Ban This

"Bossy" is just the latest in a long list of words that the politically correct crowd wants to ban. There is even an ad going around showing stars alongside preteen girls complaining that they are irrevocably harmed and their entire lives shattered by an insensitive teacher calling them bossy! This must not only be stopped but this word must be BANNED!!


Oh puhleese! What ever happened to the old adage of "sticks and stones..."? It's just a friggin' word, people. Yes, there are some very ugly words out there. But are we so afraid of a word that we must tiptoe around them by calling them the N word, C word and B word? You give the word, and the people using it, way too much power by censoring them or fearing to say them. Just ask Lord Voldemort!

I can't help but wonder how traumatized these kids would be if I told them to "suck it up" or worse yet to "grow a pair"! Hell, I wish we were raising bossy kids instead of creating a generation of privileged sniveling whiners. Oh my. Did I just offend somebody's whittle feelings?


Seriously, there is another word for banning things - censorship. And the politically correct crowd no longer stops at banning words but they are also censoring phrases, ideologies and even groups of people because they find their views offensive or simply disagreeable. Seriously. Whatever happened to the wonderful phrase "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"? Instead, we are teaching children that if they disagree with something forget defending someone's right to say it, nope, just take the entire phrase away! And why stop there? Let's ban the people who think that way, too! It's not just irritating but harmful to our tender hearted little students to hear words, ideas or people saying awful things with which they disagree.


I wish I could say that people in the media are blind to the erosion of our freedoms whenever they promote banning of a word or phrase. But some know exactly what they are doing, including a Harvard student who recently wrote an article suggesting that banning opposing viewpoints at Harvard would be advantageous in spite of the loss of freedoms: http://www.thecrimson.com/column/the-red-line/article/2014/2/18/academic-freedom-justice/. At one point she states "if we give up our obsessive reliance on the doctrine of academic freedom, we can consider more thoughtfully what is just.” Huh? She goes on to write “when an academic community observes research promoting or justifying oppression, it should ensure that this research does not continue.” In other words if the facts uncovered via research conducted on campus doesn't fit your world views than ban that research and those pesky facts!

Shockingly, this student is not voicing a unique view. This is especially true in regards to climate change. The LA Times editor admits he will not publish any comments from people questioning climate change and President Obama is just one of a number of people who say that the debate on climate change is settled. Really? Again, the premise is that if someone disagrees with you then simply ban the debates. Another great technique to shut down irritatingly logical debates is to ridicule the other person and their viewpoint. Or revert to a teenager's verbal weapon of "Whatever."


Then there is the growing trend of banning anything remotely connected to religion, specifically Christianity. Are atheists so afraid that one prayer, one cross might contaminate them that it must be banned? The latest example is the drive to ban the Twin Tower beams found in the shape of a cross from being included in the 9/11 museum. No minister, priest or evangelical preacher placed it there, no one is trying to convert anyone, it just happened. And it became a focus point of hope and faith to many many people. It is now part of the 9/11 history and as such a judge ruled it could be kept but an atheist group is appealing this ruling. But what's next? Will all public museums be required to ban any religious painting, sculpture or artifact? Should schools and public libraries ban all books about Christians, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists or even witches? Separation of church and state taken to the extreme would require just that, wouldn't it?


Finally, while we are censoring words and ideas, let's just ban annoying people who disagree with us or hold those annoying views. By now everyone has probably heard the statements by N.Y. Gov. Cuomo who said that “extreme conservatives who are right-to-life, pro-assault—weapon, anti-gay…have no place in the State of New York”. He has since said he was taken out of context but read his entire statement and judge for yourself: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/01/23/nyregion/cuomo-comment-elicits-retort-from-republicans.html?_r=0.

Now for everyone jumping on the bandwagon to ban yet another word, please stop and think. It might be the loss of just one word that could be cruel but that is the consequences of freedom. And chipping away, one word, one phrase, one idea at a time will lead to banning freedom, itself.

(And if you're wondering about the exclusion of any conservatives who banned words, ideas or phrases, well, they've been banned. Lol.)

Obama Winning - A Good Thing?

As a conservative, one who volunteered at a Romney office, I was initially upset by the election. Like many constitutionalists, I truly believe that the course President Obama has set America upon is fundamentally wrong for this country. That it is the antithesis of the independent spirit that built America. I am afraid for my homeland and yet, after much thought, I now believe that America might have suffered worse problems, greater divisions had Mitt Romney won. 

Let us suppose for these few moments that Romney had squeaked through a win. First, it would be a repeat of 2004 as the country would be in limbo as Florida recounted her votes. You recall what chaos this caused.  On top of which, as this was happening, Obama's legal teams, already set up and waiting in every swing state, would be shouting voter fraud and demanding recounts. The public, already bitterly divided by extremely prejudicial and negative campaigns, primarily by Obama's side, would be whipped into a frenzy helped by the one sided reporting by the media. Riots would ensue. 

The Romney/Ryan administration would therefore begin not by a peaceful election with the other side gracefully admitting defeat in spite of actual voter fraud, but instead by images of police in riot gear against angry minorities. An already divided America would become further divided with each side hardening their positions. 

Now ask yourself the big question. If Obama had lost, does anyone really believe that he would fade out of public sight as every exPresident in modern history has done? No, me neither.

In the past decade or so Carter has become more active, sometimes taking positions or meeting with people that angered the sitting administrations but he did stay quietly in Ga building houses for years right after he lost. The other ex Presidents have helped out but only when asked by the current President. But Obama? I'm sorry but I simply can't see him quietly sitting in Chicago if he had lost, nor would his supporters or the media let him. 

 People I have talked to since the election didn't know or had forgotten that the President could still run for a second term in four years. Grover Cleveland did and you can bet Obama would have tried. In fact I would think he would start campaigning for 2016 beginning the day after he lost. 

Just think what that would have done to our divided country. We would have ended up having a true shadow president. Anytime Romney did anything the media would trample over each other in their eagerness to get Obama's reactions. While Romney worked to get this country back on it's feet, Obama would be constantly on TV discussing what he would be doing if President, why Romney is wrong, and of course the familiar refrain that Romney is hurting the little guys and helping the rich. 

I am assuming Congress would be divided, as it currently is, thus making changes very difficult. The liberal's attitude would be to hold back Romney for the next four years until Obama is re-elected. Most likely Republicans would lose the House in 2014 making any progress impossible with a Democratically controlled Congress during the second two years. Businesses, while heartened in the short term by a Romney win, would be worried about long term problems if Obama was re-elected in four years.  

The country could fall into a recession because Congress would not work with the White House and of course Romney would be blamed for it. 

Meanwhile, Obama is continuously interviewed by the mainstream media, always with regret that he wasn't the president. By 2014 Obama  will have a new book published and makes the rounds on all the talk shows. He will also be a huge hit when he is the first exPresident to host SNL. In other words, for four years Obama will constantly be front and center; garnering more attention then a President Romney and most certainly it all would be favorable compared to the constant negative reports on Romney and his administration.

Four years from now, Obama would win in a landslide with a Democratically controlled Congress. All of his transgressions from his first four years will have been conveniently forgotten or whitewashed. Meanwhile, Romney would gracefully fade out of sight. Yes Romney might have rescinded Obamacare and other Obama regulations but once in office again, this time with a strong liberal Congress, Obama would overturn anything Romney might have done. 

So now what do you think? Yes it hurts to have Obama win but maybe it might be for the best. Better to happen now than to have four years of Obama looming over us followed by him becoming president anyway in 2016. Besides, history has shown that the 5th and 6th years have never been kind to a second term president. Better a man with a slightly tarnished reputation in four years than a martyr waiting to rule again.

Obamacare - No Advantages for Seniors

Summing It Up:
1. Obamacare cuts $156 billion from Medicare Advantage (MA) Plans
2. Up to half of the 14 million Seniors with MA's could need new health care plans as MA's are dropped or have fewer benefits at greater costs
3. AARP will reap windfall profits as it sells a competing insurance plan
4. President Obama illegally took $8 billion to avoid MA cuts hitting Senior's in October and hurting his re-election
Read on for the full details...
-----------------------


Until the past week I have felt like the prophet shouting doom in the wilderness which no one heard. I tried to tell everyone how unfair Obamacare was. That it paid for the uninsured by taking away from Seniors and the disabled. No one listened. Until now. The Romney Ryan ticket is finally getting the hypocrisy of Obamacare out in the open. Here are the facts, yes, actual facts about one facet of Obamacare.


The claim that you can keep your insurance under Obamacare is not true for the 14 million people who have Medicare Advantage (MA) Plans. President Obama intends to partly pay for Obamacare by gutting $156 billion from MA's over the next ten years. He claims the cuts are against the greedy doctors, hospitals and insurance companies, not Seniors. How stupid does he think we are? All cuts will of course be passed down to Seniors. Both left and right agree that these cuts will impact Seniors, they only disagree on how badly it will hurt Seniors.


What are MA's? They are a pay per use health plan through private insurance companies ranging from inexpensive HMO's to more expensive PPO's. Nearly one-fourth of all Seniors have this plan from a variety of private insurance companies competing for them. When I became disabled I quickly learned that the 20% copay under Medicare added up to more than I could afford. So I bought an annual MA plan with Humana, getting their PPO for just for $80 a month. I get to keep all my specialists and pay from $5-$35 on average per visit. Hospital stays and at home care are reasonable and if I were fit I could even use a free gym membership. I love my MA, which says a lot considering how much I need and use it.


Yet once Obamacare cuts start, analysts expects enrollments in MA's to drop by up to half of the 14 million people currently using these plans. Some insurance companies will stop offering MA's while other plans will offer less benefits yet become prohibitively expensive. There goes President Obama's claim that if you like your health care you will get to keep it. Wrong! Not only does Obama know this but he is lying to us about it and I do not use the word lightly.



The cuts were to start in January, but as you sign up for MA's in October then Senior's would see the impact of the cuts right before the election. That could lose the election for Obama. To prevent this, the president raided $8 billion from a fund to be used for something else. The Government of Accounting came out and said this was an illegal usage of this money. But once again the president is getting away with a clearly unconstitutional act for the sole reason of trying to fool Americans in order to get re-elected.




Here's another fact not discussed. Once cuts take affect and Seniors lose their current MA's or find them too costly they will look for new health insurance. Guess who does not sell MA's but does sell competing insurance plans and expects to make a huge windfall profit from Seniors replacing their MA's? AARP! Now do you understand why they support Obamacare? I just heard Obama's campaign manager say that Obamacare must be good if AARP supports it. Bullshit. Of course AARP loves Obamacare! AARP will make millions in profit from new members who move away from the decimated MA's. If AARP truly cared about Seniors they would be against this plan which hurts the 14 million Seniors on Medicare Advantage Plans.




One final fact. You must be 65 to qualify for most other plans, including AARP's. So once Obamacare starts cutting Medicare Advantage Plans, then as a 54 year old disabled person, I am screwed. Yes a few insurance companies will sell another plan to me but at a cost ranging from $350 to $1200 a month! It is rough enough coping with my disabilities but now I am truly afraid of the future when Obamacare raids my Medicare Advantage Plan. If my MA is dropped then I am back to just the 20% copay with Medicare, which is terrifying.
Without my Medicare Advantage Plan, my choices become bankruptcy, or to postpone or even not have medical care, including operations to save my limbs or even my life. Overly dramatic? Not really.




In 2009, for example, I needed four separate operations adding up to medical expenses of just over $500,000 for the year! Through my MA, I paid $12k, a lot, but reasonable, since if I only had Medicare I would have owed 20% or $100,000! The April surgery saved my right leg, two others were to save my left leg, is keeping them worth bankruptcy? People might be forced to ask questions just like this under Obamacare. So I have every reason to fear the cuts to this wonderful MA health insurance plan. And to wonder in what world is it right that Obamacare is paid for at the expense of disabled Americans, the very people who depend on health care the most?




Now compare Obamacare to the proposed Romney/Ryan plan. First and most importantly, they say it will not impact anyone over 55, unlike Obamacare which is paid for by taking funds from the Senior's Medicare Advantage Plans. Then I just read that the Republican plan using vouchers will actually be very similar to my Medicare Advantage Plan. They feel that offering it to more people will create more competition and therefore lower prices to the consumer. So instead of ruining this wonderful insurance plan, as Obamacare does, Romney will offer MA's to everyone! And you will love it!




But regardless of the Republican plan, I am just very grateful that Romney and Ryan are finally calling the president on his lies about Obamacare. Now we can begin to have a real debate with facts about what Obamacare will do to Seniors. Not what it might do but what it will do. And what Obamacare will do is hurt old and disabled Americans, the very people Medicare was created to help.

Us or Them

Congress finally passed a temporary budget to get us through a few more weeks. As you probably know, the hold up was in funding FEMA. Some Conservatives wanted to offset funding emergencies with cuts in spending. Liberals argued that it wasn't fair to withhold much needed money to hurricane or tornado victims while Congress debated where the money should come from and which budgets to cut.

Surprisingly, I agreed with the liberals. Although I think government should have a limited role in our lives, we do need help during disasters. However, I also partially agree with conservatives in that we must have offsetting spending cuts to pay for it. The issue, however, is where we should cut our spending. Conservatives want to take money from green energy. I wouldn't mind cutting spending on that but this isn't the time or place. No, there is a much better area to cut spending to fund FEMA. The next time there is an emergency requiring federal assistance conservatives should ask the following question:

Do we provide billions in assistance to Americans in need or do we continue to provide the same amount to Pakistanis? I picked Pakistan as it's been in the news but you could substitute it for nearly any other country. Hell, we seem to give your money to just about everybody but you. If curious here is the listing of how much we gave other countries as of 2009: http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/2011/tables/11s1296.pdf

Why do we give $7 million to Ireland? Nice people but let England take care of them. Does anybody know where Kyrgyzstan is for we gave that country $43 million! In 2009 we gave over $11 trillion to the Middle East including that $1.2 trillion to Pakistan and $8.6 trillion to Afghanistan plus another $1.7 trillion to Egypt. Then there was the $1.2 trillion the US gave to Columbia in 2009. Why? And on top of all this largess is the copious amounts of your hard earned money goes to the United Nations. In 2009 we gave $589 trillion to this institution which takes our money while it frequently denounces our country, our ideals

We can't continue to do both, not in the current economic situation. And to add insult to injury, far too many of the countries we help would cheer to see our citizens in trouble. In fact they would be more inclined to assist in the United States downfall then to lend us a helping hand. So the question is as simple as do we help our own citizens or do we help some other country while our citizens go in need?


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Fair Share vs. Paris Hilton

I keep hearing the president tell us that the rich should pay their fair share to the government. But what is a fair "fair share" percentage? On the low end are the religious folks who say that their religion requires that they tithe so if 10% is enough for God it should be enough for Obama. On the hand, I have heard a number of progressive Democrats say that the rich should give half of all their income to the government.








The underlying thought is that the government can spend rich people's money better than they can. But is that true? Oh and by the way, for the do-gooders who think they are carrying on Robin Hood's job, they have it backwards. Robin Hood did not steal from the rich to give to the poor. No, he actually stole the unreasonable taxes collected by the government and returned that money to the hard working folks who paid those exorbitant taxes. It is Republicans who more truly follow in Robin Hoods footsteps, not Democrats.

Now back to who can better spend rich people's money. For example, a lot of people might say that the government would do a better job spending the money of trust fund kids. You know, those filthy rich offspring who got millions and millions simply by having the right daddy. But isn't every parent's dream to provide for their children and give them a better life than they had? Well yes, but still, they don't need that much money, do they? Besides, everyone knows that trust fund babies have a tendency to throw away their money on fancy cars, luxurious homes, expensive wines, lots of jewelry, not to forget roomfuls of clothes and rows and rows of shoes and purses. Simply disgraceful! Unless, of course, you make the clothes or sell the shoes or repair the cars or provide the furniture.









Almost as bad as the trust fund babies are the wives of the filthy rich men. The antics of these housewives are all over TV. If they were the original wife, people might begrudgingly acknowledge their help over the years, be it at the office or raising the children. Trophy wives, though, are worse than trust fund kids for they dislodged the first wife who was there during the hard times and can simply enjoy spending all of their new husband's money. And when they are not on a shopping spree they are at the salon or spa or gym.

Oh right, we're back to spending money on services and goods. All that spending, all that money, fueling the economy, wouldn't you say? And it goes to people who work and who in turn spend their earnings on more goods and services. But the government would give a large part of the wealthy's "fair share" to people who don't work. You know, that take from the rich and give to the poor that Stalin liked so much. Sorry but I prefer that trust fund babies and trophy wives keep their money and spend it however they wish, thank you very much.








Rich men's wives, however, also have a tendency to throw away a lot of money going to fancy dinners and balls given by other rich people. When you or I give a party we might ask a friend to bring a bottle of wine or perhaps a dessert. Rich folks think nothing in spending tens of thousands of dollars for a seat at a dinner party. Oh wait, typically all that money goes to a charity, doesn't it? And then in addition to the ten or twenty-five thousand dollar a plate dinner they then have auctions to raise millions of dollars for a hospital or charity. On a lesser scale are all the golf tournaments, walk-a-thons and other charity events held every weekend for every illness and charity. Take away their money and lots of charities will be underfunded which will negatively affect the research to find a cure for AIDs or breast cancer or cystic fibrosis.

Then there are the rich men, themselves; men who worked hard and provided a new or improved product or service that consumers wanted and paid money for, thereby making the men rich, not to mention his stockholders, investors and even his employees.









These rich guys probably don't spend as much money as their wives or children in buying things as they are too busy working. Yet at that office or factory, these men hire thousands and thousands of people who's salaries in turn buy more products and services. Plus rich guys help other businesses. In a good economy they invest their money not only back into their own company but also into other companies as stocks or bonds or venture capital. Money that again fuels the economy with new businesses meaning new jobs and opportunities for the rest of us.

But you don't hear any of this, do you? No, all Obama says is that the government should take more money from the rich, some hypothetical "fair share" that the Democrats will determine. And when they take that money then the rich will have less to spend on products and services provided by the middle class. All those little boutiques, restaurants, shops, beauty parlors, gyms etc. who employ us middle class and we in turn buy more things with the salaries earned from catering to the rich. But once Obama has this money, well, watch those businesses disappear.






Jobs will disappear when the rich have less money to spend yet, we know how well the government is at creating jobs. They did such a stellar job with the stimulus funds so expect the same failure when they have rich people's money. Just watch as our high unemployment rate jumps even higher if Obama gets his "fair share" tax hike.

And you explain to my niece or any other child with cystic fibrosis why we would raise less money if there's a "fair share" tax. That fewer people would attend our charity events if the wealthy are forced to pay higher taxes. Sorry kids, with less research money, finding a cure to allow CF patients to live past their mid 30s will just take longer now. All because Obama thinks the government deserves to have rich people's money.




So the next time Obama or any Democrat starts to argue about a "fair share" tax tell them that the rich, including Paris Hilton or any of the Housewives from wherever, help our economy and our charities better than the government ever could.

Panic Time

The Obama presidency is imploding. You know it is bad when ultraliberal James Carville writes an OpEd telling Obama that it is time to panic. He's right. Just this week Obama's administration has been hit with a number of potential scandals and one very embarrassing special election. And now only 43 % approve how Obama is handling his job as president according to a recent CNN poll and over half of those polled (53%) disapprove. But it gets worse for when asked how Obama is handling the economy just 36% approve and a whopping 61% disapprove. Yup, it sure is time to panic.

How angry and fed up must people be when a predominantly Jewish population who has had a democrat Congressman since the 1920's bypassed the Jewish Democrat candidate for a Catholic Republican? Wow. But as Obama's old pastor once so famously said "the chickens have come home to roost". In this case, the Presidents favoritism of the Arab Middle East, mishandling of Israel and rude behavior during Netanyahu's last visit is resulting in the disenfranchising of the Jewish voters. And even as Obama is losing his core base his administration is being rocked with scandals.








Yesterday the Chicago Tribune entitled "Obama's Solyndra scandal reeks of the Chicago Way". And they should know. So what happened? Solyndra, a company making a new kind of solar panels, was the pride of Obama's green initiative. In spite of warnings or the fact that the Bush administration turned it down, Obama rushed to push through giving Solyndra $535 million of stimulus money in 2009. This week Solyndra declared bankruptcy.

They are calling this crony capitalism meaning Obama is helping businesses who have helped him. Yup, typical Chicago politics. No surprise what with Obama picking Bill Daley as his Chief of staff earlier this year. What else would you expect from a Daley who is pictured below having a laugh with our president and the infamous ex Governor Blagojevich.









A new name in the news is George Kaiser. He is the wealthiest man in Oklahoma, a contributor to Obama's campaign and a major investor in Solyndra. The White House logs shows that Kaiser was at the White House nearly 20 times in the month before receiving the stimulus money. And he wrote the contract such that investors will be paid first, then the government. I guess we can kiss that half a billion dollars goodbye.







How did they blow through $535 million in less than two years? It could be the new factory that opened a year ago, the one in which Obama toured and gave a speech. Or maybe it's the fact that they made solar panels at $6 a piece and according to multiple sources sold them for $3 a piece. Even lemonade stand Susie knows that it is stupid to sell at a loss.

No wonder our economy is getting worse under Obama. His economic team, starting with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner is clueless. (Remember that Geithner had been president of the Federal Reserve Board of NY during the initial bank melt down in 08-09. Some Wall Street insiders blame Geithner for worsening the economic collapse due to what he did or didn't do to help salvage banks.)








Again, Carville is correct in demanding that Obama fire them all, starting with the Treasury Secretary. Meanwhile, Obama's new economic plan is simply stimulus junior with no new initiatives. As the saying goes, the definition of insanity is to do the same thing again and expect different results.

Then there are the growing scandals, old and new. There is Operation Fast and Furious, the gun running debacle. The ATF, again under Geithner, came up with the ludicrous idea to sell guns across the border in the hopes of tracking them and arresting Mexican criminals. Instead the guns have been used in multiple illegal incidents including the deadly shooting of one of our border patrol agent.





And the scandals keep on coming. Keep an eye on LightSquared another company who's top man was a major Obama contributor. As the Washington Post put it: "The deal has been criticized not only for its 'pay to play' appearance but also because the LightSquared network would interfere with the part of the wireless spectrum that is used by Global Positioning Systems (GPS)." Now a top level Air Force General is saying he was pressured by the White House to testify that this system would not interfere with the military's usage of the current GPS system, when, in fact, it could.

The week ended with the publication of a new "insider's" book: "Confidence Men: Wall Street, Washington, and the Education of a President,” by journalist Ron Suskind. In addition to detailing infighting among top Obama advisors it also states that Obama's administration was an all men's club. At best women felt ignored and excluded, at worst, according to former White House communications director Anita Dunn, it was a hostile environment where women felt like "a piece of meat."







Today, many of the women are now backtracking on these remarks which is understandable, for in the book they claimed that the the men's club attitude and the instigator for the poor treatment of women came directly from the president. Oops, just one more Obama mis-step.

Last week was definitely not a good week for President Obama. I am also old enough to hear the echo of history as pundits and the media begin to ask what did Obama know about these scandals and when did he know it? To have this hit as he begins to campaign for the next election has even resulted in a few whispers of an acronym I haven't heard in 40 years. Can anyone say CREEP?









- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

My Fair American

There has been a lot of serious talk about the president's speech tonight. It seems as if both sides are getting a bit heated. And that union leader went too far in his condemnation of conservatives. Even ABC news went after Obama for not denouncing the guy. What we need is to ease up a bit though I doubt if Obama could do it. Actually if he were as politically smart as he thinks he is he would start the speech today with the Pledge of Allegiance. Can you imagine the visual impact that would have? But he would never do that, it's too politically charged what with that"God" reference.





Anyway, on a much lighter note, as I listened to pundits debate about tonight I was suddenly reminded of one of the lesser known songs from My Fair Lady. The song is called "Show Me" and is sung by a woman who, well, let the lyrics speak for themselves and for how I feel about Obama and his job speech tonight: "Words! Words! I'm so sick of words! First from him, now from you! Is that all you blighters can do? ... Make me no undying vow. Show me now! Sing me no song! Read me no rhyme! Don't waste my time, Show me! Don't talk of June, Don't talk of fall! Don't talk at all! Show me!
Never do I ever want to hear another word. There isn't one I haven't heard! Show me!" You see why I thought of this song?!

I took another look at My Fair Lady and found that there is a more famous song from this musical which also applies to America today. It is the very first song in the musical in which Henry Higgins deplores the way the common Englishmen speaks. Turn it around for Americans and the Hispanics and it hits the mark with such lines as: "An American's way of speaking absolutely classifies him. The moment he talks he makes some other American despise him. One common language I'm afraid we'll never get, Oh, why can't the American learn to set a good example to people whose English is painful to your ears... Why can't all Americans learn to speak?"






I also discovered a song that is a good fit for President Obama by just substituting the word "spent" for the word "dance" . Here is a brief look at those new lyrics: "I could have spent all night, I could have spent all night and still have spent some more." Yup sounds like our President!

Of course the fun song "With A Little Bit of Luck" is perfect just the way it is (if you're union or maybe a progressive, that is). The first few lines tell it all: "The Lord above gave man an arm of iron, So he could do his job and never shirk. The Lord gave man an arm of iron-but, With a little bit of luck, With a little bit of luck, Someone else'll do the blinkin' work!"






There are other songs but I'll include only one more from My Fair Lady. Simply change the premise to be a song sung by people who voted for Obama but are now disillusioned. With that in mind the first stanza is also perfect as it is and nothing needs to be change: " What a fool I was, what a dominated fool, to think that you were the earth and the sky, What a fool I was, What an elevated fool, What a mutton-headed dote was I! No, my reverberated friend, you are not the beginning and the end." Oh yes, a perfect fit indeed!






- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

A Not So Big Job Plan

Happy Labor Day Weekend to all of you who actually have jobs. For those without one, well, help should be coming soon if you believe that Obama will be announcing a new jobs plan to the Joint Houses next week. It has to be really big, right? Why else would the President ask to speak to both Houses, something usually reserved for the annual State of the Union, declaring war or some other monumental reason.




Except I've noticed something about our president. He doesn't really care. Remember this is the man who voted "Present" while in the Senate rather than care one way or another about an issue. Sure he gives great speech but take away the teleprompter and his passion is as solid as the smoke from his cigarette, wavering then disappearing entirely. Good thing for us.

What of Obamacare you ask. Sure, he wanted the Health Care Plan but not enough to sit down and work out a plan or even give many guidelines to the Democratically controlled House and Senate. I actually think we have it wrong, it is not so much Obamacare as it is Pelosicare. She and the still, but not for long, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid were the ones who pushed this abomination through their respective houses. Obama just sat in the Oval Office letting his minions do all his work for him then he took credit for it.



This upcoming "big" speech on jobs is a great example. First it is way over due and yet this spring he finally realizes that it is one of the most urgent issues he has. Then he decides that this urgent issue isn't so urgent that it couldn't wait until everyone comes back from the August vacation. But wait. Now it so urgent again that it just had to be given next Wednesday. Oh, the Republicans have a presidential debate at the Reagan Library planned for months on that same date? Gee what a coincident. (Wink wink, nudge, nudge, let's mess with the Republicans).

Except for the first time in history, that I know of, a president's request to meet with both Houses was turned down. Some say that Boehner, the Republican Speaker of the House was disrespectful to the office of the presidency. Maybe. But it could also be said that Obama was using his office to play politics and simply screw the Republicans.

It says something about the people around Obama that no one had the foresight to wonder what would be the ramifications if Boehner said no.



Is Obama and his team that arrogant or simply that stupid? So when Boehner did say no, they were basically left with their asses hanging in the wind and after much sputtering and posturing, the President's team said he would give his speech on Thursday, not Wednesday. In this game of political chicken it was Obama who blinked.

The thing is, the President could have won that petty fight if he really cared. If he showed he passionately believed he had to give that speech on Tues, not Weds and stood up to Boehner with the full force of the presidency behind him then Beohner would have acquiesced . But he didn't really care. It was just a political game and Obama was the one who caved once again.

Or Obama could have said he would give the speech on Wednesday but from the Oval Office not in front of Congress. Of course the problem with that idea is that this time around what he says isn't going to be as important as how it will look to the public. Obama wants to be seen angrily lecturing Republicans, looking all stern while he shakes his finger as they must sit there. On the other hand, he wants to camera to show the enthusiastic Democrats leaping to their feet applauding their wonderful leader. It's all a show folks.



When I said what he will say won't matter, well, funny thing about that speech. I just saw a clip where it showed Obama early this summer saying he would give a "specific plan" on creating new jobs, then mid summer he said he will present a plan but no more promises of details and now it is being touted as an outline with the full plan and details to be determined after he talks to the people. Wait a minute. Didn't he just have that bus tour to do exactly that? So now this "big" speech is nothing more than a campaign stunt; to screw the Republicans, make them look bad and himself good and then to set himself up for more campaign tours under the auspices of discussing jobs. Yup it's nothing but Obama once again stating one big "present" with nothing solid behind it at all. Personally I'm not even going to bother to tune in - turns out that by moving the speech to Thursday it is now up against the kickoff NFL season. Go Packers!



- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Cheaters

When I was in school I always hated the teachers who would punish an entire classroom just because a handful of students misbehaved. I think this was my first glimpse that life wasn't fair. And I didn't like it one bit.

Unfortunately once grownup, the miscreants and cheaters became even more numerous and in some instances more flagrant in their behavior.


Except instead of a teacher, the authority they are trying to cheat is our government. And like my teachers of yesteryear, the government punishes all of us through new laws and taxes because of the few people trying to beat the system. Just think how many laws would be unnecessary if people followed even half of the ten commandments. Or what if everyone had to pay x% of their income or $100 whichever is greater. No loopholes, no excuses for the rich, and it makes the 50% who don't pay any taxes chip in a small amount, to be fair, of course.

What got me thinking about this were two stories in the news this week. First, more people are claiming SSI disability pay than in the past and the government is concerned and plans to investigate. The next day, completely unassociated with the earlier story, there was yet another headline about someone cheating the government of disability pay.


This time it was a fireman who was collecting full disability pay yet they showed clips of him participating in some kind of mixed martial arts fight. The government investigated and found him able to return to work. But his fireman's union disagrees and continue to pay him roughly $70,000 to not work!

People who abuse the system just infuriate me. As most know, I am disabled and it would be impossible for me to return to work. Yet because of all the past and current cheaters, I am being punished. I had to fight first our government then the insurance company for them to recognize that, yes, I really am disabled. Out of everything I went through, and I went through a lot, perhaps what bothered me the most was the accusation behind their actions that I, too, was a cheat and a liar trying to beat the system. Even now, I feel as if I have to defend why I really am disabled and apologize for not working.

The news story about the increase in disability claims actually blamed it on cheaters. They said this increase didn't make sense as the country is healthier than in the past. Yet I don't think that being healthy and being disabled are necessarily the same. I haven't had a cold or the flu in years; but I can't sit up, stand or walk for more than a few hours a day. Plus as everyone knows, the population is aging so of course there will be more disabled people.


Unfortunately, the government is predisposed to think everyone is like that fireman, out to beat the system. Now, all that will happen are more laws or requirements making it even more difficult for those of us who really are disabled to qualify for disability pay.

Life isn't fair. Thanks to the cheaters who abuse the system, we will continue to be burdened with unnecessary laws and harassed by the government and other people who wonder if we are cheaters, too. And I still don't like it one bit!





- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Not My Fault

After a long weekend of silence the president finally came out of his office to discuss S&P's ratings downgrade. He might as well have stayed in his office for all the help he was. At one point I did start to get excited when he said "I have a plan.." thinking he was finally going to produce his own plan to reduce the debt but no, the whole sentence was "I have a plan on how to proceed." Gee thanks. And it seemed as if his great plan was for the committee proposed by the new debt bill to determine what to do. Why bother? He already has a plan from his first debt committee.




Last year he commissioned a bipartisan committee of primarily retired (I think) Congressmen to come up with a plan to reduce the deficit. And they did. Their 59 page Bowles Simpson report would reduce the deficit by $4 trillion while also lowering the tax rate! Unfortunately it had one fatal flaw.

This concise well thought out plan had the nerve to propose increasing the age for Social Security and making cuts to Medicare. So, true to form, the Democrats refused to let this plan even get out of committee. And yet during his speech Obama lectured Congress on the need for compromise. Maybe it's just the other side that needs to compromise.



For Obama, compromise certainly doesn't include any changes to his proposed fair share tax - you know the one where he sticks it to the rich to redistribute their wealth to the poor. Nope, no compromise on that but he did offer to look at "a modest adjustment to health care..." (and, in spite of the word "modest", I still got excited wondering if he actually cut back Obamacare?) "... like Medicare". Damn Disappointed again.



S&P dropped our ratings on Friday and the next day a memo must have gone to Democrats for by Sunday every liberal was calling the S&P move "the Tea Party downgrade". Of course, blame it on the Tea Party. I had hoped that the president would be above this type of petty politics. Not exactly. He didn't come out and name the Tea Party but he definitely insinuated them a lot.

At one point he talked about how defaulting on the debt was used as a bargaining chip which could do enormous damage. Another time he said the debt problem was "not due to a lack of a plan but due to lack of political will, the insistence in drawing lines and the refusal to put what is best for the country ahead of self interest, or party or ideology". Yup, that's the Tea Party, those terrible men and women with principles they believe in.

But why are liberals afraid of the Tea Party? Democrats still hold two of the three branches, not to mention most of the media. Republicans only have a majority in the House and within that are the small coalition known as the Tea Party. Out of all the men and women running the country or reporting on it the Tea Party is a very small group. And yet the President and every other Liberal are afraid of them and the media spends a disproportionate time bashing them. So why?




Thinking about this question I keep seeing the image of Toto pulling back the curtain and revealing the "great and powerful Wizard of Oz". That's the power of the Tea Party citizens. Ever since the mortgage crisis and stimulus bills people have been confronting their politicians and demanding answers. OMG. Citizens actually wanting to hold their representatives and senators accountable for their actions. How dare they. Well they dare alright! And we will continue to hold them accountable for fixing this debt mess.

As for the Tea Party politicians? Well let me quote a Democrat friend of mine. He recently said he didn't necessarily agree with them but he admired the fact that Tea Party politicians were willing to stand on their principles even if it meant not be re-elected next year. Wow. Too bad more Democrats don't feel that way.

One last thought. Every Democrat, including the president, was either blaming the Tea Party or else insinuating that Standard & Poors were wrong. These politicians adamantly stated that the US didn't deserve this downgrade or that S&P miscalculated. No. We did deserve this wake up call. But how typical of the liberals to either say the information was wrong or else blame it on somebody else. Never have I heard any Democrat own up to even a part of the downgrade. Sadly, not even President Obama showed any leadership. No "the buck stops here" with him. To them accountability is a dirty word. No wonder they fear the Tea Party!

*Double click on a graph to view them bigger

- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad