The last of 3

Excellent point Titus.

The congressional oversight/approval of CIA post 9/11 is a matter of record. This is akin to the water boarding partisanship that erupted in early 09'. Pelosi loudly chimed in on bashing the Bush administration over this practice (because the hard left base was frothing at the mouth to investigate the issue now that Obama had won) only for the public to discover that she was briefed multiple times on water boarding & raised NO objections. And after Mrs. Pelosi stepped in it when stating, " ... they [CIA] lie to us all the time", trying to justify such blatant hypocrisy, I doubt any senior Democrat in Congress wants a repeat on a much larger scale such as would occur with an agency-wide Justice Department criminal investigation. I can't help but believe two things - 1.) Holder is off the Party reservation with this & 2.) he would only do so with the consent of his boss. And that's the political rub for Obama. The president is on the one hand publicly stating that investigations should NOT go forward, yet on the other he isn't stopping investigations that would be halted with one phone call from the Oval Office! He can't continue to have it both ways much longer.

None of this makes any sense except to appeal to the hard core leftists within the Party. I sincerely wish that the Republican ideological base had as much sway with its' leaders.

****

As to the subject title, the last of the triumvirate of Kennedy men most associated with American politics passed away late last night, Ted Kennedy.

Now for me to be honest about this man today (at least his post Vietnam ideology), would be in poor taste. And to do anything less would be phony. So I will simply offer my sincere condolences to the family, especially given this death is on the heels of another of that iconic family's losses.

And not to be crass (but given the Kennedy affiliation and affinity with national politics its not entirely inappropriate), but it is well known that public health care is THE issue Ted Kennedy has championed for many years & the president made no secret that of all the congressional plans he wanted Teddy's. I believe that in coming days you will see the White House slowly & very carefully ease in to "we owe it to Ted" to try & get this passed; and ironically enough, because of the Massachusetts state law I cited 2 posts ago (which Kennedy himself help effect), the president just lost his filibuster proof senate until at least January 0f 2011, and perhaps for the remainder of his presidency, so they can no longer do this along purely Party lines.

Again, I'm not being purposely crass, but I know full well that if anyone could, the Kennedy family would appreciate the immediate jump to the politics of a political icon's passing.

Just enough rope...

... that is what this Administration was given in November. Not a "mandate" from the masses, but just enough rope to hang themselves with.

Holder has reneged on his promise to NOT appoint special prosecutors to investigate the CIA and its activity since 2001. He DID appoint the prosecutor and he DID open the investigation into illegal activities spanning the entire Bush Presidency.

I feel this is the worst kind of political pandering immaginable, and that it can only lead to disaster for the Administration. Here's why:

In 2004, the CIA instituted an agency-wide investigation of itself and submitted a COMPLETE record of that investigation to Congress, where it was accepted unanimously in both Houses as complete and comprehensive, putting to rest the claims that initial CIA intelligence gathering techniques were illegal, unethical or unConstitutional. We thought...

This investigation was conducted by "non-governmental" prosecutors (meaning they weren't Bush appointees... but they must have worked for the Government at some time, or they wouldn't be prosecutors, right?) and the entire, unredacted report of their findings was submitted to Congress AGAIN in 2006 (with Nancy and Harry at the helm) where it was AGAIN accepted as proof on no illegal, unethical or unConstitutional conduct or actions by the CIA or its agents in regards to the detention of suspected terrorists. You can read it yourself HERE.

The ONLY aspect of this report that led to the prosecution (and conviction) of any wrong-doing was a CIA interrogator that was convicted of manslaughter for beating a detainee to death. This prosecution was initiated by the CIA itself... not the AGs office, not by the ACLU, not by some fringe elements of Code PINK... the CIA itself recognized criminal behavior and, with Congressional blessings in 2006, had the man arrested, tried and is doing his time.

My point is that, even if they find something WRONG in the report now, we (meaning right-thinking, rational human beings) can point to Congress and say "Why wasn't this worthy of further investigation in 2004? 2006? 2008?" What "public" good can come from releasing a report that Congress has already read and studied for more than four years? If there wasn't anything that Nancy or Harry could find "wrong" in it then... what do they hope to find wrong now?

Furthermore, I'm curious to see how the radical anti-American elements that so hate the military and intelligence services of this nation react when it is explained that no facet of CIA detention and interrogation techniques were NOT approved (or at least understood and accepted) by the majority of Congressional Committee members in BOTH houses. Not one action that hasn't been prosecuted already (as in the case mentioned above) wasn't seen as "legal" by ALL Congressional oversight and budgetary approval organs between 2002 and this very day.

Period.

How can this NOT be the same as taking a loaded shotgun, bringing it up to your shoulder and aiming at a target... only to realize that the gun is backwards and the barrel is pointing right at your face? No, this is the fruit of true, absolute partisan politics. Nothing "good" can come of this for Obama and the Left.

Ok, this one cracks me up ...

This is among the numerous examples of why politicians will forever be the butt of jokes.

On the radio today a Boston Herald reporter described a little known situation going on within Massachusetts state politics. It appears that during John Kerry's run for the presidency his senior colleague Senator Kennedy (among others) became distressed. See, were the Jr. senator to win, Mitt Romney, a Republican governor, would be in a position to fill the vacated seat, and he would most assuredly appoint a Republican. Well, perish the thought. So with the majority Democrat held state legislature Mr. Ted Kennedy was able to see that the law was amended. The new law stated that the seat would simply remain vacant until the next federal elections, which of course occur every two years. I don't know which demonstrates worse judgement - that they amended a long standing state law to suit immediate political needs or that they actually believed Kerry would win.

Flash forward a few years to August, 2009 - they now have a Democrat Governor. And Senator Kennedy is unfortunately facing the prospect of his passing away within weeks or months (say the reports out of his home state). Well, there is a problem. Right at the moment in time that President Obama has finally gotten a 60 vote majority in the Senate, and in the middle of trying to pass Senator Kennedy's chief legislative goal for years now - public health insurance - Democrats are looking at the possibility of Kennedy's senate seat sitting vacant until 2010 were he to pass away, removing any possibility of forcing health care through a filibuster should they need the partisan votes! So, Senator Kennedy and his cohorts are doing what "politicians" do ... he wrote a letter urging they change the law back. Which has even state Democrat officials looking at each other asking ..."really?"

I assert that they should simply out law the Republican Party within the state and be done with it. They can hold "red scare" style public hearings ... "Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican party?"

How these people maintain a straight face when they talk is beyond me.

"Wax off"

Representative Henry Waxman (D) Wisconsin is really a rather repugnant politician. And not because he's extremely liberal, but rather because he is the quintessential Party hack. Defends anyone & anything with a (D) after its' name, and in recent years has taken on the role of his Party's thug, at least in the House. As the "subpoena king" he "investigates" any opposition with the full weight and power of the House of Representatives (he subpoenaed everyone but Karl Rove's pizza delivery driver in that rather trumped up Valerie Plaim CIA case, and there are dozens of other examples). But now I think he has crossed the line, and in a way that should cause a cold shudder to run along the spines of the members Bund and frankly ANYONE whom is oriented towards examining and discussing history ... particularly when that history revolves around the declination of a Republic. As has oft been said & as both Italy & Germany proved, democracy dies not in the dead of night, but to the sound of thunderous applause.

Yesterday Mr. Waxman, and I reiterate he is the unofficial subpoena "muscle" in the House, sent out an official "letter" to 52 health insurance companies. In it was a questionnaire. Requested, from all 52 companies, was specific information regarding the salaries and names of any and all employees earning over $500,000 per year between 2003 and 2008. Along with the cost, location, and attendance of any and all company retreats, functions and seminars.

Why?

It's naked government intimidation.

First off, if they don't respond willingly to the letter insiders are well aware he will move to subpoena and compel them to testify on live TV, on the Hill, resulting in private citizens being being forced to justify their wages under the spotlight of national television. Second, as his Party is clearly losing control of the health insurance debate they have decided upon a new tactic. They used "CEO salaries" to great effectiveness when it came to vilifying and functionally nationalizing the domestic auto industry and placing permanent federal tentacles within the financial, lending, and credit community. Now it is clear that they intend to demonize, via that same class warfare, the executives in the health insurance industry. "The only way to clamp down on the out of control CEO salaries & bonuses", they'll exclaim with their best FDR "nothing to fear" impersonation, "is to offer a public health insurance program, so the little guy will no longer be gouged." Now who was it that warned against giving into the temptation of allowing the feds to "stick it to" wealthy yet poor performing CEO's in the private sector? I didn't like it then, and I don't like it now. And who warned that this will NEVER stop with capping auto or banking executive salaries? This is unambiguous, naked, government thuggery. These are the sorts of actions that 50 years into a Chavez-like socialist paradigm our heirs hear about and ask, "Didn't you see where this was heading?"

It's no body's God D*** business how much those CEO's make, nor where and how much their retreats are. And it just plain creeps me out that not only does he have the audacity to ask, but he thinks he "deserves" to know the answer.

And what further enrages me is if there is one entity in which spending has run a muck, corruption and fraud is rampant, and those with the purse strings are in desperate need of justifying their salary, IT IS THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!

I'm telling you these people are hardened to the bone neo-Marxists. And they are using the opportunity of this current economic crisis to repackage, rebrand and sell that Marxism as "fairness", "protection", and being good stewards, shepperds if you will. "All we need do," they'll claim, "is cull the herd of just these few fat cats, and let us run that sector of the economy ... then all will be better." When in truth all you have to do is scratch their surface and you'll hear them screaming, "capitalist pig!" at anyone with a savings account.

Statistical Ninjitsu

I have long wondered that myself. How does it work that we lose MORE jobs, yet the unemployment rate goes down?

And here's the problem, be it health care, the deficit, name ANY area of government that has a budget, or projects statistics (which covers them all) and the White House can simply "name" a number and call it legitimate with a straight face. The OMB is their "numbers arm" if you will. That's why the CBO is "supposed" to be the gold standard when it comes to determining cost of any given program. One might recall the disparate cost of healthcare's final price tag between the OMB & the CBO.

Now back to the Labor Department ... they released this "drop." The problem is that the drop isn't necessarily in unemployment, but rather jobless benefit claims. People that simply don't sign up for unemployment benefits once fired (or just haven't yet), or have exercised their max & kicked off, stopped looking for work all together thus don't qualify, etc, name your reason, are NOT counted in the supposed "unemployment rate." A rate that is more accurately described as the "jobless benefit rate." So, we can have an increase in jobs lost in a given month, we can even average more lost than gained, but if for any reason there are less people, say 1/10th of 1%, filing jobless benefit CLAIMS then, with a straight face, the Department of Labor announces a "drop" in unemployment.

DC would make Tony Soprano blush with the level of concocted schemes of which they are capable. And they don't even have a catchy theme song ...

Let's talk "painful"...

So, the unemployment rate nationally is reported by both the White House Press Secretary and Obama himself to have "fallen" by 1/10th of 1% in the month of July... even though there were 247,000 newly unemployed citizens in the US AND new job numbers have been shown to have fallen more than 1.5% since June.

What kind of math does one need to use to get THAT result? More people not working than working in a given month... and fewer new jobs for them to take up... and this equals lower unemployment? How?

More importantly, when is the GOP going to ask that same question?

No treasure in the treasury ...

So let me get this straight ... left of center fiscal/social programs are as eternally enduring as the soul, and permanent as Hell. Yes, that sounds about right.

And to further torture the analogy, the GOP remains in purgatory - its' fate resting in both its' own willingness to seek redemption, and the divine forgiveness of their fellow man.

That's good...

I can't but nod at a classical reference such as this, and your analogy is apt... more so than you may know.

Your concerns about the long-term effects of Obama's "change" are legitimate, and I hope I didn't make it seem like it wasn't. I know you have mountains of issues with even as "institutional" a program as Social Security, and far too many people today forget that SSI was once simply a "liberal" program instituted to provide for the "health and welfare" of America's older generations in addition to their established retirement plans (which back then were mainly pension funds implemented by large companies).

The actual quote (from a work I have read at least a dozen times and have no fewer than 4 translations of) is "... and eternal I will endure. All hope abandon, ye who enter here!" This quote is even more apt, since it touches on the permanence that such liberal programs and welfare institutions might maintain. When I mentioned in previous posts the "flip-flop" policies of both Jefferson and Madison at the dawn of the 19th Century, I think those are good examples of the establishment of "precedents" that might not always have been used (by later CICs) in as noble or just a purpose as those two did in making their controversial determinations.

Far too much of what a President does while in office becomes "precedent" to be followed by later Presidents, even when the circumstances and context of earlier policies, programs and actions are ignored or slanted to suit contemporary ones.

Hell... the more I write like this, the more I am beginning to think like Ryan and agree with him that Obama might just have the ability to drastically alter the face of Federal government in this nation. That's not good, is it?

"ABANDON ALL HOPE (and change) YE WHO ENTER HERE"

The words inscribed above hell's gates in Dante's Inferno (and yes, I did read it once, along time ago, in a galaxy far, far away).

I wanted to post briefly on the fraternal twin brothers hypocrisy and hubris, whom have made their home low these many years within the mainstream press.

One after another CNN, MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, as I flip through news coverage today, are leading their health care "reform" coverage with the various town hall meetings that congress is attending on their summer break. Now I'm sure that you've seen the footage: impassioned speakers tick off the reasons they're pissed, be it their representatives not reading the various bills being passed; proposed government control of health care; bailouts; etc, and the crowd responds by bursting into applause and verbal approval. Representatives and Senators across the fruited plain have been so routinely shouted down at their own events that directives from on high (the DNC/White House) have gone out to STOP hosting these things until a health care vote has occurred, less more Democrat Senators show up YouTube looking like the answer vacant buffoons they are.

Well, the afore mentioned coverage has almost exclusively led with the assertion that these various town halls are simply staffed with ringers, phonies, paid, organized hacks, but the seemingly agreed upon pejorative is referring to them as "ORGANIZED MOBS", enter the silhouette of Alfred Hitchcock and an evil laugh hahahahaha ... wait, see there, it's Mr. Smithers gratuitously rubbing his bony hands together as he directs his right wing minions to descend upon the lowly congressman!

I mean, seriously? They're ALL paid right wing organizers huh? First off, that's absurd on the face of it - ya, the CATO insatitute sent out its' militant wing to channel the ghost of William F. Buckley and storm the compound ...err... town halls of Democrat Senators the nation over ... I'm sure.

But secondly, when did "organized mobs" become a bad thing to the left? For what else describes union rallies, ACORN protests, anywhere Jesse Jackson goes with his "Chicago busloads" at $10 a head? Or for that matter the anti Vietnam War protests and Civil Rights, both of which were almost exclusively "organized" in some form or another. What? Selma & the march on Washington were spontaneous eruptions of coincidental timing? Please, uh. And if I'm not mistaken our Commander-In-Chief presented as his "chief" accomplishment nothing other than community organizing!

One thing is for sure - in this epic struggle to defeat the most socialistic president to ever hold the office, as Titus aptly described him, the so called "main stream" press have picked their side, more so then with any other candidate. They are invested financially & emotionally in this president and they will not let him go down without a fight - even if it means demonizing their own viewers.

So in my humble estimation, as the specifics of our President's various plans begin to turn more and more people away from his vision of America and result in a majority opposition, the insults of intelligence and person hurled at the average American in recent days has only just begun.

Crazy Joe McCloskey...

I just wanted to be very clear... I am NOT acting as an apologist for Obama's programs and policies. His collectivist-attitude towards government is as dangerous as we have seen in modern history... EVER, in fact, since this level of socialization hasn't been seen before in the Oval Office.

I think B.O. has two things working against him as President:

1) His inability to push for legislation/policies that might FAIL and thus stain his reputation/legacy, and

2) His inability to articulate his vision in a manner that the majority of Americans can support without needing the pundits on the Left and in the media to explain and detail while removing all the "uhs", "ums", and "ahs" from the speech.

Couple this with his rampant and blatantly obvious need to be seen as "successful" where everyone else has failed, and he is setting himself up to be (at best) a very mediocre President.

Cheaper than a therapist ...

Well I certainly appreciate your optimism regarding the American appetite for Obama's various plans. I too see a general impatience growing with his course direction; and I looked into it- if you average out Barry's approval rating between TARP, cap and trade, and now health care its taken a roughly 16 point hit since January 20th (although given, that date's numbers are always artificially high).

I did think you were wrong about military spending. You can google "Obama to cut military spending" and within 1.2 seconds get back no less then 900,000 entries. And while he did cut R&D, and various other programs that say, I wouldn't of cut, the overall spending is essentially flat - last year $662 billion, the new budget $664 billion. So depending on which Admiral's or general's office you're standing in the budget may be called everything from a "gut" to a "boon."

At any rate your overall point may essentially be correct - when his rhetoric and plans actually hit the pavement of the congressional floor, town hall meetings, and approval ratings, he may find that "hope & change" was much easier to sell when it was undefined.

And yes, these times are nothing compared to 33' or the unrest of the late 60's when such turbulent events allowed the chief executive the latitude to pursue "fundamental transformations", and Obama doesn't "enjoy" that type of crisis for cover. I am concerned, however, that while people of our stripe are aware of that, our fellow citizens may actually think this IS as bad as those events in US history (for a myriad of reasons, the personal hubris of wanting to live in "important" times, media exposure, etc), and in the end allow Barak the latitude he will need for his "change" to become law. In other words he may pay for his public health care, cap & trade etc, with 1 term, losing majorities in congress, approval ratings, the whole crap shoot, but not before it becomes law. The anger and rejection we see starting to bubble may not boil over into "throw the bums out" until the plans are in place, & once done they will never be undone, at least in socialized medicine's case.

But I sincerely hope you're right, that this will all happen prior to passage, and that one day Obama's "hope & change" will be as much a historical punch line as "malaise", "read my lips" & the cadre of other gaffs that line history's street of one term presidents.

One more...

Ryan sent me a text about the CARS program (or whatever it is called... Cash for Clunkers...). He said he had seen numbers where 4 out of 5 cars purchased under that program were imports.

Now, this may seem like a bad thing, but it is a GLARING example of what is wrong with THAT kind of incentive program... as well as being a good example of why such a program can be good for the economy, if structured correctly.

Why did people pick imports over domestic products? Do the Japanese, Korean and European manufacturers make better cars? I think so, in a general sense. Do they make them at a lower cost that can be passed on to the consumer? Certainly. Do they have an advantage in working within a system of employment that isn't centered on collective bargaining? Absolutely.

American manufacturers will be FORCED to structure themselves in a manner that allows flexibility that they do not now have, if they hope to survive in a post-TARP bail-out world. THAT is the genius of Adam Smith's free-market system and the manner in which American industry functioned only 30 years ago. The "stimulus" of the CARS program gave back some needed confidence to the American consumer, and (hopefully) showed the Big Three just how important it is to function at a competitive level with foreign manufacturers. I'm not saying it was a good idea... only that the good that comes from it should be a yard-stick as to how best to proceed with incentive-based policy in the future, and that the manufacturers themselves should take it as a last-chance look at what they need to do to survive in a world where there will be no more bail-outs for the next 60 years or so.

Two points

First off... I don't believe I mentioned Limbaugh, or Hannity, or Beck as the root of the problem. Or even a small part of it. In fact, one could make a damn good case that the pundits of conservatism on both TV and radio are doing ALL the work that the GOP should be doing. I was blaming Steele and the Congressional conservatives for NOT DOING ENOUGH to show what is and isn't working, not calling for celebs with microphones to do more.

Secondly, I can understand the need to vent your frustration... we all have that need, or there would be no need for the Bund at all. I'm simply calling for a little perspective, that's all.

I'm no Obama-supporter, by any stretch of the imagination, but there are aspects of his agendas that I can say I approve of. The Afghan Surge, for one. His reluctance to pull troops out of Iraq on his campaign-trail schedule is another. He has (to date) made no public plans to reduce the size, strength or capacity of our military (although there is still 3.5 years left for him to do so). Now, this is a drop-in-the-bucket... and still subject to change in the future... but the prospects for Obama's ability to dramatically alter the framework of our federal system of government is a long and difficult path to ponder. What examples are there in history of "liberals" making such sweeping, fundamental changes to our society and the framework of government?

The first that comes to mind is Franklin D. Roosevelt. He solidified the "welfare state" mentality in Washington D.C. and ushered in decades of excessive (and yes, questionable) massive public spending programs that were utterly outside of the Executive Branch's constitutional perogative. However, he did that over the course of more than 12 years of White House control and a degree of popular Congressional support and wild public enthusiasm that is almost unrivaled in US history.

Another might be Lyndon B. Johnson. His "Great Society" movement and agendas furthered the welfare-state attitude of Government's role in our lives, but he was working this agenda at a time of particular public unrest and discontentment... and I feel his failures reinforced his agendas rather than undermined them. As the country saw the war in Vietnam, the civil rights movement and the college protests of conservative society all become more and more violent and anti-American in nature, the need for greater and greater Government intervention was seen as the solution, rather than the problem.

Now we have Barrack H. Obama. He took office in a time of particularly painful economic times... but nothing on the scale of the economy of 1933. He was elected at a time of wide-spread public frustration with established US foreign policy and domestic security, but nothing compared to the domestic turbulence of 1964-1968. One would have thought his Congressional support constituted a real threat to conservative politics in America, but it now seems more and more likely that the support he had so depended on was tenuous at best, and is now turning away far faster than anyone had imagined it would.

My point about "opposition politics" was more that it works to get you into office, but it is a damn lousy way to stay there. Has anyone noticed that even Obama has had to stop blaming the GOP and Bush for the nation's problems since June? How can he keep blaming the "opposition" when they are so thoroughly removed from control? How long is the public going to buy the excuse that the reason the ship is still heading for the rocks is because of the Captain that was steering it 7 months ago? Even this nation's most politically lethargic populus will rapidly begin to see that, to avoid the rocks and save the ship, the NEW Captain will need to do some steering and take some responsibility.

Let me be clear ...

... I don't think we are nearing the end of the American experience, however, I do think that is precisely the aim of President Barak Obama. My point being that I "feel as if the movie is ending" upon hearing him speak, describe his plans for America and the "fundamental transformation" (a favorite phrase of his) of one after another sector of the US economy. It is during those moments, and the thought that the GOP may be too spineless, inept and anemic to stop his actualizing the transformation of America as constituted, that I find the despair described in my last post. And let us make no mistake about it, he is on record stating he feels the Constitution is "incomplete" and the American experience is not "radical enough." He aims to remake us in his ideology's image, and that should scare the bat snot out of us all.

Now as to the Republicans, I disagree that opposition politics almost never works. Obama ran for president longer than any other human being in our history on nothing more than opposition politics, empty slogans & phrases, void of anything measurable and specific until post election. It does work, however, opposition AND a coherent alternative works better, see Newt Gingrich circa 1994. But the problem isn't that the GOP is doing one & not the other, the problem is they're doing NEITHER. And I assume (perhaps I'm wrong) you mean to indict Limbaugh et al as among those doing nothing more than "opposing."All due respect, Rush Limbaugh IS NOT the head of the Republican Party. Neither is Hannitty, Beck (though I scarcely doubt he'd even want the job), nor any other wildly popular conservative commentator. It IS their job to comment on the days political events, so of course THEY are engaging in "opposition commentary", they do after all oppose the current administration, but it is NOT their job to propose legislative alternatives. RE ENTER the anemic GOP. They've managed to make 2 headlines in recent months and both involved the resignation of a governor. They aren't "opposing" effectively at all. They are by no means behind these justifiable, orderly public demonstrations be it the tea party events, or the recent town hall meetings that see Democrat Party leaders being shouted down at their own events. The elected Republicans are the lagging indicator here, following the lead of common sense, traditional Americans be they Independents or conservatives.

So, while I see no backbone, nor directional organization among the GOP, and only a whimper of an opposition, I do have every faith that the individuals whom make up this country, that have freedom bred in their very DNA, that show up to tea party events, stand toe to toe with Arlan Specter and call for something in chanted voice that should be a given, such as: "READ THE BILL, READ THE BILL", those Americans, we all will defeat these nonsensical, anti-liberty, collectivist, neoMarxist absolute rubbish policies being espoused from the White House, and if the Republican Party officials and elected representatives don't hurry to join our choir, I have one word for them: WIGS.

But if I feel the need to express, lament or unload the fantastically up hill battle we have, or the feelings evoked as I hear the President speak, as I did in my last, I will continue to recite the maudlin hyperbole's here despite their momentary, if not clever, abandonment of perpsective ... if for no other reason then there just aren't enough 1812 references in your responses.

A little perspective, please...

Exaggeration is a commonly used tool here at the Bund, I know... but Ryan may have taken it a bit far.

No one on this venue of intellectual release is going to argue that the policies of the current administration are not the best that this country could hope for. The spending that is going on is purely "spending for spending's sake" and can't possibly fix all that is wrong with this nation. It will cost the country in the long run, I have no doubt... based only on the amount of money we will be forced to pay back over the course of the next decade or more.

However, to suggest that this is the "end" of the American movie... that we are witnessing the "End Times" in America and that Obama is the apocalyptic "Angel of Death" blowing trumpets and breaking seals to release plagues and disasters on the country is a bit much.

Surely, you must think that someone wanted Jefferson's head on a platter when he simply "bought" 800,000 square miles for a price that surpassed the established Federal budget by more than 1,100%... without Congressional approval, and with only enough support to ratify by a vote of 59-57. Are we conceited enough to imagine that the same concerns we have now weren't felt by "conservative" voters in New England as Mr. Madison "flip-flopped" through all of the promises he made to get into office during the War of 1812, when the "Father of the Constitution" reversed his position on Federal power and authority versus State's rights?

These are two of the most rabid "constructionalist" Presidents ever... yet they both changed their minds and followed a less-then-conservative path, to the benefit of the Nation, I might add. I'm not putting Obama in the same box as these two... but please, hyperbole aside, the "change" that Obama has promised will be exactly what runs him out of the White House, and the likes of Pelosi and Reid out of Congress.

Furthermore, as James said earlier, there are upsides that conservatives should be using to their advantage. For example, the Cash for Clunkers program that you so despise differs only in an up-front rebate on the price of a new car from many conservative plans that called for as much as a 35% deduction incentive of the price of a new car. Now, Ryan doesn't want to have to pay back the $4500 for each sale (neither do I, of course) and I am always in favor of leaving the money in the consumer's pocket... but one can't argue that new car sales are UP dramatically, and it is now looking like the Big Three will be able to repay the TARP money, on schedule at the very least. Why isn't the current CARS plan being contrasted with more conservative plans that would have made tax allowances rather than cash advances? Where is the "compare and contrast" discussion on the part of the conservatives? Why is this being left to the likes of US to discuss, rather than Michael Steele or Senator DeMint?

NOW is when we need to see the alternative plans to what Obama and the liberals are selling... but all I hear is railing against anything Obama or the rest might suggest. I call that "opposition politics" and it almost never works for very long.

I think we should all pitch in and buy the American taxpayer a rape kit.

At break neck speed Democrat party leaders across our storied national capitol have raced to the nearest standing microphone to sing in unison the glorious praises of "cash for clunkers" like some foreign dignitary performance at an all girl elementary school in North Korea. They swarm around that electronic phallic symbol reminiscent of adult film stars waiting for the much prized money shot, which at least in their case it's clear who's getting screwed.

This program allowed $1 billion dollars of our money so that, at $4,500 a pop, anyone whom purchased a vehicle they could no longer afford to fill up could trade it in for a "fuel efficient" automobile. And the "overwhelming success," a mantra heard at each of these claims to victory, is judged by the ominous notion that if all the monies allotted was swallowed up within 2 weeks then the program must have "worked." So, that is now the standard for success, how fast one can give away my money. I'm sorry to inform them but I could of done that in one phone call by randomly picking out a name from the phone book and asking the voice on the other end if he would like one billion dollars. I sincerely doubt I'd have to go to a second name. My hands are officially in the air ... the onslaught of socially engineered fiscal policy fired at us like a Marxist Gatling gun perched on a grassy hill has so relegated ideas such as limited government and a private sector that is actually private to "old fashioned", and antiquated that I can scarcely mention the unconstitutionality of it all to my fellow citizen without causing he or she to break out into uproarious laughter. We are in post Constitution times. The founding fathers are mythical creatures, like so much Greek fables of Cyclops, Symitars and Sirens, their ideas and principles have become but faint "suggestions" at best to the youth, and whispered among the elderly in rocking chairs by firelight, puffing on corn cob pipes nostalgically pining for how things "used to be."

I look around my nation and ask what has happened here? And it hasn't been overnight. We're just on an accelerated program now, leaving me feeling like a child peering out of my father's car watching the stripes in the middle of the street blur into a single white line. We have gone from Commanders-in-Chief such as Jefferson to the likes of Jimmy Carter whom actually carried empty suitcases as president to make it appear as if he was in touch, while aides were instructed to carry the real luggage out of camera shot. The streets were once lined with men on their way to work and women escorting their children around various back to school clothing sales, now the men are holding hands and the women carry a small dog in a decorated purse, perusing a pet clothing store ... a nation truly going to the dogs. The culture, the fiscal psychotics, all of it gives me the feeling that I'm nearing the end of a long movie that started out Oscar worthy and ended with a whimper of bad cliches and missed opportunities. And nobody seems to care. We're approaching the ice berg and all hands are clicking around the TV remote watching American Idol rather then on deck. I scream this nearly daily, I write it nearly weekly, and in response people shrug their shoulders routinely. It is all so obvious what is happening, the systematic bankrupting of America enabling the president's much lauded "fundamental transformation", yet each time the president begins to speak people still swoon, chant, and heave in ever bigger sips of koolaide ... while all I see is a silhouette of America up on blocks in Fred Sanford's front yard.

Happy Birthday Mom!

Had to get that in... The title should be... Which Devil do you want?

Doing some quick reading on the health care debate... Being that there is very little in terms of measurable and specific when it comes to the President's or the Democrats plan, the debate is hearsay versus worst case scenario. But something Yahoo said in their fact check article struck me as marginally hopeful.

A criticism of the health care bills was the claim that regular John and Suzie Q Taxpayer would have to change doctors due to the plans. Technically, there's nothing in the wording of either the House or Senate bills that demand this, but for many employers, paying the federal government fee would be cheaper than dealing with insurance companies directly. So if employers drop their coverage to save money, odds are in many cases someone will have to change doctors.

Remember when the creation of HMOs was the answer to health care issues? How well did that work? Creating a Department of Homeland Security, how well has that worked? Granted, no 9/11s since 9/11, but other than vastly increasing the size of the Fed and preventing some weenie from bringing a fingernail clipper onto a plane, how's that working for us? And at what monumental cost, when agencies were already in place to handle the problems?

I'm singing to the choir, I know, and I have yet to get to the hopeful aspect of the post, but I am struggling here to come up with an example of bureaucracy helping. Any takers?

There may actually be a stimulus effect from the release of companies from the health providing arena. I'm running a modest sized small business, say 250 employees, I probably have a two or three person human resources dept to deal with the health care BS. Tell my CFO to cut the check to the Feds and I can either get rid of my HR weenies or make them do useful work. :-)Tiny, small upside, and completely eclipsed by a trillion dollar avalanche approaching like the end of the Mayan calendar, but an upside nevertheless.