It's Too Soon!

Next year is Election Year(!), and a presidential election to boot. And while 2012 cannot possibly get here fast enough for most Republicans, I have to say it's far too soon to have to deal with sharks in the water already.

The odd thing is, we have good reason to hurry. The ruinous health care fiasco foisted on us by an over-zealous Congress and President last year continues to rankle. The list of waivers is growing nearly as fast as the debt ceiling, with no end in sight. Even with Republicans in control of the House, no one seems quite ready to engage in more than token spending reductions at this point. Heck, I may actually have to file an extension on taxes this year just because some rule changes are harder to figure out than others.

But I am definitely NOT ready to have to listen to all the posturing, finger-pointing, mud-slinging, and other forms of lying that will accompany either the candidates themselves, or the rabid liberal press who will insist on pounding us with their social justice agenda.

Time once again to buy more stock in whomever makes Motrin®.

Besides all that, I am nowhere near ready to write up two more Curmudgeon's Guides for Young Conservative Voters next year. And heaven only knows when the primary election for California will be. We were so concerned with getting "out front" last time around that California Republican officials very likely torpedoed any chance we had of gaining even one significant state-wide office, much less making any sort of difference at the national level.

(NOTE TO CALIFORNIA REPUBLICAN PARTY LEADERS: Next time you throw support to a candidate for Governor or United States Senate, let's get out in front of the whole alien employee situation, hm? It's embarrassing to live in the most populous state in the country, yet one that is incapable of putting forward even one serious contender for state or national office in the last twenty years. Let's work on that one, 'kay, guys? Let's also make sure they have solid conservative creds this time. That last bunch were RINOs to the core!)

Already wishing it were 2013.

The Oath of Office

Every United States Representative upon entering Congress after their election (or re-election) is administered the oath of office. The oath, once a much simpler fourteen words, was expanded in the days following the beginning of the Civil War in order to impress upon these elected officials the seriousness of their duties and responsibilities as legislators:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.

In the past few days, many words have been written about the move by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi to act upon the recommendation of Rep. Louise Slaughter and her Rules Committee to "deem passed" the Senate bill rather than have the members of the House actually vote upon it.

Forgive me, but I can't help wondering whether anyone else recognizes this act as a direct violation of the congressional Oath of Office. Being curious, I undertook to do a bit of research and found this nugget on the "Friends of Article V" web site:

5 U.S.C. 3333 requires members of Congress sign an affidavit that they have taken the oath of office required by 5 U.S.C. 3331 and have not or will not violate that oath of office during their tenure of office as defined by the third part of the law, 5 U.S.C. 7311 which explicitly makes it a federal criminal offense (and a violation of oath of office) for anyone employed in the United States Government (including members of Congress) to “advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government”. The fourth federal law, 18 U.S.C. 1918 provides penalties for violation of oath office described in 5 U.S.C. 7311 which include: (1) removal from office and; (2) confinement or a fine.

If I'm not mistaken, encouraging members of Congress to "deem passed" such a major piece of legislation which is, after all, the cornerstone of President Obama's entire domestic policy, appears to "advocate the overthrow of our constitutional form of government." And if that is true, then certainly it would not be improper to seek the immediate removal of Nancy Pelosi, Louise Slaughter, and every single Representative who allows this blatant violation of the Constitution to take place.

Should the House of Representatives follow the recommendations of Slaughter's committee, I hope someone will have the courage to begin impeachment proceedings against, at a minimum, Pelosi and Slaughter. By extension, anyone who likewise supports this action should also be held equally accountable for their own perfidies.

That about sums up my feelings on this one.

Obama's WMDs

I seem to remember that it was not so long ago — months, perhaps? — that liberal backlash against the Bush administration amounted to "where are the WMDs?" Entire blogs and news-gathering sites were devoted to the idea that the whole reason why we were in Iraq, those pesky weapons of mass destruction, were in fact a figment of Bush's overworked imagination. Obama himself campaigned on that very idea, did he not? Certainly the mainstream media (those husky water-carriers for the current president) loudly trumpeted the fact that Bush's intelligence may not only have been incomplete, but had by that time caused the deaths of thousands of American soldiers.

Now it appears that Obama may have his own "weapons of mass destruction" to worry about.

For months now we have listened to this man and his enablers in Congress proclaim to anyone who would listen (and, of course, to those of us who stopped listening a long time ago) that one of the reasons we need a public "option" (which isn't really an option, by the way) is because of the obscene, immoral, illegal, unconstitutional, and even really, really bad profits of the apparently money-bloated health insurance companies. In fact, to hear Pelosi and Reid spin it, these insurers are even more deadly and rapacious than the people who run TARP-bailed companies and dare to award themselves bonuses for their clever work of driving a company into the ground and then receiving government tax money to keep it alive.

So tell me why, please, it is that the Associated Press, of all anti-conservative news organizations that exist in the world today, is the one to report that, on a list of profit-mongerers in this country, health insurance providers are number 35 on the list?

Here's a thought: if the company that owns the Taco Bell brand is running higher profit margins than the health care insurance companies, why not target putting Taco Bell out of business so our fast-food-driven health problems will go away and hence drive our insurance premiums down as well?

On second thought, leave Taco Bell alone. Their food is arguably healthier than most fast-food joints, and our personal favorite at the moment here at Hacienda Woody. Go after Pizza Hut instead. They're expendable.

Also, while trying their level best to drive insurance carriers out of business, I have yet to hear what constructive devices the Democrats in Congress will employ to make sure that those thousands of people who ultimately lose their jobs in the insurance industry will be able to find employment elsewhere. Not to mention paying for all their health care while they are unemployed because they won't be able to afford even the public option.

So profits of the health insurers will, I predict, become Obama's weapons of mass destruction. He will use them to get us into a war that we on the right don't want to fight, all the while assuring us that "levelling the playing field" is the only way to provide coverage to "millions" of Americans who will die unless we ACT NOW. PREFERABLY BEFORE ANYONE HAS A CHANCE TO READ THE ACTUAL LEGISLATION. Then, if Obama follows the Bush defense, he will shrug and say "we acted in good faith based on the facts we had at the time."

Guess what, Mr. President? We aren't any more likely to believe you than you were to believe President Bush.

Obama-ganda

John Nolte, writing for Big Hollywood, talks about a press release from the Entertainment Industry Foundation (EIF) outlining "Play your Part America." This is a week-long blitz of TV programming on the four major networks (ironically including FOX in this case) designed to forward Obama's volunteerism and service social agenda.

Political manipulation of the entertainment industry is nothing new. Celebrities have, for decades, fronted for their favorite causes. Some, like Bob Hope, were classy enough to make a tradition out of serving others. As time has passed, however, many others have simply become shills for one cause or another; most notably those who shriekingly support the rights of animals over and above all other living creatures, including unborn children.

Nolte's piece, of course, takes note of the increasingly alarming ease with which Obama has made the media his all-too willing puppet in trumpeting his domestic and foreign agendas to the world. He is the first president, I believe, to have a completely integrated media strategy that relies on willing compliance from Hollywood. That's not to say that previous presidents have not had media strategies, of course. Even Bush, who more often than not wore a large red bullseye on his chest so far as the media were concerned, had strategies for making the Iraq war somewhat more palatable to the public while refusing to play into their hysterical reporting.

But Obama seems to be the first to have this integrated "organic" approach. A cooperative media is, in fact, a keystone to Obama's agenda because without their help he cannot hope to overcome the perceptions that so many of us have of a leader without experience or accomplishment trying to create a socialist utopia in this country. It's a truly disturbing trend.

Oddly enough, his media (and artistic: don't forget his rebranding of the NEA!) manipulations are not all that troubling to me. Not personally, anyway. I'm just not that big of a media consumer to worry about whether I'll be subjected to the latest Obama-ganda whenever I turn on the TV. I actually assume I'll be subjected to it, in fact, which makes it easier to simply be entertained, rather than indoctrinated.

My problem is that I'm pretty sure the government as a whole has absolutely no clue what "volunteerism" or "service" even are. Both activities are deeply personal in nature. You can have entire organizations performing service, such as Habitats for Humanity, but participation in such organizations should always be a personal decision borne of a desire to help others.

It is the desire that is lacking from Obama's perception of a nation full of volunteers providing service to others. The president's agenda is designed to "encourage" citizens to volunteer and provide service, preferably somewhat more than is provided today, to a growing number of those who are considered less fortunate. Unfortunately, insisting on having people volunteer often backfires.

For simplicity, let's assume that there are three basic types of volunteer:

1. The eager volunteer. This is the person who observes a need, feels a strong desire to assist, and does so. The only potential stumbling block for this person is the occasional reluctance of the recipient of this service. No reasonable person, however, would argue with the motives of the eager volunteer.

2. The impressive volunteer. This is the person who answers a call for volunteers, not because they just naturally like to help, but more because the service looks good on a resumé. Beware the impressive volunteer. Often their good intentions are somewhat marred by the sloppy or inept delivery of the service required, which may cause more harm than good. This is what has become of ACORN. They started with the right idea (giving them the benefit of the doubt here), but have become an enabler of thoroughly destructive behaviors.

3. The reluctant volunteer. Here is the person who has been ordered or requested to provide a service that they would not have otherwise provided. They will do so grudgingly, answering the call not because they want to, but because it seems to be expected of them. Akin to a petty criminal who has been ordered to "community service" in order to atone for some crime, these "volunteers" are, in fact, conscripts who will do the bare minimum required of them, and probably not do the best of jobs in the process.

Of course there are many variants of all three basic types. The problem with inducing people to volunteer, as Obama appears to be attempting, is that you more frequently get the impressive or reluctant volunteers to answer the call. The eager volunteers are already serving, happily, and probably expending whatever time they can to their current cause. The impressive volunteers will serve because it looks good to do so, but may not provide the intended results. That leaves the reluctant ones, who won't serve unless given a compelling reason ("we'll throw your fanny in jail unless...") to do so.

I don't know about you, but if I or my family needed service, I'm not altogether sure I'd want any but a truly eager volunteer to provide it. How on earth will Hollywood solve that particular problem?

Let me know if they do. Unless they've infiltrated NCIS next week, I probably won't be watching.

Why Late-Night Blogging Never Pays

Two Obama-related items on my mind tonight.

First, the webcast directed at school-aged children across the country, scheduled for September 8.

This to me smacks of severe over-reach on Obama's part. Ostensibly the purpose of this speech is to motivate kids to stay engaged with their education. Not bad as topics go. However, if the intent is to keep kids in school to prevent them from dropping out at some point, does he really believe that anything he says is going to make a difference for more than a handful of kids? Also, I would guess that this will have even less impact on those who have already made the decision to leave school. Kids who have already given up on their education are not likely to change their minds at this point, no matter who delivers this message. If their own parents can't reach them, how is a man sitting in a mansion thousands of miles from their reality going to do the job?

The discussion questions distributed by the Education department are most revealing. Worded in such a way that I strongly suspect more than just staying in school will arise in Obama's speech. I'm guessing there will be pointed references to community service, and requests to convince Mommy and Daddy that Obama "needs" their help in promoting other points of his domestic agenda. Won't know that until the speech is actually given, but I will be surprised if I am much mistaken.

The other mind-waster in front of me tonight is (natch!) health care. I find it amusing that the administration is suddenly back-pedalling on the "public option." For one thing, even though Drudge trumpets its demise, the legislation is not Obama's. He didn't write it, and heaven knows he probably has no idea what's really in it. But assuming the report is correct, and Obama is truly ready to set aside (I don't for a minute believe it won't be resurrected at some point in the future) the public option, how do we know that it will be expunged from HR 3200?

We don't.

I can't see Pelosi or Reid being any too happy about striking any portion of this 1000 page nightmare because Congress seems to feel anymore that they're paid by the word. Also, the more liberal elements of the party will make hay of this should they capitulate on the public option at this point.

What interests me most, however, isn't the decision to take the public option off the table. What I find interesting is a post over at Wizbang that talks about progressive Christians getting into the act. Michael Laprarie talks about this development, and notes the opinions of folks like Father Jake, who says:

I must admit to being simply astounded that anyone who claims to be a follower of Jesus Christ would be against providing health care for every child of God.

Unless you cut out the 25th chapter of Matthew, the parable of the Good Samaritan, the year of Jubilee, and various other big swaths of scripture, it is simply impossible to refute the clear message that God has a preferential bias for the poor.

It's one of those yes-and-no statements, really. Yes, the Savior strongly advised His followers with respect to the poor (and the widows, and the sick, and so on). His strict injuncture was to turn them not away, lest the church fall under condemnation.

But (here's the "no") the Savior was also careful to separate the functions of the church (i.e., His followers) from the functions of government. Giving Caesar his due was the Savior's way of reminding us that governments are imperfect, if necessary, and that we should never trust them to do what the church itself must always do. Nowhere in scripture does the Savior say "set ye up an government with power to take from the rich and give to the poor." No, what He specifically says is, "sell that thou hast, and give to the poor" if you want access to the blessings of heaven (Matthew 19:21). He does not instruct Caesar and the government to do this; he gives this commandment to followers who wish to live righteous lives.

It's one of those arguments where you never find big-government proponents on the correct side. They always get it wrong. Only government, they insist, has the "power" to level the playing field and make things fair for all concerned. It's the same philosophy that creates welfare states, demonizes those who dare to profit from their labors, and dismisses any logic presented that does not match their own as so much ephemera. This is how we end up with thousands of home-owners who cannot pay their mortgages. (Remember that the mortgage crisis began not with the economic downturn and massive layoffs, but that the economic downturn and massive layoffs were driven in part by the mortgage crisis.) Forcing banks to restructure loans to make it easier for low-income families to keep their homes for now is no guarantee that these same families will ever be able to actually afford those loans.

Likewise, guaranteeing health insurance coverage for 15 million people (many people strongly dispute Obama's 45 million that he spins as incontrovertible fact) at the expense of those who can and do afford their current coverage makes no sense whatsoever. I'm all for doing my part to care for my neighbors, but let me do so as an act of service, rather than force me to do so through increased taxes that will eventually ensure that I can never retire on my pension. Assuming my company can still support my pension when that time comes.

If Obama's policies are allowed to continue unabated, I'm pretty sure I won't long be one who is able to help pay for these schemes. I will instead be one of the increasing number of those who must beg the government for more handouts, because my company won't be able to afford me any longer.

What a deal.

O Canada New York!

A Democrat from New York, Eric Massa, represents what is considered to be a "predominantly conservative" district in New York. This begs two questions:

1. Conservatives? In NEW YORK?? (No, really. Same question. Just, um, emphasized.)

2. How on earth did he get elected in the first place?

But of course these questions pale in comparison to the flash flood of conservative angst over the fact that this Democratic Congressman dared state that (gasp!) he would vote in favor of a single-payer health care system despite his constituents' wishes.

Big hairy deal.

Like Republicans haven't been doing that over the protests of their own constituents for years now.

No, the sin here isn't in stating a desire to vote contrary to the wishes of the electorate. As far as representation goes, even registered Democrats (including illegal aliens and dead people) are beginning to understand that they didn't necessarily get what they voted for last November. Also, I beg to point out that numerous delegates to both the Second Continental Congress as well as the Constitutional Convention were known to vote in direct opposition to the stated desires of the people who sent them there. It's how this nation got its start, for better or worse.

The sin, as I see it, is in propounding legislation that half of Congress hasn't even read, yet somehow firmly believes will be this wonderful, magical panacea that will suddenly have health care flowing down into the homes of every American (and millions of non-Americans) in this country. The sin is further exacerbated by not allowing each and every element of this "plan" to be dragged out into public and debated in honest, open forums where both sides can present their cases (using quotes from the actual legislation as opposed to talking points) so that we, the public, can make equally honest, open decisions about which elements of the "plan" to take out into the town squares and flog until their backsides look like so much chopped liver. Then subject them to a single-payer health care system such as they have in Canada, which is apparently so bad that the people charged with running it are furiously trying to figure out just how to "fix" it.

So let's not excoriate Rep. Massa just because he chooses to vote against his own constituents. Let's wait until he actually commits the sin, then apply the appropriate punishment.

Pelosi and Hoyer Get It Wrong

This is precisely why I can't completely ignore the Woundup. There's simply too much that requires a response, even from know-nothing conservative hacks like myself.

So Steny Hoyer and Nancy Pelosi write together for USA Today and accuse those of us who voice - loudly - our opinions against HR 3200 of being "un-American."

This just drips with irony.

First, Hoyer remarks that Harry Truman once asked Congress to guarantee the "right to adequate medical care and protection from the economic fears of sickness" for all Americans shortly after World War II. An admirable sentiment, and one that seems to resonate with many, many people. But the hard reality of it all is that nowhere in the Constitution of the United States or the Declaration of Independence do they speak to health care being one of our absolute "rights." Life and liberty, certainly, along with the pursuit (not the attainment) of happiness, but not universal health care.

I'd be willing to meet Hoyer half-way on this one: If he could somehow demonstrate to me where a government-mandated solution to anything ever resulted in a more efficient way of doing anything but drive up our national deficit, I'll agree that Congress has at least a prayer of putting together a workable "solution" to a crisis that doesn't exist for most of us.

And by the way, Steny, we're still waiting for companies to start hiring again. How's that stimulus-thingy working out for you?

Next we come to Madam Speaker. Pelosi represents probably the worst Speaker of the House we've had in living memory. Not even Newt Gingrich, who so ineptly destroyed Republican credibility with his ill-fated "Contract with America" can claim that honor. Thus we find her statement that "[d]rowning out opposing views is simply un-American" to be completely laughable.

This from the party that gave us the Chicago Seven. This from the party that harbors professional disrupters like Code Pink and ACORN. And let us not forget their standing militia, the SEIU union thugs who are even now cracking their knuckles at the thought of fresh meat at the next town hall event. "Un-American," Nancy? Surely not.

Of course, it's one thing to accuse the protesters of being nothing more than paid shills of the insurance industry. It's another thing altogether to present actual evidence that this is true. I'm still waiting to see the proof that a majority of those who have gotten "disruptive" (read: vocal) at town hall meetings are, in fact, paid operatives of the insurance magnates. I suppose I'd better not hold my breath.

I also remind Madam Speaker that it was no less a personage than Hillary Rodham Clinton who loudly proclaimed our absolute right to disagree with any administration. Just wanted to point that out.

As for hanging people in effigy, well, the Democrats would know all about that, now, wouldn't they? Haven't they burned enough Bush effigies and American flags between them to make them undeniable experts in that arena?

No, I'm sorry, Madam Speaker and Mr. Hoyer, your arguments have a hollow ring to them. Those who protest your ill-conceived "reform" legislation are merely trying to make sure you know where we stand before you force this travesty on a nation ill-prepared to handle its after-effects.

We will not go quietly.

The Ghost of Joseph McCarthy

I'm not sure if anyone else in the blogosphere has made this connection, but I think it needs to be said:

The White House is channeling the ghost of Joseph McCarthy.

This is especially ironic given that everyone in Obama's party - and not a few on the other side of the aisle - have long decried both McCarthy's philosophies and his methods. Even more ironic (not that this has any direct bearing on this thread of thought) were McCarthy's strange ties to the Kennedy dynasty back in the day.

So here's the question of the day: If it was wrong fifty-plus years ago to rat out people you thought might be sympathetic to communism in this country, how is it any more acceptable today to email the White House with names and information on those who disagree with your pet domestic policy?

After McCarthy's career imploded, Pres. Eisenhower was quoted as saying that "McCarthyism is now McCarthywasm."

I think we're back to ism now.

Open Letter to Lanny Davis

Hey, Lanny. You don't know me, but my pretend name is Woody, and I blog here at Woody's Woundup. (I know, I know... how could a conservative blogger come up with such a clever name? Just lucky, I guess.)

First, just want to thank you for your recent post over at Politico. Very informative, that was. Nice encapsulated syllabus of the entire Democrat worldview these days.

Couple of things for you, Lanny. First of all, I want you to take a good, long look at the photo in the masthead above. See it? Right next to the "Woody's Woundup" title? I want to you know, Lanny, that this is a fairly accurate photographic depiction of yours truly. Now, granted it's been a few years. The face is a bit fuller these days; the glasses are rounder, and the temples are grayer. But that's me.

So let me save you some time and trouble here. You won't find my face at any town hall events where Congresspersons are trying desperately to sell the unsellable. The best facial recognition software available to modern forensics labs won't find my mug at any such public gathering. Go ahead and try. But my name isn't Waldo and you won't find me.

Believe me, it's not that I don't support the protestors. Heavens to Betsy, if I didn't break out in hives whenever I get close to politicians in general, I'd be there. But, really, I'm more the "wait until the next day and read about it" kind of subversive. I don't believe for a minute that you Democrats are telling anything approaching the truth in this entire health care reform movement, and nothing you try to tell me in some glorified "meet the little people" get-together is likely to change my mind. (Which reminds me... that "rat out the dissenters and email us their info" thing the White House started? Nice touch.)

But I do have a few questions for you, and I'll be glad to entertain your answers.

First, can you see any real benefit to our passing legislation that most members of Congress haven't ever (and likely won't ever) read? Honestly, when a self-serving narcissist like Arlen Specter can stand up in front of a crowd and insist that we need to move "quickly" yet refuses to read the bill himself, what does this tell us about the bill? Mostly it tells us that the bill is so toxic that even looking at it will cause various cancers and, probably, sterility. Can you see why a few of us might protest this thing?

Secondly, what's your problem with protests at speeches? I mean, really, aren't you the guys who stood by and said nothing about Code Pink when they disrupted Senate deliberations? Aren't you the same folks who cheered loudly whenever Ann Coulter was attacked with pies (or worse) at her speeches? Let's be honest here, Lanny. How many microseconds would it take for the ACLU to loudly proclaim our absolute right to disagree with this administration if we were liberals hanging Bush in effigy for his Iraq war policies? Yet, where is the ACLU today to support or at least sympathize with our absolute right to declare that Obama's lynchpin domestic policy is a crock of socialism? Crickets chirping, anyone?

Finally, it's obvious you buy into the DNC's delusion that many of our protestors are nothing more than paid hacks supported by the Republican party and numerous insurance lobbies in Washington. Final question, I promise:

Any idea where I can get some of that dollar action? I could really use it since Obama will be raising my taxes at the earliest opportunity.

Hoping to hear from you soon,

Woody

Woundup About Healthcare

As I've said numerous times on the Woundup, I'm no legal expert. I could no more sing you the more salient parts of the House health care overhaul plan than you could recite dialogue from Mozart's "Die Zauberflöt" to me from memory. (No, sorry; I haven't worked that one out in my own head yet.)

But I love watching the general reactions to this proposed legislation, just as I've watched the reactions to the misnamed "stimulus" plan with fascination. Even if this bill is voted into law and signed by the President in some carefully choreographed signing ceremony, possibly involving the Arc de Triomphe, it is doomed to fail. Judging, that is, by some of the signs I've been seeing lately:

1. Obama has hauled out the tired "fear mongering" canard again. If you can't convince 'em, accuse 'em of scaring the heck out of people. And yet, is not his statement that "[d]oing nothing means that you’re going to lose what you have... Because on the current trajectory, your premiums are going to double again over the next five to 10 years" just as much a scare tactic as our contention that nationalized health care will take us inexorably down the road to socialism?

Just asking.

2. Obama himself seems to have no clue as to what the legislation contains. The man campaigned on this issue for a solid year and a half. He made it the top priority of his domestic agenda as soon as he booted Bush's booty out of the Oval Office. Do you honestly mean to say he has no idea whether we'll be able to keep buying private insurance because of this bill? (Answer: Yes and no. Yes, he has no idea. No, insurance companies will soon be regulated out of business.)

3. Obama is seriously deluded about how much this legislation is going to end up costing. It certainly comes as no surprise. This is the same man who assumes that millionaires will willingly bear the brunt of the economic recovery by paying even more taxes than they do now. Would that motivate you to become a millionaire? No? Then why should we assume that bright young people will be willing to jump into an industry where there is little or no incentive to devote eight to twelve years of their lives in graduate and post-graduate schooling only to find that there is no money to be made? And that includes the supporting industries such as pharmacology. Brilliant plan, that.

4. So as not to pick exclusively on the President, let's not forget that Congress still has to sell this plan as well. After all, when it comes crashing down around our ears, they need to be able to make loud speeches from the floor of the House and Senate that this was a plan that the American people were BEGGING for; that we wanted it so much we were writing ELOQUENT letters (often in CRAYON with MISSPELLED WORDS) to our elected MORONS every week so that we could have them pass this legislation and get themselves RE-ELECTED so that they, themselves (and their families and cronies) did not have to PARTICIPATE in their own stupidly conceived SOCIALIZED HEALTH CARE.

Most unfortunately for Congress, the peasants voters AREN'T BUYING IT, as Senator Ben Cardin (D-Maryland) found to his dismay.

5. Ditto Kathleen Sibelius, who could not believe the temerity of the peasants, 'scuse me, voters who appeared to disagree with her statement of (questionable) fact that employers will be allowed to continue their plans (failing to mention at the same time that this only lasts until their plans go out of business in favor of the new matrix). There appears to be just a smidgen of disbelief among the audience.

6. Or there's the other end of the scale where the servant class, sorry, voters can only laugh at Rep. Russ Carnahan (D-St. Louis) as he expounds the "efficiencies" and "surplus" projected to come from the plan. He apparently elects to completely ignore the rather pointed question from the floor: "If it's so great, how come Congress doesn't have to be on it? (see point 4. above)" accompanied by much clapping and cheering from the audience.

(Questioning the timing: the fellow who posed that pointed question, Kevin Jackson, wrote about his experiences at the townhall meeting, only to have that blog account suspended by the hosting service. I'm sure it's just an accounting thing.)

7. Finally, even Obama's team in the House of Representatives seem to be hemming and hawing over this legislation. Can anyone really blame them? Given the overall reaction to this bill by Republicans and Democrats (both electing and elected), it seems that no one is really all that crazy about having this ill-conceived, badly written, and completely irresponsible legislation ram-rodded down our collective throats. Even Mitt Romney, who appears to be going out of his way not to criticize President Obama directly, is telling the man to "for heaven's sake, SLOW DOWN." And, let's face it, whether or not you agree with what Romney accomplished in Massachusetts, he did have buy-in from just about all the stakeholders in that process.

Something that Obama is not even close to achieving.

Biden as Savant

Boy, it's a good thing we got Joltin' Joe Biden as our vice president and not some good-looking, wholesome yahoo from the hinterlands of Alaska. Otherwise we may have been bereft of the brilliance of the Democratic economic philosophy:

“We’re going to go bankrupt as a nation,” Biden said.

“Now, people when I say that look at me and say, ‘What are you talking about, Joe? You’re telling me we have to go spend money to keep from going bankrupt?’” Biden said. “The answer is yes, that's what I’m telling you.”

Now, why didn't I think of that?

Several years ago in a previous life, I faced the possibility of actually having to declare bankruptcy. Unfortunately, this was during a period where the rules were changing to make it harder for people like me to seek protection from creditors. So bankruptcy wasn't really an option. What happened, ultimately, was that I lost my house.

I see now that I was a fool.

Under the Democratic standard, I should have hung in there, spent money I didn't (and would never) have, declared to my creditors that my "spending Leprechaun gold" plan was working, and sit back to enjoy the ride. This is the administration's plan at the moment, so far as I have been able to discern. It certainly seems so according to Mr. Fountain-of-Wisdom Biden.

So there you have it, little people. Just keep spending money, especially if you don't have any. I'm sure Fearless Leader would approve. Oh, and you won't ever have to worry about making that first million anymore. Congress will see to it that it never reaches your personal pocket.

One Down, Six to Go

(H/T: The Jawa Report)

Over at Hot Air, you can see video of President HopenChange swatting a fly. This reminds me of something... now where have I heard this before...

Ah, of course. The Valiant Little Tailor. In this classic Grimm tale, a tailor kills seven flies with a single swat. He then sets up a life of adventure and eventual leisure by cashing in on his unearned fame. For the most part, the tailor uses deception and parlor tricks to acheive his purposes, and is ultimately rewarded by gaining the King's daughter in marriage.

Obama's claims of "creating and saving jobs" seem to hearken back to this fairy tale. Using little more than smoke and mirrors, he claims that his so-called stimulus program has created and/or saved hundreds of thousands of jobs, even as more and more people find their jobs evaporating into thin air. Unemployment has already hit that danger zone that we were warned would happen without the stimulus, so I'm not sure why his claims continue to be touted by his ever-adoring press corps. Or should that be "press corpse?"

Anyway, our Tailor-in-Chief has a few more flies to swat before anyone will be truly impressed with his abilities. In no particular order, those flies would be:

• Balancing the budget
• Healthcare reform rather than socialized medicine
• Removal of government from private enterprise
• Abeying and dismantling the nuclear threat in North Korea
• Making good on his promise to be transparent (in re: the firing of Gerald Walpin), and
• Understanding the nature of terrorists and their organizations before attempting to deal with them

That should keep him busy for awhile.

Sacramento Table Talk

It happens in households everywhere. Mom and Dad sit at the table and discuss finances.

"That trip to D.C. would be nice this year, but I just don't see how on earth we're going to get there. Until we get those credit cards paid down, we're going to end up a couple thousand short."

"We have six months, right? What if we give up eating out on Fridays, and see if the kids want to take a break from swimming and dancing lessons this summer? That might help..."

It used to be axiomatic that if moms and dads ran their finances the way "the government" did, they would soon find themselves in bankruptcy.

A very large part of what has brought this country to its financial knees today is the fact that many households — far more than when Woody was a young pup — run their finances precisely the way governments do: buy whatever you want; borrow for whatever you can't pay up front; hope it'll sort itself out in the end. Add to that a healthy dose of entitlement (i.e., I am a carbon-based life form and therefore I deserve a house) and you have the makings of a financial collapse.

It will be instructive to watch how Sacramento deals with the fact that voters are tired of fronting their addiction to spending. Many of those voters are, of course, to blame for Sacramento's addiction. For years we've been approving spending measures, bonds, and all manner of budget-shuffling initiatives that have taken whatever surpluses we might have claimed years ago and made them disappear faster than an Obama campaign pledge.

But the voters have finally declared "enough" to Schwarzenegger and the Girly Men. Time to cut bait, folks. Your fishing days are over.

Except that they're not. No, the Governator has already signalled that he feels no compunctions about taking money away from county and city governments. He claims this would be a "worst-case scenario" of course, but we all know what's coming. (His actual words were "I absolutely despise taking money from local government, but...") (And, yes, that's one mighty large "but.")

The bailout has made things worse. Obama's plan to create money where none exists is troublesome in the extreme. There is absolutely nothing of value backing up his monetary projections right now, and he's already indicated that we need to make it easier, not harder, for high-risk borrowers to get home loans in the future. This will set up a never-ending round of loan defaults, blaming everyone but the people responsible, then re-regulating the industry ad infinitum until they go out of business.

So California has tough choices to make now. I don't see them making the truly tough ones. They might make the "tough" decisions to take money from other sources, but will absolutely refuse to slash things like education or health services while calling for massive reforms in those services.

My suggestion would be locking them in a room and not feeding them until they deliver a budget that makes sense. They may as well get used to the idea right now that, no matter what they do, no one is going to like it. Not one little bit. The unions will howl. The voters will gnash their teeth.

But if it brings forward an actual balanced budget, I'll be willing to live with it.

Yes, I Paid My Taxes. Why Wouldn't I?

What with one thing and another I had a dickens of a time getting my taxes done. And before you ask, no, I am not being considered for any cabinet positions in Obama's administration.

No, I just ran out of time, or nearly so. It happened last year, for perhaps the first time in my memory. I'd had to file an extension, and we took advantage of nearly every day of that six month wait. I really didn't want to deal with that again this year.

But today was a busy day. We did not attend any tea parties today. It wasn't that we didn't support the idea — we fully support those who believe the government has taken a sharp left turn toward socialism and are willing to make their voices heard — but today was Field Trip Day.

You remember: we homeschool. Wednesdays, even those that fall on Tax Day, we try to dedicate to our homeschool group. Especially now that Mrs. Woody is its leader. So this morning found us wending our way to San Juan Capistrano to visit their magnificent mission.

Let me just state that, for all the wind and cool weather today, it was absolutely a gorgeous day. Spring brings both swallows ("not as many as we've had in the past") and beautiful foliage in the mission's many planters and gardens ("just wait a few weeks and this whole area will be purple!"). The Woodyettes were duly impressed with the historical displays and museum exhibits liberally (so to speak) sprinkled throughout the buildings. The old Stone Church is still impressive, even sitting in earthquake-induced ruins.

But of course we didn't get home until late afternoon. Also (of course!) I had yet to file our taxes for this year.

It's never a question of actually paying them, you understand. That part is always taken care of for me. The only real question is how much we should be getting back from the increasingly bankrupt government in any given year.

Still, whether I pay or get paid, they still need to be filed. After a long day of field tripping with my family, I was all for simply filing the dratted extension once again and giving myself more breathing room. Then I realized that for all the hassle of "estimating" what I might have had to pay the Feds and the state in order to beg for the extension, it would be infinitely easier to just fill out the silly forms and file on time. So I did.

Then I surfed around to see what happened at the various Tea Parties held around the country today.

Overall, I must say I'm impressed. The tea party spirit has taken hold and given conservatives (and fiscally responsible moderates) something to do short of ripping out copious amounts of hair. Of equal importance to the events themselves, however, is the reaction of liberal pundits and news organizations to the protests today. Sneering contempt, I would have to say. How dare these brainwashed minions of the Evil Fox News perform a feat that is the holy domain of liberals and radicals in this country? Even Nancy Pelosi was reduced to referring to the protests as "astroturfing."

I deem these reactions to be of import precisely because if we're making them that upset, we must be hitting pretty close to the mark. Over at Wizbang (I think... it's late and I'm too lazy to go back and give a proper citation) they mentioned having watched Keith Olbermann, who blustered about how ignorant we stupid conservatives must be of the overwhelming benefits of being taxed into the next three or four generational afterlives. I kid you not: they're trying to attach New Deal optimism to Obama's hardly-original and certainly un-noteworthy tax and spend policies. "Where were you when Bush was spending?" one counter-protestor's sign read today. Well, Junior, I was protesting that Bush had crossed over from fiscal conservative to deficit-spending moderate in his last few years of office. But his spending was (and remains) a mere fraction of what Obama has generated. Legacy, indeed.

So, unlike most of Obama's appointees, I've paid my taxes this year. But I haven't given up on October 15th of this year yet. Something tells me Obama may come calling about then, asking us to ante up a second (or third or fourth) time this year. But he won't find me.

I'll be in the mountains of Idaho with all those right-wing extremist Iraq-war veterans.

Stooping to Their Level

Michael Laprarie, blogging for Wizbang, grouses that conservatives aren't getting it. He points to Saul Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals" as both the reason for liberal successes of late, as well as a primer from which conservatives should be drawing in order to get better organized and more effectively counter those liberal successes.

But should we?

From a blogospheric perspective, much of what Laprarie posits is probably accurate, if not completely correct. He mentions several "power tactics" as being particularly important to countering liberal philosophies and sophistry. For example, Laprarie states:

These tactics, particularly 4 [Make the enemy live up to their own book of rules] and 5 [Ridicule is man's most potent weapon], could be devastating to the Obama White House and to thin-skinned, corrupt Democrats in general. Make them live up to their own rules -- pay as you go, most ethical Congress in history, etc. Saturday Night Live and The Daily Show have done a great job ridiculing Democrats. We need to do more.

Ridicule is arguably one of the basic tenets of the blogosphere. The ratio of rational blogs to snarky blogs is probably smaller than 1 to 10 on the conservative side, and probably even smaller than that on the liberal side. The Jawa Report wouldn't exist without huge doses of snark; likewise The Daily Kos would be only a wisp of its current self if snark weren't allowed. I think there's more than enough ridicule going around to keep everyone cynical and pessimistic for the rest of our natural lives.

We have been far less successful, however, at making the other side live up to its own rules. In his first two months in office, Obama has already backtracked on a number of his campaign pledges. This is a pattern, however, that should have surprised no one, since he reneged on his pledge not to accept public monies practically the moment that John McCain selected Sarah Palin as his running mate. Nancy Pelosi has done absolutely nothing toward her stated goal of having the "most ethical Congress" in history, and her morally feeble compadre in the Senate, Harry Reid, hasn't helped. But these things come as no surprise to conservative voters like myself. This is all pretty much business as usual in the Beltway.

What surprises this particular voter is how badly our representatives in Washington have seemingly ignored the mandates that put them in office to begin with. Why, in the name of all that's holy, are senators like Specter, Collins, and Snowe supporting the Stimulus? It makes absolutely no sense on any grounds. This was a fiscal sell-out of monumental proportions, and they should be soundly punished for refusing to vote "NO" on moral grounds. This is how we fail to make liberals play by their stated rules. We certainly seem unable to play by our own.

Laprarie goes on to ask the question,"[i]f liberals utilize these tactics regularly (and we know they do), then why can't conservatives utilize them as well? It is a given that they work. It should not be a given that they can only be used by liberals."

It is a given that they work. For liberals. Does that mean there should be a "proportional response" from conservatives?

No. If we remember our roots, both fiscally and socially, there should never be a reason to stoop to the same tactics that liberals have been propounding since the radical days of the sixties. To do so makes our arguments seem trite and contrived; nothing more than showmanship and grandstanding that have no motivation other than showing everyone else who the Big Man of the Mountain is. Those who ridicule do so because they have not the strength of their own argument to prove their point. I certainly have been guilty of that myself; writing snark in the name of "humor" while all the time wishing I were smarter than I really am.

There are those who complain that the string of recent "Tea Party" protests in response to Obama's economic plan is ineffective as a grassroots effort. Needs more planning "from the top down" some say. Needs more organization. Needs more, I don't know, legitimacy or something.

Bah.

The protests are not designed to change policy. No one standing in one of those protests with signs like "Hey, Obama, While You're At It, I Could Really Use A Lexus" believes for one moment that the President and Congress are suddenly going to smack their heads and say, "Wow! What boneheads we've been! We'd better cancel the Stimulus and try a smarter approach!" No one is that naïve.

But I do believe the protests demonstrate an irrefutable idea that not everyone is in love with Obama's approach to the crisis. There is unrest, and it's not just from anti-Obama conservatives like myself. Quite a few people who voted for Obama are scratching their heads now and wondering who this man is, and what has he done with the President?

Question: what is the only real difference between the Obama administration, and the Bush administration?

Answer: the Obama administration is better at creating logos.

Okay, that was snarky. My apologies. But my point remains: stooping to the same tactics that made the other side successful does not guarantee success. It only diminishes the importance of our message. We require conservative fiscal and social policies if this country is to remain viable for the rest of the twenty-first century.

The Infamy of Abel Maldonado

Today's passage of California's $42 billion boondoggle budget is highly symptomatic of the problems we face nationally. That California chose a plan that precisely mirrors Obama's Anti-Stimulating Stimulus Package simply means that local politicians are no better at owning up to the problems that got us here than the Feds are.

Our last hope - moderate Abel Maldonado - finally caved and cast his vote to approve the budget. This allows Schwarzenegger to go back to loving his "girly men" in the legislature while simultaneously redacting all those pink slips he was starting to hand out earlier this week. CalTrans will go back to removing hefty chunks of California highways just in time for vacation season this year. And Abel Maldonado will have to consider whether the Republican backlash from his "yea" vote was worth the sellout.

Now, I'll grant you this: a quarter percent tax increase in my bracket is not going to kill me. State tax increases rarely have that kind of impact on my situation. I've been working long enough that I can make ends meet most of the time. I will admit to being concerned about my state refund this year, but on the whole I was all for holding the state accountable for all of its irresponsible spending decisions over the past several years.

Ditto the Feds. Zero Accountability is what got us into fiscal trouble, and the Faux Stimulus Obama just signed will take us right back to Zero Accountability. Oh, they created a so-called "Accountability and Transparency" board, but its only real function is to politicize the various Inspectors General and place them under the control of the board instead of maintaining their heretofore independent status. Reckless fiscal policy, that. And it will catch up with the Obamatrons both in the administration and in Congress.

But back to Maldonado. Being from Santa Maria, Maldonado has the taint of elitist liberalism, though he claims to be a Republican. I can pretty much guarantee, however, that if he aspires to any office higher than the state senate, he will find himself facing a somewhat unforgiving crowd down here in Orange County. I know why the man finally changed his vote. He found himself in the position of having the whole state see him as the man who was blocking passage of money needed to fund our state-wide pork. That's an uncomfortable chair, and he wanted to go home. He finnagled a few "concessions" before changing his vote, but we're still saddled with a budget that relies more on tax increases than in reduced spending measures. Again, reckless fiscal policy that will catch up with those who voted in favor.

And exactly how do I know that this budget is bad policy? Because Schwarzenegger approves; that's how:

This is the perfect medicine for our ailing economy, and it will boost public confidence in California, reassure the financial community and allow us to start selling bonds and rebuild our state."

"Now, instead of worrying every day only about IOUs and about red ink, we can start moving California forward once again. This action to solve our $42 billion deficit was difficult but courageous and just what California needs," he said.

Note to the Governator: You can't "solve" budget deficits when you're still spending more than you're taking in. Did you not read that definition when taking the state employee exams? Oh, wait...

Anyway, California has its approved budget, and everyone goes home happy. Until next year's deficit rears its head. Then it'll be every man for himself.

Maldonado will lead the way.

Hollywood Reinvents Truth. Again.

Tom Hanks is a wonderful actor, one whose work I have long admired. I especially enjoy his fondness for the historical significance of the American space program, as witnessed by his participation in "Apollo 13" and producing "From the Earth to the Moon" for HBO. I even (MALE BETRAYAL ALERT) enjoy his rom-com work with Meg Ryan.

Still, Hanks' fondness for extremely large toys (such as space ships) should not be construed as being indicative of having a conservative bent; Hanks is just as liberal as Hollywood comes.

For all my huff and blow about liberals (and Hollywood libs being among the worst), I still appreciate their guaranteed rights to express their opinions, no matter how wrong-headed they are. But I refuse — absolutely refuse — to excuse them in their ignorance. Hanks' ignorance about Prop 8 is expressed in this statement the actor made to Fox News:

“The truth is this [series "Big Love"] takes place in Utah, the truth is these people [speaking of polygamists] are some bizarre offshoot of the Mormon Church, and the truth is a lot of Mormons gave a lot of money to the church to make Prop-8 happen,” he told Tarts. [Fox's "Pop Tarts" column]

This insistence by liberals to smear the Church for daring to support what a majority of Californians supported in November reminds me that politics makes liars out of just about everyone at one time or another. But this particular lie is especially egregious as it paints all members of the Church as being highly prejudiced, and makes them the targets of choice of the anti-8 mobsters. To call us "un-American" in the process is just childish.

For the record, Mr. Hanks: The Church did not receive money from its members to "make Prop-8 happen." We in fact donated whatever money we could directly to the campaign on advice of the Church to support what we feel is an important social issue. We also donated time and energy — again, directly — to the campaign, going door to door and making phone calls to encourage folks to vote for the measure. Hence it is deceitful to insist that the Church took money for this purpose. One might even call it wrong-headed.

Does this mean I will never again watch one of Hanks' movies? Of course not. Even if Hollywood can't, I have no trouble separating entertainment from politics. Hanks' political views take nothing away from his acting, and I certainly don't have to agree with the man in order to watch one of his projects. Heck, I still think Susan Sarandon made one heck of an attorney in "The Client," and she holds even more odious political views than Hanks does. And don't get me started on Sarandon's paramour, Tim Robbins, whom I look forward to seeing in "The City of Ember." (Yep. Missed it in the theaters. But it's coming out on DVD next week.)

The truth will out, they say, but don't look for it to come from Hollywood.

More (Self-Fulfilling) Prognostication

Someone found the Woundup whilst searching for graphics related to turning 50. I was still doing my birthday essays on the Woundup, but I'd forgotten that I wrote about turning 50 fours years before I actually did. I'd also forgotten that I'd made some predictions about this most recent election that turned out to be quite true:

As I get closer to what I kind of hope represents the mid-point of my life, my understanding of issues has increased, but my tolerance for the political process has decreased. By the time I turn 50, I will patently hate the process. I will understand what must be done, but I'll hate it.

I'll hate it because this pivotal year of my life will be spent listening to carefully groomed individuals crow about how they will make my life better than it was four years ago. Not one of them will forward a truly unique idea, because there are no unique ideas left. Very much like Hollywood. Every new movie you will see four years from now has already been written and you've already seen movies just like them. But you'll probably plink down the gold it requires to see them because this version has much slicker computer graphics.

I'll hate it because not one single candidate will remind us that the government already has far exceeded its constitutionally limited powers and that we need to return to those constitutional limits. Rapidly.

I'll hate it because not one of them will have a common sense approach to getting this country out of debt. For good. They won't promise not to exceed our ability to spend, because they can't. It's pathological. They can't help themselves.

All of it accurate, so far as I can tell. My predictions, then, were:

1. I will patently hate the process.
   Yup. I loathe the process. Or, rather, I loathe what the process has become. It's nothing more than Ultimate Fighter in designer suits, using poisonous words rather than lethal kidney punches. I particularly hated the accelerated pace of the primaries this year. I hope we have finally put to bed the notion that moving a state's primary up several months earlier somehow has any positive effect on the election. California's certainly did not. It also means that we don't have anywhere near enough time to fully vet the field of candidates before whittling them down to the two ultimate standard-bearers. I believe had we been given more time we might have had someone else facing off against Obama last week. Perhaps not, but we'll never know now, will we?
   
   
2. Carefully groomed individuals crowing about making my life better.
   It's a sucker bet, really. That's what candidates do. What I left out is the part about warning people that the other guy will try to make you afraid. Fear-mongering — not racism — was the most frequent accusation made during the primaries. And the only person out there who was making a huge deal about one of those candidate's race was the one whose skin tone was different from everyone else's. Just sayin'.
   
   
3. No unique ideas.
   Oh, brother. Every idea we heard was really just a re-hash of ideas that have been floated from time to time over the last several decades. The funniest part, though, was when one candidate would begin floating the same ideas as the other guy while trying to make us think they were new. That was hilarious. But unique? No. Not one.
   
   
4. Ignoring constitutional limits.
   I really can't blame the candidates we had this year. We haven't been paying any attention to the Constitution for, oh, more than a hundred years now. The closest we got was Reagan who at least campaigned on the idea of reducing government. Whether he was "successful" depends on which parts of the government you happened to work for or need. For instance, if you were a huge fan of welfare, you probably didn't like some of Reagan's initiatives. If, on the other hand, military might was your thing, Reagan was a demi-god. No other President in my memory ever promised or attempted to reduce the fingerprint of the federal government. One might even go so far as to call it the "feral" government nowadays. It is untameable.
   
   
5. No common sense approach to national debt
   Need I really expound? We made it possible for people who could not actually afford homes to buy them, and now those people have defaulted on enough loans to sink the country financially. So instead of fixing whatever idiocy allowed that to happen in the first place, we will instead nationalize numerous financial institutions. Were we born this stupid, or did we have to get several math degrees first?

Taken altogether, I hate having been right. The state of modern politics is one of cookie-cutter campaigns, developed by people with Masters degrees in marketing and film-making. We have no truly original political thinkers left in this country, it seems, and we're paying the price with the prospect of yet another failed administration. (Yeah, I know; the guy hasn't even taken office yet. Still, I'm not scoring too badly as a prophet now, am I?)

Check back with me in another four years and see if anything has really changed. If it has, I'd like to bet it isn't for the better.

I hope I'm wrong.

Smear, Schmear

It's not a smear if it's true.

This is where politicians' pasts catch up with them and make life hot and sweaty for the remainder of the campaign. Folks are bored, apparently, with "issues" already and so we move into the character assassination phase of the election cycle. McCain will be taking hits both for his involvement with the "Keating Five," as well as his relatively advanced age. Obama, for his part, will more or less deflect direct shots on his involvement with some still-toxic radicals throughout his adult life.

I say "deflect" because even Tom Brokaw is carrying water for the Golden Boy. He has downgraded Bill Ayers from full-fledged radical terrrorist to a mere "school reformer."

Hey, it's not like Ayers has gone out of his way to disabuse us of the notion that he hates the United States of America. Except, you know, for those who tend to accept his radical "communism with a small 'c'" brand of "community organization." This man is repentant in the same way Hussein was repentant when he was led to the gallows.

Obama, of course, claims that the "smears" are McCain's attempt to deflect attention away from the economy, which is admittedly not his strong suit. Doug Ross (via American Digest) points out that McCain, at least, has a ready-made solution to his economic shortcomings: simply announce his intention to name Mitt Romney as Secretary of the Treasury. This would tend to take most of the teeth out of Obama's argument that McCain doesn't have the economic savvy to run the country. So long as he was willing to listen to Romney's advice on the most critical matters we face, such a selection would go a long way toward pacifying those of us on the right who believe McCain is currently taking the coward's way out of the immediate crisis.

I also find charges that McCain has an "erratic" nature, largely due to his advanced age, as being somewhat trite. The man is 72. My Dad was 72 when he passed away, and he was a much bigger curmudgeon than McCain can ever lay claim to being. Old guys tend to think of crotchetiness as something of a badge of honor. The man still has young adults at home. He's gonna be crotchety on occasion.

As I've said before, this is all pretty much business as usual in every election to which I've paid attention. Candidates don't like each other. They also have to persuade large sectors of population that the other guy is completely untrustworthy, and they will look for any charge, no matter how flimsy, to sell it. I only expect to see more of this over the next four weeks.

Boy, will it be a relief to get this over with.

Not Good

It passed.

The cowards in Congress, rather than punishing banks for predatory lending practices, and rather than encouraging Americans to take personal responsibility for irresponsible borrowing, have instead indicated that personal and corporate responsibility are no longer morally required in the United States of America.

Entitlement apologists are, I am certain, rejoicing with the passage of this damaging bailout. CEO's of irresponsible lenders around the nation are breathing easier tonight thanks to loopholes large enough to drive freight trains through.

Led by psychopathic Representatives Pelosi and Maxine Waters, the Congress crows about a bipartisan "solution" which amounts to nothing more than a toxic barrel of earmarks and free money that will be forceably removed from honest taxpayers' wallets.

Barack Obama no longer has to wait to take office to see socialism triumph in America. This bill just assured it.