Da Mayor, Da Prez And Da Press

Ahhhh, the good old days.

I remember when the current Chicago Mayor Richard M. Daley, son of the late “Da Mayor” Richard J. Daley, was just a young whippersnapper trying to earn fame and fortune in the insurance business. The press got wind that a very lucrative multimillion dollar insurance contract for the city of Chicago was pulled from the long time carrier and given to the company the young Daley represented. During a press conference they asked ”Da Mayor” if he had any influence in the awarding of the insurance contract to his son’s company.

“Da Mayor’s” response was classic Chicago politics. He said “Of course I did. He’s my son. What, a father shouldn’t try to help his own son? What father isn’t going to do what he can to help his son?” The reporters laughed. First because of the complete honesty in the response and second because they couldn’t think of a reason why a father shouldn’t.

Things were a bit more open back then. The press knew better than to cross one of the most influential politicians in the country. A King Maker to whom President John F Kennedy may well have owed his electoral victory in 1960. Everybody in Chicago knew how the game was played. The Democrat machine created by the late Mayor Richard J. Daley and continued by his son Mayor Richard M Daley held every aspect of the city in their grip from fixing $20 traffic tickets to fixing million dollar insurance contracts. But Chicago was and remains the “City That Works” and as long as the garbage was picked up and the streets were plowed nobody dared question how it was getting done. As former Speaker of the House Tip O’Neil said “All politics is local”.

Is it any wonder why a savvy community activist from Chicago like Barack Hussein Obama would hire two of the most accomplished bare knuckle Chicago politics heavyweights to help direct his campaign and then become his lead political advisors/hit men? With Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod working behind the scenes is it any wonder that the national press corps would end up even deeper in Obama’s hip pocket then they were during the campaign?

It is more than just their fawning adoration that Obama uses to his advantage. It is more than just having free access to America’s living rooms to sell your proposals like ObamaCare without having to worry about a debate where that pesky truth gets in the way. It's Obama’s complete control of not only what gets covered, but what does not as well.

The press recently gave full coverage to First Lady Michelle Obama’s vegetable garden. Along with pictures and videos of Michelle and some school children tending the garden were giddy reports that some of the seedlings planted were from the ancestral home of President Thomas Jefferson. Big news, huh? While it was not in the initial report I am certain that at some point before it’s over someone will wax poetically of the irony of the first black First Lady harvesting crops from the seeds of a President that supposedly had numerous dalliances with his female black slaves.

What the press will not cover are stories like from way back in 2002 when Michelle Obama was hired by the politically connected University of Chicago Medical Center to run “programs for community relations, neighborhood outreach, volunteer recruitment, staff diversity and minority contracting”. The job paid a healthy salary of $120,000 per year. But in 2005 when her husband became a US Senator Michelle’s salary magically was raised to a whopping $317,000 per year. Coincidence you say? Well is it also coincidence that one of Barack Obama’s first acts as Senator was to garner a $1 million earmark for the UC medical Center?

This $317,000 job went almost completely unreported by the press. It also seems incredible that this $317,000 per year was for a PART TIME JOB! This massive salary was for a 20 hour per week job. A $317,000 per year job so essential and critical to the success of the UC Medical Center that they decided not to fill it once Michelle left for Washington DC. I wonder if the press might have picked up the story if Laura Bush or Lynn Cheney had been the employee.

Chicago politics is alive and well in Chicago and now in the White House as well. ABC and NBC have gleefully jumped on board with both feet. Most of the rest of the Washington press corps is on board as well but have decided to be at least a little less obvious.

Da Mayor Richard J Daley would be so proud. While his sons never made it to the White House his other baby, the Chicago political machine, sure did.

ABC + NBC = Zero Integrity

Integrity or the lack thereof is an inside job.

For years conservatives in this country have been complaining about the unashamed liberal partisanship on full display at the big three “major” networks. Under the guise of the rights of a free press the news departments at ABC, NBC and CBS have repeatedly gone to great and sometimes dangerous lengths to prop up the political views and goals of the liberal left while intentionally demeaning and or slandering the character of conservatives and their message.

Any time a network like Fox News or a truly independent media watchdog group would bring to light specific instances of partisanship these supposed defenders of the public’s right to know would trot out a report created by some recently created media front group, funded by some left wing core constituency, to countermand the original report in a further subversion of the truth.

It almost became a game for these well established networks in which the ultimate losers were their trusting viewing audience. They intentionally played free and loose with the truth while they hid behind their carefully crafted public persona so as to at least appear to comply with their manufactured image as bastions of apodictic trustworthiness, as laughably ersatz as it was.

But no more.

ABC and NBC have decided to, as they say in the world of No Limit Texas Hold Em’ Poker, go all in for Barack Obama and his misguided socialist nationalization of the country’s healthcare and health insurance system. ABC and NBC have taken the unprecedented move of refusing to sell airtime for commercials presenting opposing viewpoints to the President’s less than truthful or accurate rhetoric.

CBS, either because of some semblance of fairness (he wrote with a sarcastic grin) or because their commercial cash flow has been so deteriorated by their liberal missteps in the past (can you say Dan Rather), has decided so far not to join in this manifest embargo on truth.

The President himself has called for an honest debate on the nation’s healthcare system. But it has become blatantly apparent to even a casual observer that what the President and these two lapdog networks consider an honest debate is nothing short of strong-arm suppression of anything even remotely resembling an open exchange of the facts or ideas.

During the Bush administration the press constantly beat the drum of his supposed repression of rights. Yet these two major networks along with their Chicago politics President have now decided to engage in what can only be described as a complete abandoning of human rights not to mention Constitutional protections.

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights states “Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference, and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers".

It cannot be any plainer than that.

NBC has decided to take the doubletalking position that they did not reject the ad but rather have simply told the media agency looking to run it that it will have to edit out what the network considers non-factual claims. Basically what this means is if they change the ad to agree with NBC’s partisan position they will run it, if they don’t they won’t. If that’s not a refusal I don’t know what one is.

ABC stated their network “has long-standing policy that we do not sell time for advertising that presents a partisan position on a controversial issue”. I guess that explains why they didn’t charge the DNC for the multi-hour infomercial they ran in favor of ObamaCare, complete with the President himself hawking its benefits like the Sham-Wow guy.

Anybody with even a modicum of integrity will view this overt attempt to silence free speech with bone chilling fear as to just how far these networks and this administration will go. The resolution to this may end up in civil court or it may even have to go before the UN Council on Human Rights, but it cannot be allowed to go unchallenged.

This just in; Constitutional protections abandoned. More on this along with sports and the weather when we return.

Playing The Well Worn Race Card......Again

Here we go again!

How many misrepresentations? How many instances? How many unqualified and unsubstantiated stories? How many times can this stupid racism card get played before someone has the stones to say “ENOUGH”!

The latest in what has become the never ending parade of poor black men suffering under the cruel yoke of racism comes from an area particularly close to my heart, my beloved Chicago Cubs.

The obviously emotionally unstable and equally mentally challenged 30 million dollar man Milton Bradley is giving the local press all they could ask for and more by turning his all too common vilipend tirades toward Cub fans, claiming he is the victim of their racist heckling. Of course when questioned for details or specific instances Mr. Bradley has none. He intentionally dodges questions as to why he has never asked for security to remove an unruly or racially abusive fan. He pouts like a 4 year old and blames the media for even asking the questions and claims they are well aware of both the answer and the instances.

Chicago Cubs security has confirmed that Bradley has never contacted them about any instance of racial slurs or over-the-top fan behavior.

Are there fans in the stands that make racial slurs towards players? In all the times that I have been at Wrigley Field over the past 55 years I cannot recall one instance of racial intimidation. But still, I’m guessing it happens. Any time you have adult males, alcohol and sports you will have some nitwit that wants to show off for his buddies by doing something completely stupid. I watched with shame and anger a few weeks ago as someone in a Cubs cap threw a full glass of beer of an opposing player as he attempted to catch a fly ball near the left/centerfield wall. It was a despicable act carried out by an obviously drunken clod. Security was on the scene immediately to eject the beer-filled bozo and I had hoped he might receive a little Chicago-style tune-up on the way out the gate or at least a free ride in a police car and a night in the drunk tank where he could spend a romantic evening with some other equally IQ challenged revelers.

My beloved Cubs are falling apart at the seams. Only weeks ago they were in first place and now they will need a miracle to get into the wild card playoff spot. It’s not that they lack talent. It’s that they lack stability and heart.

Players like Milton Bradley are like a cancer for a team. They are carriers of bad vibes. It doesn’t even matter that they have great ability and limitless potential. They drain the very lifeblood from the team like a vampire so they can steal as much personal time in the spotlight as possible.

Bradley complained about being in a restaurant and hearing the waitress make disparaging remarks about him at another table. Hey Milton, welcome to the big leagues! Countless people are going to be jealous of a guy that makes more every year than they could hope to win in the lottery. Plus, performance on and off the field matters a lot more than your color, especially here in Chicago.

Mr. Bradley, I suggest next time you take the field if you can pull your head out of wherever you have been keeping it you might want to glance up at the flags of retired numbers of Cub heroes. Number 14 Ernie Banks, Number 26 Billy Williams, Number 31 Ferguson Jenkins. There isn’t a Cub fan worth his salt that wouldn’t trade his first born for a chance to associate with these great Cub players who also just happen to be black.

Your shtick is getting old Milton. And if you think you can claim racism just because it will get you some extra attention or maybe deflect criticism from your lackluster play you picked the wrong ball park to do it in.

Take your money, go away and have a nice life.

Kennedy Karma

If there truly is a thing called karma I envision the following scene:

The scene opens with the bright and radiant light of the pearly gates of heaven. Ted Kennedy approaches Saint Peter who is sitting behind a tall lectern.

“Name?” says St. Pete.

“Aaaaaaa, Ted Kennedy” comes the sheepish reply.

Saint Peter says “Okay Ted let me just check what it says here in the book. Now where did I put that thing? Oh yes, excuse me Ted, my secretary is just making some last minute entries.” Saint Peter turns and shouts “Oh Mary Jo, could you please bring me the book.”

We are about to enter that stomach-turning phase in American politics where each Washington DC elected official and countless lesser-known politicos from around the country take a moment to get in front of news cameras and microphones to canonize the now late Senator Ted Kennedy. Democrats will wail and tear their cloaks as they memorialize their fallen liberal hero. Republicans will put partisanship aside and give glowing accolades of his service to the country and all will tearfully reminisce of the time they spent together. It will all be very somber and very moving. But most of all it will be very fake.

While I know it is considered to be in poor taste to speak disparagingly of the dead I simply cannot bring myself to join the chorus of those who have looked past the glaring personal defects, deceit and hypocrisy of this disingenuous defender of truth and justice.

Ted Kennedy was known as the Lion in the Senate. A name he got quite by chance through a misinterpretation heard by a group of all too eager reporters. Kennedy was to give a news conference and was, as usual, late. When reporters asked a frazzled aide for the umpteenth time where the Senator was at the aide truthfully replied “He’s passed out drunk and lyin’ in the Senate.” Having no other story to go with they called their editors with the new moniker Lion in the Senate and it stuck.

Okay, so I made that up. But truth be told, with the actual life Kennedy lived the story is not so farfetched as to be completely unbelievable.

Kennedy had drinking problem. That is not groundbreaking news, nor is it a reason to dislike him. Some of my best friends are drunks. It is not that Kennedy was a drunk, it is that he never took responsibility for his woeful actions and his family’s money and political power made sure he was never forced to do so.

Kennedy is man whose drunken lifestyle caused the death of a young, pregnant secretary and campaign worker Mary Jo Kopechne. Kennedy fled the scene and only turned himself into police the following day after he sobered up and hired some fairly high priced legal defense. He is no different than any other drunk driver who goes out and takes a life except that his name and family legacy allowed him to not only walk free but to be publically forgiven.

One would think that after that level of homicidal irresponsibility he would seek the necessary help to turn his personal life around. But Ted Kennedy did no such thing. His drunken debauchery continued until his advanced years and ailing health toned down his activities.

He is, and will continue to be, lauded for his “tireless defense of the poor and less fortunate” but yet he personally remained an incredibly wealthy monarch, who when supporting the poor used other people’s money to do so. I’ve got a news flash for you, anybody can be generous when they are writing checks from someone else’s checkbook.

Kennedy was praised for his support of the first black American President when in fact that was nothing more than a shrewd political gamble. Kennedy knew he had a much better chance of controlling a socialist political lightweight like the freshman Senator from Illinois rather than a veteran of the political trenches like Hillary Clinton. This was a perfect example of Kennedy abandoning long time allies for his own personal political gain.

What is equally troubling for me is that I foresee Kennedy’s name being used to rally the troops in an effort to garner support for the trillion dollar mistake known as ObamaCare. Kennedy was an ardent supporter of this socialist nationalization of healthcare. Mark my words, Democrats will not be beneath trying to resurrect this debacle by trying to insist it will be part of his legacy.

And as for that legacy? I will let the pundits and political scholars have their day in sun as they wax poetically about all the good this flawed criminal brought through his Senate career, ignoring the lives he cost and destroyed. As for me, well, I can only pray that he was able to find something greater than the Kennedy name, wealth and political muscle to put his faith in before he died.

Darwin's Appendix Attack

A little organ makes for a big problem.

“We're not saying that Darwin’s idea of evolution is wrong — that would be absurd, as we're using his ideas on evolution to do this work, it's just that Darwin simply didn't have the information we have now."

That is a very important quote from William Parker, a researcher at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, NC. It’s important for a couple of reasons; chief among them is that Dr. Parker is making sure his research and the results therein don’t cost him his job or Duke University their grant money. It is also important in that he is in fact saying Darwin’s idea of evolution is, if not unequivocally wrong, at least uninformed and outdated.

Never, allow me to repeat, NEVER EVER NEVER, in the history of scientific research has such a limited investigation based solely on the ideas of one non-impartial researcher taken on the scope and magnitude of Darwin’s Origin of Species.

Ben Stein recently released an excellent documentary movie titled “Expelled” which uncovers the seamier side of higher education and scientific research as it relates to evolution. In this fairly in-depth exposé Stein finds example after example of well trained, highly acclaimed and meticulous researchers who have lost their jobs and their good standing amongst their peers simply by suggesting, or even mentioning the possibility of, theories contrary to Darwin and the non-Darwinian Big Bang theory.

Many incorrectly believe that the data for Darwin’s book The Origin of Species was based on his lifelong quest to uncover mankind’s true genesis. Nothing could be farther from the truth.

Darwin spent only five years on his famous voyage on the “Beagle” to Africa and South America before writing his book. That five-year period, which began in 1831, included the lengthy travel by ship from England to Africa, on to South America and then home. To suggest today, when it takes twice that length of time to simply get a new drug for hay fever onto the market, that this was in any way a closely controlled scientific study worthy of the credit it is given is nothing less than laughable.

Furthermore, Darwin was not looking to discover new ideas but was actually looking for concurring data for an assumption of natural selection that he already believed, having been taught that theory by his grandfather.

Darwin’s research was based solely on observation and then taking what he saw and manipulating it to fit the overall hypothesis. The vast majority of his observation was on plants and flowers and then taking that which he had observed and extrapolating it over to animals and humans. A perfect example of this is Darwin’s proposal that a hummingbird’s bill has evolved into the shape it is from drinking nectar of flowers that have evolved into the shape they are in to accept the bill, thus showing some sort of cross-evolution between plant and animal. As they are both relatively the same shape Darwin concluded they must have evolved concurrently. There need be no further evidence required to prove the theory than that. Darwin was called a “romantic materialist” and this example of unproven theory based solely on observation is why.

So why, in this day and age of unparalleled scientific study, do we still cling to the eminently flawed theory of Darwinism? Because it places science above God.

While it was not Darwin’s intent to eliminate an ultimate Creator in his studies, his limited and romanticized works have been twisted and remolded to just that end.

Dr. Parker and his research group at Duke have come up with scientific proof that the tiny appendix is not a “vestigial” or functionless organ as Darwin stated. Darwin was quick to conclude that the appendix had once served a purpose when our ancient ancestors were eating mostly leaves. He included it along with the tail bone, male nipples and other puzzling parts of human anatomy as proof that man had in fact evolved from some sort of androgynous herbivore that long ago had use for these now vestigial body parts. The Duke research team has disproven that by finding this little organ does in fact serve an important function in modern man. Darwin claimed the appendix was proof of recent evolutions and was found in only a small handful of creatures. The Duke team has discovered that the appendix has been around for over 80 million years and is found in nearly 70 percent of all primate and rodent groups, many of them still dependent on it for digestion.

Over the years countless other Darwinian tenets have been proven completely incorrect. But yet to mention the flaws in the Darwin’s theory is to risk being driven from grace, and probably your job, in the scientific community. How sad that the scientific study of ultimate possibilities would rather cling to a theory repeatedly proven imperfect than to accept at least the possibility of a prefect Creator.

I guess there’s just no research money in God. And besides, we would have to let Him back into school.

An Honest Debate

An open letter to President Barack Hussein Obama:

Mr. President,

You have requested that we as a country have an “honest debate” on healthcare. I completely concur, but must admit to some confusion as to what you consider an honest debate to be.

Is this to be an honest debate like the one on race relations that you and your Attorney General Eric Holder called for? That was of course just before Mr. Holder called us a nation of cowards and you immediately jumped to the defense of a black professor, demeaned the actions and abilities of the white police officers who were called to the scene, all the while admitting to not knowing any of the facts. I guess for one of the few times since taking office your immediate reaction was at least an honest look at how your mind works.

Or is this to be an honest debate like the one you have called for on abortion? An honest debate where you have said we should agree to disagree but still strive to find the middle ground between a living baby and one that is killed by means of dismemberment in the mother’s womb. An honest debate in which you have already admitted to changing your words in an effort to hide your true intent while maintaining your same position on the issue.

I hope you can understand my confusion.

The truth is we are already involved in an honest debate. The problem seems to be that you are not pleased with the positions being taken against you and the one trillion dollar government-run nationalized healthcare system you are proposing. It seems more than a little disingenuous for you to call for an honest debate when it is the honesty of the resistance that has you concerned.

The country is aware that you and your administration have requested that copies of e mails presenting opposing views be sent directly to the White House so you can try to stop the negative tide from rising. I have to believe you have seen at least some of the same e mails I have seen, probably even more. Like the ones that detail, line by line, what the current bill HR 3200 would mean to our healthcare choices of doctors and treatments. Like the line items that detail the reductions in care and the limiting of choice in both healthcare and health insurance. If you want an honest debate then take these detailed e mails and disprove them line by line. Address HR 3200 line by line:

Pg 22 of the HC Bill MANDATES the Govt. will audit books of ALL EMPLOYERS that self insure!!

Pg 30 Sec 123 of HC bill - THERE WILL BE A GOVT. COMMITTEE that decides what treatments/benefits you get

Pg 29 lines 4-16 in the HC bill - YOUR HEALTHCARE IS RATIONED!!! You can only get so much "care" per year

Pg 42 of HC Bill - The Health Choices Commissioner will choose your HC Benefits 4 you. You have no choice!

PG 50 Section 152 in HC bill - HC will be provided to ALL non US citizens, illegal or otherwise

Pg 58HC Bill - Govt will have real-time access to individs finances & a National ID Healthcard will be issued!

Pg 59 HC Bill lines 21-24 Govt will have direct access 2 your banks accts for elective funds transfer

PG 65 Sec 164 is a payoff subsidized plan for retirees and their families in Unions & community orgs (ACORN).

Pg 72 Lines 8-14 Govt is creating an HC Exchange to bring private HC plans under Govt control.

PG 84 Sec 203 HC bill - Govt mandates ALL benefit pkgs for private HC plans in the Exchange

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs for Benefit Levels for Plans = The Govt will ration your Healthcare!
PG 91 Lines 4-7 HC Bill - Govt mandates linguistic appropriate services..... Example - Translation for illegal aliens

Pg 95 HC Bill Lines 8-18 The Govt will use groups i.e., ACORN & Americorps to sign up individually for Govt HC plan

PG 85 Line 7 HC Bill - Specs of Benefit Levels for Plans. #AARP members - your Health care WILL be rationed

PG 102 Lines 12-18 HC Bill - Medicaid Eligible Individuals will be automatically enrolled in Medicaid. No choice

Pg 124 lines 24-25 HC No company can sue GOVT on price fixing. No "judicial review" against Govt Monopoly

Pg 127 Lines 1-16 HC Bill - Doctors/ #AMA - The Govt will tell YOU what you can make.

Pg 145 Line 15-17 An Employer MUST auto enroll employees into public opt plan. NO CHOICE

Pg 126 Lines 22-25 Employers MUST pay for HC for part time employees AND their families.

Pg 149 Lines 16-24 ANY Employer w payroll 400k & above who does not prov. pub opt. pays 8% tax on all payroll

Pg 150 Lines 9-13 Biz w payroll between 251k & 400k who doesn't prov. pub. opt pays 2-6% tax on all payroll

Pg 167 Lines 18-23 ANY individual who doesn't have insurance will be taxed 2.5%

Pg 170 Lines 1-3 HC Bill Any NONRESIDENT Alien is exempt from individual taxes. (You and I will pay for them)

Pg 195 HC Bill Administrators & employees of HC Admin (GOVT) will have access to ALL financial/personal records

PG 203 Line 14-15 HC - "The tax imposed under this section shall not be treated as tax" Yes, it says that

Pg 239 Line 14-24 HC Bill Govt will reduce physician services for Medicaid. Seniors, low income, poor will be very affected

Pg 241 Line 6-8 HC Bill - Doctors, doesn't matter what specialty you have, you'll all be paid the same

PG 253 Line 10-18 Govt sets value of DR's time, professional judgments, etc. Literally value of humans.

PG 265 Sec 1131Govt mandates & controls productivity for private HC industries

PG 268 Sec 1141 Fed Govt regulates rental & purchase of power driven wheelchairs

PG 272 SEC. 1145. TREATMENT OF CERTAIN CANCER HOSPITALS - Cancer patients - welcome to rationing!

PG 280 Sec 1151 The Govt will penalize hospitals for what Govt deems preventable readmissions.

Pg 317 L 13-20 PROHIBITION on ownership/investment. Govt tells Drs. what/how much they can own.

Pg 317-318 lines 21-25,1-3 PROHIBITION on expansion- Govt is mandating hospitals cannot expand

Pg 321 2-13 Hospitals have oppt to apply for exception BUT community input required. Can you say ACORN?!!

Pg 336-339 - Govt mandates estab. of outcome based measures. Rationing

Pg 341 Lines 3-9 Govt has authority to disqualify Medicare Adv Plans, HMOs, etc. Forcing all into Govt HC plan

Pg 354 Sec 1177 - Govt will RESTRICT enrollment of Special needs

Pg 379 Sec 1191 Govt creates more bureaucracy - Telehealth Advisory Cmtte.

PG 425 Lines 4-12 Govt mandates Advance Care Planning Consult.

Pg 425 Lines 17-19 Govt will instruct & consult regarding living wills, durable powers of atty.

PG 425 Lines 22-25, 426 Lines 1-3 Govt provides approved list of end of life resources.

PG 427 Lines 15-24 Govt mandates program for orders for end of life. The Govt has a say in how your life ends

Pg 429 Lines 1-9 An "adv. care planning consult" will be used frequently as patients health deteriorates

PG 429 Lines 10-12 "adv. care consultation" may include an ORDER for end of life plans. AN ORDER from GOV

Pg 429 Lines 13-25 - The govt will specify which Doctors can write an end of life order.

PG 430 Lines 11-15 The Govt will decide what level of treatment you will have at end of life

Pg 469 - Community Based Home Medical Services=Non profit orgs. Hello, ACORN Medical Services here!!?

Page 472 Lines 14-17 PAYMENT TO COMMUNITY-BASED ORG. 1 monthly payment to a community-based org. Like ACORN?

PG 489 Sec 1308 The Govt will cover Marriage & Family therapy. Which means they will insert Govt into your marriage

Pg 494-498 Govt will cover Mental Health - including defining, creating, rationing those services

If you want an honest debate let’s start here.

Obama Meets Joe The Bummer

Poor Joe.

He is not a happy little liberal. As a matter of fact he is bummed out big time.

In a further attempt to connect with the American voting public and re-re-re-rewrite his message on ObamaCare, this President of Hope and Change, Honesty and Openness held a call-in on a talk radio show. Surprisingly he didn’t choose to hold his forum on the number one talk radio show in the country, Rush Limbaugh. But with Obama’s aversion to anything even resembling the truth in this healthcare discussion it’s understandable why.

During one of the calls Obama spoke with Joe from Philadelphia. Joe is bumming big time over the perceived lack of leadership shown by this administration of action, affirmative and otherwise. He echoed the newfound mantra of confused Democrats as to why this discussion is continuing and why the ObamaCare plan is not being rammed through Congress and down the still healthy throats of an overwhelmingly disapproving public.

Joe said “I'm getting a little ticked off that it feels like the knees are buckling a little bit…You have an overwhelming majority in both the House and the Senate, and you own the whole shooting match. ... It's very frustrating to watch you try and compromise with a lot of these people who aren't willing to compromise with you."

The problem is that Joe, like so many others, has taken the Democrat’s bait, hook, line and sinker, and now he can’t figure out why it’s not making sense. The reason is simple. Obama isn’t looking for something he can get Republicans to vote for; he’s looking for something he can get his own minions to vote for.

Joe is of course absolutely correct. Obama and the Democrat controlled House and Senate could pass this socialist nationalized healthcare package without a single Republican vote. The problem for the Congressional Democrats is then what? Democrats have been wailing for years that if only they were in power they would know just what to do. Now that they have complete control over the legislative and executive branches it’s the last place they want to be. It’s a lot easier to say what you’re going to do than it is to actually do it. Plus all those silly little details and that damned reality always seem to get in the way of a good Democrat promise.

HR 3200 is one thousand plus pages of reduced healthcare payments, increased governmental intervention, increased restrictions, and decreased healthcare choices. After his radio show Obama went to a meeting and live webcast at the Democrat National Committee headquarters. (Just as a side note, I never recall President GW Bush venturing out to the Republican National Committee headquarters for a completely partisan discussion of his policies, do you?) During the webcast Obama attempted to rally support by saying "no matter what you've heard, if you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor under the reform proposals that we've put forward. If you like your private health insurance plan, you can keep it. If your employer provides you health insurance on the job, nobody is talking about messing with that." OOOOPS! Hey Baracchio, your nose is growing!

Immediately upon its passage 25% of current Medicare recipients would likely see a change in their provider networks due to ObamaCare cutting the subsidies Republicans gave the Medicare Advantage programs. Less immediate, but certainly no less impactful, will be the countless doctors and healthcare providers that are forced to trim their patient ranks of Medicare patients or risk being financially driven out of business. Hospitals will find themselves in the no-win position of not being able to keep Medicare patients in the hospital due to decreased hospital stay provisions, but not being able to release them due to the new non-payment clause for readmitted patients.

No Joe, Barack Obama is not trying to negotiate with the Republicans. Hell, the Republicans can’t even get in the room and any Democrat House Member caught discussing the plan with them faces the wrath of Nancy Pelosi.

Obama is desperately trying to negotiate with the Democrats who are facing an overwhelming majority of their constituents who are saying “Hell No” to the plan. And these Democrats are not about to be left standing alone when the ObamaCare bedpan hits the fan.

And as for seeing some knee buckling. Oh yeah!

The Ides Of Wal-Mart

Beware the Ides of Wal-Mart.

And apparently 19 other major companies that according to the organizing web site have all agreed to pull advertising from the Glenn Beck Show on the Fox News Channel.

In their latest release ColorofChange.org claims they have received confirmation from 20 companies that they have contacted Fox News and requested their ads not be shown during the Beck Show. Best Buy and Travelocity along with Wal-Mart are the 3 latest additions to this supposed boycott.

This all began when Beck, commenting on Barack Obama’s uniformed defense of the black Harvard nutty professor over the stupidly acting white police, said that Obama was racist. Becks exact comment was: “This president, I think, has exposed himself as a guy, over and over again, who has a deep seated hatred for white people or the entire white culture. I don’t know what it is…” At that point when questioned about Obama having more white advisors than black, Beck said “I’m not saying he doesn’t like white people. I’m saying he has a problem. This guy, I believe is a racist.”

So is this what we have come to? Are we now so politically correct that if anyone points an accusatory finger at this President of Hope and Change, regardless of his actions, he will be shunned by corporate America like a pariah? Well not so fast Skippy. (not that Skippy was involved in the supposed boycott)

As it turns out not all the names listed by ColorofChange.org have actually pulled their ads from the Glenn Beck Show. Imagine that! A left wing political action web site publishing bold faced lies. Who would have thunk it? Okay, I mean other than Al Franken and his Air America scammers.

While a few advertisers have indeed pulled ads off the Beck show, like Sargento, they claim it was for reasons other than the racist portrayal of Barack Obama. And most of the advertisers that pulled their revenue enhancing commercial time off the Glenn Beck Show have also pulled their ads off competing liberal shows on CNN and MSNBC.

It seems that while ColorofChange.org would have us believe it was their efforts to silence conservative speech that succeeded, when in fact what actually happened was that corporate America got scared and decided to place their ads in less turbulent waters until they can at least tell which way the tide is rising.

It doesn’t matter whether you are a fan of Glenn Beck or not. The idea that a corporate board and their advertising gurus will decide what is proper or improper speech is more than a little scary. To think that these same companies have no problem advertising during some of the mind-numbing unadulterated crap that is broadcast nightly on each of the three major networks, but will fake some sort of corporate conscience in an effort to make a statement is beyond hypocritical.

It once again brings us back to the beauty of capitalism. If a corporation wants to flex its revenue muscle and decides to support a show or a channel that expresses a particular viewpoint I applaud their commitment and defend their right to spend their money as they see fit. However, if they should decide to support those views that I personally oppose, while I defend their right to do so, they will lose me as a customer. That goes for any company regardless of whether I like their products or not.

If Best Buy pulls their ads from a conservative show and leaves them on the likes of that drivel coming out of the mealy mouth of Keith Olbermann and the rest of the liberal ilk, I will not shop at Best Buy anymore. The same holds true for Wal-Mart, Con-Agra, CVS, Radio Shack, Geico, State Farm, Proctor & Gamble, Men’s Warehouse and the rest.

I have no problem switching stores, brands or insurance companies to keep the airwaves open to conservative viewpoints.

Capitalism is the most powerful force known to man.

Truth v. Tap Dancing

Okay. Let’s try this.

Great white tap dancers: Fred Astaire, Gene Kelly, Donald O’Connor, Bob Fosse.

Great black tap dancers: Gregory Hines, Maurice Hines, Bill “Bojangles” Robinson, James “Jimmy Slyde” Godbolt, Barack Obama.

I’m guessing that there is probably no way to include tap dancing and this history-making first black president in the same sentence without being called a racist. Making a racist innuendo is absolutely not my intent but when it comes to tap dancing Obama ranks right up there with the best of em’.

The news wires are now filled with this latest ObamaCare step, shuffle, kick. And it is by no accident.

Nothing, nil, nada comes out of this administration of openness and honesty without first being contrived or at least approved by the infamous Obama Chicago Connection, David Axelrod and Rahm Emanuel.

These two political pros have spent years honing their skills in the fine art of Chicago pugilistic politics. They are masters at feigning the right only to land a roundhouse sucker punch with the left. Such was the case with the premeditated trial balloon sent up by Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius. In her comments last week she said that Obama would be willing to abandon his proposal for the “public option” single payer portion of the ObamaCare bill to aid in its passage.

Immediately after Sebelius’s comments the Democrat left became unified in its opposition to the idea. Several leading Democrat House and Senate members raced to news microphones to announce their dismay at this proposition, each claiming they would not support ANY healthcare bill without this nationalized provision.

Phase one worked to perfection. It took the media spotlight off the public outrage, off the raucous town hall meetings, off the defensive back-peddling Democrats and gave them something to take the offense on. Even if it was to take the offense against proposals coming out of their own side.

Now comes phase two of the plan. Already the Associated Press and Reuters are coming out with “news” pieces that attempt to artificially prop up the perception of strength amongst the Democrats and downplay the overwhelming public disapproval.

The AP is leading with a story headlined “Analysis: Liberals tired of health care compromise”. Besides misspelling healthcare, the story goes on to quote numerous unnamed sources that are throwing down the gauntlet on giving any more concessions to Republicans. The only problem with the piece is that it is as blatantly contrived as it is factitious. Republicans have not only not received any concessions; they have been summarily shut out of the process entirely because Democrats can pass the ObamaCare nationalized disaster without a single Republican vote. This AP commentary is an attempt to portray the battle for ObamaCare as being between two political parties when in fact the crusade is to win the hearts and minds of the unsupportive American public.


The Reuters piece makes this clear with their headline “Views unchanged on Obama’s healthcare plans: poll”. At least Reuters can spell healthcare correctly. The opening line of the piece is a classic in political deception. It reads “Americans remain skeptical of President Obama’s healthcare reform drive, but their views have not changed much after weeks of sometimes angry protests at public meetings according to an NBC poll released Tuesday.” So basically what they’re saying is that Americans are firmly against this plan but they haven’t gotten more firmly against it, right?

It is only later in the article that one finds even that statement is fallacious. The poll shows overall support for the “public option” of the plan has dropped from 46 percent to 43 percent approval in the past month. That doesn’t sound unchanged to me.

Let’s take just a minute to imagine what the headlines would have read if George W was still President and promoting this plan. How about “After months of personal appeals President’s words fall on deaf ears”. Or possibly “American’s support for public option drops almost 10% to an all time low”.

I guess maybe Karl Rove was not the genius many thought he was. Bush should have gone with the boys from Chicago for his news media relations.

Perhaps Axelrod and Emanuel could float this as their next AP or Reuters headline:

“ObamaCare: Almost not everybody hates it”.

Woodstock Plus 40

“By the time we got to Woodstock, we were half a million strong. And everywhere was a song and a celebration.” – Joni Mitchell

Well, I think I have sufficiently recovered from the deep despair that racked me near immobile when I learned that this past weekend was the 40th anniversary of Woodstock. How could it be? How could 40 years have gone by?

My first thought about the news coverage portraying this historic event and those who participated as promoters, workers, entertainers and attendees was “Please stop showing me all these old people” and “How did they get so old and I………….OH NO!”

Yes. Time has indeed marched on.

This anniversary was a time of reflection. A chance to reminisce about what now seems like a much simpler time but then seemed like a rocket ship entering into the great unknown at light speed. Woodstock was historic in its magnitude but more importantly in its message; “Three days of peace and music”.

We were different then. Maybe not better, but certainly different. There was a certain peace and harmony that existed in the 60’s that was on display during those three days in August, where a million mostly young people got together and braved bad weather along with even worse planning to share in this celebration of music and amity. There were great displays of caring and sharing that one would be hard pressed to find amongst young people today. There was personal communication, one person to another, that formed this group of long haired, short haired, hippie, straight, northern, southern, multicultural male and female individuals of disassociated backgrounds into a single family unit.

Certainly not all of the actions were of a completely altruistic nature. Particularly toward the promoters and investors who fronted the money for this first of its kind mega-concert. Of the million plus who attended only 186,000 had actually bought tickets. The ticket booths designed to sell additional tickets at the gate were closed before the first band hit the stage as the fences constructed to keep out freeloaders were breached almost immediately by tens of thousands of non-paying revelers. As one frantic promoter told another “You’ve just gone from the biggest concert in history to the biggest freebee in history.”

Nobody expected the turn out and nobody, from the promoters to the city fathers of Bethel, New York, were prepared for the overwhelming throng that arrived. But the 60’s held a different mentality and the promoters soon switched their attention from making a buck to making sure the attendees were cared for as best as possible. I doubt that would be the attitude today. NY Governor Nelson Rockefeller intended to send 10,000 National Guard troops when the magnitude of the event became apparent but was dissuaded by the promoters. My guess is today the promoters would be demanding them and more to protect their financial interests.

Woodstock is a snapshot in time. Not only of the music but of the culture of young people that existed then. The music presented was turbulent, raw, blemished, defiant, and apodictic. And it strained the boundaries of the best technology available at the time. The young people were exactly the same. The future was our domain and we knew that together we could make a difference. There was not a single cell phone call placed or text message sent at Woodstock but we were able to communicate as one through the music and harmony of sprit.

That turbulent defiance is the same in today’s youth but that spirit of oneness and harmony with each other has been lost. It’s sad to see. Attempts at reviving that communal spirit have failed miserably as shown by the stark contrast between the joy and celebration of the original Woodstock to the carnage and violence of the recent Woodstock spinoffs. If you want to know the change in attitude of today’s youth just listen to the changes in their music. The message has gone from peace to violence, love to sex, we to me.

We will never have another period in time like August, 1969. It was the end of the 60’s and the beginning of a new decade. It wasn’t all sunshine and rainbows, but we withstood the storms together and enjoyed the rainbow that followed. In the 60’s I spent most of my time searching for my bliss, now I spend it searching for my glasses and keys. Back then it was 1-2-3 what are we fighting for, now it’s 1-2-3 wait a minute, what number was I calling and what was I calling for. I no longer wear flowers in my hair. At least I don’t think Grecian Formula is a flower. But I’m still talkin’ bout my generation. Because the older I get the better we were.

By the way, the brown acid is not poison. It’s just manufactured poorly. So stay away from the brown acid. But hey, it’s your trip man.

Winning

“Just Win Baby” – Al Davis – Oakland Raiders

“Winning isn’t everything, it’s the only thing” – Henry “Red” Sanders - UCLA

"I've got a lot on my plate, and it's very important for us to sequence these big initiatives in a way where they don't all just crash at the same time" – Barack Obama

I know I have said it before, but does anyone recall a President of the United States that consistently opened his statements regarding what needs to be done by complaining about his work load like this President of Hope and Change? This constant whining about all that he has to do has become a daily lament and his default answer to any question. It’s almost as if he is surprised that being President is a hard job.

It shows in stark detail just how completely unprepared this community activist turned ghost writing autobiographer turned leader of the free world is when it comes to being judged on accomplishments rather than patronizing partisan rhetoric and enigmatic promises.

It was Karl Rove who cautioned Obama prior to his taking office that being President is “Like drinking from a fire house 24 hours a day”. Obviously Rove’s words fell on deaf, even though remarkably impressive, ears.

Obama came into his reign in the White House with a whopping 515 promises of hope and change. He has won a few and he has lost a few, but according to PolitiFact.com, 7 months into his historic administration he has kept 34 promises, broken 7, compromised on 11, stalled 12, has 77 in the works and has taken no action on 374 of his ardent pledges.

But where he goes from here seems to be riding in large part on his success in passing ObamaCare, at least in some form. It has become far more about winning than it is about actually creating a health care reform program that is both affordable and actually beneficial.

Some of Obama’s victories have included such insignificant items as signing the UN Convention on rights for persons with disabilities and the installation of the nation’s first Chief Technology Officer. Yawn. Another victory or promise fulfilled is the supposed closing of Guantanamo Bay, but much like ObamaCare, here is a perfect example of victory at any cost with suspect benefit.

Even GW Bush stated that Guantanamo would one day need to be closed. But Obama continues to race forward, without a suitable plan as to where these dangerous killers will be housed, what will happen if they are brought onto American soil or how much it will cost. Most importantly the Obama administration has been completely incapable of showing any benefit to changing these detainees’ zip code from Guantanamo Bay to anywhere else.

It has become apparent with the Obama’s newfound willingness to drop the public option in his health care plan that he is willing to forgo this alleged insurance cost control for something to call a win at any price. The public option was an absolute cornerstone of this new socialist healthcare insurance system. While I am not the least bit sorry to see it being cut, in reality it was no more flawed than the rest of the unworkable and eminently dangerous ObamaCare plan.

The benefit to its removal is that, at least temporarily, citizens will be allowed to continue to pick their own health insurance plan. The downside is that it being removed will do nothing to reduce the untenable $1 trillion fiasco known as ObamaCare and the dramatic reduction in actual healthcare that will come with it.

Watch the coming negotiations closely regarding getting some kind of bill passed and you will see that this is not about providing the nation with better healthcare, not that it ever was, but is about winning something, anything. Democrats are desperate to overcome the public pushback knowing that if they fail to do so on this one it will likely be a long 3 years with a lame duck president.

Republicans have the ball in their court. If they can defeat Obama’s oneiric vision of socialized medicine, or at least make an impactful unified stand against it, they will have something to run on in 2010. If they don’t they will be as doomed as the sick and elderly depending on them.

“There is no comparison between that which is lost by not succeeding and that lost by not trying” – Sir Francis Bacon

Reality Bites

Oh the wicked web we weave when first we practice to deceive.

The Democratic Party has got to be sitting back, eyes glazed and jaw agape, thinking “What the hell just happened here? One minute we’re filling Invseco Field with devoted, teary eyed pilgrims watching their Messiah of Hope and Change accept the presidential nomination amidst the columns of a Mount Olympus-like Greek temple, and the next these same once-devoted followers are carrying protest signs and screaming ‘Off with their heads’”.

It has got to be tough when reality takes a big bite out of your propitiate promise of enigmatic change.

Even the most inveterate public speakers amongst the Democrats have taken to mercurial tap dancing, querulous innuendo and outright deception when confronted by the overwhelming level of outrage shown by their once unshakable supporters.

Democrats are cancelling town hall meetings with their constituents faster than a Tom Arnold sitcom. They don’t know what to say to appease their angry voters and are getting absolutely no help or direction from their leader in the White House. So they have fallen back to the risible position of “just say anything”.

In several of the recent town hall meetings Democrats have emphatically stated that there is no health care bill yet. But right there on the government’s own web site is all 1017 pages of H.R. 3200, a gleaming, steaming omnibus pile of subpar nationalized health care and reduced or eliminated health care choices. For years politicians have acted as if there was no video or audio tape, denying that they said or did what was clearly shown and heard in the tapes. They acted as if Americans were both deaf and blind. In this latest attempt at subterfuge the Democrats are acting as if we are illiterate as well.

Barack Obama has all but abandoned his initial emphasis on ObamaCare providing health insurance to the currently uninsured and is now trying to convince those already insured that they will not lose anything with his $1 trillion package of onerous health care otiose. But because Americans have become accustomed to actually receiving health care when we are sick rather than 6 months after we’re dead, for the first time in this community activist’s political career voters aren’t buying what he’s selling. He has lost his ability to frame his words so as to hide his true meaning and besot the public at large with a wave of his hand.

Obama recently claimed that the public was unfairly faulting him for not eliminating the deficit he inherited from the Bush administration. But as he and his perfidious minions in Congress have tripled that inherited deficit in his first six months, this time the smoke and mirrors didn’t fool anybody.

Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Democrat Representative David Scott have tried to tie the swastika symbol to the ObamaCare protesters. Numerous Democrat House and Senate Members have called the protesters a mob of thugs and that the outrage was not real but rather “manufactured”. Recent Democrat Senator Arlen Specter was just quoted as saying the protesters “are not necessarily representative of America”. With all due respect to the esteemed Senator from Pennsylvania, if we are not representative of America then what are we? Allow me to suggest that perhaps it is the profligate nationalized health care plan contained in the 1017 pages of Obama’s fatuous socialist agenda known as ObamaCare that is not representative of America.

I really wonder if we rubbed Arlen Specter with Preparation H if he would get smaller and be less annoying.

Many predicted that it would take at least four years for Obama to lose his magic touch at winning the hearts and minds of his followers by saying nothing better than anybody else. I think the recent rebellion against his ObamaCare plan and other out of control tax and spend debacles have shown those predictions to be incorrect.

People are watching and listening. Some for the first time.

And oh, by the way, we’re reading too.

Racist...........Again

I didn’t know how long it would take, but I knew we would get there.

According to Georgia Democrat Congressman David Scott, who is black, the resistance and rebellion against Barack Obama’s $1 trillion ObamaCare health insurance plan is being caused by………………wait for it………………..RACISITS!

WOW!

After Representative’s Scott’s fearless leader, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, intentionally and blatantly lied to the unquestioning press corps about protesters at ObamaCare town hall meetings carrying swastikas, suddenly one appears spray-painted on the sign bearing his name outside Representative Scott’s office. Does the name Morton Downey Jr. ring a bell?

The introduction of the swastika into the public forum is strictly a Democrat conceived ploy to downplay the deep outrage the American public is feeling toward this unworkable behemoth of nationalized health care. The only swastika shown in undoctored news photos carried by a town hall protester is in a circle with a line through it indicating the international symbol for “NO”.

Representative Scott said “We have got to make sure that the symbol of the swastika does not win, that the racial hatred that is bubbling up does not win this debate.” Scott also claims he has received threatening letters calling him a nigger and Barack Obama a Marxist.

Perhaps Representative Scott may wish to speak to Mr. Kenneth Gladney, an equally black man who was called a nigger amongst other epithets and then beaten by members of the Service Employees International Union at a recent town hall meeting in Gladney’s home town of St. Louis. Gladney, along with hundreds of other protesters showed up at the ObamaCare town hall meeting and was passing out flags with the “Don’t Tread On Me” symbol emblazoned on them. He was confronted by members of the SEIU who questioned why a black man was passing out these flags. He was verbally assaulted and then badly beaten by the union thugs requiring emergency treatment at a local hospital. Fortunately for Gladney he was treated prior to ObamaCare being enacted or he might have been sent home and told to return in 6 months when a doctor would be available to see him. Where is Representative Scott’s outrage at this beating? Where are Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton for this racially motivated assault? Where are Professor Gates, Reverend Wright, Barack Obama and Nancy Pelosi’s condemnation for this “hate crime” carried out by their faithful union members?

Only seven months into the Obama presidency and the race card has already been worn to a frazzle. This debate is not racist in any way, shape or form. The more the Democrats try to incorporate the same old “white guilt” ploy that has worked so well for them in the past, the more transparent their subterfuge becomes. The black Congressman Scott was voted into office by the white constituents of his mostly white district. How is it these some voters are now considered racist for opposing the $1 trillion dollar ObamaCare debacle?

We are not racist, we’re mad as hell and rightfully so. We are told that the current system of health care, the system that is the envy of the rest of the world, doesn’t work. But we are told this by the likes of recently Democrat Senator Arlen Specter, who was questioned at his recent town hall meeting how it was possible that he, a man in his 70’s, was not only diagnosed but treated and cured of cancer under the current system that he claims doesn’t work.

We are told the current system doesn’t work by the likes of Senator Chris Dodd, who was recently diagnosed with prostate cancer, which under the current system diagnoses 250,000 cases of this cancer per year and has a 97% cure rate.

But most importantly we are being told that our current system of health care doesn’t work by a Democrat President, Democrat Senators and Democrat House Members who have absolutely no intention of abandoning the current system and signing themselves and their families up for the coverage offered by nationalized ObamaCare plan. Written right into the bill is an exemption for all these elected officials.

How is it racist to question the spending of another $1 trillion on top of the already unsustainable national deficit for a plan that has been proven, time and again all over the world, to be a poor second to the current American health care system? How is it racist to question the honesty of our elected officials when they say that no bill has been written when so many of us have seen the 1500 page bill approved and passed by three congressional committees so far? How is it racist to question our elected officials when we they tell us that ObamaCare will not take away our rights to make our own medical decisions when we have read in black and white that the intent of ObamaCare is to do exactly that? How is it racist to question why these elected officials who are so strong in their support are purposefully exempting themselves from coverage of this plan they are inflicting on the taxpaying public?

These constant exaggerated and in many cases falsified claims of racism are wearing remarkably thin. And so is America’s patience with this duplicitous administration and its loyal minions. Can we the people actually make our voices heard and choose the “Change” we will accept?

YES WE CAN!!!

Calling All Czars

What in czar-nation is going on here?

To be fair, Barack Obama did not invent the “czar” position within the executive branch. But for a guy who was elected on the evanescent promise of “Change” he sure has come to like some of what his predecessors did. So much so that he has taken the czar idea to a whole new and eminently dangerous level.

Presidents in the past have appointed czars to head up several multifarious target groups of particular focus to their administrations. We’ve had Drug Czars, Energy Czars, Education Czars and Science Czars. The position of czar is solely appointed by the President with no input or approval from Congress. It has never been too big an issue as most of these czars simply gathered information on their particular issue of concern and reported back to the President with suggestions as to what actions could be taken to further the executive’s agenda.

Along with the previously established positions of czars, George W. Bush had several special focus czars that included a Katrina Czar, a Mine Safety Czar, Abstinence Czar, Bird Flu Czar, AIDS Czar, Manufacturing Czar and Copyright Czar. Not one of his czar positions were seen as particularly threatening to the American way of life, even by most Democrats. Except for an experienced community activist but inexperienced Senator from Illinois named Barack Hussein Obama, who whilst campaigning for the presidency said “The biggest problems that we’re facing right now have to do with George Bush trying to bring more power into the executive branch and not go through Congress at all. And that’s what I intend to reverse when I’m President of the United States”. That was on March 31, 2008. Seven months into his presidency and seventeen months after this quote this President of Hope and Change has so far appointed 32 non-Congressionally approved czars. Far more than his belittled predecessor or any other president for that matter. So much so that even the very liberal and very Democrat Senator from West Virginia Robert Byrd sent a letter to Obama detailing his concerns with this administration’s possibly unconstitutional tactics of avoiding Congressional approval for some of these now very high level and very activist czar positions.

Obama has many of the usual czar positions and some of special interest like a Cyberspace Czar, Green Jobs Czar, Stimulus Accountability Czar and a Guantanamo Closure Czar. But he has also created a new czar position called the Compensation Czar. Obama recently appointed well known Washington DC attorney Kenneth Feinberg to fill this new czar position.

I have no intention of besmirching the character of Mr. Feinberg in any way. From all I have heard of him in the past and all that I have read about him, he is a fine attorney and a decent, caring man who has not only served at a high level in some landmark legal settlements but also has shown immeasurable compassion and the strong emotional stability necessary to serve as Special Master of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund and as Chief Administrator of the Hokie Sprit Memorial Fund set up for the families of the Virginia Tech killings of April, 2007. Mr. Feinberg not only agreed to direct these funds and become closely involved with the grieving families but he did so pro bono, taking not one penny from the funds for his time and efforts.

Unfortunately, the fact that Mr. Feinberg is a class guy does not diminish the fact that he has now been placed in a position by Barack Obama that is not only extremely dangerous to the very core of American freedoms, but will likely also prove to be unconstitutional if challenged.

As Compensation Czar it will be Mr. Feinberg’s task to actually review and give governmental approval to what private businesses pay their executives. This is an absolutely unprecedented intrusion of government into the inner workings of not only business but private citizens. It is unparalleled in its scope and, if left unchallenged, could destroy American industry’s ability to compete in a world marketplace.

The justification for this incomprehensible misuse of power is that the seven companies this czar will initially focus his attention on have all received bailout funds from the Treasury. AIG, Citigroup, Bank of America, General Motors, Chrysler, Chrysler Financial and GMAC will all have their executive pay plans reviewed and possibly reconstructed by the federal government. Where is Daniel Webster when you need him?

Each of these companies received congressionally approved funding, not only to save the company, but to avert the potentially ominous impact any or all of their failures would have on both the American and global economy. While each of the companies involved understood they would be under increased scrutiny by federal regulators none agreed to have the rights of their board of directors or their investors usurped by an appointee of the President of the United States.

This presidential power grab goes back to the Obama mandated dismissing of GM CEO Rick Wagoner. Due to remarkable shortsightedness on their part, GM accepted this presidential intrusion to get the bailout money they needed immediately to avoid bankruptcy. Wagoner was unjustly forced to fall on a sword placed there by the UAW and GM ended up in bankruptcy anyway. The GM board should have refused to accept the President’s conditions or refused to accept Wagoner’s resignation. But they didn’t.

So now what? Well its time that these battered and bruised companies step up and defend themselves from what will otherwise be an ever increasing role government plays in the inner workings of their business. As qualified in compensation arbitration as Mr. Feinberg is, each of these companies needs to refuse to accept his imposed pay structures.

It is time to take the constitutionality of the President and his activist czar-nation to court. Nobody elected these czars and nobody but the President approved them. Congress never gave them the authority to act on its behalf in regulating businesses regardless of whether they got federal bailout money or not and the businesses never agreed to this level of federal intrusion by taking it.

If we ever hope to come out of this congressionally culpable recession with American businesses still intact and capable of conducting business, these corporate boards and the investors in those companies need to grow a pair, hearken back to the Reagan years and:

Just Say No.

Welcome To The Chicago Machine

Welcome my friends, welcome to the machine.

With deference to Roger Waters for the slight edit, this opening line from the classic Pink Floyd tune seems perfectly suited to the exposition of Chicago machine politics coming out of the White House.

In one of THE most Orwellian acts yet to come from this administration of “Hope” and “Change” the White House has sent out a request that supporters of the President forward any e mails they receive critical of his ObamaCare nationalized health insurance directly to them. Furthermore, if any supporter hears anyone publicly speaking disparagingly about the President’s plan they should send that information including the discontent’s name and what they said directly to the boys in the back room at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

This unconscionable request is not a joke nor is it an exaggeration, although I truly wish it was. This is real. This President of the United States of America, a man who campaigned on a platform of openness and change, is requesting his minions turn over the names of all malcontents to the government.

I hated when liberals compared George W. Bush to Hitler. It was an absurd assessment with no basis in reality. It gave the unfortunate impression to those not familiar with history that Hitler was some unpopular politician. I find the recent defaming comparison of Barack Hussein Obama to Hitler equally shameful for the same reason. Anybody who uses Hitler as their point of reference for comparison to an American president truly has no clue as to the level of malevolent, inhuman, despotic brutality that permeated every fiber of his being. I was disgusted by the callous and ignorant comments of Illinois Democrat Senator Dick Durbin when he compared our American military men and women guarding the terrorists at Guantanamo Bay to Nazis. I am angered by the blatant misrepresentation of Democrat Speaker Nancy Pelosi when she fallaciously claims conservative protesters are brandishing swastikas at town hall meetings promoting ObamaCare. I understand the totality of what the Nazis did and how they did it. But it would be impossible for me to not draw some sort of mental comparison of this recent White House initiated “squeal on your neighbor” campaign to that of the Gestapo or any number of other totalitarian thought control police state initiatives.

This President has put his detractors on notice that any public resistance to his socialist policies and agenda will not go unnoticed or without possible retribution.

I simply cannot imagine the level of public outrage that would have been gleefully encouraged by the liberal mainstream media had George W. suggested the American public send him the names of those speaking out against his policies. But as tyrannical as the request is from this President of “Hope” and “Change”, the response by the bastions of truth, justice and free speech in the press has been muted at best by all but Fox News.

And exactly what is to be done with this information after it is received by the White House? That remains unclear. Will the names be turned over to other government agencies for further investigation, like the FBI, the CIA, the FCC or the IRS? Democrats are quick to say no. But nobody really knows for sure, and that in itself is part of the plans power, which is to limit public discourse through an unprecedented use of fear of reprisal.

While this level of partisan surveillance into the comments and writings of private citizens has not previously been publicly solicited by an acting President it is in fact right out of the old Chicago machine politics playbook. This plan to gather names and e mail addresses of detractors has the President’s Chief of Staff, Rahm Emmanuel’s name written all over it. It also was likely co-authored by the President’s chief political advisor David Axelrod.

Both Emmanuel and Axelrod are bare knuckle political brawlers with long Chicago machine politics pedigrees. They know how it works in the “City That Works” and they are looking to bring that same level of partisan control to this administration. In Chicago you go along or you go away.

I’m not suggesting that those who oppose ObamaCare and the over $1 trillion in additional costs it will tack onto the already unsustainable national debt will see any unexpected government interference in their life. But it would not surprise me if the IRS had to hire some additional auditors just in case there was an influx of new names whose tax forms might need to be checked and checked again for inconsistencies. Or if this obsessive desire to muzzle the free and open discussion of opposing views is not used to further the antithesis of fairness, called in Orwellian newspeak, the “Fairness Doctrine”.

And so it begins. First the George Orwell “1984” principle of “newspeak” was firmly established and now the principle of “doublethink” is being instituted.

How appropriate that the government in the prophetic Orwell tome is known as “Big Brother”.

Change In More Ways Than One

Change.

With that one word an inexperienced community activist, schooled in the finer points of strong- arm Chicago politics, was placed in control of the most powerful nation on earth. The innocuous promise of something different was all it took. It mattered not to the country what that “something different” would be, having first been conditioned by the relentless drumbeat of an ever libelous and increasingly unrealistic Democrat controlled House and Senate that what we already had was not in fact what we wanted.

The country began to mindlessly accept the Democratic Party line that the security measures put in place that had kept us safe for 7 years were somehow more dangerous than the threat they protected us against.

That the war being fought on the home turf of the terrorists was an unwinnable quagmire and that even though the enemy had been in preparation for over 30 years it should have been decided in matter of months.

That the Guantanamo Bay detainees who were removed from the battlefield while trying to kill American and Allied forces were somehow being treated unfairly. Even though their treatment was far and away superior to that of about 80% of the world’s non-incarcerated population.

That diplomacy would keep us in the good graces of the rest of the world and win the hearts and minds of our enemies regardless of their overwhelming desire to kill us.

That the economic policy of lower taxes that had actually increased to record levels the revenues realized by the government was somehow unfair to those who were receiving the government aid those revenues paid for.

That the White House and the Executive branch of government was actually under the control of an evil Vice President and a group of shadowy political figures and corporate sponsors.

That the health care provided the elderly and infirmed in this country was subpar even though countless citizens from countries with nationalized health care programs were flocking to our clinics and hospitals to get it.

That temperature fluctuations in various parts of the globe were indicative of an ominous change in the entire earth’s suddenly fragile ecostructure and that the salvation of the human race and every plant and animal inhabiting this small blue planet could only be guaranteed by the creation of a new monopolistic currency shell game.

That the decline of American industry in the global marketplace was brought about by corporate greed and that the unrealistic wages and benefit packages demanded by organized labor was the solution rather than part of the problem.

That successful Americans who risked their own money and struggled countless hours to succeed in business were somehow unfair to those who chose not to invest their time and efforts to do the same.

That the basic laws of economics and the basic principles of mathematics were unfair and therefore needed to be disregarded. It was no longer necessary that 2 + 2 = 4 if we didn’t want it to.

What would these horrible inequities of the Bush administration change into and how would that change be effected? We didn’t know and more importantly we didn’t care. We only knew that without this magical verb being put into action immediately we, the country as a whole and likely the entire world would surely perish.

It was our unwillingness to ask what “CHANGE” meant prior to electing it that has led us to where we find ourselves today. It is the realization that the expression “From the frying pan into the fire” is the very definition of “CHANGE”. And that realization has caused a marker decline in the popularity of the ultimate “CHANGE MAKER”.

The approval rating for Barack Hussein Obama has plummeted from its lofty highs in the 70% area after the election to less than 50% only six month later. This approval rating under 50% is important because, as he carried 52% of the vote, it means that after only six months even those that voted for Obama are now disapproving.

It is also the reason that so many landmark legislative moves are now being rushed for a vote. The Democrat leadership knows that if they delay even a little there will likely be no chance to get bills such as the trillion dollar ObamaCare plan passed. Especially after Treasury Secretary Tim 1040 Geithner came out with is request to increase the national debt limit currently set at $12 trillion to who knows what stratospheric level. But Democrat House and Senate Members are also aware that if they vote for these fast-tracked tax and spend behemoths they will likely be looking for new work soon.

We’ll spend the next few days talking about some of these recent developments and how the Obama administration is falling back to good old fashioned Chicago-style politics to fight back.

Change is indeed upon us. But not the kind Obama and his supporters had planned on.

Can Barack Obama change from Messiah to Pariah in less than a year?

Apparently, Yes He Can.

Stastically Speaking 3

OK. You want honest and open? Here we go.

Is there still a dividing attitude of racism in America? Yes, but it runs on both sides of the racial chasm. And while racism still exists, the perception or claims of racism is far greater than the actual occurrence.

You would be hard pressed to find a minority in this country that has not at some time experienced a situation that they considered racism. While each instance is different, I find many of the stories to be the same things white people have to deal with every day. White people get poor service in restaurants, inattentive and indifferent sales clerks in stores, we lose jobs, get passed over for promotions, get turned down for loans and credit cards, are made to feel insignificant by those with authority over us and have run-ins with police. But white folks rarely have the advantage of using racism as an excuse for our frustrations and disappointments. We are left to conclude that the person we are dealing with is an idiot or that our own actions may actually have played a part in the cards we are dealt.

Instead of focusing on the advancements made in race relations and minority opportunities available we focus our attention on insignificant annoyances that happen to everybody at some time. We have become so insanely politically correct on race that we have lost all concept of what racism is, where we have come from and where we are today.

When was the last reporting of a lynching in America? Do you suppose they still occur and the news media has decided not to cover them? Not likely. If there is a racial killing where whites kill blacks the news media is all over it with 24 hour non-stop coverage. If we had a lynching Jesse Jackson would be at the scene within hours looking for blood to smear on his shirt and Al Sharpton would be there claiming everything about white people is evil except their hair styles. The entire country would literally be turned on its ear and focused on little else for the next 6 months. It would be a shock to the entire country and rightfully so.

Golf Channel analyst Kelly Tilghman made an attempt at humor by saying other golfers would need to take Tiger Woods out back and lynch him if they wanted to win and almost lost her job. Tilghman was suspended for a month for the mere mention of the word. A garbage truck driver in Philadelphia was fired for hanging little a hangman’s nooses on his truck as a Halloween decoration because we, as a country, have become so politically correct and racially sensitive that we cannot discern between the image and the intent.

Lynchings were a dark page in our countries history. White thugs would gather up young black men who had committed some sort of inexcusable infraction like sitting in a whites only area or drinking from a whites only water fountain or looking at a white girl walk down the street and they would hang them from a tree as a sign of their brutal power and a warning to others of what happens to those that of cross them.

We have not had a lynching in this country for decades, but every single week across America 40 to 50 young black men are killed by other young black men. Each one of them is just as dead as the young men hung from trees. The reasons for these killings are usually equally inexcusable infractions like walking down the wrong street, selling dope on the wrong corner, flashing the wrong gang sign or having the wrong color bandana, disrespecting the shooter in any number of perceived ways or doing nothing at all but being in the wrong place.

Where are Jesse and Al at these killing? Where is the President, where is Reverend Wright, where is Professor Gates? Are they afraid to go into those neighborhoods? The carnage in the streets of black neighborhoods has become so commonplace that local news media outlets cover these killings simply as time fillers if there is no other news happening that day. There is no outrage. There is no call for a federal investigation. There is only tacit acceptance.

Most of these killings are carried out in full view of witnesses who are usually too afraid to give police any information out of fear of retribution. There is no difference between these killings and the lynching’s except the color of the attacker. We use ridiculous terms like “hate crime” to add some sort of delusional meaning to an act of violence, but the reality is the guy is just as dead whether the killer hated him or not, or whether the killer was white or black. Just imagine what would happen if the 40 to 50 killings every week on our city streets were carried out by marauding whites instead of other blacks.

And what do the black leaders and the white liberals blame for this urban holocaust? They blame the gun. How far would we have gotten in this country if we would have blamed the rope for lynchings? “The key to cutting back on these lynchings is a reduction in the amount of rope we have on the streets. If these guys didn’t have the rope they wouldn’t be able to hang anybody”.

Whenever I write about race invariably I will receive e mailed comments accusing me of racial prejudice. Nothing could be farther from the truth. I believe liberals are the epitome of racial prejudice.

I believe everybody should be held to the same level of responsibility. Blacks are just as capable as whites, entitled to the same struggles, the same disappointments and the same benefits. Liberals are the ones who believe that blacks are not capable of competing with whites. That is why we have this constant push to lower the standards and deflect blame. Liberals have created a welfare society with generation after generation of impoverished, dependent minorities who live in far greater fear of each other than of anything a white man will do to them. Liberals have made failure attractive and success nearly impossible. Once they have you in their endless system of hopeless despair liberals understand that you cannot break the narcotic hold welfare dependence thereby assuring them of your vote.

You can build all the schools you want but if the desks sit empty you have accomplished nothing. You can give all the job training you want but if it’s acceptable to just make babies and live off the welfare dole the lure of building a new and better life is lost. You can blame racism for the inequities in life or you can develop the necessary skills that will prevent anybody from holding you back.

Racism exists. From the white liberals who glorify the acceptance of failure and diminished standards, to the black leaders who preach excuses and justification instead of empowerment.

Statistically Speaking Part 2

Let’s continue our discussion on race.

I listen carefully when the local newscasters drop their fake “buddy buddy banter” and read an actual news story. I am constantly amazed at the blatant attempt to give every detail of a crime except the race of the perpetrator.

In a recent TV news story several members of a white family were killed by the boyfriend of one of the daughters. Among the dead were the father, a sister and the grandmother. The daughter was seriously injured as was the mother of the family, all stabbed repeatedly in what was described as a blood bath. The TV news crews covered every aspect of the crime scene and the lives of the victims, going so far as having video of the murdered sister’s high school and the church they attended. They named the boyfriend and gave information about where he lived and worked. The only item missing from the report was that the killer was black.

The August 2nd Chicago Tribune ran a front page article, complete with pictures of a police news conference, detailing violent attacks on pedestrians in Chicago’s upscale Lincoln Park neighborhood. In the 531 word piece the paper detailed the attacks and the victims. The paper gave no description of the group of men who were sneaking up on unsuspecting victims, immediately beating them in the face and head and then stealing their wallets and cell phones. I thought perhaps as these attacks occurred at night and were so sudden and unexpected that nobody got a good look at the attackers. But a when I called the police desk I was told the perpetrators were a group of black men between 15 and 20 years old.

Why has it become standard procedure for news outlets to leave out racial description when discussing crimes committed by minorities? Don’t they think it is an important part of the overall description of the crime and the criminal?

As I explained yesterday, we cannot have a true and honest discussion without including all the facts. The ACLU is up in arms about the number of minorities pulled over by police, but until they catch these violent predators I hope that police pull over and investigate every group of young black men they see cruising the streets of Lincoln Park at night. God help us if the police ever get to the point of reluctance in investigating crimes because they don’t want to skew some study results on racial profiling. That would be as stupid and dangerous as announcing to your enemy when you are going to withdraw your troops.

I understand the frustration for every law abiding group of young black men that gets pulled over, but they must understand that the problem is not an act of prejudice but rather an investigation based on a description. They should be mad at the group of black attackers that caused the heightened sense of alarm. Police are not going to waste their time investigating groups of blacks if the description of the attackers is red haired Irish kids.

An honest and open discussion on race relations begins with honesty and openness, not some politically correct concept of protecting racial identity so as not to appear prejudiced. The Tribune online edition has a section of Chicago Police mugshots from recent arrests. I took a look at the latest 100 booking photos. The number of minorities was about 5 to 1 over whites. You can say it’s because police are focused on minorities but that doesn’t say that the minorities didn’t actually commit the crime. Look at the minority population in prisons, look at the number of minorities in the court system, look at the minority rate of high school drop outs, look at the minority rate of unwed pregnancy, look at the minority rate of single parent households, look at the minority rate of drug abuse, look at the minority rate of welfare recipients, all of these factors hopelessly binding them to a system of government handouts designed to keep them dependent and poor. All of this matters if we are going to actually be honest about race relations and move the discussion forward.

Or are we really just looking for more of the same.

We’ll bring this discussion to a head tomorrow.

Statistically Speaking

The truth is that 82% of all statistics presented as the truth are made up on the spot. And the rest….well, let’s just say that numbers don’t lie, but the people reporting them sometimes do

As the country continues its preordained, politically correct discussion on race, the facts are getting skewed by the intentional misuse of misleading statistics. To be sure, statistical studies are an important tool in problem solving. But in order to find root cause solutions or even carry on a meaningful discussion one must first be willing to incorporate all the facts.

Industry has adopted a statistical system of process management and problem solving through the advancement of Six Sigma programs. These Six Sigma projects teach the importance of addressing all issues involved when attempting to find the root cause problem and implement solutions. The goal in these sometimes very time consuming activities is to zero in on the correct remedy rather than take a shot gun approach or worse yet attempt to debate a problem to death. It demands careful analysis and a true willingness to change based on the results of the study.

While the positive impact on industry from this approach has been profound, the supposed discussion the country is engaged in regarding race relations lacks several of the key features necessary for success. Rarely are all the facts addressed when discussing race and even less frequently is the discussion based on a willingness of all parties involved to actually change anything. We can discuss until we all turn blue, but rather than looking for solutions most of the discussion is simply trying to attach culpability.

Such is the case with the recent release of traffic studies of Illinois communities and the state as a whole. The Chicago Tribune carried a front page article ambiguously suggesting that while police search an inordinate percentage of minority driven vehicles at traffic stops, a higher percentage of white drivers actually have contraband found when searched. The study showed officers found contraband in 15.4% of the cases for minorities as opposed to 24.7% for whites. The ACLU jumped on this statistic as proof of unwarranted searches on minorities. But while it was mentioned that these were “consent searches” no other explanation of what that means was given. Once again, in an attempt to assure a particular conclusion not all the facts are included.

A “consent search” is conducted only if the driver gives his permission. There are actually very few “consent searches” performed, accounting for a mere 1% of all traffic stops. If the driver refuses the request to search his vehicle and officers still have probable cause to believe a search will render some form of contraband, other means are used to get legal authority to conduct the search. The results of these searches are not included in these statistics as they are no longer considered a “consent search”. The reality is that minority drivers are far less likely to allow a “consent search”, whether they have something to hide or not. It also shows that while whites are more likely to give consent they are not nearly as clever as they think they are in concealing their contraband.

The purpose of releasing these study results as they were is not to further the discussion on race but rather to promote a particular outcome to the discussion as illustrated by comments made by ACLU of Illinois spokesman Ed Yohnka. He said “There is just a predisposition to believe that minorities have contraband….. The data and indisputable nature of this is exactly what the president was talking about…..”

The ACLU is also filing complaints citing that in Chicago minority drivers are 4 times more likely to get searched than whites. But this statistic tells us nothing about the nature of the stop, the nature of the occupants in the car or the neighborhood in which the stop was conducted. I hate to break the news to the ACLU but there are a lot more drugs and guns rolling down the streets in the poor minority neighborhoods of Chicago than there are in the wealthy neighborhoods.

Just a quick glance at the violent crime statistics in the city will explain why more minority vehicles are searched. To somehow try to tie race to police enforcement without accounting for crime levels in the areas being patrolled is patently misleading and unimaginably dangerous.

If you want to have an honest and open discussion about race I’m all for it. But let’s start with all the facts and work our way from there.

More tomorrow.

You Bet Your Life

Stop the presses! A member of the Senate has the same disease as millions of other Americans.

Don’t get me wrong. I take no pleasure in the fact that Senator Chris Dodd has prostate cancer. But the level of furor over his recent announcement is truly puzzling to me, as is the lack of some very important questions left unasked by the bastions of truth in the press.

Dodd announced last week that he was diagnoses with early-stage prostate cancer. The reality is that over 230,000 American men are diagnosed with the same disease every year. Prostate cancer is the most common type of cancer and is the number one type of cancer (other than skin cancers) in the United States, even surpassing breast cancer in women. As Dodd stated, if you are going to get a cancer this may be the one to get as the recovery rate is excellent. Today, only 1 in 32 men diagnosed with this disease die from it.

Now there are a number of reasons for this limited number of deaths, not the least of which is that this cancer is fairly slow in its advance and strikes elderly men who may well die of other causes before the cancer is sufficient to kill them. It is also eminently treatable, especially if diagnosed early. Treatments range from the standard chemotherapy and radiation to extremes like surgical castration. New diagnostic methods and treatments are brought to the public every year.

I had a close friend die of prostate cancer. Every death attributable to this disease is tragic. But if 230,000 men are diagnosed every year Lord knows how many others are tested with good results. If all these men are getting tested and treatment for the leading cancer in the United States has a survival rate in excess of 97%, where is the “health care crisis” I keep hearing about?

Senator Dodd credited his excellent Senatorial health insurance, which covers annual physicals, for the early diagnosis. He went on to say that this is the reason that he is fighting for the passage of the ObamaCare health insurance bill. But 230,000 other men are getting the same benefit now. My question is, if the ObamaCare plan is so good how come the House and Senate members are not going to be covered by it? I find it most interesting that nobody in the liberal lapdog mainstream press has asked that question either.

At the same time as Senator Dodd was talking about his health issues, California was announcing a $1.4 billion reduction in the state-run Medi-Cal insurance they offer. Why is California reducing their state run health insurance? Because they are going broke from running the state economy the same way Barack Obama wants to run the national economy.

Overtaxing has driven business out of California to friendlier and financially more realistic environs. Giving away free health care to illegal aliens has forced numerous California hospitals to close their doors, adding the burden onto the remaining health care centers. California found they simply could not tax enough to spend all they wanted to spend, so they had to cut back on some of the spending or become insolvent.

The ObamaCare plan is projected to cost taxpayers an additional $1 trillion dollars. But in reality the cost of this plan could run much higher as employers opt to drop their insurance offerings and place people on the government dole.

The recent government meltdown regarding the administration of the comparatively small $1 billion Cash for Clunkers program shows just how quickly these government programs can overwhelm the system. Car dealers were forced to hire people just to do the necessary paperwork to get $4500 new car rebates. If that’s for a simple billion dollar car sales program just imagine the level of bureaucratic red tape, paperwork and possible catastrophe involved in a national health insurance plan handling 1000 times as much money and infinitely more paperwork.

Even though I disagree with most of what Senator Dodd stands for, I wish him a complete and speedy recovery. But more than that I wish he and his fellow Senators would abandon their current health care insurance and jump on board the ObamaCare plan. I look for the Members of the US House to do the same. Especially Democrats.

Don’t just vote for the plan, sign up for it. Don’t tell us what a great plan this will be, show us that you are willing to bet your life and your family’s life and physical well being on it.

It’s kind of that whole goose and gander thing, right?

Reaganomics v. Obamanomics

We no longer have to take it on faith.

The Cash for Clunkers program has been a success, to say the least. In just a period of days car dealers from around the country sold 250,000 new cars. The program, which had been scheduled to last until November, ran through the allocated $1 billion quicker than a Congress member on the Appropriations Committee. The success took even the bill’s sponsors by surprise and there were a few anxious days for car dealers as they tried to figure out whether or not they would actually get the rebates they had based their car sales on.

The success has been so stimulating that the US House passed a bill adding an additional $2 billion to keep the ball rolling. While there is some grumbling in the Senate there is little doubt the bill will pass there as well with equal velocity.

Why was this program so successful? Because it goes 100% against everything Barack Obama and the Democrat Congresses unprecedented governmental spending, non-stimulating plan stands for.

Cash for Clunkers was designed as an energy saving, environmental program. It may indeed serve some limited purpose in replacing less fuel efficient cars with lower emission, higher mpg models. But of the 250,000 car-buyers sold I’m guessing nobody really cared about that aspect. People flocked to dealers because with the government rebate and the discounts car dealers were putting on these new cars it made financial sense to buy. Nobody was looking to save the planet. They were looking to save money. The overall environmental impact of these 250,000 new vehicles will be insignificantly small.

The Cash for Clunkers program is the only true stimulus package Congress has passed so far. And the reason it is a successful stimulus package as opposed to the tax and spend non-stimulating programs is because it is from the Reaganomics play book rather than Obamanomics. It put the money in the hands of the all consumers not just those deemed in need of a new car. If this program had been designed like the Obama economic recovery plan or ObamaCare health insurance plan the rebates would have been given only to the poor and evil wealthy Americans would have had to pay over the sticker price to offset those rebates. Obviously, designed like that, it not only wouldn’t have stimulated new car sales it would have diminished what little there were. It proved once again that it is the people spending their money that stimulates the economy not government.

It also targeted the purchase of a particular product rather than all those supposed stimulus checks which could be spent on anything from old credit card debt to crack cocaine, or stashed in a mattress and not spent at all.

In his book “The Case for Faith” author Lee Strobel interviewed noted theologian Dr. William Lane Craig PH.D. on faith. Dr. Craig gave an interesting analogy saying “Let’s say you’re going to the office to see if your boss is in. You see his car in the parking lot. You ask his secretary if he’s in and she says ‘Yes, I just spoke with him.’ You see the light from under his office door. You listen and hear his voice on the telephone. On that basis you have good grounds for concluding that your boss is in his office. But you could do something quite different. You could go to the door and knock on it and meet the boss face-to-face. At that point the evidence of the car in the lot, the secretary’s testimony, the light under the door, the voice on the telephone- all of that would still be valid, but it would take a secondary role, because now you’ve met the boss face-to-face”.

I think this analogy is perfectly suited to this situation. Conservatives have been touting the benefits of Reaganomics and the Bush tax cuts explaining how they would be of far greater benefit than Obama’s socialist wealth redistribution approach. But the Cash for Clunkers success is like meeting Reaganomics face-to-face.

Government giving people back their money and encouraging spending on products rather than taxes.

The proof it works is staring Obama right in the face.