Neverleft's Things to Think About - Neverleft's Blog - Bakersfield.com

The Pocket Taser.

Tue, 17 Nov 2009 16:57:00 PST

If you can read this without laughing, check your pulse, you're dead.

I received this from a friend in an E-mail.

Pocket Tazer Stun Gun, a great gift for the wife.

A guy who purchased his lovely wife a pocket Tazer for their anniversary submitted this:

Last weekend I saw something at Larry's Pistol & Pawn Shop that sparked my interest. The occasion was our 15th anniversary and I was looking for a little something extra for my wife Julie. What I came across was a 100,000-volt, pocket/purse- sized tazer.

The effects of the tazer were supposed to be short lived, with no longterm adverse affect on your assailant, allowing her adequate time to retreat to safety....??

WAY TOO COOL! Long story short, I bought the device and brought it home. I loaded two AAA batteries in the darn thing and pushed the button. Nothing! I was disappointed. I learned, however, that if I pushed the button and pressed it against a metal surface at the same time, I'd get the blue arc of electricity darting back and forth between the prongs.

AWESOME!!! Unfortunately, I have yet to explain to Julie what that burn spot is on the face of her microwave.

Okay, so I was home alone with this new toy, thinking to myself that it couldn't be all that bad with only two AAA batteries, right?

There I sat in my recliner, my cat Gracie looking on intently (trusting little soul) while I was reading the directions and thinking that I really needed to try this thing out on a flesh & blood moving target.

I must admit I thought about zapping Gracie (for a fraction of a second) and then thought better of it. She is such a sweet cat. But, if I was going to give this thing to my wife to protect herself against a mugger, I did want some assurance that it would work as advertised.

Am I wrong?

So, there I sat in a pair of shorts and a tank top with my reading glasses perched delicately on the bridge of my nose, directions in one hand, and tazer in another. The directions said that a one-second burst would shock and disorient your assailant; a two-second burst was supposed to cause muscle spasms and a major loss of bodily control; and a three-second burst would purportedly make your assailant flop on the ground like a fi sh out of water. Any burst longer than three seconds would be wasting the batteries.

All the while I'm looking at this little device measuring about 5" long, less than 3/4 inch in circumference (loaded with two itsy, bitsy AAA batteries); pretty cute really, and thinking to myself, 'no possible way!'

What happened next is almost beyond description, but I'll do my best.

I'm sitting there alone, Gracie looking on with her head cocked to one side so as to say, 'Don't do it stupid,' reasoning that a one second burst from such a tiny lil ole thing couldn't hurt all that bad. I decided to give myself a one second burst just for heck of it.

I touched the prongs to my naked thigh, pushed the button, and...

HOLY MOTHER OF GOD. WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION. WHAT THE... !!!

I'm pretty sure Hulk Hogan ran in through the side door, picked me up in the recliner, then body slammed us both on the carpet, over and over and over again. I vaguely recall waking up on my side in the fetal position, with tears in my eyes, body soaking wet, both nipples on fire, testicles nowhere to be found, with my left arm tucked under my body in the oddest position, and tingling in my legs! The cat was making meowing sounds I had never heard before, clinging to a picture frame hanging above the fireplace, obviously in an attempt to avoid getting slammed by my body flopping all over the living room.

Note: If you ever feel compelled to 'mug' yourself with a tazer, one note of caution: there is NO such thing as a one second burst when you zap yourself! You will not let go of that thing until it is dislodged from your hand by a violent thrashing about on the floor! A three second burst would be considered conservative! A minute or so later (I can't be sure, as time was a relative thing at that point), I collected my wits (what little I had left), sat up and surveyed the landscape. My bent reading glasses were on the mantel of the fireplace.. The recliner was upside down and about 8 feet or so from where it originally was. My triceps, right thigh and both nipples were still twitching. My face felt like it had been shot up with Novocain, and my bottom lip weighed 88 lbs. I had no control over the drooling. Apparently I had crapped in my shorts, but was too numb to know for sure, and my sense of smell was gone. I saw a faint smoke cloud above my head, which I believe came from my hair.

I'm still looking for my testicles and I'm offering a significant reward for their safe return!

PS: My wife can't stop laughing about my experience, loved the gift and now regularly threatens me with it!

If you think education is difficult, try being stupid!!!!

Soros, The bitter truth!

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 20:09:15 PST

i received this in an E-mail and feel it should be passed on to everyone. This man should be arrested and prosecuted.

Now here is a capitalist we can despise.

I am reminded of a statement made long ago: " You cannot love both God and mammon."

This man has chosen the latter. He denies the former.

For now.

ADD THIS TO THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT? CLOSE ASSOCIATION CONSPIRACY

Soros: Republic Enemy #1

by Jim O'Neill, Canada Free Press, September 15, 2009

“The main obstacle to a stable and just world order is the United States .”—George Soros

“George Soros is an evil man. He’s anti-God, anti-family, anti-American, and anti-good.” —Rev. Jesse Lee Peterson

Is it possible to lay the global financial meltdown, the radicalizing of the Democratic Party, and America ’s moral decline, at the feet of one man?

It is indeed possible.

If George Soros isn’t the world’s preeminent “malignant messianic narcissist,” he’ll do until the real thing comes along. Move over, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot. There’s a new kid on the block.

What we have in Soros, is a multi-billionaire atheist, with skewed moral values, and a sociopath’s lack of conscience. He considers himself to be a world class philosopher, despises capitalism, and just loves social engineering.

Uh oh. Can you say “trouble,” boys and girls?

Soros is a real life version of Dr. Evil—with Obama in the role of Mini-Me. Which is not as humorous as it might at first sound. In fact, it’s bone-deep chilling.

György Schwartz, better known to the world as George Soros, was born August 12, 1930 in Hungary . Soros’ father, Tivadar, was a fervent practitioner of Esperanto—a language invented in 1887, and designed to be the first global language, free of any national identity.

The Schwartz’s, who were non-practicing Jews, changed the family name to Soros, in order to facilitate assimilation into the gentile population, as the Nazis spread into Hungary during the 1930s. Soros is an Esperanto word meaning “to soar.”

In 1944 Hitler’s henchman Adolf Eichmann arrived in Hungary , to oversee the murder of that country’s Jews. The Soros children were all given fake identity papers, and were shipped out to various Christian families. George Soros ended up with a man whose job was confiscating property from the Jewish population. Soros went with him on his rounds.

Soros has repeatedly called 1944 “the best year of his life.”

In an article in the Wall Street Journal, Joshua Muravchik notes that, “70% of Mr. Soros’s fellow Jews in Hungary, nearly a half-million human beings, were annihilated in that year. They were dying and disappearing all around him, and their numbers no doubt included many whom he knew personally. Yet he gives no sign that this put any damper on his elation, either at the time or indeed in retrospect.”

During an interview with “Sixty Minutes” Steve Kroft, Soros was asked about his “best year:”

Sweetness & Light

    KROFT: My understanding is that you went out with this protector of yours who swore that you were his adopted godson.

    SOROS: Yes. Yes.

    KROFT: Went out, in fact, and helped in the confiscation of property from the Jews.

    SOROS: Yes. That’s right. Yes.

    KROFT: I mean, that sounds like an experience that would send lots of people to the psychiatric couch for many, many years. Was it difficult?

    SOROS: Not, not at all. Not at all.

    KROFT: No feeling of guilt?

    SOROS: No.

Of course he didn’t feel guilty. Soros has the moral depth of a clam. Nonetheless, he has said, “my goal is to become the conscience of the world.”

In his article, Muravchik describes how Soros has admitted to having “carried some rather potent messianic fantasies with me from childhood, which I felt I had to control, otherwise they might get me in trouble.”

Can you imagine the results of this messianic sociopath being “the conscience of the world?” Ye gods.

Be that as it may. After WWII, Soros attended the London School of Economics, where he fell under the thrall of fellow atheist and Hungarian, Karl Popper, one of his professors. Popper was a mentor to Soros until Popper’s death in 1994. Two of Popper’s most influential teachings concerned “the open society,” and Fallibilism.

Fallibilism is the philosophical doctrine that all claims of knowledge could, in principle, be mistaken. Then again, I could be wrong about that.

The “open society” basically refers to a “test and evaluate” approach to social engineering. Regarding “open society” Roy Childs writes, “Since the Second World War, most of the Western democracies have followed Popper’s advice about piecemeal social engineering and democratic social reform, and it has gotten them into a grand mess."

In 1956 Soros moved to New York City , where he worked on Wall Street, and started amassing his fortune. He specialized in hedge funds and currency speculation.

Soros is absolutely ruthless, amoral, and clever in his business dealings, and quickly made his fortune. By the 1980s he was well on his way to becoming the global powerhouse that he is today.

In an article Kyle-Anne Shiver wrote for “The American Thinker” she says, “Soros made his first billion in 1992 by shorting the British pound with leveraged billions in financial bets, and became known as the man who broke the Bank of England. He broke it on the backs of hard-working British citizens who immediately saw their homes severely devalued and their life savings cut drastically…almost overnight.”

In 1994 Soros crowed in “The New Republic ” that “the former Soviet Empire is now called the Soros Empire.” The Russia-gate scandal in 1999, which almost collapsed the Russian economy, was labeled by Rep. Jim Leach, then head of the House Banking Committee, to be “one of the greatest social robberies in human history.” The “Soros Empire” indeed.

In 1997 Soros almost destroyed the economies of Thailand and Malaysia . At the time, Malaysia ’s Prime Minister, Mahathir Mohamad, called Soros “a villain, and a moron.” Thai activist Weng Tojirakarn said, “We regard George Soros as a kind of Dracula. He sucks the blood from the people.”

The website “Greek National Pride” reports, “[Soros] was part of the full court press that dismantled Yugoslavia and caused trouble in Georgia, Ukraine and Myanmar [Burma]. Calling himself a philanthropist, Soros’ role is to tighten the ideological stranglehold of globalization and the New World Order while promoting his own financial gain. He is without conscience; a capitalist who functions with absolute amorality.”

France has upheld an earlier conviction against Soros, for felony insider trading. Soros was fined 2.9 million dollars.

Recently, his native Hungary fined Soros 2.2 million dollars for “illegal market manipulation.” Elizabeth Crum writes that “The Hungarian economy has been in a state of transition as the country seeks to become more financially stable and westernized. [Soros’] deliberately driving down the share price of its largest bank put Hungary’s economy into a wicked tailspin, one from which it is still trying to recover.”

Soros’ grasp, greed, gluttony have a global reach

My point here is that Soros is a planetary parasite. His grasp, greed, and gluttony have a global reach.

But what about America? Soros told Australia ’s national newspaper The Australian “America, as the centre of the globalised financial markets, was sucking up the savings of the world. This is now over. The game is out,” he said, adding that the time has come for “a very serious adjustment” in American’s consumption habits.

Ready to tighten your belts, America ?

Soros also told The Australian that the world financial crisis was “stimulating” and “in a way, the culmination of my life’s work.”

Stimulating. Have you found the job losses, house foreclosures, and incredible national debt—stimulating? Me neither.

Obama has recently promised 10 billion of our tax dollars to Brazil (yes, billion with a “b”), in order to give them a leg-up in expanding their offshore oil fields. Obama’s largesse towards Brazil came shortly after Soros invested heavily in Brazilian oil (Petrobras).

Tait Trussel writes, “The Petrobras loan may be a windfall for Soros and Brazil , but it is a bad deal for the U.S. The American Petroleum Institute estimates that oil exploration in the U.S. could create 160,000 new, well-paying jobs, as well as $1.7 trillion in revenues to federal, state, and local governments, all while fostering greater energy security.”

Do you get the feeling that American taxpayers are being treated like gullible suckers?

(By the way, if you want a short primer on Far Left economics—and a great cartoon from a 1911 St. Louis Post-Dispatch—go to actor Michael Moriarty’s website).

And a blog you might want to keep an eye on is SorosWatch.com. This is their mission: “This blog is dedicated to all…who have suffered due to the ruthless financial pursuits of…George Soros. Your stories are many and varied, but the theme is the same: the destructive power of greed without conscience. We pledge to tirelessly watch Soros wherever he goes and to print the truth in the hope that he will one day stop preying upon the world’s poor…that justice will be served.”

Back to America. Soros has been actively working to destroy America from the inside out for some years now. People have been warning us. Two years ago Bill O’Reilly said on “The O’Reilly Factor” that “Soros [is] an extremist who wants open borders, a one-world foreign policy, legalized drugs, euthanasia, and on and on. This is off-the-chart dangerous….”

In 1997 Rachel Ehrenfeld wrote, “Soros uses his philanthropy to change—or more accurately deconstruct—the moral values and attitudes of the Western world, and particularly of the American people. His “open society” is not about freedom; it is about license. His vision rejects the notion of ordered liberty, in favor of an ideology of rights and entitlements.”

Perhaps the most important of these “whistle blowers” are David Horowitz and Richard Poe. Their book “The Shadow Party” outlines in detail how Soros hijacked the Democratic Party, and now owns it lock, stock, and barrel.

Soros has been packing the Democratic Party with radicals, and ousting moderate Democrats for years. I don’t have time to do the subject justice in this article, but FrontPage’s Jamie Glazov has an excellent interview with Richard Poe, which will fill you in on many of the facts.

The Shadow Party became the Shadow Government, which became the Obama Administration.

DiscoverTheNetworks.org (another good source) writes, “By his [Soros’] own admission, he helped engineer coups in Slovakia, Croatia, Georgia, and Yugoslavia. When Soros targets a country for “regime change,” he begins by creating a shadow government—a fully formed government-in-exile, ready to assume power when the opportunity arises. The Shadow Party he has built in America greatly resembles those he has created in other countries prior to instigating a coup.”

The above quote was, of course, written before the Presidential Election. So was the following quote from a November 2008 edition of the German magazine Der Spiegel, in which Soros gives his opinion on what the next POTUS should do after taking office. “I think we need a large stimulus package….” Soros thought that around 600 billion would be about right.

Soros also said that “I think this is a great opportunity to finally deal with global warming and energy dependence. The U.S. needs a cap and trade system with auctioning of licenses for emissions rights.”

Any of this sound familiar?

Although Soros doesn’t (yet) own the Republican Party, like he does the Democrats, make no mistake, his tentacles are spread throughout the Republican Party as well.

Soros is a partner in the Carlyle Group where he has invested more than 100 million dollars. According to an article by The Baltimore Chronicle’s Alice Cherbonnier, the Carlye Group is run by “a veritable who’s who of former Republican leaders,” from CIA man Frank Carlucci, to former CIA head [and ex-President] George Bush, Sr.

In late 2006, Soros bought about 2 million shares of Halliburton—Dick Cheney’s old stomping grounds.

When the Democrats and Republicans held their conventions in 2000, Soros held Shadow Party conventions in the same cities, at the same time. Republican Senator John McCain was the keynote speaker at the “Soros Convention” (so labeled by the late Robert Novak) in Philadelphia.

Soros has dirtied both sides of the aisle, trust me. And if that weren’t bad enough, he has long held connections with the CIA.

And I musn’t forget to mention Soros’ involvement with the LSM (Lame Stream Media), the entertainment industry (e.g. he owns 2.6 million shares of Time Warner), and the various political advertising organizations he funnels millions to.

As Matthew Vadum writes, “The liberal billionaire-turned-philanthropist has been buying up media properties for years in order to drive home his message to the American public that they are too materialistic, too wasteful, too selfish, and too stupid to decide for themselves how to run their own lives.”

Richard Poe writes, “Soros’ private philanthropy, totaling nearly $5 billion, continues undermining America ’s traditional Western values. His giving has provided funding of abortion rights, atheism, drug legalization, sex education, euthanasia, feminism, gun control, globalization, mass immigration, gay marriage and other radical experiments in social engineering.”

Some of the many NGOs (Non-Government Organizations) that Soros funds with his billions are: MoveOn.org, the Apollo Alliance, Media Matters for America, the Tides Foundation, the ACLU, ACORN, PDIA (Project on Death In America ), La Raza, and many more. For a more complete list, with brief descriptions of the NGOs, go to DiscoverTheNetworks.org.

Poe continues, “Through his global web of Open Society Institutes and Open Society Foundations, Soros has spent 25 years recruiting, training, indoctrinating and installing a network of loyal operatives in 50 countries, placing them in positions of influence and power in media, government, finance and academia.”

As I’ve said before, America currently faces the greatest challenge to its existence as a free republic since the Civil War. And as we go, so goes the world.

So is Soros to blame for all of America ’s woes?

Without Soros, would the Saul Alinsky Chicago machine still be rolling? Would SEIU, ACORN, and La Raza still be pursuing their nefarious activities? Would Big Money and lobbyists still be corrupting government? Would our college campuses still be retirement homes for 1960s radicals? Yes, yes, yes, and yes—but to much less of a degree.

The purpose of this article is to point out that without the financial skullduggery and Machiavellian manipulations of Soros, America would be a considerably safer, saner, and stabler place to live.

America stands at the brink of an abyss, and that fact is directly attributable to Soros. Soros has vigorously, cleverly, and insidiously planned the ruination of America ..

His conduct has been immoral, duplicitous, and traitorous. Stripping Soros of his U.S. citizenship, should be one of the first steps taken during the upcoming courtroom trials.

And trials there must be. No matter the cost, the nest of vipers on Capitol Hill, and all of the traitors in the government at large, must be brought to task for their behavior, or a free America is doomed.

The words of Patrick Henry are apropos: “Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death!”

These days, Patrick Henry’s sentiment is more than just some quaint hyperbole from long ago—it’s a slow burning, but intense, glow that fires our courage and heart.

Laus Deo.

Born in June of 1951 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Jim O’Neill proudly served in the U.S. Navy from 1970-1974 in both UDT-21 (Underwater Demolition Team) and SEAL Team Two. A member of MENSA, he worked as a commercial diver in the waters off Scotland, India, and the United States. In 1998 while attending the University of South Florida as a journalism student, O’Neill won First Place in the University of Hawaii AEJMC Research in Journalism Ethics Award.

The "islam" problem

Sun, 15 Nov 2009 19:58:13 PST

This is the best explanation i have seen!

Sent by a retired Professor of Philosophy who is also a Catholic. You may want to read and pass on.

This is by far the best explanation of the Muslim terrorist situation I have read. His references to past history are accurate and clear. Not long, easy to understand, and well worth the read. The author of this email is Paul E. Marek...

A German's View On Islam

A man, whose family was German aristocracy prior to World War II, owned a number of large industries and estates. When asked how many German people were true Nazis, the answer he gave can guide our attitude toward fanaticism.

"Very few people were true Nazis," he said, "but many enjoyed the return of German pride, and many more were too busy to care. I was one of those who just thought the Nazis were a bunch of fools. So, the majority just sat back and let it all happen."

Then, before we knew it, they owned us, and we had lost control, and the end of the world had come. My family lost everything. I ended up in a concentration camp and the Allies destroyed my factories."

We are told again and again by 'experts' and 'talking heads' that Islam is the religion of peace, and that the vast majority of Muslims just want to live in peace. Although this unqualified assertion may be true, it is entirely irrelevant.

It is meaningless fluff, meant to make us feel better, and meant to somehow diminish the specter of fanatics rampaging across the globe in the name of Islam.

The fact is that the fanatics rule Islam at this moment in history. It is the fanatics who march. It is the fanatics who wage any one of 50 shooting wars worldwide. It is the fanatics who systematically slaughter Christian or tribal groups throughout Africa and are gradually taking over the entire continent in an Islamic wave. It is the fanatics who bomb, behead, murder
or honor-kill. It is the fanatics who take over mosque after mosque.

It is the fanatics who zealously spread the stoning and hanging of rape victims and homosexuals. It is the fanatics who teach their young to kill and to become suicide bombers.

The hard quantifiable fact is that the peaceful majority, the 'silent majority', is cowed and extraneous..

Communist Russia was comprised of Russians who just wanted to live in peace, yet the Russian Communists were responsible for the murder of about 20 million people. The peaceful majority were irrelevant.

China's huge population was peaceful as well, but Chinese Communists managed to
kill a staggering 70 million people.

The average Japanese individual prior to World War II was not a war mongering sadist. Yet, Japan murdered and slaughtered its way across South East Asia in an orgy of killing that included the systematic murder of 12 million Chinese civilians, most killed by sword, shovel, and bayonet.

And who can forget Rwanda , which collapsed into butchery. Could it not be said that the majority of Rwandans were 'peace loving'?

History lessons are often incredibly simple and blunt, yet for all our powers of reason we often miss the most basic and uncomplicated of points: Peace-loving Muslims have been made irrelevant by their silence. Peace-loving Muslims will become our enemy if they don't speak up, because like my friend from Germany , they will awaken one day and find that the fanatics own them, and the end of their world will have begun.

Peace-loving Germans, Japanese, Chinese, Russians, Rwandans, Serbs, Afghans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Somalis, Nigerians, Algerians and many others have died because the peaceful majority did not speak up until it was too late.

As for us who watch it all unfold, we must pay attention to the only group that counts: the fanatics who threaten our way of life.

Lastly, anyone who doubts that the issue is serious and just deletes this email without sending it on is contributing to the passiveness that allows the problems to expand.. So, extend yourself a bit and send this on and on and on! Let us hope that thousands, world wide, read this and think about it,and send it on before it's too late.

The first thing the fanatics will do to the silent majority is to disarm them.

The Second Amendment was designed to work during times when the First doesn't.

Not PC but funny.

Thu, 12 Nov 2009 10:16:52 PST

Remember this if you ever have to vist the I.R.S.

http://c.gophercentral.com/JAjq

Immigration Bill From CNN

Sun, 08 Nov 2009 10:48:52 PST

http://d.yimg.com/kq/groups/17260182/1610997888/name/ftc-vi26.wmv

Obama wasn't lying when he said illegal’s would not be able to get medical coverage under his ObamaCare plan. His simple fix is to make them all legal first. Could this be why the health care plan does not go into effect for 4 years so the president can be re-elected?

EVERYONE--PLEASE TAKE TIME TO LISTEN TO THIS--IT TELLS ABOUT THE BILL GOING THRU CONGRESS RIGHT NOW REGARDING IMMIGRATION.

EVEN CNN IS GETTING UPSET ABOUT THIS!

National Debt Clock

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 10:59:58 PST

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/

Pelosi's "Worst legislation ever"

Wed, 04 Nov 2009 09:34:50 PST

It's long but worth the read!

REVIEW & OUTLOOK
NOVEMBER 1, 2009, 11:23 P.M. ET

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.

Swine Flu. Everybody Should Read This!

Sun, 01 Nov 2009 15:24:19 PST

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.

Too Old For Trick or Treat?

Sat, 31 Oct 2009 13:16:54 PDT

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.
______________

I'll Take My Ball and Go Home!

Fri, 23 Oct 2009 13:29:01 PDT

Congressional Second Graders

by Alicia Cohn

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.

Media Bias?

Wed, 21 Oct 2009 10:10:21 PDT

I didn't write this and do not know who did but it make a good point and I agree with it.

Liberal versus Conservative Media Bias

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.

The 2nd. Amendment

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 22:05:16 PDT

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!

New #1 on Oscama's "Enemy List".

Tue, 20 Oct 2009 14:11:11 PDT

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.

I Would love the chance to "TAKE OUT" Obama and Pelosi

Thu, 15 Oct 2009 10:12:36 PDT

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.

Something to Think About

Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:11:20 PDT

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.

Stimulus Check

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:56:41 PDT

This is a very exciting new program. I will explain it using the Q and A
format:

Q. What is an Economic Stimulus payment?
A. It is money that the federal government will send to taxpayers.

Q. Where will the government get this money?
A. From taxpayers.

Q. So the government is giving me back my own money?
A. Only a smidgen.

Q. What is the purpose of this payment?
A. The plan is that you will use the money to purchase a high-definition
TV set, thus stimulating the economy.

Q. But isn't that stimulating the economy of China ?
A. Shut up.

Below is some helpful advice on how to best help the US economy by
spending your stimulus check wisely:

* If you spend the stimulus money at Wal-Mart, the money will go to
China .
* If you spend it on gasoline, your money will go to the Arabs.
* If you purchase a computer, it will go to India .
* If you purchase fruit and vegetables, it will go to Mexico, Honduras
and Guatemala .
* If you buy a car, it will go to Japan .
* If you purchase useless stuff, it will go to Taiwan .
* If you pay your credit cards off, or buy stock, it will go to
management bonuses and they will hide it offshore.

Instead, keep the money in America by:

1 spending it at yard sales, or
2 going to ball games, or
3 spending it on prostitutes, or
4 beer or
5 tattoos.

(These are the only American businesses still operating in the US .)

***
I'm going to go to a ball game with a tattooed prostitute that I met at
a yard sale, and drink beer with her!

Doctors and Obama Care

Tue, 29 Sep 2009 09:47:10 PDT

45% Of Doctors Would Consider Quitting If Congress Passes Health Care Overhaul

By TERRY JONES, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 09/15/2009 07:09 PM ET

IBD Exclusive Series:
Condition Critical: What Doctors Think About Health Reform

Two of every three practicing physicians oppose the medical overhaul plan under consideration in Washington, and hundreds of thousands would think about shutting down their practices or retiring early if it were adopted, a new IBD/TIPP Poll has found.

The poll contradicts the claims of not only the White House, but also doctors' own lobby — the powerful American Medical Association — both of which suggest the medical profession is behind the proposed overhaul.

It also calls into question whether an overhaul is even doable; 72% of the doctors polled disagree with the administration's claim that the government can cover 47 million more people with better-quality care at lower cost.

The IBD/TIPP Poll was conducted by mail the past two weeks, with 1,376 practicing physicians chosen randomly throughout the country taking part. Responses are still coming in, and doctors' positions on related topics — including the impact of an overhaul on senior care, medical school applications and drug development — will be covered later in this series.

Major findings included:

• Two-thirds, or 65%, of doctors say they oppose the proposed government expansion plan. This contradicts the administration's claims that doctors are part of an "unprecedented coalition" supporting a medical overhaul.

It also differs with findings of a poll released Monday by National Public Radio that suggests a "majority of physicians want public and private insurance options," and clashes with media reports such as Tuesday's front-page story in the Los Angeles Times with the headline "Doctors Go For Obama's Reform."

Nowhere in the Times story does it say doctors as a whole back the overhaul. It says only that the AMA — the "association representing the nation's physicians" and what "many still regard as the country's premier lobbying force" — is "lobbying and advertising to win public support for President Obama's sweeping plan."

The AMA, in fact, represents approximately 18% of physicians and has been hit with a number of defections by members opposed to the AMA's support of Democrats' proposed health care overhaul.

• Four of nine doctors, or 45%, said they "would consider leaving their practice or taking an early retirement" if Congress passes the plan the Democratic majority and White House have in mind.

More than 800,000 doctors were practicing in 2006, the government says. Projecting the poll's finding onto that population, 360,000 doctors would consider quitting.

• More than seven in 10 doctors, or 71% — the most lopsided response in the poll — answered "no" when asked if they believed "the government can cover 47 million more people and that it will cost less money and the quality of care will be better."

This response is consistent with critics who complain that the administration and congressional Democrats have yet to explain how, even with the current number of physicians and nurses, they can cover more people and lower the cost at the same time.

The only way, the critics contend, is by rationing care — giving it to some and denying it to others. That cuts against another claim by plan supporters — that care would be better.

IBD/TIPP's finding that many doctors could leave the business suggests that such rationing could be more severe than even critics believe. Rationing is one of the drawbacks associated with government plans in countries such as Canada and the U.K. Stories about growing waiting lists for badly needed care, horror stories of care gone wrong, babies born on sidewalks, and even people dying as a result of care delayed or denied are rife.

In this country, the number of doctors is already lagging population growth.

From 2003 to 2006, the number of active physicians in the U.S. grew by just 0.8% a year, adding a total of 25,700 doctors.

Recent population growth has been 1% a year. Patients, in short, are already being added faster than physicians, creating a medical bottleneck.

The great concern is that, with increased mandates, lower pay and less freedom to practice, doctors could abandon medicine in droves, as the IBD/TIPP Poll suggests. Under the proposed medical overhaul, an additional 47 million people would have to be cared for — an 18% increase in patient loads, without an equivalent increase in doctors. The actual effect could be somewhat less because a significant share of the uninsured already get care.

Even so, the government vows to cut hundreds of billions of dollars from health care spending to pay for reform, which would encourage a flight from the profession.

The U.S. today has just 2.4 physicians per 1,000 population — below the median of 3.1 for members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, the official club of wealthy nations.

Adding millions of patients to physicians' caseloads would threaten to overwhelm the system. Medical gatekeepers would have to deny care to large numbers of people. That means care would have to be rationed.

"It's like giving everyone free bus passes, but there are only two buses," Dr. Ted Epperly, president of the American Academy of Family Physicians, told the Associated Press.

Hope for a surge in new doctors may be misplaced. A recent study from the Association of American Medical Colleges found steadily declining enrollment in medical schools since 1980.

The study found that, just with current patient demand, the U.S. will have 159,000 fewer doctors than it needs by 2025. Unless corrected, that would make some sort of medical rationing or long waiting lists almost mandatory.

Experiments at the state level show that an overhaul isn't likely to change much.

On Monday came word from the Massachusetts Medical Society — a group representing physicians in a state that has implemented an overhaul similar to that under consideration in Washington — that doctor shortages remain a growing problem.

Its 2009 Physician Workforce Study found that:

• The primary care specialties of family medicine and internal medicine are in short supply for a fourth straight year.

• The percentage of primary care practices closed to new patients is the highest ever recorded.

• Seven of 18 specialties — dermatology, neurology, urology, vascular surgery and (for the first time) obstetrics-gynecology, in addition to family and internal medicine — are in short supply.

• Recruitment and retention of physicians remains difficult, especially at community hospitals and with primary care.

A key reason for the doctor shortages, according to the study, is a "lingering poor practice environment in the state."

In 2006, Massachusetts passed its medical overhaul — minus a public option — similar to what's being proposed on a national scale now. It hasn't worked as expected. Costs are higher, with insurance premiums rising 22% faster than in the U.S. as a whole.

"Health spending in Massachusetts is higher than the United States on average and is growing at a faster rate," according to a recent report from the Urban Institute.

Other states with government-run or mandated health insurance systems, including Maine, Tennessee and Hawaii, have been forced to cut back services and coverage.

This experience has been repeated in other countries where a form of nationalized care is common. In particular, many nationalized health systems seem to have trouble finding enough doctors to meet demand.

In Britain, a lack of practicing physicians means the country has had to import thousands of foreign doctors to care for patients in the National Health Service.

"A third of (British) primary care trusts are flying in (general practitioners) from as far away as Lithuania, Poland, Germany, Hungary, Italy and Switzerland" because of a doctor shortage, a recent story in the British Daily Mail noted.

British doctors, demoralized by long hours and burdensome rules, simply refuse to see patients at nights and weekends.

Likewise, Canadian physicians who have to deal with the stringent rules and income limits imposed by that country's national health plan have emigrated in droves to other countries, including the U.S.

Your Tax Dollars At Work

Mon, 28 Sep 2009 12:01:49 PDT

I couldn't believe it! While conducting business at the local Kern Schools Credit Union I stopped to look at a new shiny Chevrolet (Obama Motors) Aveo on display. It gets 20 GPM city and 34 GPM highway. That's not bad, but while reading the car sticker I found that 97% of the car was made and assembled in Korea. The engine was built in Japan. It seems that Obama Motors is not smart enough to build a moderately high mileage car in the U.S. with U.S. workers. I wonder what the corrupt United Auto Worker's Union had to say about that? Oh! I forgot., The Union along with Obama own Obama Motors.

I guess I will stick to Toyota. At least they build cars in the U.S (mine was built in Southern California) and employ American workers.

An Interesting piece from a British newpaper.

Sat, 26 Sep 2009 18:53:24 PDT

Obama in the British Media
Here is an interesting editorial from someone outside our country as to what is going on!

Barak Obama and the CIA: Why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people - not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama's problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora's Box by publishing the Justice Department's legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley , Virginia to try to reassure a demoralized CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

"Don't be discouraged by what's happened the last few weeks," he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them - or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.

President Pantywaist's recent world tour, cozying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America s enemies. Here, they realized, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners.

His only enemies are fellow Americans.

Which prompts the question: Why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?

This is worth reading. I wish I had said it.

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:22:19 PDT

Three Reasons Why Government Can't Run Health Care

by Newt Gingrich (more by this author)

Posted 08/26/2009 ET

Facta, non verba.

For those of you who have forgotten your Latin, it means "deeds, not words."

There's been a lot of overheated rhetoric about health care reform, but this saying is one that all Americans should return to when considering plans for a government-dominated health system.

In other words, we should judge government, not by its words, but by its deeds.

With this simple principle in mind, what follows are three examples why government can't - and shouldn't - run our health care system (at least not any health care system you or I would want to be dependent on).

Reason No. 1: Government Can't Be Trusted With a Credit Card

Every family knows about making a budget and living within its means. Government, to put it bluntly, does not.

What if your husband had come home last Friday night and announced that he had racked up almost 30 percent more debt on the family credit card - including the mortgage and car loans - than he had told you about just a month ago?

Would you trust him to go out and start spending money to remodel the kitchen? And do you think he could get a loan to do it?

But that's exactly what the Obama Administration did with their weekend news dump. They announced late Friday that the amount of money they don't have but are nonetheless planning on spending over the next ten years isn't the astonishing $7 trillion they estimated in May but is instead an astounding $9 trillion.

Add this to the fact that, after the administration sold its health care reform proposal on the grounds that it will reduce costs to the Treasury, the independent Congressional Budget Office determined that the House plan will actually cost an astounding $1 trillion-$1.5 trillion in the next ten years, which will be added directly to the federal debt. The director of the CBO testified before Congress last month that "[i]n the legislation that has been reported we do not see the sort of fundamental changes that would be necessary to reduce the trajectory of federal health spending by a significant amount. And on the contrary, the legislation significantly expands the federal responsibility for health care costs."

Which do you have more faith in, the government's happy talk of "bending the cost curve" or its record of out-of-control spending?

Deeds, not words.

Reason No. 2: Government Can't Even Give Away Money Effectively

As the inimitable Andy McCarthy of National Review put it, "Compared to the infinite complexity of healthcare and health-insurance, cash-for-clunkers is kindergarten stuff. You trade in your old car for a new one that gets (slightly) better mileage and the government gives you money - between $3,500 and $4,500. How hard is that?"

Too hard for government bureaucrats, it turns out.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood has boasted that the cash-for-clunkers program provided "a lifeline to the automobile industry, jump starting a major sector of the economy and putting people back to work.''

But look at the deeds, not the words.

Last week, cash-for-clunkers ended in a bureaucratic morass of red tape, failed promises and unanticipated costs.

Air Traffic Controllers Manning the Cash-for-Clunkers Hotline

Only a government bureaucracy could mess up a program designed to give away free money.

The government wizards who set up cash-for-clunkers initially budgeted to sell 250,000 cars in three months.

The program sold that many in four days.

And because the central planners who think they can provide government "competition" to the private health insurance market failed to accurately estimate how many government workers it would take to administer cash-for-clunkers, they had to take employees from the FAA - air traffic controllers, no less - to help manage the demand.

And what about the car dealerships the program was supposed to help in the first place? Even though the rebates were supposed to be paid within 10 days, only 7 percent of federal promises under cash-for-clunkers have been paid so far, leaving dealers with millions of dollars in unfunded government promises.

More Than Bureaucratic Incompetence, Political Business as Usual

But there's more to the cautionary tale of cash-for-clunkers than just bureaucratic incompetence.

This is a case study in what happens when politicians get involved in the marketplace.

Despite all the rhetoric of jump starting the auto industry, politicians' priorities are to give free goodies to their constituents. So as far as they're concerned, cash-for-clunkers has been a resounding success.

Forget the fact that they're spending money they don't have, or that car dealerships are left holding millions of dollars in empty government promises. They're not concerned with the long-term, just the next election.

So tell us again why should we think bureaucrats and politicians will perform any better with our health care?

Reason No. 3: Government Would Rather Pay Crooks Than Manage Efficiently

There's been a lot of worrying about the inevitability of government rationing health care under the Democratic reform bills in Congress.

Economists have known about this inevitability for a long time. Well, Americans can stop worrying. Government is rationing care already - and doing it in a particularly stupid way.

Studies have shown that early use of home health care after hospitalization - allowing patients to go home and be visited by a nurse to manage their care - saves Medicare billions of dollars.

So here is a case where an innovative government program actually saves the government money. Home health care is both more compassionate and more efficient. It reduces the likelihood a patient will be readmitted to a hospital by allowing her to heal in a more familiar setting.

Home Health Care Works, So Naturally Medicare Bureaucrats Cut Its Funding

So naturally bureaucrats at the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services cut $34 billion from this compassionate, efficient program last week.

And if the House health care reform bill becomes law, an additional $56.8 billion will be cut from the program - an amount equal to almost the entire federal budget for home health care services in 2007.

What makes rationing care to the homebound all the more immoral is the fact that there is a much bigger pot of savings available to Washington if it only had the political will to look.

Instead of Seeking Savings from the Homebound, Why Not the Crooks?

As a new book by the Center for Health Transformation's Jim Frogue details, criminals rip off the taxpayers to the tune of $80 billion to $120 billion each year in the current Medicare and Medicaid programs.

We're not talking about inadvertent bill errors but outright fraud. Government health programs are currently paying men maternity benefits, giving taxpayer dollars to pizza parlors that are supposed to be HIV transfusion centers, and even paying dead patients federal health care benefits.

If ever there was a reason not to turn our entire health care system over to government it is this: Government can't run the health care programs it already has. It would rather ration compassionate, effective programs than do the hard work of rooting out and punishing the crooks who are stealing our taxpayer dollars.

Facts are Stubborn Things

Americans have already heard a lot of rhetoric about health care reform, and we can expect to hear a lot more.

But as Ronald Reagan used to say, facts are stubborn things. And the facts of government's track record in managing our money and delivering on its promises speak louder than any televised presidential speech or stage-managed town hall ever could.

So as the summer winds down and the debate rages on, let this be our mantra:

Facta, non verba.

Make a bumper sticker out of it.

Put it on a tee-shirt and wear it to a town hall.

And when someone asked you what it means, tell them that before we hand over more of our lives to government, we should consider how they've treated us so far.

Your friend,

Newt Gingrich