans, with bemused, condescending tones, of being "alarmists, conspiracy theorists, and wingnuts". How ridiculous that any media outlet should be accused of having a bias to the left. It is completely irrational to propose such a thing.
Ironic then, that a SINGLE outspoken network, with a clear bias toward the opinions, ideologies and philosophies of the right, should prove so completely intolerable to the minds of liberals. Because face it, for the duration of the previous two Presidential terms, the left has been positively rabid in their hatred for Fox News Network. There is an extra spiteful place in the heart of most liberals where they save their most bitter venom, and that is where they keep their hatred for, as far as I can tell, 3 things. George W. Bush Jr., Dick Cheney, and Fox News Network. This is the holy trinity of unspeakable evil to Liberals - the GOP Father, Son and Holy Ghost (not necessarily in that order). There are a lot of things that liberals hate about conservatives. But few things raise their ire like these three.
And, they've pretty much got rid of at least two of 'em. That leaves only one, naggingly difficult issue to deal with. Fox News.
Now here is the thing, to me - the real kicker. The Obama administration has not been shy these past few days about their opinion on Fox News Network. They've gone so far as to say they are going to isolate Fox News from the administration. They're effectively declaring *war* on a media outlet, solely because they do not agree with the tone, philosophy or editorial content of that network. Let me put it another way. It would be the same thing as if Bush had said, "I am *only* going to deal with Fox News Network", which of course, would have had liberals *completely* up in arms.
"It isn't the same thing", I can hear the voices crying now.
It sure the !@*$ IS the same thing. The *exact* same thing. Name a presidential administration in the last 40 years that has publicly proclaimed that it would completely ostracize a single news media outlet because the administration disagreed with the editorial content and political philosophy of that media outlet. Oh. It is unprecedented. Of course it is. Because it is INCREDIBLY bad forum. Not, perhaps, as bad as accepting a Nobel Peace Prize for which you have no valid claim or right to - but still, pretty poor behavior for a Commander in Chief, none-the-less.
To me, there is only one way to interpret this. Conservatives, for the most part, are open to dialog, discussion, argument and debate. We probably welcome it, maybe even live for it. We believe in the Intel policy of "constructive confrontation". Passionate dialog leads to progress, leads to creative ideas, leads to innovation. We welcome opposing perspectives, and we're generally VERY confident (some might perceive it as arrogantly so) that our perspectives are rock solid and hard to rationally debate. When we're walking the walk we preach, I think this is the case, especially when we stick to economic conservatism and avoid the quagmire (this is a place where this overused word really applies) that is social conservatism. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to throw the liberals a bone here. For the last two Republican administrations, it has seemed that we were in bed with big corporations and preaching the same frightening social conservatism based on fundamentalist Christianity that are the two achilles heel's of the GOP. Don't get too smug, though, Democrats, your party is only better on this account because at least they *generally* avoid getting caught up in morality planks - although I'd remind you that Tipper Gore founded the PMRC, who brought Parental Warning Labels to the RIAA. At any rate, Republicans seem to welcome conflict.
Democrats would say they welcome open debate, dialog, and non-partisan discussion. But the fact is that if you *disagree* with Democratic political philosophies, it isn't long before you're being called one of "the lying liars" who tell lies. (Al Franken's version of using Soft Diplomacy with the Fox News Network. Thank God HE managed to steal his election... those dimpled chads had to be recounted for 6 months until he finally won). The truth of the matter is that Democrats make up as many lies about Republicans, about Republican policies, about Republican agendas, as Democrats make about Republicans. Liberal media buries stories, damning stories, about Democrats while endlessly seeking and pushing dirt on Republicans. They're all playing by the same handbook. Fox Network is *one* network - and the only one that leans right. This puts Fox Network at a terrible disadvantage - their difference of opinion, their spin on stories, is always going to stand in stark contrast to what almost the entire rest of the news media has to say on a particular subject.
I'm not exactly a Republican at this point, but the behavior of the Democrats ensures that I am certainly not anywhere near in alignment with the principles and attitudes of that party. I'm probably best described as a conservative or moderate libertarian. And from that perspective, I would be absolutely up in arms if a Republican presidential administration called out a single news network and absolutely REFUSED to engage with them. It is completely unacceptable behavior. Unequivocally. This is absolutely a horrible precedent for any administration regardless of political party to set. Reasonable citizens of the United States who believe in Freedom of the Press and the foundations of liberty that our forefathers set for our nation should make this opinion known to their administration. Democrat or Republican, it is your *duty* as a citizen to make certain that the Obama administration hears loud and clear that this is unacceptable behavior that will not be tolerated. If you are a Democrat, more is the responsibility *yours*. Not because you voted for him, but because you represent the ideals of your party - and those ideals should have no room for any behavior that threatens to censor and muzzle a free press.
CRAIG'S LIST PERSONALS AD
To the Guy who tried to Mug Me in Downtown Savannah
night before last. Date:2009-05-27, 1:43 a.m. E.S.T.
I was the guy wearing the black Burberry jacket that you demanded that I hand over, shortly after you pulled the knife on me and my girlfriend, threatening our lives. You also asked for my girlfriend's purse and earrings. I can only hope that you somehow come across this rather important message.
First, I'd like to apologize for your embarrassment; I didn't expect you to actually crap in your pants when I drew my pistol after you took my jacket The evening was not that cold, and I was wearing the jacket for a reason. My girlfriend had just bought me that Kimber Model 1911 .45 ACP pistol for my Birthday, and we had picked up a shoulder holster for it that very evening. Obviously you agree that it is a very intimidating
weapon when pointed at your head ... isn't it?!
I know it probably wasn't fun walking back to wherever you'd come from with that brown sludge in your pants. I'm sure it was even worse walking bare-footed since I made you leave your shoes, cell phone, and wallet with me. [That prevented you from calling or running to your buddies to come help mug us again].
After I called your mother, or "Momma" as you had her
listed in your cell, I explained the entire episode of what you'd done.
Then, I went and filled up my gas tank as well as those of four other people in the gas station, -- on your credit card. The guy with the big motor home took 150 gallons and was extremely grateful!
I gave your shoes to a homeless guy outside Vinnie Van Go Go's, along with all the cash in your wallet. [That made his day!]
I then threw your wallet into the big pink "pimp mobile" that was parked at the curb ... after I broke the windshield and side window and keyed the entire driver's side of the car.
Later, I called a bunch of phone sex numbers from your cell phone. Ma Bell just now shut down the line, although I only used the phone for a little over a day now, so what 's going on with that? Earlier, I managed to get in two threatening phone calls to the DA's office and one to the FBI, while mentioning President Obama as my possible target.
The FBI guy seemed really intense and we had a nice long chat (I guess while he traced your number etc.).
In a way, perhaps I should apologize for not killing you ... but I feel this type of retribution is a far more appropriate punishment for your threatened crime. I wish you well as you try to sort through some of these rather immediate pressing issues, and can only hope that you have the opportunity to reflect upon, and perhaps reconsider, the career path you've chosen to pursue in life.
Remember, next time you might not be so lucky. Have a good day!
Thoughtfully yours,
Alex
P.S. Remember this motto ... An armed society makes for a more civil society!
THE CONSERVATIVE REVIEW – October 20, 2009
Alienated & Radicalized
by Pat Buchanan
In the brief age of Obama, we have had “truthers,”
“birthers,” Tea Party activists and town-hall dissenters.
Comes now, the “Oath Keepers.” And who might they be?
Writes Alan Maimon in the Las Vegas Review-Journal, Oath
Keepers, depending on where one stands, are “either
strident defenders of liberty or dangerous peddlers of
paranoia.”
Formed in March, they are ex-military and police who
repledge themselves to defend the Constitution, even if
it means disobeying orders. If the U.S. government ordered
law enforcement agencies to violate Second Amendment rights
by disarming the people, Oath Keepers will not obey.
“The whole point of Oath Keepers is to stop a dictatorship
from ever happening here,” says founding father Stewart
Rhodes, an ex-Army paratrooper and Yale-trained lawyer.
“My focus is on the guys with the guns, because they can’t
do it without them.
“We say if the American people decide it’s time for a
revolution, we’ll fight with you.”
Prediction: Brother Rhodes is headed for cable stardom.
And if the Pelosi-Reid progressives went postal over town-
hall protesters, calling them “un-American,” “Nazis” and
“evil-mongers,” one can imagine what they will do with the
Oath Keepers.
As with Jimmy Carter’s long range psychoanalysis of Joe
Wilson, the reflexive reaction of the mainstream media
will likely be that these are militia types, driven to
irrationality because America has a black president.
Yet, the establishment’s reaction seems more problematic
for the republic than anything the Oath Keepers are up
to. For our political and media elite seem to have lost
touch with the nation and to be wedded to a vision of
America divorced from reality.
Progressives are the folks who, in the 1960s, could easily
understand that urban riots that took scores of lives and
destroyed billions in property were an inevitable reaction
to racism, poverty and despair. They could empathize with
the rage of campus radicals who burned down the ROTC build-
ing and bombed the Pentagon.
The “dirty, immoral war in Vietnam” explains why the
“finest generation we have ever produced” is behaving
like this, they said. We must deal with the “root causes”
of social disorder.
Yet, they cannot comprehend what would motivate Middle
America to distrust its government, for it surely does,
as Ron Brownstein reports in the National Journal:
“Whites are not only more anxious, but also more alienated.
Big majorities of whites say the past year’s turmoil has
diminished their confidence in government, corporations
and the financial industry… Asked which institution they
trust most to make economic decisions in their interest,
a plurality of whites older than 30 pick ‘none’ — a grim
statement.”
Is all this due to Obama’s race?
Even Obama laughs at that. As he told David Letterman, I
was already black by the time I was elected. And he not
only got a higher share of the white vote than Kerry or
Gore, a third of white voters, who said in August 2008
that race was an important consideration in voting, said
they were going to vote for Obama.
With black voters going 24 to 1 for Obama, he almost
surely won more votes than he lost because of his race.
Moreover, the alienation and radicalization of white
America began long before Obama arrived. He acknowledged
as much when he explained Middle Pennsylvanians to puzzled
progressives in that closed-door meeting in San Francisco.
Referring to the white working-class voters in the
industrial towns decimated by job losses, Obama said:
“They get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or
antipathy to people who aren’t like them or anti-immigrant
sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain
their frustrations.”
Yet, we had seen these folks before. They were Perotistas
in 1992, opposed NAFTA in 1993, and blocked the Bush-
Kennedy McCain amnesty in 2007.
In their lifetimes, they have seen their Christian faith
purged from schools their taxes paid for, and mocked in
movies and on TV. They have seen their factories shuttered
in the thousands and their jobs outsourced in the millions
to Mexico and China. They have seen trillions of tax
dollars go for Great Society programs, but have seen no
Great Society, only rising crime, illegitimacy, drug use
and dropout rates.
They watch on cable TV as illegal aliens walk into their
country, are rewarded with free educations and health care,
and take jobs at lower pay than American families can live
on — then carry Mexican flags in American cities and
demand U.S. citizenship.
They see Wall Street banks bailed out as they sweat their
next paycheck, then read that bank profits are soaring,
and the big bonuses for the brilliant bankers are back.
Neither they nor their kids ever benefited from affirmative
action, unlike Barack and Michelle Obama.
They see a government in Washington that cannot balance its
books, win our wars or protect our borders. The government
shovels out trillions to Fortune 500 corporations and banks
to rescue the country from a crisis created by the govern-
ment and Fortune 500 corporations and banks.
America was once their country. They sense they are losing
it and they are right.
Yes, If given the chance I would jump at the chance to "take out" Oscama and Pelosi. If given the opportunity I would take them to a nice restaurant and even pay for the meal. I Would relish the opportunity to ask Obama why he hate the Republic, Capitalism, and the U.S. I would ask why he is trying to destroy our nation and why he, after he promised to be a friend of the working class he is trying to destroy it with his Cap and Trade Bill which will raise the Price of gasoline by 50%, double or triple our electric bills, raise the price of everything we buy, kill more jobs and drive more businesses overseas. I would ask why he, along with the Democratic Congress, is trying to destroy our medical system. I would ask him why he has surrounded himself with Socialists, Marxists, and radicals and just how much power they have in his administration. I would ask him why he is waiting to make a decision on troops for Afghanistan and second guessing the seasoned Military leader he put there to run the war. I would like to ask Pelosi if she honestly believe all the crap that come out of her surgently stretched mouth and see id she can still blink her eyes. Yes! it would make my day to "take out" Obama.
To a Child, Love is Spelled T-I-M-E
by Mac Anderson and Lance Wubbels
In the faint light of the attic, an old man, tall and stooped, bent his great frame and made his way to a stack of boxes that sat near one of the little half-windows. Brushing aside a wisp of cobwebs, he tilted the top box toward the light and began to carefully lift out one old photograph album after another. Eyes once bright but now dim searched longingly for the source that had drawn him here.
It began with the fond recollection of the love of his life, long gone, and somewhere in these albums was a photo of her he hoped to rediscover.
Silent as a mouse, he patiently opened the long-buried treasures and soon was lost in a sea of memories. Although his world had not stopped spinning when his wife left it, the past was more alive in his heart than his present aloneness.
Setting aside one of the dusty albums, he pulled from the box what appeared to be a journal from his grown son's childhood. He could not recall ever having seen it before, or that his son had ever kept a journal.
Why did Elizabeth always save the children's old junk? he wondered, shaking his white head.
Opening the yellowed pages, he glanced over a short entry, and his lips curved in an unconscious smile. Even his eyes brightened as he read the words that spoke clear and sweet to his soul.
It was the voice of the little boy who had grown up far too fast in this very house, and whose voice had grown fainter and fainter over the years. In the utter silence of the attic, the words of a guileless six-year-old worked their magic and carried the old man back to a time almost totally forgotten.
Entry after entry stirred a sentimental hunger in his heart like the longing a gardener feels in the winter for the fragrance of spring flowers. But it was accompanied by the painful memory that his son's simple recollections of those days were far different from his own. But how different?
Reminded that he had kept a daily journal of his business activities over the years, he closed his son's journal and turned to leave, having forgotten the cherished photo that originally triggered his search.
Hunched over to keep from bumping his head on the rafters, the old man stepped to the wooden stairway and made his descent, then headed down a carpeted stairway that led to the den.
Opening a glass cabinet door, he reached in and pulled out an old business journal. Turning, he sat down at his desk and placed the two journals beside each other.
His was leather bound and engraved neatly with his name in gold, while his son's was tattered and the name "Jimmy" had been nearly scuffed from its surface. He ran a long skinny finger over the letters, as though he could restore what had been worn away with time and use.
As he opened his journal, the old man's eyes fell upon an inscription that stood out because it was so brief in comparison to other days. In his own neat handwriting were these words:
Wasted the whole day fishing with Jimmy. Didn't catch a thing.
With a deep sigh and a shaking hand, he took Jimmy's journal and found the boy's entry for the same day, June 4. Large scrawling letters pressed deeply in the paper read:
Went fishing with my dad. Best day of my life.
|
