HEALTHCARE FOR IDIOTS

Liberals love a good crisis. They are skilled at inciting panic and fabricating a need for government intervention. They do this because their very existence is predicated on the helplessness of their constituents. As Obama's chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has said, “You never let a serious crisis go to waste. And what I mean by that it’s an opportunity to do things you think you could not do before.” Because real crises are rare, liberals need to invent them. As an example, if John Edwards wasn’t a total asshole, he might be president and we would all be talking about the homeless crisis. If you’ve forgotten, Edwards was the little twit running around telling people that every culvert in America had 20 homeless guys living in it. It was a crisis! Well, he wasn’t elected so Katie Couric won’t be interviewing homeless guys for awhile. No, instead we got Obama (BHO) and the crisis du jour is health care.

BHO says we have a crisis because costs are out of control and 46 million people in this country don’t have health insurance. While both these things may be true, I think we should consider how we got to this point before we implement some massive and outrageously expensive government program to remedy these conditions.

OUT OF CONTROL COSTS

You’ve got to hand it to liberals. What they lack in integrity, they make up for in audacity. Cost are out of control so let the government take charge! What? So they can bring to health care the high quality and affordability they brought to the postal service and public schools? Gee, thanks.

BHO has said that the government needs to get involved to provide more competition in the market place. More competition? By my count there is something like 10 thousand insurance companies in this country. Not enough competition, my ass! How about the government doing away with all their stupid mandates that have created “one size fits all” insurance plans. Give insurance companies the freedom to structure plans that are actually tailored to the needs and wants of their customers. Competition will explode and costs will be driven down.

Just recently I heard BHO railing on the insurance industry and their huge profits. He seeks to blame their greed for our high costs. I’m no apologist for insurance companies. I know they are making money but those of us in the private sector are not offended by profits. We actually spend a lot of time trying to increase our own! It would be hypocritical of me to criticize the profits of another. BHO, having never made a profit in his life, has no such concern. But are insurance company profits the biggest problem? BHO has never discussed how medicare and medicaid factor into the cost equation. When a doctor charges $500 for some procedure but the government plan only allows for a $400 payment, who pays the difference? We do, of course. And what affect does that have on our insurance premiums?

BHO has also never mentioned tort reform and how it might affect costs. Doctors pay huge premiums for liability insurance. In some areas, family practitioners are paying over $200,000 a year and as the amount in jury awards rises, doctor’s premiums rise. And this does not even factor in the cost of all the additional tests that doctors now require in an effort to cover their asses in the event of a lawsuit. With lawyers collecting 1/3 of the award, they are doing quite nicely. There is a reason that “ambulance chaser” is part of the American lexicon but I’ve never heard BHO bitching about lawyer profits.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX DITCH CHECK XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

BHO talking about the free market is like me talking about soccer. He knows nothing about how it works but he instinctively dislikes it. He keeps insisting that “if you like your current plan or doctor, you can keep them.” He has no idea how the free market will adapt to his plan. The fact is, his rules will force private businesses to dump their health insurance plans to remain competitive. Private insurance companies will eventually be wiped out forcing everyone into the government system.
When BHO and his lefty comrades want to target a certain industry, they always rip on their “outrageous profits.” This is right out of Karl Marx’s playbook. Marx theorized that surplus value (profit) was accumulated by bourgeoisie pigs (capitalists) by ripping off the proletariat (employee). It is this theory that was applied to give the world those “workers paradises” in Eastern Europe, China and North Korea among others. Left unchecked, these people are going to destroy our country!

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

46 MILLION UNINSURED

BHO has been pretty careful when he throws this number out there. You’ll notice he generally refers to just the “46 million uninsured” or the “46 million uninsured in America.” He never says there are 46 million uninsured AMERICANS. There is a good reason for this. Of the 46 million, 9.7 million-more than 20 percent, are not U.S. citizens! Why should hard working Americans be on the hook for them? I’m sure there are a couple billion uninsured Chinese, too. So, what!

Also included in the 46 million are five million people who qualify for medicare but don’t use it. There are also 17 million Americans living in households with annual incomes in excess of $50,000 that CHOOSE not to have health insurance. Forty percent of the uninsured are between the ages of 18 and 34. Being young and healthy, they have CHOSEN to spend their money on things other than health insurance.

Add it all up and you get about eight million people that want health insurance and can’t get it. Because America is the most benevolent country in the world, these people will be taken care of. Only liberals would think that blowing up the best health care system in the world to help three percent of the population is a good idea. But the liberal elite aren’t that stupid. Freedom loving Americans should consider what their real motivation might be.

FREE MARKET SOLUTIONS

According to some recent articles in the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, Democratic legislators are “stunned at the choices they face to rebalance a budget with a deficit now as high as 6.5 billion…” Stunned, they say! What, they never saw this coming? Apparently there is no minimum IQ level required to serve in the state legislature. Last year there were over 70,000 private sector jobs lost in Wisconsin. Businesses are fleeing Wisconsin and relocating to states that won’t tax them into oblivion. And legislators can’t figure out why tax collections are down nearly 800 million over the last ten months! Gov. Jim Doyle has proposed 1.7 billion in tax and fee increases with the new biannual budget. This is on top of the 1.2 billion in tax and fee increases he signed into law in February as part of his super duper budget repair package. Nearly 3 billion in NEW taxes and yet it’s still not enough! Now Democratic legislators are, gasp!, looking at the possibility of cutting spending. Not without some trepidation though. These liberal dopes are all in a tizzy over Doyle’s pathetic little plan to require state employees to take 16 days of unpaid leave over the next two years and to forgo a planned 2% pay increase. Oh, the humanity! Senate president Fred Risser of Madison (shocker) said it’s unfair to require “dedicated and loyal” state workers to take unpaid furloughs. He added that he would rather raise taxes because state workers aren’t responsible for the budget mess. Another breathtakingly stupid remark by a liberal that goes unchallenged. Who’s fault is it Fred? Private businesses and those 70,000+ people that lost their jobs last year? I don’t think so. In 2007, Wisconsin taxpayers paid 12.3% of their income in sales, property and state income taxes. This puts us at 7th on the list of highest taxing states. No Fred, I think it’s your fault. And Doyle’s. And all your liberal colleagues in the state legislature. I think government employees bear some responsibility too. How much, I don’t know but with the liberals theory of joint and several liability, it doesn’t matter.

So what should Wisconsin do? When looking at the state budget, it is necessary to also include local government functions as well. There are myriad government programs ostensibly under local jurisdiction that are funded in large part by the state. For instance, 67% of public school costs are funded by the state. There are so many different programs, incentives and subsidies that it’s like trying to decipher a mobster’s money laundering scheme. Ultimately, everything government does is funded by the taxpayers so I include local government in this analysis.

According to the Census of Government Employment, there were 282,000 people working for state and local government in Wisconsin in 2009. If we exclude those that provide essential or legitimate government services, police and firefighters, that leaves us with 261,000 employees. The average wage of these employees is $46,200. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, the government spends 35 cents on benefits for every dollar in wages. So the actual cost to employ each of these people averages $62,370. per year. Liberal politicians are always telling us that we need to make sacrifices in tough economic times. They also prattle on incessantly about “fairness.” Then lets be fair with the sacrifice. The unemployment rate for Wisconsin in March was 9.4%. In the interest of fairness, state and local governments should immediately lay off 9.4% of the non-essential workforce. That’s 24,534 employees. This would save taxpayers 1.5 billion a year. That’s 3 billion over the course of the biannual budget. Liberals won’t like this but they won’t be able to argue the fairness aspect of it.

Now comes the really hard part. We apply free market principles to the government workforce. The lefties won’t understand this at all. The free market to a liberal is as a rubics cube in the hands of a 4 year old. They have no idea how it works or what it does. They will want to cast it aside and go back to their milk and cookies. We conservatives need to educate them. Conservatives know that the free market is really good at maximizing productivity and minimizing costs. In a word, it promotes efficiency. So, after the layoffs, government is left with 236,500 employees. I’m guessing that many of these people are going to start to realize that they are damn lucky to have a job. Here is where we inject a little free market reality. We cut all wages and benefits by 10%. This saves taxpayers another 3 billion over the two years. Budget crisis averted! But why stop? Oh sure, the government workers will scream and whine and wallow in self pity. But will they quit? I don’t know but in two years the free market will tell us if we can cut another 10%. We can continue to cut until there is no longer a surplus of applicants for these jobs. The government workers will call these actions “draconian.” Any cut in government spending is always called a draconian cut. What a bunch of crap. It’s called competition and those of us in the real world deal with it every day. I think it’s time that government workers experience the existential pleasures of market forces in the real world. They will be better people for it.

Liberals will accuse the taxpayers of greed and selfishness. I don’t think so. What is selfish (and immoral) is politicians currying favor with one segment of society by overpaying them with other peoples money.

100 FREAK'N DAYS

President Obama held a press conference last Wednesday in celebration of his first 100 days in office. The teleprompter was in good working order and he delivered his opening remarks with a style and grace befitting the smoothest of the smooth. I’m sure liberals around the country “felt a thrill going up their leg” during his presentation. Being a conservative, I was able to maintain my composure and actually listened to what he said. Of particular interest to me were his comments on enhanced interrogation or what the lefties call torture. Of course, subjecting a murderous jihadist to anything beyond polite conversation is considered torture by Obama.

The president stated: "We have rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals, by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and banning torture without exception."

One of the pre-approved reporters asked Obama if he thought that the previous administration sanctioned torture. His response in part:

"…waterboarding violates our ideals and values. I do believe that it is torture. And that’s why I put an end to these practices.

I am absolutely convinced that it was the right thing to do – not because there might not have been information that was yielded by these various detainees who were subjected to this treatment, but because we could have gotten this information in other ways – in ways that were consistent with our values, in ways that were consistent with who we are.

It corrodes the character of a country."

It’s easy to make ridiculous and unsupportable statements when you are never called to explain or defend them. Obama knows that we obtained a great deal of valuable information as a result of these interrogations. Yet he flippantly states that we could have gotten this information in other ways.
Really? What ways would those be? And how much time would these unmentioned techniques take? Intelligence gathering is, by its very nature, time sensitive. Intelligence gathered after the fact isn’t intelligence. It’s history. If a bad guy says they are going to blow up some buildings in two weeks and Obama’s PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE TELLS US WHERE technique takes two weeks and a day to work, well, what’s the point?

From 2001 to 2008, the time frame we were “torturing” terrorists, there were more than 10 million abortions in this country. That’s fine and dandy with Obama. No moral implications there. No “corrosive” affect on the character of the country. But when we dump a bucket of water on three, that’s right three, murderous psychopaths and obtain information that saved countless lives, Obama gets all indignant and proclaims: "It corrodes the character of a country." Come on now. Really?

Recognizing that he has no credibility on this issue, Obama invoked the name of a true leader, Winston Churchill: "And Churchill said, 'we don’t torture,' when the entire British – all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat."

Leaving aside the obvious facts that Churchill and Obama would have far different definitions of torture and that if Churchill did authorize torture he wouldn’t tell the whole world, let’s assume Obama is correct. If Churchill did not authorize torture, he had at least two good reasons:

1. Both Great Britain and Germany were signatories to the
Geneva conventions. Churchill might have refrained from
torture with the idea that Germany would reciprocate. We
are not bound by an agreement that our enemy has not
signed!
2. There was probably not much that the typical German POW
could tell Churchill that he didn’t already know. In 1941,
Great Britain, with a big assist from some Polish
mathematicians, had broken the enigma code used by the
German armed forces for all sensitive communications.
This was no small thing. Many historians credit the Allies
intelligence gathering capabilities with shortening the war
by at least two years.

Obama finished up his answer with this liberal tripe: "At the same time, it takes away a critical recruitment tool that Al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations have used to try to demonize the United States and justify the killing of civilians." Here is a list to consider:

September 11, 2001 - Terrorists hijack four U.S. commercial airliners taking off from various locations in the United States in a coordinated suicide attack. In separate attacks, two of the airliners crash into the twin towers of the World Trade Center in New York City, which catch fire and eventually collapse. A third airliner crashes into the Pentagon in Washington, DC, causing extensive damage. The fourth airliner, also believed to be heading towards Washington, DC, crashes outside Shanksville, PA., killing all 45 people on board. Casualty estimates from New York put the possible death toll close to 5,000, while as many as 200 people may have been lost at the Pentagon crash site.

Oct. 12, 2000 - A terrorist bomb damages the destroyer USS Cole in the port of Aden, Yemen, killing 17 sailors and injuring 39.

Aug. 7, 1998 - Terrorist bombs destroy the U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania. In Nairobi, 12 Americans are among the 291 killed, and over 5,000 are wounded, including 6 Americans. In Dar es Salaam, one U.S. citizen is wounded among the 10 killed and 77 injured.

June 21, 1998 - Rocket-propelled grenades explode near the U.S. embassy in Beirut.

June 25, 1996 - A bomb aboard a fuel truck explodes outside a U.S. air force installation in Dhahran, Saudi Arabia. 19 U.S. military personnel are killed in the Khubar Towers housing facility, and 515 are wounded, including 240 Americans.

Nov. 13, 1995 - A car-bomb in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia kills seven people, five of them American military and civilian advisers for National Guard training. The "Tigers of the Gulf," "Islamist Movement for Change," and "Fighting Advocates of God" claim responsibility.

February 1993 - A bomb in a van explodes in the underground parking garage in New York's World Trade Center, killing six people and wounding 1,042.

Dec. 21, 1988 - A bomb destroys Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie, Scotland. All 259 people aboard the Boeing 747 are killed including 189 Americans, as are 11 people on the ground.

April 1986 - An explosion damages a TWA flight as it prepares to land in Athens, Greece. Four people are killed when they are sucked out of the aircraft.

April 5, 1986 - A bomb destroys the LaBelle discotheque in West Berlin. The disco was known to be frequented by U.S. servicemen. The attack kills one American and one German woman and wounds 150, including 44 Americans.

December 1985 - Simultaneous suicide attacks are carried out against U.S. and Israeli check-in desks at Rome and Vienna international airports. 20 people are killed in the two attacks, including four terrorists.

November 1985 - Hijackers aboard an Egyptair flight kill one American. Egyptian commandos later storm the aircraft on the isle of Malta, and 60 people are killed.

October 1985 - Palestinian terrorists hijack the cruise liner Achille Lauro (in response to the Israeli attack on PLO headquarters in Tunisia) Leon Klinghoffer, an elderly, wheelchair-bound American, is killed and thrown overboard.

August 1985 - A car bomb at a U.S. military base in Frankfurt, Germany kills two and injures 20. A U.S. soldier murdered for his identity papers is found a day after the explosion.

June 1985 - A TWA airliner is hijacked over the Mediterranean, the start of a two-week hostage ordeal. The last 39 passengers are eventually released in Damascus after being held in various locations in Beirut.

April 1985 - A bomb explodes in a restaurant near a U.S. air base in Madrid, Spain, killing 18, all Spaniards, and wounding 82, including 15 Americans.

October 1983 - A suicide car bomb attack against the U.S. Marine barracks in Beirut kills 241 servicemen. A simultaneous attack on a French base kills 58 paratroopers.

April 1983 - A suicide car bombing against the U.S. embassy in Beirut kills 63, including 17 Americans.

November 4, 1979 – A group of Islamist students in Iran take over the American embassy in support of the Iranian revolution. 52 U.S. diplomats are held hostage for 444 days.

Two things all these attacks have in common:

1. They were all perpetrated by Muslims.

2. Not one of the terrorists ever said they did it
because the U.S. engaged in waterboarding.

The terrorists hate us because we support Israel and, despite what Obama says, we are a Christian nation. The terrorists hated us before it became official U.S. policy to reveal state secrets to the world and they hate us now. I’m sure now that we are fighting back this upsets them even more. So what? Obama and the left’s unwillingness to accept this reality puts us all in serious danger.

AMERICA'S ADVENTURE IN OBAMALAND

I woke up Monday morning and what did I see? Barack Obama is now running General Motors and Chrysler! Am I still in America?

Alice laughed. “There’s no use trying,” she said: “one can’t believe impossible things.”
“I daresay you haven’t had much practice,” said the Queen…
Through the Looking Glass, and What Alice Found There

Welcome to America’s adventures in Obamaland! The president of the United States has just fired the chairman and CEO of GM and gave Chrysler 30 days to merge with Italian automaker Fiat, or else!

Only in Obamaland can a guy go from “community organizer” to president in a few short years. And now the guy who couldn’t run a lemonade stand without a government subsidy is running two of the largest auto makers in the world. Said Obama, “We cannot, and must not, and will not let our auto industry simply vanish.”

Notice he was not talking about just GM and Chrysler but the entire auto industry. Ford, which took no government money, and Honda and Toyota which don’t need it, are in his sights too. Imagine how the CEO’s of those companies must be feeling. They are now in competition with the guy that makes all the rules!

So what’s the plan? According to president and CEO Obama:

[I’m confident we can create] an auto industry that is once more out-competing the world; a 21st century auto industry that is creating new jobs, unleashing new prosperity, and manufacturing the fuel-efficient cars and trucks that will carry us towards an energy-independent future. I am absolutely committed to working with Congress and the auto companies to meet one goal: The United States of America will lead the world in building the next generation of clean cars.

In the old America, companies were in business to make a profit. They did this by providing a superior product or service at an affordable price. I see no mention of these concepts in Obama’s plan. No, the new goal of the American auto industry is to build fuel-efficient cars and trucks. Hope those market-hungry profiteers at Ford, Honda and Toyota are listening.

So, how is this going to work? As per their new “business plan,” GM and Chrysler will start building four-seater golf carts and selling them as the “next generation” of clean cars. The 10 or so honest and committed tree huggers in this country will get all excited and buy these cars. That won’t be enough, even for GM and Chrysler who have freed themselves from the chains of profit margins. If Ford, Honda and Toyota continue to make cars that people actually want to buy this will be a problem for the enlightened one. Obama might think profits are yucky but he’s not going to continue diverting tax money from Planned Parenthood and Acorn to prop up his new car companies. Obama noted that his sycophants in Congress have the solution:

Finally, several members of congress have proposed an even more ambitious incentive program to increase car sales while modernizing our auto fleet. And such fleet modernization programs, which provide a generous credit to consumers who turn in old, less fuel-efficient cars and purchase cleaner cars, have been successful in boosting auto sales in a number of European countries.

Oh yea! The benefits of a truly cosmopolitan president! When in doubt, look to the Euro’s! They can’t defend themselves but they are so sophisticated!

If that’s not enough, maybe he will raise the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards to a level only his car companies can meet.
Then there is his insane “Cap and Trade” legislation. Once he artificially raises the price of gas to five or six bucks a gallon, his piece of crap cars will start to sell. This has the ancillary benefit of getting brain dead Americans pissed at “Big Oil.” Then Obama can become CEO of an oil company too!

Some of you right wing extremists may call this the nationalization of the auto industry. Not to worry. Obama is an ardent capitalist and just loves the free market, “Let me be clear: The United States government has no interest in running GM. We have no intention of running GM.”

Doesn’t make sense? To understand Obama you need to study Humpty Dumpty:

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – nothing more nor less.” The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”

Things in Obamaland are getting curiouser and curiouser!

TOUGH DECISIONS

According to my local fishwrap, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has decided that these tough economic times require bold action. The front page article caught my attention with the headline: “DNR DISCONTINUING LOCAL COUNTER SERVICE.” My first thought was-It’s about time! But, my naiveté belies my years. My reaction should have been-It sounds too good to be true. Well, of course, it is. It turns out that while the DNR is in fact discontinuing counter service, the jobs of the 51 state employees who provided that service are not being cut. No, they will keep their jobs with the DNR but will be “serving the public” in some, as yet undetermined, “different capacity.” The article states, in part:

Although the service centers will remain open as a base of operations
for local field staff, biologists and wardens, starting next spring people
will have to look elsewhere to obtain hunting licenses and information.
Eliminating counter service is expected to save the state $3.2 million
over the course of the next biennium.

I can see how this will inconvenience taxpayers but I don’t understand how it will save them any money. This question did not occur to the reporter who wrote the article so I am left only to contemplate the statements made by a DNR spokesman: “We are really facing an economic struggle. The state government had to make some tough decisions [because] decisions aren’t ever easy when you are facing a deficit.” Oh, really? How tough can it be when your solution is to cut customer service while maintaining a robust payroll? The truth is that the DNR and government in general have only one crucial decision to make. They have to decide where that imaginary and dangerously nebulous line in the sand is. They know they can’t cross it. It’s the one where the taxpayers finally say, “FUCK YOU! We’re not going to take this shit anymore!”

The line has been moving further and further…to the left, of course. According to the Wisconsin Department of Workforce Development (gotta love these government bureaucracies), the state lost over 72,000 private- sector jobs last year. During this same time period, all those tough decisions being made in Madison have resulted in 900 new government jobs!

The DNR spokesman went on to say that “We will do what we can to avoid layoffs…” And what might that be? Increase production? No, they don’t produce anything. Increase customer service? Obviously not. Who knows?
Apparently the only thing we know for sure is that the consequences of a less than fully staffed DNR are too dire to contemplate. An immediate spike in global temperatures? Bands of renegade hunters decimating entire species of wild game? Maybe the Milwaukee Metropolitan Sewage District would start dumping millions of gallons of untreated wastewater into Lake Michigan every time it rains! Oh, that’s right, they’re doing that now. Gosh, maybe the DNR does need to hire more people. After all, they’ve got 72,000 additional people to choose from this year.

AN EVIL PIECE OF STEEL

Robert Smith Jr. writes a regular column for the Detroit News Politics Blog. On December 30, he posted a commentary titled BAN ALL GUNS in which he shows a refreshing level of honesty for a liberal. Unfortunately, his honesty is accompanied by a boatload of ignorance.

Mr. Smith states: “The Founding Fathers made a mistake when they said we had a right to bear arms.” Unlike so many liberals, he is not trying to convince us that the 2nd Amendment says something it does not. In fact, his statement is a tacit acknowledgement that the 2nd Amendment does indeed secure our individual right to own guns. He just thinks that the Founders were wrong. I can appreciate that many liberals agree with him but his explanation as to why he feels this way is absurd. He is either grossly ignorant of American history or he is willfully exploiting the ignorance of his fellow liberals. Smith claims that “[The Founders] did not know we would be allies with the British and no longer have to worry about them coming over to oppress and colonize us. The British found greater spoils in Africa and India and never looked back on the United States after the Revolutionary War.” A couple of points; The Founders did not write the 2nd Amendment because they were worried about the British or any other foreign invaders. Thomas Jefferson explained the reasoning for the Amendment this way: “And what country can preserve it’s liberties, if it’s rulers are not warned from time to time that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms…The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.” It is clear these men were concerned about oppression by the very government they were establishing. They understood that all governments inherently drift towards tyranny. It is only the people that can keep them in check. Secondly, the British actually did look back on the United States after the Revolutionary War. Those hostilities are commonly referred to as the War of 1812. That would be the one where the British burned Washington, D.C. and the White House.

Smith goes on to site a 2005 study by the Center for Disease Control and Prevention
that reported over 3000 children and teens were killed by gunfire, most of them black males in inner-city neighborhoods. (Shouldn’t the CDC be doing studies on AIDS or something?) So Mr. Smith wants to ban all guns to solve this problem. What’s next? Do we ban spoons and forks to solve the ongoing obesity crisis? This is how the liberal mind works – Poor black men are shooting each other in inner-city neighborhoods and their solution is to take the guns away from middle class, rural, white people. The plethora of gun restrictions already in place did nothing to prevent these murders. Does Mr. Smith really believe these crimes were committed by people who own guns legally?

Liberals don’t offer viable solutions because they either can’t or won’t recognize the actual problems. Black on black murder rates are rising and instead of advocating responsible behavior with societal consequences, Mr. Smith wants to ban a piece of steel.
Smith says that the person he most admires is Mahatma Gandhi. Perhaps he should consider what Gandhi said about gun control: “Among the many misdeeds of the British rule in India, history will look upon the act of depriving a whole nation of arms as the blackest.”

REAL CHANGE

The election of Barack Obama as president has got me rethinking my political aspirations. I have always considered myself pretty much unelectable to any position above the level of county government. The president elect has given me new hope. (By the way, I had never even heard of The Office of the President Elect before Obama came around. What power does this office have, I wonder.) The media’s thorough vetting of Obama has revealed his life experiences to be eerily similar to my own. Check this out:
We’re the same age. Obama has two kids, as do I. Obama served several years in the State legislature and then the U.S. Senate while accomplishing nothing. I was on the City Council and then the County Board for several years and I didn’t get anything done either. Our knowledge of economics is comparable. I’ll admit I’m no expert. Obama may be highly educated but anyone who subscribes to Marx’s theory of surplus value doesn’t know shit about economics either. Foreign policy experience? Let’s score that nil-nil. Weird huh? Of course, there are differences. For instance, I’m not buddies with any former terrorists and my “spiritual advisor” is not a racist bigot with a stutter. The priest at my church has never screamed “god damn the U.S. of KKKwanza. And my dad was not a drunken philanderer with several wives. Beyond that, I think a reasonable person could conclude that I am just as qualified as Obama to be President of the United States. Our similar backgrounds, however, would not lead to similar governance.

THE STRUCTURE OF GOVERNMENT

Obama and his lefty colleagues and supporters don’t seem to have any problem with a selective application of the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. Some Amendments, like the 9th and 10th, are just ignored. Other’s, through some linguistic voodoo, are interpreted as to provide a legal justification for some liberal cause. Only some lefty could read the 2nd Amendment and conclude that only the government can have guns. It is liberals that insist that rapists and murderers be provided air conditioned cells with cable T.V. because the 8th Amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. It’s time our side did a little creative interpretation of our own. My administration would start with the 1st Amendment, which reads:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech,
or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I will take the position that the specific listing of certain constraints on congress should not be construed to mean there are not others. In fact, for purposes of brevity and perhaps to clarify, I suggest we shorten it up to:

Congress shall make no law.

That ought to do it. Now that they have nothing to do, Nancy Pelosi, Barney Frank et.al. will be sent home immediately. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reed, however, will be sequestered in a Motel 6 until he has written a personal letter of apology to every member of the armed forces for his deplorable and irresponsible comment that “The war in Iraq is lost” in 2007. He will then be sent back to Nevada on a Greyhound bus.

Now that my “Constitutional Dictatorship” is in place, we can start fixing things.
TO BE CONTINUED