Nail Biting - Bad for you!!

Dang, I do many of these bad habits myself - except smoking - I don't personally smoke, but fully support those who do. No one is subjected to more public disdain and unfair laws than smokers! I get the "no smoking on an airplane" but not in public and definitely not in a PRIVATE RESTAURANT or BAR. If an owner of a bar wants to allow smoking he should be able to. Period. It's all BS. Plus they tax the hell out of cigarettes and cigars so the Liberals should love them and give their users more freedom. Alas, this is not the case.

5 Habits to break in 2010

• by Liz Vaccariello, Editor-in-Chief, PREVENTION, on Mon Dec 21, 2009 11:35am PST

Everyone, and I mean everyone, has a bad habit (or three), and even if you’re not the resolution type, making one change this year can do wonders for your health, looks and self-esteem. Here are five common not-so-great habits, and how to break ’em for good.

1.) Bad habit: Nail Biting

Stop now: Biting your nails makes for ugly hands and over time can interfere with normal nail growth, damage the outer layer of your teeth, and cause nail deformities such as split nails. Harmful bacteria such as staphylococcus also live underneath nails—and you don't want to chew on that.

Break it: Go for a professional manicure once every 2 or 3 weeks, suggests Angelica Kaner, PhD, a clinical professor at Yale University Medical School, because when your nails look pretty, you'll be less likely to snack on them. At the very least, keep your nails trimmed short—you'll have less nail to bite, and that harmful bacteria has less space to grow. Nail biting is also a nervous habit that is often an expression of some deeper anxiety. "Ask yourself why you're feeling anxious," Kaner says. You can also try substituting a new, healthy behavior—instead of biting your nails, rub in a cuticle cream or oil.

Save money with home manicures

2.) Bad habit: Forgetting to Floss

Flossing helps prevent gum disease and keeps your teeth and gums looking good, but it may also stave off non-mouth-related diseases: A 2005 study in the journal Circulation showed that older adults with higher levels of four gum disease-causing bacteria in their mouths also tend to have thicker carotid arteries, which raise the risk of stroke and heart attack. That's scary business, because 90% of dentists say that most patients don't floss regularly.

Break it: Buy a floss-holding device, such as the Flossmate Floss Holder to make the process easier and faster. In an Indiana University study, 50% of previous nonflossers were doing so regularly 6 months after introducing floss to their routine; 85% of the new flossers used a holding device—only 15% preferred doing without the aid. Then incorporate flossing into your morning routine before or after brushing.

Surprising habits that protect your pearly whites


3) Bad habit: Late Night Fridge Raiding

Eating late at night in itself isn't bad for you, but chances are you're eating cold pizza instead of apple slices. Adding those extra calories does the late-night damage, according to a 2005 Oregon Health & Science University study. Snacking late at night can also exacerbate symptoms for those prone to heartburn, as lying down after eating makes it easier for stomach acid to flow into the esophagus.

Break it Boredom, not hunger, is of the root cause of late-night eating, says Pamela Peeke, MD, author of Fit to Live. Once the craving hits, focus on an activity that engages you until it's time to go to sleep, such as e-mail, a crossword puzzle, or meditation. It's also common for people to chow down while watching TV. In fact, a study from the Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation in Chicago found that people who were allowed to eat as many potato chips as they wanted ate 44% more chips while watching Letterman than while not watching TV. Keep your hands busy while you watch by folding laundry, using your BlackBerry, or knitting—that way you won't be tempted to break out the Ruffles.

Ate too much? Erase the damage with this simple plan.


4) Bad habit: Smoking

We don't need to remind you of all the health risks associated with smoking (heart attack, lung cancer, emphysema, and cancer of the mouth, throat, stomach, bladder, kidney, and cervix), but here's one you might not have considered: money. Lots of it. The cost of one pack plus taxes averages $4.49, so if you smoke a pack a day, you're turning a whopping $1,639 a year into nothing but smoke, ashes, and nice black spots on your formerly pretty pink lungs.

Break it: Ask your doctor about drugs that can help kick-start your quitting process and help you combat cravings and withdrawal. For instance, Zyban, an antidepressant, helps reduce psychological withdrawal symptoms such as frustration, restlessness, anxiety, and irritability. Chantix blocks the effects of nicotine on your brain, which helps reduce cravings. According to a study, 44% of smokers were able to quit after 12 weeks using Chantix, and another study showed that Zyban was nearly twice as effective as a nicotine patch in helping smokers quit.

11 biggest health sins

5) Bad habit: Sun Worshipping

Blame it on Coco Chanel—before she returned golden brown from a Mediterranean vacation in the 1920s, pale skin was in. But until the Morticia Addams look comes back in style, stick to self-tanning lotion: The sun's UV rays damage your skin's DNA, increasing your risk of skin cancer (not to mention sunspots, sagging skin, and wrinkles). In fact, as much as 90% of wrinkles, brown spots, and sagging are caused by sun damage, according to the American Skin Association.

Break it: Wear sunscreen daily on the parts of your body that are exposed to the sun, even during winter. The skin cancer foundation recommends applying 1 ounce of SPF 15 sunscreen with UVA and UVB protection to your entire body 30 minutes before going outside on a typical day, and then reapply every 2 hours. If you're spending the day outdoors, wear a wide-brimmed hat and cover exposed skin with clothing, preferably with built-in sunscreen.

Compare the Quotes... see how we vote...

"The main plank in the National Socialist program is to abolish the liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound together by the bond of its common blood." [Adolph Hitler]

"Comrades! We must abolish the cult of the individual decisively, once and for all." [Nikita Khrushchev]

"We must stop thinking of the individual and start thinking about what is best for society." [Hillary Clinton, 1993]

www.finallyequal.com

“American People Will Never Knowingly Adopt Socialism”

"The American people will never knowingly adopt Socialism. But under
the name of 'liberalism' they will adopt every fragment of the Socialist
program, until one day America will be a Socialist nation, without
knowing how it happened."



Norman Thomas
(1884-1968) six-time U.S. Presidential candidate for the Socialist Party of America

Source:
1948 - from an interview during the presidential campaign

LOWER TAXES NOW

It used to be that to make the big money you had to start a business or get a job competing in the private sector. If you chose government work it was not as lucrative, but the benefits would be your reward for working in the public sector. The trade-off – lower salaries for better benefits.

How times have changed. Now (and for the foreseeable future) it seems the PUBLIC sector is the place to be for big salaries, while the private sector, burdened with high taxation and a slow economy, suffer. This sector is where the money comes from. This sector is where wealth is created. Consider:




GOVERNMENT FACTS

Local government in Orange County (Orlando) FL spends $7 billion annually

The 27 year old chief of staff to the Mayor makes $131,000 a year
The library director makes $192,000 a year
The toll authority director makes $246,000 a year

The average private sector wage in Orange County is $38,000

God Bless America.

www.reason.com
www.lowertaxesnow.org

Couldn't be any simpler

An economics professor at a local college made a statement that he had never failed a single student before but had once failed an entire class.

That class had insisted that socialism worked and that no one would be poor and no one would be rich, a great equalizer.

The professor then said, "OK, we will have an experiment in this class on socialism. All grades would be averaged and everyone would receive the same grade so no one would fail and no one would receive an A.

After the first test, the grades were averaged and everyone got a B.

The students who studied hard were upset and the students who studied little were happy.

As the second test rolled around, the students who studied little had studied even less and the ones who studied hard decided they wanted a free ride too so they studied little.

The second test average was a D! No one was happy.

When the 3rd test rolled around, the average was an F.

The scores never increased as bickering, blame and name-calling all resulted in hard feelings and no one would study for the benefit of anyone else.

All failed, to their great surprise, and the professor told them that socialism would also ultimately fail because when the reward is great, the effort to succeed is great, but when government takes all the reward away, no one will try or want to succeed.

Couldn't be any simpler than that.

Letter to the Editor

I wrote this letter in response to a "blame America first" ZING post by a misguided liberal:

Our Liberally Racist Media

Our Liberally Racist Media

Shared via AddThis

Remember "Bloom County?"

From Mike B.

You've no doubt heard about how Judge Sotomayor said she hoped a wise Latina judge would make a better decision than a white male judge. The Obama spin is that she mis-spoke. See Rich Lowry's amusing column on this. http://www.sacbee.com/opinion/story/1910164.html

Anyway, her hearings will have a section where she tries to back away from the statement somehow. That reminded me of an exchange in the comic strip Bloom County. I couldn't find the script but someone had the quote:

Opus the Penguin, Vice-Presidential candidate for the Meadow Party was brought before a Congressional Committee on charges of being a liberal -

"Mr Opus, is it true that you said in a speech during your last campaign that, were you elected, you would 'grind the rich into free meatloaf for the poor'?"

After frantic shaking of his head, Opus replied "Ah, those silly days of youth, we were all so wild then. What I meant to say was, 'Good jobs at good wages'."

Expect Sotomayor to sound like Opus next month...

AMERICAN HISTORY 101

http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

this is great!! show your kids. (and your less than informed adult friends)

Unlevel Playing Field.

So, when liberals burn American flags, smear the military and compare Bush to Hitler, it's free speech.

When conservatives protest excessive taxation & govt spending its offensive.

Got it.

Karl Rove is RIGHT (and correct too)!

Flip-Flops and Governance

Our president isn't quite as advertised.

By KARL ROVE

Barack Obama inherited a set of national-security policies that he rejected during the campaign but now embraces as president. This is a stunning and welcome about-face.

For example, President Obama kept George W. Bush's military tribunals for terror detainees after calling them an "enormous failure" and a "legal black hole." His campaign claimed last summer that "court systems . . . are capable of convicting terrorists." Upon entering office, he found out they aren't.

He insisted in an interview with NBC in 2007 that Congress mandate "consequences" for "a failure to meet various benchmarks and milestones" on aid to Iraq. Earlier this month he fought off legislatively mandated benchmarks in the $97 billion funding bill for Iraq and Afghanistan.

Mr. Obama agreed on April 23 to American Civil Liberties Union demands to release investigative photos of detainee abuse. Now's he reversed himself. Pentagon officials apparently convinced him that releasing the photos would increase the risk to U.S. troops and civilian personnel.

Throughout his presidential campaign, Mr. Obama excoriated Mr. Bush's counterinsurgency strategy in Iraq, insisting it could not succeed. Earlier this year, facing increasing violence in Afghanistan, Mr. Obama rejected warnings of a "quagmire" and ordered more troops to that country. He isn't calling it a "surge" but that's what it is. He is applying in Afghanistan the counterinsurgency strategy Mr. Bush used in Iraq.

As a candidate, Mr. Obama promised to end the Iraq war by withdrawing all troops by March 2009. As president, he set a slower pace of drawdown. He has also said he will leave as many as 50,000 Americans troops there.

These reversals are both praiseworthy and evidence that, when it comes to national security, being briefed on terror threats as president is a lot different than placating MoveOn.org and Code Pink activists as a candidate. The realities of governing trump the realities of campaigning.

We are also seeing Mr. Obama reverse himself on the domestic front, but this time in a manner that will do more harm than good.

Mr. Obama campaigned on "responsible fiscal policies," arguing in a speech on the Senate floor in 2006 that the "rising debt is a hidden domestic enemy." In his acceptance speech at the Democratic National Convention, he pledged to "go through the federal budget line by line, eliminating programs that no longer work." Even now, he says he'll "cut the deficit . . . by half by the end of his first term in office" and is "rooting out waste and abuse" in the budget.

However, Mr. Obama's fiscally conservative words are betrayed by his liberal actions. He offers an orgy of spending and a bacchanal of debt. His budget plans a 25% increase in the federal government's share of the GDP, a doubling of the national debt in five years, and a near tripling of it in 10 years.

On health care, Mr. Obama's election ads decried "government-run health care" as "extreme," saying it would lead to "higher costs." Now he is promoting a plan that would result in a de facto government-run health-care system. Even the Washington Post questions it, saying, "It is difficult to imagine . . . benefits from a government-run system."

Making adjustments in office is one thing. Constantly governing in direct opposition to what you said as a candidate is something else. Mr. Obama's flip-flops on national security have been wise; on the domestic front, they have been harmful.

In both cases, though, we have learned something about Mr. Obama. What animated him during the campaign is what historian Forrest McDonald once called "the projection of appealing images." All politicians want to project an appealing image. What Mr. McDonald warned against is focusing on this so much that an appealing image "becomes a self-sustaining end unto itself." Such an approach can work in a campaign, as Mr. Obama discovered. But it can also complicate life once elected, as he is finding out.

Mr. Obama's appealing campaign images turned out to have been fleeting. He ran hard to the left on national security to win the nomination, only to discover the campaign commitments he made were shallow and at odds with America's security interests.

Mr. Obama ran hard to the center on economic issues to win the general election. He has since discovered his campaign commitments were obstacles to ramming through the most ideologically liberal economic agenda since the Great Society.

Mr. Obama either had very little grasp of what governing would involve or, if he did, he used words meant to mislead the public. Neither option is particularly encouraging. America now has a president quite different from the person who advertised himself for the job last year. Over time, those things can catch up to a politician.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

A Typical Email to conservOpunk!

Warm thanks to those on the Left who for the last 6 years undermined our national security efforts by screaming at the top of their lungs that we must close Gitmo without thinking about the consequences (for 2 of those years we heard this from the Left's Cheerleader in Chief while as a naive candidate - Hilary's words, not mine).

I am so glad that for 6 years we had to endure derision from the elites and their cohorts claiming that arguments about the importance of certain measures furthering national security were simply "talking points from the knuckle-dragging neo-cons" and that according to them there was no substance to a reasonable debate about the issue - nope, only yelling was allowed - yelling at those of us who understand the threat posed by these terrorists picked up on foreign soil.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2009/05/20/white_house_closing_gitmo_a_hasty_decision_96593.html

http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2009/05/20/white-house-closing-gitmo-a-%E2%80%98hasty-decision%E2%80%99/

Well, this admission by the administration may be called "practical" and "well thought out" by the press - but let's be honest. The Gitmo policy and the tribunals and warrantless wiretapping of foreign commo from known terrorists into the US worked and that's why Obama has not dumped them. And if Obama's practical side thinks they work now and will in the future, then this is an admission by extension that Bush policies did IN FACT keep us safe for the last 6 years (which is a far cry from the string of terror attacks we endured in the 90s under Clinton - since looking back at what previous administrations "inherited" is so in vogue now).

So, now that Gitmo is no longer the political whipping post for the Bush administration, maybe cooler heads will prevail - but the emboldening of our enemies and the lasting damage to our CIA agents' and Gitmo soldiers' morale by those who attacked them from the Left incessantly for 6 years will not go away so soon.

Even if the detention center at Gitmo is eventually closed (which is doubtful because no one wants trained terrorists pulled from a battlefield in their backyard), the Left has no leg left to stand on and scream from regarding this issue.

Hopefully the Left will now stop playing politics with national security. Coming next...Senator Harry Reid (D-We Lost) will retract his 2007 statements that the Iraq war was lost (made before the surge even started) - hah! not really, like those Japanese soldiers found in caves on Pacific Islands in the 80s who thought WWII was still ongoing, Harry (Reid) still thinks we lost the Iraq War.

---------------------------------------

Oh, and a quick 2d topic - just today a federal judge made a ruling, the AP reports:

In his opinion, Bates said he agreed with the Bush administration that "the president has the authority to detain persons that the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.

"The president also has the authority to detain persons who are or were part of Taliban or al-Qaida forces or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners, including any person who has committed (i.e., directly participated in) a belligerent act in aid of such enemy armed forces," Bates wrote.

But he said the Bush administration went beyond the law of war by including in its definition those who "supported" enemy forces.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090520/ap_on_re_us/us_guantanamo_detainees;_ylt=Ar1sbWFf87qgcir_3cWnkLGWwvIE;_ylu=X3oDMTJxY2R2ODdpBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMDkwNTIwL3VzX2d1YW50YW5hbW9fZGV0YWluZWVzBGNwb3MDMgRwb3MDMgRzZWMDeW5fdG9wX3N0b3JpZXMEc2xrA2p1ZGdlc2F5c3VzYw

Oops, my bad, I accidentally changed the President's name, it should read this way:

In his opinion, Bates said he agreed with the Obama administration that "the president has the authority to detain persons that the president determines planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, and persons who harbored those responsible for those attacks.

But he said the Obama administration went beyond the law of war by including in its definition those who "supported" enemy forces. (OMG - the ACLU, Moveon.org, Jon Stewart, et al better march on DC now, wearing those orange jumpsuits of course - that warmonger is overreaching and shredding the Constitution!!!!!! Oh, wait, it's Obama, so I'm sure they're okay with it)

(I'm not holding my breath waiting to see any protests like this during Obama's reign from the double standard, no principled Left)

(On a personal note: I thought about tempering some of what I say here - but no, I, and other like thinkers, had to sit back for 6 years and get yelled at by every quarter of our society, and what I have in this email comes no where near the verbal grenades that were tossed at those of us who support the troops and the mission and the policies)

Joe Marino
5/21/09

OH... MY... GOD... Facts about Obama from the AP!

FACT CHECK: Obama disowns deficit he helped shape

By CALVIN WOODWARD – 15 hours ago

WASHINGTON (AP) — "That wasn't me," President Barack Obama said on his 100th day in office, disclaiming responsibility for the huge budget deficit waiting for him on Day One.

It actually was him — and the other Democrats controlling Congress the previous two years — who shaped a budget so out of balance.

And as a presidential candidate and president-elect, he backed the twilight Bush-era stimulus plan that made the deficit deeper, all before he took over and promoted spending plans that have made it much deeper still.

Obama met citizens at an Arnold, Mo., high school Wednesday in advance of his prime-time news conference. Both forums were a platform to review his progress at the 100-day mark and look ahead.

At various times, he brought an air of certainty to ambitions that are far from cast in stone.

His assertion that his proposed budget "will cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term" is an eyeball-roller among many economists, given the uncharted terrain of trillion-dollar deficits and economic calamity that the government is negotiating.

His vow that the recovery plan will "double the supply of renewable energy" will require a congressional mandate that won't be easy to achieve.

And he promised vast savings from increased spending on preventive health care in the face of doubts that such an effort, however laudable it might be for public welfare, can pay for itself, let alone yield huge savings.

A look at some of his claims Wednesday:

OBAMA: "Number one, we inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit.... That wasn't me. Number two, there is almost uniform consensus among economists that in the middle of the biggest crisis, financial crisis, since the Great Depression, we had to take extraordinary steps. So you've got a lot of Republican economists who agree that we had to do a stimulus package and we had to do something about the banks. Those are one-time charges, and they're big, and they'll make our deficits go up over the next two years." — in Missouri.

THE FACTS:

Congress controls the purse strings, not the president, and it was under Democratic control for Obama's last two years as Illinois senator. Obama supported the emergency bailout package in President George W. Bush's final months — a package Democratic leaders wanted to make bigger.

To be sure, Obama opposed the Iraq war, a drain on federal coffers for six years before he became president. But with one major exception, he voted in support of Iraq war spending.

The economy has worsened under Obama, though from forces surely in play before he became president, and he can credibly claim to have inherited a grim situation.

Still, his response to the crisis goes well beyond "one-time charges."

He's persuaded Congress to expand children's health insurance, education spending, health information technology and more. He's moving ahead on a variety of big-ticket items on health care, the environment, energy and transportation that, if achieved, will be more enduring than bank bailouts and aid for homeowners.

The nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget estimated his policy proposals would add a net $428 billion to the deficit over four years, even accounting for his spending reduction goals. Now, the deficit is nearly quadrupling to $1.75 trillion.

___

OBAMA: "I think one basic principle that we know is that the more we do on the (disease) prevention side, the more we can obtain serious savings down the road. ... If we're making those investments, we will save huge amounts of money in the long term." — in Missouri.

THE FACTS: It sounds believable that preventing illness should be cheaper than treating it, and indeed that's the case with steps like preventing smoking and improving diets and exercise. But during the 2008 campaign, when Obama and other presidential candidates were touting a focus on preventive care, the New England Journal of Medicine cautioned that "sweeping statements about the cost-saving potential of prevention, however, are overreaching." It said that "although some preventive measures do save money, the vast majority reviewed in the health economics literature do not."

And a study released in December by the Congressional Budget Office found that increasing preventive care "could improve people's health but would probably generate either modest reductions in the overall costs of health care or increases in such spending within a 10-year budgetary time frame."

Associated Press writer Kevin Freking contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Uh Oh. good John Lott piece

April 27th, 2009 10:31 AM Eastern

JOHN LOTT: Uh Oh…Team Obama Claims Americans Use TOO MUCH Health Care

By John R. Lott, Jr.
Senior Research Scientist, University of Maryland/Author, “Freedomnomics”

“If you got health insurance, then you can keep it . . . and we won’t do anything about that,” at least that was what President Obama promised during the campaign last year. Well, add that to a very long list of broken campaign promises, including: cutting government spending, reducing the deficit, and “no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase.”

Just as bad, on Friday it was revealed that Obama and the Democrats have no problem pushing through Senate votes on these radical health care changes that strip away normal procedural protections for those who oppose such changes.

Last Sunday on “Meet the Press,” Larry Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, let the cat out of the bag on health care. In explaining why universal health care wasn’t going to increase the deficit, Summers said that people are just getting too much unnecessary care. Summers claimed: “whether it’s tonsillectomies or hysterectomies . . . procedures are done three times as frequently [in some parts of the country than others] and there’s no benefit in terms of the health of the population. And by doing the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kinds of investments and protection, some experts that we — estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system.”

This sure seems like rationing. Total health care expenditures in the United States in 2008 came to $2.4 trillion, implying that Summers believes that the proper government regulations can cut health care expenditures by almost 30 percent. That would cut back health care a lot. Summers softened the blow by saying that right now the government wouldn’t have to cut expenditures by more than a third of that $700 billion.

Tonsillectomies have primarily been done because of acute or chronic throat pain. Where different people are willing to draw the line between pain and surgery is a choice that we have traditionally left up to patients, but unless you know something about the patient’s preferences it is hard to claim that a surgery was a “mistake.”

The selective use of statistics by Summers and others in the Obama administration is startling. In 2000, New York had 501 abortions per 1,000 live births, Wyoming had 1. New York had 31 abortions per 1,000 women, Wyoming had fewer than 1. Abortion procedures rarely involve the health of the mother. Yet, presumably, Summers wouldn’t argue that these gaps, which are 10 to 167 times greater than the 3-to-1 ratio that so upsets him for other procedures, imply that abortions should be rationed.

It’s strange that the Democratic Party, a group that doesn’t think the government should intervene between a doctor and a woman when it comes to determining whether or not to have an abortion, appears to have no problem in telling doctors whether they can perform “tonsillectomies or hysterectomies.”

Ironically, the Obama administration isn’t confident enough that they can simply explain to people what medical procedures they should have. If people are getting costly, unnecessary procedures, don’t you think that the insurance companies would already have learned about it? For anyone who thinks that insurance companies are too stingy, the Obama administration has a news flash: insurance companies have been paying for too much health care.

But the Obama administration apparently doesn’t think that they can simply convince people of the value of their advice. Sadly, Summers and the rest of the Obama administration have no problem forcing people to do what they think best.

Yet, not only is Obama going to break his promise on interfering with these decisions, he has no problem with forcing this change on people. Democrats have apparently figured out a way to pass health care legislation without mustering the 60 votes normally needed to pass things in the Senate. To do this, health care won’t be voted on as a separate piece of legislation, but as part of the budget. The proposals also won’t be voted on in the Senate when the budget legislation is first brought up, but only after the final budget bill has gone through the process of “reconciliation” with the House.

Possibly Americans should ask Canadians and Brits –- people who have long suffered from rationing — how happy they are with central government decisions on eliminating “unnecessary” health care.

John Lott is a senior research scientist at the University of Maryland and the author of Freedomnomics. John Lott’s ree pieces for FOX News can be found here and here.

All for AMERICA song

All for America

The butcher and the baker the biker and the Quaker

Soldiers, Lawmakers “Of thee I sing”

Collectivism left behind for Free Markets & Free Minds

It was the blessing for all mankind: “Let Freedom Ring”

Much to their surprise

We held our fire ‘til the whites of their eyes

We tore at tyranny’s disguise

Now finally we realize

We did it all for America

The Constitution’s not a “living thing” Thatcher, Reagan, JFK & Dr. King

Fought till everyone heard freedom’s ring, and individual’s rights

Reject oppressive policy. The Truth is never easy

Wrap yourselves in Liberty. Fight that fight!

God they did beseech

Thought of their mother’s when they took that beach

Freedom’s still not out of reach

It takes more than a pretty speech

They did it all for America

It’s God’s Will

To be the “shining city upon the hill”

Until we all fulfill

the promise on the dollar bill

We are all for America

© 2009 Tony O’Donnell

Unbiased coverage from CNN (sarcasm)

A quick snapshot (on just one day) to better illustrate the liberal bias in the Mainstream Media. A CNN reporter covers the Chicago Tea Party. Amazing! So much for non-bias coverage.

CNN Reporter: "What does liberty have to do with taxes?" ha! classic! Why can't you be happy with your $400 a year? I have not seen a better illustration of what Democrats believe vs what Republicans believe.


YOU TUBE VIDEO HERE

So, when liberals burn American flags, smear the military and compare Bush to Hitler, it's free speech. When conservatives protest excessive taxation & spending its offensive. Got it.

Burke

"Gone" Barack Obama

TEA PARTY DAY? Questions Answered.

A friend asked me specifically what I will be protesting tomorrow on APR 15 tax day, at the "Tea Party" here in Tallahassee.

Sent: Tuesday, April 14, 2009 9:55:11 AM
Subject: Re: Tea Party (answering your question)

We are protesting the overall burden of immoral (yes it is a moral issue) Federal, State and Local taxation which goes beyond the legitimate role of government.

We are protesting our President's continued use of shell game figures to declare they are "cutting the deficit in half" after he multiplies it BY FOUR.

We are protesting the administrations words vs deed. Words: flowery feel good rhetoric. Deeds: payback to the Democrat constituencies. (UAW, NEA, Trial Lawyers, Environmentalists etc.) "We support the military" yet they slash their budget and even advocated eliminating their govt funded medical benefits.

We are protesting BOTH attempts to bail out a US car company, spending BILLIONS, only to see them end up in Bankruptcy anyway (which they should have been in the first place). This restructuring will only continue a failed business model 1. cars that don't sell & 2. 90,000 employees, and nearly 2 million former employees who will have their pensions and benefits paid for the rest of their lives at our expense. Look in the eyes of the person who planned on retiring this year, only to see his 401K cut in half, and explain why citizens tax dollars should be used for this purpose.

Finally, we are protesting because (As I say) "punk can come from the right" Since "the man" is now a huge federal bureaucracy, to oppose their current power grab is punk indeed.

FREE SPEECH!

Mark Levin beautifully illustrates the main point of Federalism and the 10th Amendment: MOBILITY. If you live in a place that does not suit the needs of you and your family, you are free to MOVE to another state in the Union. If the Federal Govt makes every state virtually the same, then you have no recourse.

This is the last word as far as I am concerned and should be a non-partisan issue. (of course it isn't, as Liberals are ideologues who will never admit to being wrong even when staring at a mountain of facts).

the Governor of Texas follows Jindal, Palin and other level headed, common sense driven state leaders:



Awesome.

CD out soon. "Punk can come from the Right"

Democrats will never learn

SIMPLE TRUTHS:

Which organizations plant the most trees in this country?
Paper Companies

How many times does the word Democracy appear in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution? ZERO http://www.wimp.com/thegovernment/

What percentage of Americans work for corporations?
20% 80% of private sector jobs are in small business

What percentage of the country is developed?
5.2%

Which political party runs the 10 poorest cities in America?
Democrats. 10 out of 10 are run by Democrats and have been for 50 years.

How many times have Republicans cut funding for programs designed to help the poor?
ZERO Federal law mandates an automatic annual increase in funding for poverty programs.

What percentage of oil & natural gas wells are done by so-called "BIG OIL" ?
10% 90% of the oil and natural gas wells developed in the United States are done by small, independent businesses

What percentage of Income Taxes do the top 5% of earners pay?
54%



Under the Bush tax cut the U.S. treasury took in the highest amount in federal taxes in our history.



Millionaire donations to Democrats out pace those given to the GOP by a ratio of 12 to 1. The average donation to the Republican National Committee is $50

How much to date has LBJ’s “War on Poverty” cost?
$40 Trillion. Poverty not only still exists but is much worse in many places. Imagine that money in the free market and how many of the poor could have been lifted from poverty!

Which political party was created to end slavery in the United States?
the Republican Party

Just the increase in the amount of coal that China will burn by 2020 will send as much CO2 into the atmosphere as 3 billion Ford Expeditions each driven 15,000 miles a year.

What percentage of Los Angeles outstanding homicide warrants are for illegal aliens?
95% (appx 1400 warrants)

79% of all service workers are native-born, as are 68% of all workers in jobs requiring no more than a high school education. Illegal aliens do not “do the jobs Americans won’t do.”

How many paid Soviet agents worked in the U.S. State Dept during the McCarthy hearings? More than 300.
With the Venona Project’s declassification of Soviet cables, it is now known that more than 300 paid Soviet agents were employed in the U.S. state department. (Proving Joe McCarthy correct – Alger Hiss and the Rosenberg’s guilty).

Which U.S. President spent the most funds on AIDS relief to Africa?
George W. Bush (nearly 4x of any other)

Americans Are Pigs

Americans Are Pigs

March 6th, 2009 . by Admin

From an email a friend sent me. I’m sure it is all over the place, but it was new to me, and it really made me think, so I am going to share it here.

Catching Wild Pigs

A chemistry professor in a large college had some exchange students in the class. One day while the class was in the lab the Professor noticed one young man (exchange student) who kept rubbing his back, and stretching as if his back hurt.

The professor asked the young man what was the matter. The student told him he had a bullet lodged in his back. He had been shot while fighting communists in his native country who were trying to overthrow his country’s government and install a new communist government.

In the midst of his story he looked at the professor and asked a strange question. He asked, ‘Do you know how to catch wild pigs?’

The professor thought it was a joke and asked for the punch line. The young man said this was no joke. ‘You catch wild pigs by finding a suitable place in the woods and putting corn on the ground. The pigs find it and begin to come everyday to eat the free corn. When they are used to coming every day, you put a fence down one side of the place where they are used to coming. When they get used to the fence, they begin to eat the corn again and you put up another side of the fence. They get used to that and start to eat again. You continue until you have all four sides of the fence up with a gate in The last side. The pigs, who are used to the free corn, start to come through the gate to eat, you slam the gate on them and catch the whole herd.

Suddenly the wild pigs have lost their freedom. They run around and around inside the fence, but they are caught. Soon they go back to eating the free corn. They are so used to it that they have forgotten how to forage in the woods for themselves, so they accept their captivity.

The young man then told the professor that is exactly what he sees happening to America . The government keeps pushing us toward socialism and keeps spreading the free corn out in the form of programs such as supplemental income, tax credit for unearned income, tobacco subsidies, dairy subsidies, payments not to plant crops (CRP), welfare, medicine, drugs, etc.. While we continually lose our freedoms — just a little at a time.

One should always remember: There is no such thing as a free lunch! Also, a politician will never provide a service for you cheaper than you can do it yourself.

Also, if you see that all of this wonderful government ‘help’ is a problem confronting the future of democracy in America , you might want to send this on to your friends. If you think the free ride is essential to your way of life then you will probably delete this email, but God help you when the gate slams shut!

Keep your eyes on the newly elected politicians who are about to slam the gate on America .

“A government big enough to give you everything you want, is big enough to take away everything you have”
Thomas Jefferson

Cavuto RULES!!!

B E A U T I F U L

Journalism Student Actually Calls Rush to Learn the Truth About Him

April 1, 2009

RUSH: We go to Fairfax, Virginia. This is Andrew, and welcome, sir. It's nice to have you with us. CALLER: Hey, Rush. It's good to be on the show. RUSH: Thank you. CALLER: I'm a new listener. I go to George Mason University, and I'm in a journalism class and was assigned to a chapter on you in a book. It's called Mightier Than the Sword by Rodger Streitmatter, and I feel like you are portrayed in an unfair light. Everything I've learned about you has put you in a negative light, and I want -- RUSH: What, is this a textbook? CALLER: Yes, sir. RUSH: There's a chapter in the textbook on me? CALLER: "Rush Limbaugh," and it's called "Leading the Republican Revolution," and the chapter does capture your success and details your -- you know, your extremely successful career. And I'm new to your show, and researching you, and I've been truly captivated by everything that you've done. But everything that I read on the Internet and hear from people, especially in a college where the atmosphere tends to be more liberal, always seems to be negative. So I figured I want to get words from you that you would say to, you know, a journalism class for some details. RUSH: First of all, let me be sure. I want to make sure I understand. You're not refuting the textbook. You want to refute what you have read about me on the Internet that doesn't jibe with what you know, or...? CALLER: Well, the textbook. I'm saying although it does detail your success, everything -- RUSH: But it still slams me. The textbook still slams me? CALLER: It still... Yeah, basically. RUSH: Can you give me just a couple of examples? You don't have to go into details. CALLER: Ummm. RUSH: 'Cause I need some guidance here on what to refute. Can you give me some examples how it slams me. I can guess, but I want to hear from you. CALLER: There's a section in the chapter called "Reign of Error" saying how you refuse to admit that you're wrong and your facts are constantly wrong. RUSH: All right, now, the "Reign of Error" was a report put -- CALLER: (chuckles) RUSH: Listen to me, now. CALLER: Yeah.

RUSH: The "Reign of Error" was a report put together -- what year was it, Snerdley, '93, '94? -- by a liberal media watchdog group called (this is oxymoronic, by the way) "Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting," and what they purported to do was there's 24 or 25 items, I believe, in it, in which they accuse me of either lying or making things up. They released this to the Associated Press. The Associated Press ran with it all over the country. We replied with our refutation of every item, and they refused to print it. There's a similar group now called Media Matters for America which listens to all 15 hours of this program and will pull two sentences of a ten-sentence point in our monologue, and take it totally out of context. The purpose of the "Reign of Error" report, Media Matters and so forth, is to purposely misstate what I have said to ruin my credibility with people who have not listened, so as to create the illusion that I am something that I am not among people so they will not listen. The last thing these people want people doing is actually listening to me, as you did. What you read about me actually made you want to listen, and you heard enough that it doesn't kind of jibe with what you've read that you wanted to talk to me about it. Am I correct? CALLER: Yes, sir. RUSH: Okay. CALLER: And I wanted you to... I think everyone, you know, everyone in the class -- well, I'm not going to speak for everyone in the class but I think most people would probably think of you in a negative way, and before I even begin my presentation, they're going to say, "Oooh, God. This is the Rush Limbaugh chapter, you know?" So I want to have something positive. RUSH: Well, you can start out by saying that you actually called my program-- CALLER: Yes, definitely. RUSH: -- that you spoke to me, that I kept you on the program for whatever number of minutes it's going to end up being here, like nine minutes. That you were able to tell me whatever you wanted and that I calmly and coolly listened to you and answered every question that you had. You want to know basically what you can say to people. This is a very, very important question, Andrew -- and by the way, I want to hold you through the break -- CALLER: Okay. RUSH: -- which is coming up here in couple of minutes, because I want to spend a little bit more detailed time with you. But this is a very, very important question. There's no wrong answer to it. It's going to help me determine what I say to you. CALLER: Okay. RUSH: I detected that you are a little intimidated of standing up in front of the class to do your assignment, present your assignment on me because you think that most in the class have already made up their minds about me, even though I guarantee you -- and this is a point you must make to them -- they've never listened, and you must issue them the challenge to listen. They're in a journalism school, and they're about curiosity, and they're about finding truth, and they cannot possibly understand truth if they haven't listened themselves. That's the first thing you tell them, and you did. But are you alarmed? Are you a little bit worried about what they might think of you by what you have to say? CALLER: Well, I'm going to stand by my own, you know, my guns. I was raised -- RUSH: Okay. CALLER: -- in a Republican family -- RUSH: Yeah. CALLER: -- and I grew up listening -- RUSH: Good. CALLER: -- to conservative talk, yeah. RUSH: Don't be afraid of what people, particularly who are uninformed, think of you. You are going to be standing before the class more armed with factual information than any of them have. You will have been the reporter. You have gone out and you've gotten the story and you're going to report to them. Don't worry what they think of you. You can't control their thoughts anyway. You have no control over what they're going to say, so it should not intimidate you into factually reporting what you have learned. So I gotta take this break. We call it "an EIB Obscene Profit Time-Out" just to irritate people like your fellow students while everybody is losing money, we're earning it. Hee-hee-hee-hee-hee. So you just sit tight, and we'll come back and I'll explain this in greater detail.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: We rejoin Andrew in Fairfax, Virginia, who is a journalism student at George Mason University. There's a textbook that his class has been assigned with a highly critical chapter of me after acknowledging career accomplishments and success, and Andrew has a presentation on this chapter before his class. How much time do you have, by the way, to get this done, Andrew? CALLER: Well, I've put together my presentation, but I don't present for another two weeks. RUSH: Okay. Very good. I want to repeat what I said. The first thing I want you to tell them is that they're in a journalism class. And you are quite unique in one way, and that is, most of the existing journalists in America today -- the vast, vast majority, well over 90% -- who report on me, never call me, never ask for my reaction to what they are going to report about me. They take it from what I told you: Media Matters or other left-wing "watchdog groups." Their purpose is not to get it right. Their purpose is to discredit -- and it's not just me. It's any prominent conservative, because I feel they don't think they can win a substantive argument. So the way they attack is to try to discredit people who threaten them in the arena of ideas. I clearly represent a threat. You've done something as a student that most practicing journalists today do not do. You have called me. You have asked for my reaction to this. You ought to get an A for that alone. CALLER: (laughs) RUSH: I'm serious. Now, here's another thing. The essence of your chapter on me, I'm guessing, based on the "Reign of Error" that you mentioned, is that I lie, or I purposely get things wrong, or I make things up, or I just say things that I know are wrong to advance my cause. Am I pretty close there? CALLER: Well, for that particular section, yes, but there's other -- RUSH: Well -- CALLER: They slam you in other ways as well. RUSH: Well, we'll get to those in a minute. CALLER: (chuckles) RUSH: But as far as the factual aspects of my presentation on this program, or wherever I speak -- as far as whether I make it up or lie about it or whatever -- the greatest source for information on my show, the greatest source for proof of what I actually say every day is my website: www.RushLimbaugh.com. On my website, there is a complete and total transcript available for every word I utter. There are links to the news items or stories or reports that I have used to make the statements that I make. Why would I lie all the time when I provide the proof right there for everybody to see? Critics never mention this. The journalists never go to my website. They rely on others who take out of context what I say. The other thing I want you to tell these students is that I am a soul mate of theirs. You and your students -- because of your age and your future and where you are in life -- you're very focused on yourselves as individuals, and I am the greatest asset individuals in this country have. I believe that the smallest minority in the world is the individual, and I believe if you do not respect individual rights, you do not really respect minority rights. The individual is unique. No two people are alike. I resist the tug of popular sentiment. Please quote me: "I resist the tug of popular sentiment to basically conform with movements and ideas that are not based on thought, but rather are based on raw emotion." I have nothing but a fervent desire for everyone in your class to succeed, to be the absolute best they can be based on how willing they are to work hard, use their passion and the ambition and God-given talent that they have been given. I have no desire for anyone to be held back. I do not see people as men, women, black, white, red, green, orange. I see Americans. I see human beings. I see human beings who, unfortunately, are co-opted into a conformist way of thinking that it is in itself erroneous -- such as all the reporting about me and all the opinions of me that have been formed by people who do not listen. So part and parcel of what you must do, after you have repeated what I have just told you -- are you recording this? CALLER: Yes, sir. RUSH: You are. This will also be available at my website, every word I've said to you. So if somebody wants to say you're lying about what I said, it's right there on my website. We'll have the transcript up. We're going to put this, Andrew, on the free side, so that every one of your students can see it. CALLER: Thank you. RUSH: At some point. You can see it tonight, too. You do not... By the way, are you a member of my website? Are you a subscriber? CALLER: No, sir, I'm not.

RUSH: Well, we're going to make you one. You're going to be after this phone call. CALLER: All right. RUSH: That will let you access everything, and you should do it. The Essential Stack of Stuff, the archives, the backup. My website is an encyclopedia of virtually every important thing that's happened in this country since I have been on the air, and there is proof of the things that I have said. It's a goldmine for you. You must, when you make this presentation, say that one of the problems that you found going through this chapter in the textbook is that it doesn't jibe with what you know as a listener to this program. You don't recognize the Rush Limbaugh in that chapter based on two things: what you know by listening and now what you've learned by discussing this with me. Now, is that enough? You can move on to some of the other things that are said that have nothing to do with accuracy and honesty and all that? CALLER: (chuckles) Yeah, if you want me to. RUSH: Sure. What else do they say? CALLER: Well, every section seems to throw in your... I guess... They don't say "racism," but your comments towards women and homosexuals and racial minorities. RUSH: Okay, so what do they say? CALLER: Ummm... RUSH: Don't be afraid. I'm not, and it's about me you're going to be repeating. CALLER: (chuckles) RUSH: So don't be afraid. What do they say? CALLER: They mention, I quote: "Many Limbaugh critics believe their nemesis dipped to his lowest point in 1989 with 'caller abortions.' The offensive gimmick reinforced Limbaugh's anti-abortion stand..." RUSH: Okay, okay, okay. Now, I'm going to walk you through this, because that's classic. In the first place, "Limbaugh's critics believe..." Are they identified? CALLER: Hmmm. No, they are not. RUSH: No! But they are given credence, are they not? The "critics" automatically have it. This is a journalism, by the way, trick, and it's standard operating procedure. They could report on the fact in the New York Times tomorrow that a cure for cancer has been found, and they would find "critics" to disagree with it or find problems with it, Andrew. It's part and parcel of the formula you people are taught. There's no good news. There's only news, and somebody who has an opposing view. Now, caller abortions. I happen to be... You're recording this, right? CALLER: Yes. RUSH: I happen to be pro-life. I've been pro-life all my life. I believe in God. CALLER: Okay. RUSH: I believe that all human beings have a yearning spirit to be free, that we are endowed with it. I believe the founding documents. I believe that our existence is owing to a Creator who created us with inalienable rights: life, liberty, pursuit of happiness. Our Founding Documents, Declaration of Independence mentions these rights. They don't come from people, they come from God. Life. Somebody has to stand up for life; somebody has to defend it. Now, anybody can go on the radio and say, "I'm pro-life, and those pro-abortionists are wrong!" Big whoop. What I've always strived to do, Andrew, is illustrate my opinion. Sometimes... I have a phrase: "illustrating absurdity by being absurd." So the caller abortion was -- and I will admit, it irritated a lot of people. It caused... And the reason why, Andrew, is because it made people confront the reality of their belief. Do you know what the caller abortion was? CALLER: It was a, I guess a sound bite "with a vacuum sucking sound followed by a bloodcurdling scream." That's what it says in the textbook. RUSH: Yes, it was. See? Okay. That's in the textbook? CALLER: Yes. RUSH: Yes. That's all that's in the textbook about it?

CALLER: Um, yes. RUSH: Yeah. See, that's... CALLER: Well, it says whenever you wanted to end the call, that you used the caller abortion. RUSH: That's a classic example of how what I do was distorted. That was actually a brilliant illustration of my belief about this. This took about 30 minutes to do, to set up, which also made it great radio. It gave us a lot of time spent listening on the ratings. But basically I wanted to illustrate this, and I looked at my telephone, and I asked the question, "When does a call become a call? Does the call become a call when you dial? Does the call become a call when you connect? Does the call become a call when I answer, the moment of conception? You call me. Your line connects with my receptacle. Bam! I answer the phone. Is that when the call begins?" So I called the phone company, Andrew, and I asked them, "When does a call begin?" They said, "What are you talking about?" I said, "Well, does a call begin? When do you start charging for a call? When that call has life? When is there...? When you start billing for a call, does it happen at the moment the person has dialed it? Does it happen while it's ringing? Does it happen with a busy signal, which means there's call control on it? Does it happen when somebody answers?" And they said, "Well, a call begins when it's answered. A call takes two people." I said, "Thank you." So, that was to illustrate: When does life begin? See, I believe it can only begin at conception. When else can it begin? So I wanted to illustrate using the phone, making a phone call. Then I got a bunch of people pretending to be scientists and so forth on the phone to discuss this in great detail. But I said, "Until I decide to answer, that call's nothing but a blinking light. That call has no life. That call has no meaning. That call has nothing to it until I answer it," and then what happens? When I answer that call and I don't want it? What if I've made a mistake answering that call? What if it's a bad call? What if it's somebody who's not going to enhance the radio program? What do I do? I didn't want the call. I took the call. I made a mistake! I went out there and I conceptualized the phone call, and now I'm stuck with a call I don't want. Well, I do what we do in the pro-choice movement: I simply abort it and pretend that the call never happened! So I turn on the suction device and I suck the call right out of the phone. That, to me, was brilliant, Andrew. I hope you're recording this, and I hope you read this to your class. Because everything that's done here, Andrew -- whether it be done with humor or seriousness or with a satire or a parody, everything that's done here -- is designed to make a point. Nothing is done here frivolously. I don't do anything just to make people mad, because that's going to happen anyway when you tell anybody what you think. By definition, people are going to not... Why do you think Tiger Woods doesn't tell you what his politics are? Because he wants to sell all of his endorsed equipment to everybody, not just Republicans or Democrats. But that's not my business. My business is to tell people what I honestly believe. I love America. The racism and sexism and so forth? Yeah, I came up with the term "feminazi," to describe the 12 women to whom the most important thing in the world is every abortion possible taking place -- and the reason people get mad at that's 'cause it's dead-on accurate. As for racism, this is a constant, average, everyday charge the left makes against conservatives trying to fulfill the stereotype that we're racists, sexists, bigots, and homophobes. But the truth about that is you can tell your class this: I look at the majority of the black population in this country and I cry, 'cause I see that they have been conditioned to believe that the Democrat Party and large government programs are going to raise them from the life of bondage they believe that they're in. And after 50 years of voting Democrat, after 50 years of complaining about the circumstances they're in, after receiving all these benefits the Democrats have passed out (AFDC) they're still complaining. Their lives have been stolen from them. The federal government has become the father; the father has become absent. Single mothers are raising kids in neighborhoods and schools that you would not send yours to. The Democrat Party refuses to close them, and insists that those people still go to those schools while still voting Democrat. I think it's a shame. I think the federal government and the Democrat Party has destroyed the black family. I love Americans. I love human beings! I want the best for them. I want what's happened to me to be experienced by every damn person out there, and the people standing in the way are my enemy -- and that would have to be liberals in the Democrat Party. Now, hang on. I'm going to give you information to be a subscriber to the website.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT RUSH: All right, Andrew, one more point that I want to make for you to include in your presentation to the students on the caller abortions. Your textbook says that critics say I reached a low point with the caller abortion. Let me ask you a simple question. If a fetus is not a human life, why would a caller abortion offend anybody? If a fetus, a human fetus is simply an unviable tissue mass, there could be nothing conceivably upsetting about it. The truth is, it is a baby, and the pro-abort, political pro-abort groups, the NOW gang and other feminist groups, they know it's a baby, and thus they hate me for exposing their mind-set. But if a fetus isn't a human being, why would a caller abortion upset anybody? And finally, Andrew, this. I understand caller abortions are offensive. But then why is President Obama to be praised for his anti-life positions? Do you realize President Obama three times as an Illinois state senator voted for legislation that would allow doctors to kill a baby successfully born during an abortion? Now, what's really controversial, Andrew? A bit, a vacuum cleaner with callers being sucked off a phone, or an Illinois state senator who's now president voting three times to allow doctors to kill a baby after it's born because the mother wanted an abortion? Ask your students to consider that.

END TRANSCRIPT

NEW ERA of SPEND and BLAME

By CHARLES HURT - INSIDE WASHINGTON

Last updated: 3:37 am
March 27, 2009
Posted: 2:40 am
March 27, 2009

FOR a guy who talks so much about wanting a new era of responsibility, President Obama spends an awful lot of time blaming Republicans for all the wild and reckless spending he crammed into his own budget.

After running a campaign against the $1 trillion deficit he "inherited" from President Bush and the Republicans, Obama quickly matched it. During his first 50 days in office, he and his Democratic-controlled Congress spent $1 billion an hour.

Under Obama's proposed budget, the overall national debt doubles in five years and triples in 10.

Not exactly "moving from an era of borrow and spend to one where we save and invest," as he promised.

How does Mr. Responsibility explain the disconnect between this reality and his absurd claims? By insisting that Republicans were worse.

"To a bunch of the critics out there, I've already said, show me your budget!" he told a gathering of wealthy Democratic donors this week. "I'm happy to have that debate."

Or, another time: "I suspect that some of those Republican critics have a short memory, because as I recall I'm inheriting a $1.3 trillion deficit, annual deficit, from them."

In other words, Obama cannot defend his decision to double down on deficit spending. So, he simply trashes Republicans.

As if voters right now are looking for somebody just not as bad as the GOP. As if his campaign slogan wasn't "Change You Can Believe In," but rather "Vote for Me. I'm Not as Bad as Republicans."

Anyway, Republicans tried this out-of-control spending derby -- and just look where that got them. In a few short years, they lost control of every single lever of power exactly because of this kind of behavior.

Yet in even less time, Obama has put away his promises of Hope and Change and tossed aside the idealism of his campaign about remaking politics in Washington.

Surveying the political landscape here today, Obama is thinking of that adage cherished by cutthroats everywhere.

If you and a buddy are walking through the woods and encounter a hungry, angry bear, you don't have to outrun the bear. You simply have to outrun your buddy.

churt@nypost.com

STATE OF THE UNION

conservOpunk
state of the Union (this week)


My friends and family were aghast when I pointed to the horrid choice we had between non-conservative & only right 50% of the time John McCain and Quasi-Marxist not nearly as smart as everyone says Barrack Obama for the US Presidency.

This was after I pointed to a photo of Obama, Hillary Clinton and John Edwards as the pathetic last remaining DEM possibilities. 1. The fact a Clinton is still politically viable is shocking and sad to me. 2. Edwards made his millions on junk science regarding now medically disproven theories (not to mention is an immoral scoundrel who cheats on the very cancer stricken wife he held up to promote his campaign and had another man claim to be the father of his illegitimate child). 3. Obama has proven all those who warned Americans of his past and true governing intentions totally and completely RIGHT.

Back to our choice for President. To my friends who remain on the Obama bandwagon please consider what you would have said to me if I suggested any one of these realities. You would have said I was nuts and a “crazy right-winger.” Ha! You can roll your eyes or keep your head in the sand when you read this list, references and links are below.


Can you imagine if I had said three months ago that:

The President will recommend our US Veterans pay for their combat injuries out of their own private health insurance? (1)

The President will advocate empowering the Federal Government to cap salaries and allowable profits of private companies even those not specifically “bailed out” by TARP, Stimulus plan, etc. (2)

The President would attempt to limit charitable deductions for certain charities, while having Govt bureaucrats choose which charities should be available for tax free donations (HR1388) (3)

The President would QUADRUPLE our Federal Deficit, then claim he would “cut the deficit in half” over the next 7 years. The very deficit that his budget created.




The President will give his first television interview to al Arabiya.

The President’s Director of Homeland Security will not use the term “Terrorism” and instead refer to “Man Caused Disasters.” (4)

The President’s Chief of Staff would claim "You never want a serious crisis to go to waste," (5)

"Things that we had postponed for too long, that were long-term, are now immediate and must be dealt with. This crisis provides the opportunity for us to do things that you could not do before."

The President would do a 180 and appoint scores of lobbyists to his cabinet, and propose nearly 9,000 earmarks in his budget.

The President would redefine “rich” as families making over 250K annually. (Under Clinton it was 500K and Bush Sr. 1 million). He would declare intentions to raise the tax rate on these Americans. (It is proven time and again that tax receipts actually increase when rates are lowered, as the overall economy grows).

The President would accept a 500K book advance (taking advantage of the Bush tax cut rates before they expire). (6)

The President would appear on the Tonight Show with Jay Leno and poke fun at the participants in the Special Olympics. (and face no scrutiny by our ever-vigilant watchdog media) (7)



“You cannot spend your way out of recession or borrow your way out of debt.”
Daniel Hannan (South East England)


1
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/03/10/veterans.health.insurance/index.html
2
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/23/AR2009032302830_pf.html
3
http://www.rules.house.gov/111/LegText/111_hr1388_txt.pdf
http://www.redstate.com/hogan/2009/03/25/promoting-statism-in-the-name-of-service/
4
http://spectator.org/blog/2009/03/18/terrorism-is-a-man-caused-disa
5
http://vodpod.com/watch/1177723-never-let-a-serious-crisis-go-to-waste-wsj
6
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/mar/19/obamas-500000-book-bonanza/
7
http://gawker.com/5176350/obamas-special-olympics-leno-gaffe