Did you ever think you'd hear a sermon about urinating?

Didn't we start to see that this was going to end up badly back during the 2008 campaign? Tens of thousands of people would show up a Obama campaign rallies where they would be handed mass produced signs simply saying "Change." Later the focus groups led the Obama team to add the phrase "we Can Believe In." That's it! These fools would grab those signs and wave them like the expressions were their own! Ask them what type of change and they would visit you with dumb stares and vacant expressions.

And didn't we all know that we were in a mess of trouble when, on election day, we were treated to cheering idiots saying that now they wouldn't have to worry about putting gas in their cars or making their mortgage payments! Don't laugh! These people actually believed that? Hundreds of thousands - perhaps millions - of people who couldn't have written one coherent sentence on the structure of our federal government actually thought that Obama was going to fill up their cars and make their mortgage payments for them.

And didn't we know we were really screwed when we saw that interview of Obama voters as they left the polling places. The film crew actually asked Obama campaign workers to select those who would be interviewed .. and yet they couldn't answer even the simplest of questions: "Who controls the congress right now?" "The Republicans!" These people were fools ... idiots ... and yet their vote counted the same as any American with an actual clue.

I guess there's no real point to this .... Just to say that every morning I wake up I expect to see more damage having been done to our country and our culture by this dangerous man placed into office by people who were seduced by slogans and others who voted for Obama because he looked like them. Maybe I'm just dreaming of a country where voters have to exhibit a modicum of intelligence before they're allowed to cast votes. And don't give me that "right to vote" nonsense. The right doesn't exist in federal elections. Someday, when the final history of our Republic is written, we're going to understand the long-term consequences of opening the polls to people without a clue.

A lot of talk has happened over this cluster-fornication in NY 23. The fallout from the race continues, and as it persists, things are looking uglier for Republicans. RINO Senator Lindsey Graham is warning that conservatives are going to destroy the Republican Party if they try to drive away moderate candidates. He says, "To those people who are pursuing purity, you'll become a club not a party ... Those people who are trying to embrace conservatism in a thoughtful way that fits the region and the state and the district are going to do well. Conservativism is an asset. Blind ideology is not." Perhaps Graham was addressing the abortocentrists in the party. If not, he should have been.

Let me remind you that this idea of party purity goes both ways. MoveOn.org is on an email campaign to defeat any Democrat who is not 100% in support of Obamacare. Now, there are a lot of you who will argue that MoveOn.org does not represent the vast majority of the Democrat Party. This "progressive" wing of the Democrat Party is always in jeopardy of splitting voters. Let's hope the looters pursue the purity principle while conservatives ease up a bit. Might even save the Republic.

Now let's see ... where did The Community Organizer spend most of his weekend? Oh yeah ... I seem to remember that he spent much of the weekend in New Jersey to campaign for Governor John Corzine. Joe Biden went there too. All for naught. Chris Christie won ... a Republican winning in a heavily Democrat State ... and winning in the face of intense campaigning by Obama.

Bob McDonnell, the Republican candidate for governor of Virginia won big ... that would be by 18%.

The White House, predictably, is saying that neither of these races is a reflection on the job Barack Obama has been doing. That's the exact same thing The White House would say if the president were a Republican and Democrats had taken two Governorships from Republicans. We're also told that Obama wasn't watching election returns last night; he was watching basketball. Imagine that.

As for the 23rd District of New York? That's where the liberal Republican candidate Dede Scuzzywhatsit withdrew from the race and threw her support to the Democrat. I'm still trying to figure that one out. One thing seems certain ... New York needs to do something about their Republican leadership .. and this Michael Steele thing isn't working out all that well either.

Yeah ... that's when the voters elected Barack Obama. If you've been scanning the Internet you've seen no shortage of news stories about disappointed - and sometimes disgusted - voters who actually thought they were voting for some type of wonderful change in Washington.

I think the retrospective on Obama's first year should really be saved until the one-year mark from his coronation, not the election. I will say this ... Obama has been far worse than I would have ever imagined. Any promises he made about transparency and bipartisanship in Washington have turned out to be a complete joke. He has shown absolutely no understanding of the role of capitalism and our free markets in the creation of our amazing standard of living in America. He has treated the Constitution as a nuisance rather than a blueprint for governance.

For many years I've been talking about politicians who believe that America's greatness comes from government. Obama is the embodiment of that principal.

Others have said this .. but Obama is completely in over his head. This is a job he was simply not prepared to handle. He became president not on the basis of accomplishment, but on the basis of charisma and a well-orchestrated campaign. His election was a crowning achievement of our system of government education. He certainly has the potential of destroying this country as we know it. The ballot box still works ... for now. I truly believe that 2010 may be the last chance we have to save our Republic from the likes of Obama, Pelosi, Reid, Frank, Rangel, Waxman, Hoyer and the rest of the statist crowd.

Where did we get this? Well, from MSNBC, of course. MSNBC anchor Carlos Watson had this little gem for listeners last Monday:

"..you start to wonder whether in fact the word socialist is becoming a code word, whether or not socialist is becoming the new N-word for frankly for some angry upset birthers and others."

No surprise there. After all, haven't we learned that any criticism leveled at The Community Organizer has to be based on nothing but the fact that he's a black man in the White House. It's ALL racist; not just using the "socialist" word, but ALL criticism. Get used to it. It's really pretty simple ... if you don't believe that government is what makes America great .. you're a racist. Now you know.

A couple of fun things just came up in Jamie Dupree's segment of the Information Overload hour. Someone has set up a fun ant-Alan Grayson site: mycongressmanisnuts.com. And then there's this footage of a Fox News reporter chasing Grayson down the hall trying to get a comment:

There is a column from the UK declaring that despite his rock star election, Barack Obama has failed to defeat conservatism in America. That's not just based on his opinion, it is based on Gallup poll trends since 2004. Like these for instance:

• Perceptions that there is too much government regulation of business and industry jumped from 38% in September 2008 to 45% in September 2009.

• The percentage of Americans saying they would like to see labor unions have less influence in the country rose from 32% in August 2008 to a record-high 42% in August 2009.

• Public support for keeping the laws governing the sale of firearms the same or making them less strict rose from 49% in October 2008 to 55% in October 2009, also a record high. (The percentage saying the laws should become more strict -- the traditionally liberal position -- fell from 49% to 44%.)

• The percentage of Americans favoring a decrease in immigration rose from 39% in June/July 2008 to 50% in July 2009.

• The propensity to want the government to "promote traditional values" -- as opposed to "not favor any particular set of values" -- rose from 48% in 2008 to 53% in 2009. Current support for promoting traditional values is the highest seen in five years.

• The percentage of Americans who consider themselves "pro-life" on abortion rose from 44% in May 2008 to 51% in May 2009, and remained at a slightly elevated 47% in July 2009.

• Americans' belief that the global warming problem is "exaggerated" in the news rose from 35% in March 2008 to 41% in March 2009.

Now remember that being a Conservative and being a Republican are very different. And they will continue to diverge so long as the Republican Party hangs on to this obsession with women's reproductive parts. But 2010 will be the test to see if conservatism translates into votes for Republicans ... or where else will they turn?

Are you among those who are uncomfortable with both the Republicans and the Democrats? Don't feel pregnant. Just how do you think I was finally driven to become a lifetime member of The Libertarian Party? I default to freedom and individual responsibility pretty much across the board.

In the previous item I made reference to the Gallup Polls. Where here's some more for you. For about 12 years or so Gallup has been using two questions to categorize those who respond to their polls on the basis of ideology. Here are the two questions ... how would you respond to them?

Some people think the government is trying to do too many things that should be left to individuals and businesses. Others think that government should do more to solve our country's problems. Which comes closer to your own view?

Some people think the government should promote traditional values in our society. Others think the government should not favor any particular set of values. Which comes closer to your own view?

OK. Where do you stand? If you listen to me for more than seven minutes you'll know that I believe that our country is trying to do too many things that should be left up to free individuals and private businesses and that I'll establish my own set of values, thank you very much, without government's help. If you responded to these questions the same way, then Gallup will classify you as a libertarian. In 2000 Gallup found that about 18 percent of respondents were Libertarians .. today that number is up to 23 percent. No worries --- I don't mind being in the minority if it's a minority that believes in individual responsibility and liberty.

Another point ... if you tell people that "libertarian" means "fiscally conservative and socially liberal," the number jumps up to 44 percent.

If you want to know how to scare away the achievers, just look to New York as a model. New York has managed to scare away the evil wealthy earners. You won't be surprised to learn that this is costing New York a lot of money. Over one million taxpayers have fled New York City since 2000. That means one out of every seven taxpayers moved out. Now here's an interesting fact. The people who have been bailing out of Manhattan were earning close to $100,000 a year. The people moving in to replace them earn only about $72,000 a year. That difference is the highest of any city or region in the country.

But what the hell ... who needs all those rich people around anyway. So what if they carry the load when it comes to funding government ... once we get more government in our lives we won't need these stupid rich people and their jobs anyway.

Have you been following this House election in upstate New York? The Republican candidate Dede Scozzafava has some stiff competition, and it isn't from the Democrat candidate. It is from Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman. Republicans Sarah Palin and Tim Pawlenty have thrown their support behind Hoffman in what is turning out to be a clash of principles ... what does it mean to be conservative versus Republican?

This Scozzafava woman has some positions that don't sit all that well with the Republican base. Truth is, she's probably running as a Republican only because that area has a history of voting Republican in congressional elections.

But wait until next year. The midterm elections of 2010 may be our last chance to save this Republic. No .. .I'm serious. With the anti-capitalists we have running the show right now the time is short. It may be next year ... or never. Watch the Republicans though. Despite what's at sake, Republicans are going to engage the idiotic abortion litmus test. Candidates are going to be judged primarily on whether or not they want to use the police power of government to force women to continue with pregnancies they want to terminate. This one question will be the beginning and the end of all deliberations as to whether or not to support particular Republican candidates. Makes sense, doesn't it? The future of this country is at stake and these abortocentrists are going to be doing the work of the Democrat party.

Barack Obama says that he isn't losing any sleep over Fox News. I'll buy it. But I bet you dollars to doughnuts that there are a lot of Obama officials and dogwashers who lose plenty of sleep over the fact that Fox News is VERY effective at poking holes in their White House bubble. But the latest comments actually come from the president himself. Obama says that Fox News is "operating basically as talk radio."

Here's the full quote: "I think what our advisers have simply said is that we are going to take media as it comes ... And if media is operating basically as a talk radio format then that's one thing, and if it's operating as a news outlet that's another but it's not something I'm losing sleep over."

Here again we see The Community Organizer focusing on three shows: Beck, O'Reilly and Hannity. Two currently have talk shows. O'Reilly had one, but got his ass kicked in the ratings. So once again let's make this point: Obama's gripe with Fox News is with the opinion and commentary shows, not the news shows. It might be nice if someone would sit The Community Organizer down and try to explain to him the difference between news and opinion. Hey, PrezBO .. you're never too old to learn!

Nancy Pelosi had an interview yesterday with CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, and Maria actually asked a good question! She challenged Nancy Pelosi on the Bush tax cuts, suggesting to Princess Nancy that allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire would be the same thing as a tax increase.

So here's the question: "Does the expiration of the Bush tax cuts mean that there will be tax increases?"

This could have been answered in one word: Yes.

But Nancy couldn't bring herself to admit it. Instead. Here is what she had to say via The Swamp:

"That wasn't a tax increase,'' Pelosi said. "It is.. eliminating a tax decrease that was there... It was controversial to begin with. It is... a boon to those who have had it for now. But I think that you will see that happen.

"That affects, what? The upper two percent of our population. What we're trying to do is lower... taxes for the middle class, relieve burdens... on business. So that we can be competitive in job creation. And I think you'll see some interesting things emerge-- from the conversations we're having now. ''

What about allowing those tax breaks to expire at a fragile time in an economic recovery, the speaker was asked.

"I don't think many people here see, nor do the American people see those tax cuts at the high end as being job-creating,'' she said. "They don't... think that that's part of the reason we're in the fiscal, the budgetary situation that we're in, because those tax cuts cost money. And... they were... a cost to our budget, without any commensurate impact on the economy for job creation. To return money to the treasury. So, nobody sees those as a job-creator.

"Return money to the treasury?" Did you get that? Tanking earned income away from a small businessman --- and make no mistake, the vast majority of people who will suffer these tax increases are small businessmen and women --- so taking their money is "returning money to the treasury!"

If the voters of this country were (a) not government-educated; and (b) not so focused on their Hollywood celebrity news; they would run this barking moonbat out of office.

I'm serious. You'd better be careful out there - we have a bunch of racists running around. Why do I say that? Because new polling from CNN/Opinion Research Corporation shows that 51% of Americans disagree with Obama on the issues that matter most to them. Now we know that The Community Organizer is so wise, so pure, so all-knowing; and he cares so much for each and every one of us ... even us crackers ... that there could be only one reason to oppose anything this wonderful man wants to do, and that is because we're racists! We just can't handle the idea of a black man in the White House - and we were fooled! We only found out he was black after we elected him! That's the only possible reason you could ever disagree with The Community Organizer on the issues that matter most to you. Not because you used your brain and an ounce of common sense to realize that things still aren't looking too good out there.

Ron Bloom. Ever heard the name? He is Obama's manufacturing czar. Last year, Bloom gave a speech to some union members in New York. He apparently was giving a speech on the union role in bankruptcy and restructuring of the auto industry. Here's what the guy had to say:

"Generally speaking, we get the joke. We know that the free market is nonsense. We know that the whole point is to game the system ... we know that this is largely about power. That this is an adults only, no limit game. We kind of agree with Mao that political power comes largely from the barrel of a gun. And we get it that if you want a friend you should get a dog."

Can you believe this? This character is The Community Organizer's manufacturing czar! Manufacturing is part of the private sector! It is at the core of our free market economy! And this moonbat is saying that the "free market is nonsense?" He believes that the whole point of free enterprise is to "game the system?"

Let's do a little recap here:

1. Obama writes of his gravitation toward Communist student groups and Marxist professors in college.
2. Obama appoints an avowed Communist to be his green jobs czar.
3. Obama's communications director sings the praises of Mao
4. Now we have Obama's manufacturing Czar citing Mao and calling the free market "nonsense."

What am I missing here?

I don't think I'm missing anything at all. I believe we have a president who feels great animosity toward the free markets and everything-not-government.

I think if the American voters ... and this includes black voters who voted for this menace simply because of skin pigmentation ... need to freaking wake up or this country is royally screwed.

There's always the chance that a caller-more-brilliant-than-I will come up with a surprising story .. .and we'll go off on a tear; or there could be some amazing breaking news (Obama singing the praises of freedom, for instance) .. but right now these are some of the things that are on my radar for today's show:

1. George Will is telling you in a column this week what I've been telling you for five years ... give the Democrats control in Washington and they'll make so many Americans dependent on government that they'll never lose that control again.
2. Democrats are moving the some of the costs of ObamaCare off the books to protect Obama's pledge not to raise our deficit one cent to pay for his government takeover of health care
3. Obama has professed his fondness of Communist student groups and Marxist professors while in college. He appointed an avowed communist to be his "Green Jobs Czar." Now we learn that Anita Dunn, the White House Communications Director has a favorite philosopher .. a Communist responsible for the murder of 70 million people.
4. Balloon Boy. Actually, the story tag should be "Balloon Man." I just love the way the kid exposed this fool on national television.
5. It really is looking like there's some pretty strong cheating going on amongst the administrators of some Georgia government schools. You just can't get these one-year improvements in test scores any other way.
6. Ann Compton from ABC News actually agrees with me! It should be called the "government option," not the "public option."
7. It was a really big deal in the media when we found out that the Republicans made some fashion choices for Sarah Palin. Now we find out the Obama White House did the same with Justice Sotomayor. This time, though, it's not really a big deal in the media. Now why would that be?
8. $1.42 Trillion. That's the deficit for the last fiscal year. Does that figure mean anything to anyone?

Thanks, President Obama, for making this job so easy.

Democrats aren't waiting to pass ObamaCare. The destruction of our system of health care in this country is already underway.

Because it's effective, that's why. I'm really enjoying this orchestrated Obama Administration attack on Fox News. It's the same old story line ... Fox News is biased. And it's the same old flawed story line. To prove bias these leftists continually invoke the name of Hannity, O'Reilly or Beck. These, in case you haven't figured it out, are opinion shows.

During the presidential campaign I challenged my listeners to come up with an example of biased reporting in any of the NEWS content on Fox News. They couldn't.

The left is so accustomed to controlling the media they just can't stand it when someone strays off the reservation.. and does it with such devastating effectiveness. Remember, Fox News has ratings way and above those of CNN. It's no wonder the left is upset.

This is from one of Georgia's Republican candidates for governor. We'll offer it without comment and leave that up to you.

Plus, Fox News isn't just bad, it's unamerican.

After the looters make their nationalized medicine a reality we are, of course, going to see the quality of care decline while the costs skyrocket. There is going to be a big push to reform the reform. Who knows? Maybe someone will come along and suggest some privatization. The looters, of course, will fight back ... hard. I can hear some of the lines in the radio and TV ads they'll run right now:

The Republicans want to take away your health care.

The Republicans believe that only the rich deserve health care.

Vote the Republicans, get the flu, die.

Republicans are dangerous to your health.

As your doctor if no health care is right for you

Hoping ... just hoping ... that with every day that passes just a few more Americans open their eyes to see what the real game is here. This is NOT about your healthcare. This is about CONTROLLING your health care. It is about controlling you. Nothing more.

Actually ... after 40 years of rants, it really isn't all that hard. But this morning talking points about this horrific mess we have in the White House started swimming through my tightly-packed head ... and I started just writing down the bullet points. So here you go, your own ready-made guide to building your own WTF rant!

Bill Ayers -- ** - Marxist professors -- ** - Mindless slogans -- ** - worked for ACORN -- ** - Jeremiah Wright -- ** - Michelle's finally proud of America -- ** - Sort of a God -- ** - Gitmo terrorists to the US -- ** - Tax cheat Treasury Secretary -- ** - Attorney General who pardons terrorists -- ** - Communist green jobs Czar -- ** - Gotta transfer the wealth -- ** - The rich are evil -- ** - raise taxes on jobs producers -- ** - more food stamps for parasites -- ** - seize banks -- ** - seize auto makers -- ** - control executive pay -- ** - take over health care -- ** - special breaks for unions -- ** - bow and scrape to Putin -- ** - World wide apology tour -- ** - Meet with enemies before our friends -- ** - weaken our military -- ** - undecided in Afghanistan -- ** - pull back missile defense -- ** - Putin smiles -- ** -- bails on Iraq -- ** - More time addressing gay soldiers than Afghan casualties -- ** - Don't stand up to Kim Jong Ill -- ** - Weakness on Iran nukes -- ** - slam Israel -- ** - Kiss Hamas ass -- ** - demonize private health insurance industry -- ** - Spend taxpayer dollars on failed Olympics bid -- ** -- loves government -- ** - never talks of freedom and liberty -- ** - me me me me -- ** - panders to trial lawyers -- ** - breaks pledge on pork spending -- ** - Nobel Prize???? -- ** - Cloward-Piven strategy -- ** - Won't listen to military leaders -- ** - "I won" -- ** - Who really DID write "Dreams" -- ** - Plan to reign in talk radio -- ** - Our Homeland Security Director? -- ** - Amazing deficit spending -- ** - debt your grandchildren won't be able to pay off -- ** - pandering to tire make unions -- ** - Letting leftist activist group write the stimulus bill -- ** - government jobs increase, private sector jobs decrease -- ** - no respect for achievers -- ** - can't speak without teleprompter -- ** - that damned "O" logo thingy -- ** - talks too much - even with teleprompter -- ** - made America more vulnerable .. you'll see -- ** - Rahm Emmanuel -- ** - Chicago-style thug politics -- ** - lies profusely -- ** - no understanding of America's greatness. 

There .. that should do you for at least one rant. More to come.

Barack Obama: "I only saw Rod Blagojevich one time ... and that was in the stands and from a distance at a Chicago Bears Football Game." [needs citation, I can't find verification that he said this. -ww]

Really? I guess that depends on what your definition of "one" is.

That's the only explanation for this Florida congressman's completely bizarre behavior. I don't care whether he is (as he will remind you every time he gets a chance) a Harvard educated trial lawyer. The man has a screw loose.

Can you believe this moron? You people in Central Florida have a lot of work to do ... getting this guy out of office next November. I hope that Alan Grayson serves as a severe reminder that elections have consequences.

Yesterday you heard me ranting and raving about Alan Grayson's comment that he made on the floor of the House. He said something to the effect of "Republicans want you to die quickly." Yep, that's about the most intelligent argument he could come up with.

So many people have called for Grayson to apologize. Screw apologize. There is only one way to really take care of this creep and that is to vote his butt out of office. But until then, you have to put up with this clown. And now it is looking like he is doing it just for show. Just to get attention. I say that because of his ridiculous "apology" that he issued yesterday about his comments. Instead of saying that he was sorry of accusing Republicans of wanting people to "die quickly," he mockingly and sarcastically gave an apology to "the dead."

Here's the quote: "I would like to apologize," he said. "I apologize to the dead and their families that we haven't voted sooner to end this holocaust in America."

Yes, folks. You read that right. Alan Grayson DID just compare our healthcare system in America to the holocaust. To the systematic killing of six million people. He compared Hitler's genocidal attempt to wipe out the Jewish people to the American system of health care. Hitler's concentration camps are our hospitals. Our intensive care units compare to Hitler's gas chambers. Hitler's wrist tattoos are our hospital ID bracelets.

You can't really accurately convey the outrage of Grayson's statements. The only reasonable conclusion you can draw here is that Alan Grayson is mentally disturbed. Nothing else works.

In the meantime, the Jewish vote will continue to go Democrat.

Considering the latest headlines about ACORN, the organization has come under a lot of scrutiny. And with that scrutiny comes a topic that I touched on during the presidential campaign: Barack Obama's ties to ACORN. Stanley Kurtz and some other bloggers are doing some great research and uncovering more on characters like Patrick Gaspard. Ever heard of him? He is the White House Director of Political Affairs. He also has extremely close ties to ACORN and its CEO Bertha Lewis. Here's an example of what I mean:

So it's of interest that in late 1995, just as Obama was seeking New Party endorsement in Chicago, Patrick Gaspard was working as a New Party organizer in New Jersey. (This was reported in "Jersey Man Hopes to Create Third Political Party," NPR, "Morning Edition, " September 28, 1995). Then, in the July 2, 2001 issue of "The Nation," Gaspard and Bertha Lewis jointly published a reply to a June 4 Nation article by Doug Ireland which had been critical of the New York's Working Families Party (a successor to the New Party, led by New Party co-founder Dan Cantor, and largely controlled by ACORN and the SEIU). In the course of their letter, Gaspard and Lewis describe their extensive joint involvement in Working Families Party activities. The letter is signed: "Bertha Lewis, ACORN, WFP; Patrick Gaspard, SEIU State Council, WFP." This does seem to confirm and extend the new evidence of a close political tie between Patrick Gaspard and ACORN's Bertha Lewis.

We'll keep an eye on this folks. In the meantime, here's more.

Back in the 90s when news broke about Billy's affair with Monica Lewinsky, Hillary came up with this line about a "vast right-wing conspiracy." Remember that? All this was just a plot of the vast right-wing conspiracy to ruin her husband's presidency! Well it seems as though Barack Obama, too, is going to suffer at the hands of the evil right-wing conspirators. That is, according to Bill Clinton.

Clinton says that the right-wing conspiracy that once targeted him is now focusing on Barack Obama. He says that "their agenda seems to be wanting him to fail."

See, this is a typical Clinton way of thinking. When things start to go downhill, blame it all on the vast right-wing conspiracy!

Barack Obama can't get healthcare legislation passed, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Barack Obama can't commit more troops to Afghanistan, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Barack Obama can't stand up to Iran or Russia or Venezuela or North Korea, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Barack Obama can't convince the American public that we must pass global warming legislation, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Barack Obama can't stimulate our economy to create more jobs, because of the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Are you starting to understand how this works now, folks?

Is Nancy Pelosi losing it? Or is she after an Oscar? You saw here, didn't you? There she was yesterday during her weekly press avail getting all weepy-eyed over the harsh rhetoric aimed at her party's attempt to take over our health care. She says that she's afraid that all of this rhetoric is going to lead to violence. Here's her statement:

"I have concerns about some of the language that is being used because I saw ... I saw this myself in the late '70s in San Francisco. This kind of rhetoric is just, is really frightening and it created a climate in which we, violence took place and ... I wish that we would all, again, curb our enthusiasm in some of the statements that are made." Some of the people hearing the message "are not as balanced as the person making the statement might assume."

So what is she referring to? The murder of gay rights activist Harvey Milk.

The Republicans aren't taking too kindly to this comparison. Rep. Jeff Sessions called Pelosi's comment a "verbal assault on voters." He says, "Voters are justifiably frustrated with Washington, and the Speaker's verbal assault on voters accomplishes nothing other than furthering her reputation for being wildly out of touch with the American people."

You'll remember yesterday that I told you the left was engaged in a mental and emotional breakdown. Here they are almost nine months into the hopey-changey thing, and they've done nothing. Card check, nationalized health care, cap-and-tax ... all losers so far. Democrats are beside themselves. Earlier this week they were telling us that all of their wonderful ideas for America are being rejected because the people just don't like a black man in the White House. Now they're telling us that all of this opposition to these wonderful leftist programs are going to lead to violence and political assassinations.

Can't wait to see what's next.

There is a lawsuit flying around out there that is generating some attention. It was filed in a district court in Mississippi. The ultimate goal of the lawsuit would be to nearly double the number of seats in the House of Representatives. What is the based on? Well the argument is that the current system gives "unequal representation to different congressional districts."

Here's how it is explained: "The problem arises because each state gets at least one representative, regardless of size. So Wyoming, whose population is about 523,000, gets the same power in Congress as Nevada's 3rd district, which has over 900,000 constituents."

So if you start out with the current 435 seats, we are looking at an increase to at least 932 seats and as many as 1,761.

Wunnerful. Then the voters will be able to send 1,700 losers back to Washington every two years instead of 420.

.... Would you please sit down and shut up you old fool!

Yup. Think about this one for a moment. You're a young black man or woman, you're finishing up your education and hope to have a career in politics. Along comes Barack Obama and you're just elated! The barrier has been broken and a black man is now President of the United States! Your path is clear!

But wait! In the early months of Obama's presidency his inexperience starts to show. He fails on several big fronts: Health care, cap-and-trade and the union card-check bill. He tries to convince the American people that he can provide health care to 30+ million Americans who are now uninsured ... and that he can do it with fewer doctors and nurses while spending less than we're spending right now ... and all this without every denying anyone the health care they may need. The American people don't buy it.

Let's see .. what else. Where do we start? He negotiates an automobile bailout plan that favors unions at the expense of secured investors. He appoints a serial tax cheat to run the Treasury Department. He starts a trade war with China. He tells our European allies that they're on their own when it comes to defense against incoming ballistic missiles .. and on and on and on.

So .. as Obama's incompetence becomes more evident; as his anti-capitalistic philosophy fleshes out before our eyes; and his lies see the light of day ... the criticisms start coming in. How do the liberals respond! Predictably, that's how. Everyone who criticizes the president is simply a racist! They just don't like a black man in the white house!

Now .. just how does this hurt future political aspirants? How does it hurt you? You already understand, don't you? The majority of voters out there are still white ... and unless you're going to be content being a mayor or city councilman in a city or district with a majority black voting base, you're going to need some votes from the white side. You know that many white voters are feeling a little shell shocked right now. Many of them voted for Obama. They thought the time had come when our country was going to move beyond race! Wouldn't that have been wonderful? But in light of recent events they think that they might have made a mistake. They did what they thought was right and certainly politically correct, and suddenly they're racists because they have voiced some disagreements with Obama policies?

So .. what happens when you try to run for office? The voters out there looking at you may have no personal problem with you at all. But there's this lingering fear ... a fear born of the likes of Jimmy Carter, James Clyburn, Maureen Dowd, Howard Dean, Newsweek Magazine, The New York Times and others ... the fear that if these voters ever find it necessary to question or to object to something you do in office, they're going to be branded racists. Who, after all, is going to want to put you in office if your skin color makes you politically bulletproof? So .. they plan to play it safe from now on. Vote for whites. At least when they screw up you can go after them without putting on a white robe and cone hat.

The race baiters aren't doing you any favors. But you knew that, didn't you?

The people of California should be spanked for continuing to re-elect Maxine Waters to the Congress. This woman is truly a reflection of what I like to call the dumb masses. She's a notorious race pimp, so this whole uproar about racism probably sends tingles up her leg. She is just itching to jump into the conversation.

So here's what she had to add to this countries dialogue on race.

Maxine Waters believes that the media should investigate the racial views of conservative activists, like people who attend tea party rallies. She believes that it is not enough for African-Americans ... or as us non politically correct people like to say, "blacks" ... it is not enough for blacks to cry racism against these people. What we really need to do is use the media to expose their racist bias.

Here is how it went in her own words: "I want those people talked to; I want them interviewed ... I want journalists to be all over those rallies and the marches with the birthers and the teabaggers ... I think it's not enough for African-Americans to say what they think, what they suspect ... I think that if you put the microphones in front of them, if you do the interviews, they'll tell you what they believe, what they think."

By the way, do you think it is fair to lump birthers and tea party protesters in the same category? Because that seems to be the norm for Democrats lately. I would hope there would be a giant difference between people who are fed up with the size of our imperial federal government and the moonbats who believe that Barack Obama was born in Kenya.

Okay, the GOP seems to be in a tizzy over the number of czars in the Obama administration. Six Republicans have written a letter to the White House saying, "The creation of 'czars,' particularly within the Executive Office of the President, circumvents the constitutionally established process of 'advise and consent,' [and] greatly diminishes the ability of Congress to conduct oversight and hold officials accountable." The letter asks for information about their authority, qualifications and transparency. It also asked that the Obama administration stop from creating any new czar positions.

So the White House is on the offensive. White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said that the GOP "silence was deafening" on the issue of czars during the Bush administration. Well ... maybe because when Bush appointed a czar, he didn't really consider him to be a czar in the "Czar Nicholas" sense.

This is the favorite tactic of the left. When in doubt, just say "Well Bush did it!"

Bush, did in fact have czars during his administration. In fact, the whole concept of czars goes back to Ronald Reagan with the Drug Czar. President Clinton had 3 czars during his administration. George W. Bush had 4 czars. But Barack Obama has how many ... 16 ... 18 czars .. and counting?

When Jimmy Carter isn't busy looking for a new despotic dictator to sleep with he occupies himself with looking for alternate ways to look foolish. Yesterday he did what everyone who knows him expected him to do .. he weighed in on Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst during PrezBO's speech to congress last week. And - to the surprise of absolutely nobody - Carter has opined that Wilson's behavior was rooted in racism.

If you don't live in Atlanta you would really have no way of knowing that we view Carter as a highly visible crazy uncle who wanders around muttering to himself most of the time. We're glad you got to share in our pain on this one.

Do you folks remember Cynthia McKinney? Yeah .. the cutest little communist in Congress. Well, I have good news for you. Her seat in Congress is being occupied by someone who is every bit as nutty as she was. Just not as cute. His name is Hank Johnson. Johnson wants to be on the list with Jimmy Carter of people who blame Joe Wilson's comment on racism. Here's is the asinine comment from Rep. Hank Johnson.

Yup .. there you go. Hank Johnson says that people are going to start wearing white hoods if the House of Representatives doesn't rebuke Joe Wilson for his outburst.

Don't you folks fret none about the people who live in Johnson's district. Remember .. Cynthia McKinney. They're used to being represented in Congress by race pimps and fools. They've perfected the practice of going to congressmen in neighboring districts for constituent services while their congressman parades around all day in clown makeup.

And just who didn't see all of this coming? Come on, folks! Having you been paying attention for the past 30 years? In virtually every state and community in this nation liberals have been blaming racism for any failure, miscalculation, controversy or outright act of corruption by black elected officials. There has been a standard operating methodology in place for all of the 40 years I've been doing talk radio:

1. Black citizen elected to office.
2. Black official runs into opposition to policy objectives or has a problem with corruption.
3. Black supporters and liberals blame the problems on race.

One-two-three. This scenario has been played out so many times in modern American history it would have been impossible to keep count. Now a black man has become president. Some fools thought that this would help our country move beyond racial division. Well --- perhaps it would have, if only evil white people had been smart enough not to object to anything this man might propose. But it didn't work out that way, so now the left and the media are finding racists under every bed, behind every utility pole and on every street in America. Newsweek Magazine even ran a totally absurd story about racism in babies ... putting a picture of a white infant on the cover with the title "Is your baby racist?" Read that story and you'll find that the authors think that it would be horrifying if a white child were to ever express pride in being white.

Last year, before the election, some of us predicted that if (or when) Barack Obama became president that this would happen. We said that every time his policies met with opposition the left would start screaming racism. So what happened when we said that this would happen? Well ... you guessed it. We were called racists. You just can't imagine how surprised and shocked we were.

So .. here is what Jimmy Carter, Bill Moyers, Hank Johnson, much of the Washington and New York press corps, Newsweek Magazine and the brilliant thinkers on the American left would have you believe of Americans right now:

• We would be more than willing to welcome cap-and-trade with open arms, even if we paid a thousand dollars or more extra every year for our energy use, if Barack Obama were only white.
• We would be dancing in the streets celebrating the dawning of government control of our health care if only Barack Obama were white.
• It would be just dandy if government bureaucrats rationed health care for our parents, as long as the president is white.
• We would jump at the chance of the government owning ALL of the auto manufacturing companies .. not just General Motors ... if the president just didn't have dark skin.
• We would applaud those ACORN workers giving tax avoidance advice to a pimp and his prostitute if the workers hadn't been black.
• Most Americans - even ones that don't pay income taxes now - would be more than willing to give 70% of everything they earn to the federal government when asked ... so long as they are asked by a white president.
• We would have been thrilled, I tell you ... THRILLED to have all of those Islamic goons being held at Guantanamo be not only released, but sent to be school resource officers at our local government schools, if only a white president put that plan in motion.
• It would be OK if a white president stood back and allowed Iran to build its coveted nukes ... we're only unhappy about that because a black president is doing it.
• Deficits? We don't care about deficits! Make our children and grand children and great grand children pay through the nose for our president's spending habits ... just so long as the president isn't black.
• Government pork? Like we actually care? Look ... you folks in Washington can spend all the money you want - how about more studies of the mating habits of Polish Zlotnika pigs? - just make sure it's not a black president who signs the spending bill into law.
• We wouldn't care if all illegal aliens were counted twice in the next Census ... just so long as the president isn't black.
• Those Black Panther thugs who threatened voters in Philly? The ONLY reason we're upset that they were given a pass is because Barack Obama is black.
• Every single member of the president's cabinet could be a tax cheat as far as we're concerned ... just so long as the president is white.
• Forced unionization? Bring it on! We love card check! We love the idea of union goons threatening and intimidating workers to sign a card saying they want to belong to a union! What we don't like is that a black president is pushing this idea.
• Single-party talks with that Gargoyle that runs North Korea? It's about time we legitimized that little pipsqueak. We're only mildly upset here because the person who is doing that happens to be black.
• More regulation of the finance sector? We could care less! For all we care you can nationalize the banks and decree that only the government can make home loans .. .and you can even apportion those home loans on the basis of race if you want to ... just so long as the president is white!
• Minimum wage? Like we care about that? Raise it to $15 an hour if you want! Just give us our white president back.

Yeah .. the moonbat left really has us figured out, don't they?

I would have thought that the 24/7 news cycle and the short attention span of Americans would have put this story to bed by now. But the fallout from Rep. Joe Wilson's "you lie" outburst last week continues to make the news. I bring this story to your attention because I have been harping on the resurrection of the race card lately. Great recent example? The DC tea party this weekend. You do know that those people on the mall were all a bunch of racists, don't you?

Now Joe Wilson is a racist as well. He didn't yell "you lie" at Obama because Obama was lying .. he did it because Obama is black. Read this from Newsbusters.

The National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA), also known as the Black Press of America, which is a non-partisan 501(c) 3 tax-exempt organization, has decided to show its disapproval of South Carolina Rep. Joe Wilson's "You Lie" remarks by canceling a convention in the state.

"Rep. Wilson's remarks were racist, disrespectful and a disingenuous violation - not only of President Obama - but to the institution of the presidency and only solidified our position and the importance in not spending Black dollars where Black people are not respected," NNPA Chairman Danny J. Bakewell Sr. said in a statement.

Would somebody please have Chairman Danny Bakewell explain to me what was "racist" about Joe Wilson's outburst of "you lie"? I agree that is was disrespectful. But racist? That is one of the most overused words in the English language. When you hear someone yell "racist" you know you are listening to a limited intellect on a temper tantrumThe only reason his outburst is "racist" is because too many people are walking around this country with racial chips on their shoulder.

Unfortunately the story today will be the classless rudeness of S.C. Republican Joe Wilson rather than the gaping logic holes in Obama's speech. Usually that type of boorish behavior is reserved for liberals when a conservative is speaking on a college campus.

Who will be the first to call Joe Wilson a racist?

Wilson can't claim a momentary and uncontrollable lapse of judgment. He walked in there with a sign that said "no bull."

Of course illegal aliens won't be covered. That would be because by the time this plan is put into effect they won't be "illegal" any more. They will have been legitimized by a Democrat party seeking more core voters.

And then there's this ... if illegal aliens aren't going to be covered, then why does he include the 10 to 12 million uninsured illegal aliens in the number of the uninsured when he's promoting ObamaCare?

One more thing ... Wilson's outburst would have been par for the course in the British Parliament. Ever listen to those characters when the Prime Minister is speaking?

Reports are that Chris Matthews was hospitalized last night with uncontrollable thrills running up and down his leg.

Obama says that monopolies can stifle competition. He's right. So where were his suggestions as to how to increase competition among private insurance companies? Obama's solution to health insurance monopolies? Give government the monopoly. A monopoly with guns. How nice.

Obama talks about right wing scare tactics used to fight his health care plan. Then he says that without his plan more people ... thousands more ... will die. So just who is using the scare tactics?

Obama wants to save money? How about curtailing whatever government program it is that buys electric scooters for lardasses. Do you know that taxpayers spend billions of dollars a year on this?

I only counted three "tax the rich" moments in the speech last night. Did I miss any?

Obama managed to get in a few slams against the evil "profit motive." In Obama's world anyone seeking to make a profit from their efforts is to be scorned. The desire to make a profit is always suspect.

Still pushing the "public option" - really a government option. Why so essential? This is the poison dart aimed at private insurers. This is the clear path to single payer. Obama knows it. Democrats know it. And they know that most of the great unwashed don't' know it.

No taxpayer money for the government option? Does he really expect us to buy that dog squeeze? As soon as the government health insurance option runs into trouble there will be "emergency" bailout bills presented in congress -- because to do otherwise would be to jeopardize the health care of millions of Americans, and we just can't do that, can we?

Obama says that no one would be "required" to chose the government option. Wiggle room: The law won't require you to join, but when your private insurance company is run out of business by the government plan you won't really have another choice.

Obama kept talking about competition. Fine. Then let health insurance companies sell their products across state lines. Also ... get rid of the asinine mandates. Why should you be forced to buy insurance that covers you for hair transplants in Connecticut? Why should some who doesn't drink have to buy insurance that covers alcohol rehab? Ditto for drug rehab.

There is a new movement in Washington. Rep. Patrick McHenry, a Republican from North Carolina, is calling for Obama's czars to testify about their "authority and responsibilities" in the executive branch. The main point of controversy stems from the fact that these czars do not have to be confirmed by the Senate like cabinet members do.

McHenry says, "If the czars have high-level, decision-making authority as their titles would indicate, then it is my concern that their appointment without Senate approval represents a circumvention of our Constitutionally-mandated confirmation process."

Most of the public doesn't understand this ... but these czars have the ability to direct the expenditure of billions of dollars in taxpayer funds ... and they're not answerable to the Congress?

Bring on the hearings.

Well .. he stuck to the script, and by last evening the people who had been in such a panic over the president's speech to the nation's school children were looking, shall we say, foolish. It was actually a very strong event for Obama. He got to deliver a good positive message to the nation's school children and, in the process, he got to embarrass his opponents.

One problem .. the teleprompter. Obama delivered the speech at some high school near Washington and, predictably, had to use teleprompter. This meant that he was either looking 45 degrees to the left or right, but never directly into the camera. Most of Obama's audience was out there on the other side of that TV camera, and that's where he should have been looking. Not once did he actually look the children in classrooms across America in the eye. Since we're talking Obama here, I just had to find a criticism.

I'm sorry .. but this is about as lame as it gets. This chorus of "it wasn't the speech, it was the lesson plan" line the opponents of Obama's speech came up with yesterday would have been funny if it hadn't been so pathetic. Here's just one of the emails we received yesterday:

"The problem isn't Obama's speech. We knew all the time it would be very warm and fuzzy-innocuous, if you will. The real issue and problem is the teacher instructed fact sheets/student study guides and their scary agenda."

Grow up and admit it .. you blew this one. Obama and the Democrats played you like a banjo. Admit it and move on ... there's a government takeover of health care that needs to be fought.

Before we move on ourselves ... another email:

"Your attack on those that were opposed to the President and his minions original plan of propogandizing school children is eerily similar to Arianna Huffington's journey to kooksville. I hope you are not becoming the male version of Arianna."

By the way .. .my Townhall.com column yesterday "Republicans get Rolled ... and Deservedly So" was the second most read column on Townhall.com yesterday and received the second highest number of comments --- most negative. I was beat out in both categories by Thomas Sowell. There's just no way I could ever measure up to Thomas Sowell.

Today at noon Barack Obama addresses the nation's schoolchildren .. or a good number of them anyway. Many students won't hear the speech because of a rather severe miscalculation from the right. Republican screaming and wailing made it sound as if Hugo Chavez was flying in via Aeroflot to speak to our poor, innocent, unsuspecting angels. School districts reacted ... and millions of school kids will sit around picking their noses at noon instead of watching the speech.

So now the speech is out. As of yesterday afternoon you could read it on the Internet. I've read it, and if there is anything in there that I wouldn't want my child to have heard from a U.S. President, I certainly couldn't find it.

Egad! The speech is innocuous! What are we going to do now? I know! We'll all claim that Obama changed the speech after the uproar from the right! Well, duhhhhhh. Of course he did! Why wouldn't he! Well, actually he really didn't have to change it. It probably wasn't written by the time conservative boxers bunched up en masse. So Obama's speechwriters took their cue from the right and made the speech essentially bulletproof from the get-go. One sharp mind in a Republican strategy session could have seen this one coming from the next galaxy.

• President says he will give speech to schoolchildren.
• Republicans say the speech will be full of leftist propaganda
• Parents run in circles flailing arms overhead while screaming and shouting.
• Some school officials black out Obama's speech. (racist comment)
• Grinning speechwriters prepare speech with no leftist propaganda.
• Republicans look like fools.
• People now more reluctant to listen to conservative complaints about Obama.

Now how easy was that? For about three days we have parents, the Republican Party and assorted odds spinning around on their eyebrows and spitting wooden nickels over Obama's speech. He's going to indoctrinate our children. He's going to fill them full of socialist ideology. They're all going to come away from school today singing Kumbaya and waving red flags. They'll probably stop on the way home from school to buy a Che Guevara t-shirt from vendors the Democrats will have waiting out in front of their schools. Then the hopelessly indoctrinated kids will come home and destroy all the incandescent light bulbs and turn the spare bathtub into a recycling bin. Before they do their homework (reading The Communist Manifesto) they'll hide the car keys so daddy has to take mass transportation to work on Wednesday.

TeamObama must have loved this one. Talk about a hanging curveball. Once the manic inanity started all they had to do is sit back, prepare an innocuous speech for The One, and let the people scratch their heads wondering what in the hell the Republicans were so upset about!

Now that the speech is out .. and now that most stable people realize that there is nothing in the speech worthy of such an uproar ... it's time to change tactics. "It's not the speech! It's the lesson plan!" Oh yeah ... if that makes you feel better, go for it. You can just tell everyone that you really weren't upset about Obama actually speaking to the students ... it was the lesson plan that had you so angry all along. Yup! Works for me! Sure .. some Department of Education hack messed up the lesson plan, but that was so easily corrected and it was on to the speech. Now the next time the right comes up with an objection to some Obama concept, people who last week might have been on board will stand back and look at the Republicans with a jaundiced eye.

The massively dysfunctional Congress is back today .. with one thought in mind: Rescue Obama's presidency. The danger that this man and his congressional sycophants presents to this country is far from over. Obama will be doubling his effort to destroy much of America's private economic sector, starting with the seizure of the 18 percent of our economy represented by health care. This nonsense over the speech to the school children has boosted Obama's image as he and the congress get back to the business of promoting government. He will make a speech to the congress tomorrow night outlining his vision of government-controlled health care. No doubt his vision will contain many threats to liberty ... but opposing views will be filtered through the school speech debacle. Two steps forward and four steps back. Unless PrezBO really messes up his address to Congress tonight watch for his popularity ratings to rise. Thanks, Republicans!

A version of the foregoing Nuze segment about Obama's school speech appeared as a column at Townhall.com today ... and it wasn't what you might call "welcomed." You can click here to read the comments.

Congress is back. President Obama is back. Washington is teeming with life once again. In the balance currently hangs the fate of 18% of our economy - the healthcare industry. Obama is back doing what he does best: campaigning. This time it is for healthcare reform. His promise? Security and stability. His strategy? Keep it simple and demonize health insurance profits. Meanwhile, Congress is pounding out the details of healthcare reform, the details of which we are slowly coming to know.

A compromise plan offered by Democrat Senator Max Baucus has taken center stage. It does not include a government option. But it does "require" most Americans to have health insurance and it provides "tax credits" for poor people to buy health insurance ... even though it is impossible to give "tax credits" to people who don't pay income taxes. So let's just call these payments what they are ... welfare; subsidies. The plan also calls for the creation of nonprofit health-insurance cooperatives along with a new fee on insurance companies to help pay for coverage of the uninsured.

Obama makes his speech to a joint session of Congress tomorrow night. He says that he will "draw lines in the sand" as to what he wants to see in a healthcare bill.

This is a story that keeps on giving.

A lot of you have your thongs in a square knot over the fact that Barack Obama will be addressing school children next week. Some schools have decided that they are not going to show the speech. Others will require parent permission. But you parents are pretty upset. You're upset with me as well because I'm not all that upset. All I'm saying is to give the speech a chance. This really is a win-win situation for conservatives. If he says something that suggests "indoctrination," then conservatives can nail him. If he says something worthwhile, then what harm could it really do?

Question: What type of kool-aid do they serve in the green rooms of MSNBC? Have you been listening to these people? No wonder Dr. G and her bolt cutters have a bigger audience. Here's the latest example of MSNBC idiocy: Keith Boykin appeared on MSNBC yesterday to discuss this presidential address to students. Boykin says, "So much of the debate about President Obama has been politicized in an effort by some to delegitimize his presidency ... This is clearly much ado about nothing. We're talking about the President of the United States speaking to school kids. Why wouldn't schools want this to happen?"

Ok, I can agree with him so far. But then he goes on to say, "That's why our kids are so dumb today, because they don't want to have basic common sense in the classroom." Hey Keith, maybe our children are "so dumb today" because we send them to the government to be educated. Ever think about that?

President Obama has finally decided to take the reins and steer this healthcare debate. Next Wednesday he is going to address a joint session of Congress. This will be the first address to a joint session of Congress since President Bush gathered the clowns together after the 9/11 ISLAMIC terrorist attacks.

Clearly, Democrats in Congress haven't done all that great of a PR job when it comes to selling their healthcare plan. The hope is that PrezBO still has enough star power left to muster some support. Is he going to advocate a government option? Probably not. At this point, too much is riding on the success or failure of healthcare reform - the remainder of Obama's presidency, for example -- and a government option seems absolutely doomed for failure. That's a good thing because the government option was merely a not-so-suave way of getting to single-payer, and single payer means absolute government control.

There's that word again! CONTROL! My guess is that whatever you hear from Mr. Government next week, control of your health care will be hidden in the details. This, after all, is the goal. At the end this is all an exercise aimed to making sure that Democrats never lose control of the congress again. To get that sort of a grip on power they need an inseparable grip on you. Controlling your access to and paying for your health care would do it. So ... onward.

As soon as Obama plays his cards we'll get back into the game.

By the way ... did I mention that the 9/11 attackers were MUSLIMS?

Are we ready to chill out about Obama's speech to the nation's government school children next week? Is there a potential for a disaster? Sure there is, but I think it's unlikely. Obama isn't going to go on the classroom tubes and tell the kids to "go home and tell your folks to call their elected officials and tell them to support my health care plan. If you don't, you're gonna die." The White House says that the purpose of the speech is for PrezBO to "address the students on the importance of taking responsibility for their success in school." Who in the world wouldn't want this message delivered to our students? Do you think you would have had your panties in a wad if it was George W. Bush delivering the same message to the students?

Obama is in a position to do some good here. Many of these school children look up to him. They have no awareness of his flirtations with Marxism in college. They don't understand his complete lack of experience as he stood for election last year. They just know that he's the president, and that's important. Young black students see him as an incredible roll model. If he delivers them a positive message about personal responsibility we're all the better off for it.

All this doesn't mean we sleep through his speech. Let's watch carefully to see if there is any pro-big government propaganda that needs to be addressed. Until then ... find something else to get all worked up over.

The Obama White House knows how to boost those popularity ratings. Attack the evil greedy capitalists of Wall Street. So, according to Politico, Obama is going to call for some grand new restrictions on Wall Street. He wants to show his faltering supporters that he is determined to punish the evil capitalists who started all of this ....

... except it wasn't started by evil capitalists. It was started by government. It was government, not Wall Street, that decided anyone who wanted to buy a home should be able to do so. It was government, not Wall Street, that encouraged lenders to make loans who people who clearly could not afford to buy a home. It was government, not Wall Street, that set up a system whereby these worthless loans would guaranteed by government.

Not that anyone really cares ...........

Well ... to listen to the NE Corridor news media over the weekend, you would think that Ted Kennedy was as near as we're going to come in this country to our own Gandhi.

Have you heard about the memo? What memo you say? Well .. that would be the memo written by Victor Chebrikov back in 1983. Comrade Victor was the head of the Soviet Union's KGB. The memo was addressed to one Yuri Andropov, the HCWIC of the USSR. The Boss. The Top Commie. The Big Red.

First - 1983 status check. It's the Soviet Union back then, not Russia. The Berlin Wall stands and East German border guards are shooting people who try to escape Communist East Germany. Ronald Reagan is president .. and he is beginning preparations to deploy Pershing missiles to Europe. Andropov is not pleased - and when the leader of the Soviet Union wasn't pleased back in those days, neither was the American liberal establishment.

There's a presidential election just around the corner, and Ted Kennedy is starting to think that he will be the one the Democrats choose to keep the hated Reagan from winning that second term. Kennedy believes that his chances of getting the nomination and winning the election might be enhanced if he can somehow manipulate American public opinion more to the favor of the Soviet Union and less to the favor of Reagan and his plans to deploy missiles in Europe. So ... Kennedy hatches a scheme.

Now we get back to Chebrikov's memo. Chebrikov is telling Andropov that John Tunney, a close confidant to Ted Kennedy, visited Moscow in May of 1983. Tunney, according to the memo, was there on a mission from Kennedy. He wanted to get a message to Andropov. The message was that Kennedy was willing to help Andropov manipulate the American media into providing Andropov a chance to spread a bit of anti-Reagan propaganda. Kennedy, according to Tunney, was willing to arrange for some sit down interview for Andropov on American television. Kennedy would take the steps necessary for the major TV networks to contact Andropov to arrange for an invitation to Moscow. There Andropov would be interviewed and would be given a pretty good hunk of air time on American television. The trick here is that Kennedy, working with the TV networks, would make it look like the idea was all Andropov's; reaching out to the American people, so to speak.

What would Kennedy get in return? The memo makes vague references to the Soviets helping him challenge Reagan in the 1984 elections.

I guess we'll never learn what type of help Kennedy was seeking from the Soviets; and that would be because Andropov went Tango Uniform about 8 months later .. .and the Democrats didn't seem all that interested in running Kennedy anyway.

Quite a guy, our Uncle Ted. Offering to help our enemy, the Soviet Union, gain a propaganda edge in the United States ... all to boost his own chances to become president. What a guy!

Yes .. this memo was reported long ago. The London Times had a story in 1992. It was also covered in the book "The Crusader: Ronald Reagan and the Fall of Communism" by historian Paul Kengor. The media paid no attention to the London Times story, or to Kengor's book. After all, the Liberal Lion had to be protected.

Want more? Here's the story from Forbes.

Here's some good news! Polling now shows that 57% of Americans would just as soon replace every single member of congress. If you just poll the independents our there that figure rises to 70%.

OK .. that's now. There isn't an election on the horizon. When we get closer to election time these people will start to modify their beliefs a bit. They'll think that every member of congress should be replaced except their own. And why not replace their particular representative? Simple! Because he or she brings home the bacon!

Will the American people figure out that we have a Republic to save here? Will they understand that restoring freedom and individual responsibility may well be more important than a new road or some new sidewalks in their community? We'll find out next year.

It's been a while since we have had a Democrat do some name-calling. Yeah .. every bit of a day or two. How long ago was it that these kind, gentle, peace-loving lefties were calling ObamaCare protestors Nazis, brownshirts, mobsters, terrorists .. you name it. Those were all directed at protestors who dared to show up and show their dissatisfaction for the massive growth of government the Democrats are proposing. Maybe the looters are getting upset that their name-calling isn't having the desired effect on the target of their venom. So .. why not start slamming members of their own team? Let's turn the stage over to California Democrat Congressman Fortney "Pete" Stark. Pete is upset with so-called "moderate" Democrats who aren't going along with ObamaCare. He says they are "brain dead." He also accused them of following the money; they are just doing it so they can get campaign donations from insurance companies.

Here's the quote. He says, "They're for the most part, I hate to say brain dead, but they're just looking to raise money from insurance companies and promote a right-wing agenda that is not really very useful in this whole process."

So now the liberal Democrats are getting so desperate that they are shaming members of their own party for promoting a "right-wing agenda."

Yeah .. I know, it's the evil right-wingers who are supposed to always be stooping to the nasty name-calling and ugly rhetoric. That's the conventional wisdom. But just check into websites like Democraticunderground.com, Media Matters and ThinkProgress to see what gems come from Democrat keyboard whey they're talking about Americans who don't see eye-to-eye with them on the size and intrusiveness of government.

President Obama and the Democrats truly seem dumbfounded by America's response to their healthcare reform plans. Maybe this has something to do with it. Polling, studies and focus groups have been working for years to come up with precise language that would win over voters on the issue of healthcare. We are talking as far back as 2005, the Herndon Alliance met with the AARP, Service Employees International Union, the American Cancer Society and the liberal health-policy group Families USA in order to figure out how liberals could change the language of the healthcare debate.

This is why Barack Obama changed his rhetoric to "health insurance reform" rather than "healthcare reform." This is why he says phrases like " the mandatory purchase of health insurance would 'be affordable, based on a sliding scale.'" This phrasing "precisely mirrored language that had been poll-tested and put before batteries of focus groups by Democratic consultants over the past few years," according to the Wall Street Journal. "The words had been carefully chosen in an effort to take away the rhetorical targets of health-overhaul foes and replace them with terminology that would bring ordinary Americans on board."

So what happened? You happened. You, the American people, decided to wake up see right through the focus group rhetoric and transparent phrases. The Democrats have been working on this moment for years ... and they are losing the battle. I love it.

Last week sometime I told you about Henry Waxman's little letter that he sent to the nation's largest insurance companies demanding to see their financial records. Well now we have come to find that this investigation into the insurance companies started a month ago ... probably around the same time the Obama administration decided it was going to change this to health insurance reform rather than healthcare reform. But that is beside the point. The reason I bring this up is because a spokeswoman for Waxman's House Energy and Commerce committee tried to defend these probes, and here's what she had to say:

" ... lawmakers need to know that private insurance money is being spent effectively as part of the effort to control costs."

There is NO obligation whatsoever for the insurance companies to cough up this material. The people of this country are making a stand ... with the insurance companies do likewise?

Okay, folks ... I know that the Democrats are screwing up right now and boy do I love to see this happening. Seriously .. the worse the Democrats do the better I like it. This party of big government presents a grave threat to everything that made our country great ... It's fun to see them in turmoil. But let's try to keep in mind that even with all the kicking and screaming, Americans have very short attention spans. Will the current sentiment billowing throughout the country resonate until the 2010 elections? Hardly. This healthcare debate has definitely energized people, but the ability to actually cause any change ... through the voting booth ... is still a long ways away.

That's why I am not getting too worked up over this Cook Political Report that says Democrats could lose as many as 20 seats in the House in 2010.

Charlie Cook says, "These data confirm anecdotal evidence, and our own view, that the situation this summer has slipped completely out of control for President Obama and Congressional Democrats ..."

When might I believe something like this could happen? If the Republicans would stand up and actually offer something meaningful to the debate. There answer is that they do have their own plans out there. Mebbe so. If that's the case, then get some professional PR help to get that message out. When they have something on their own that will drive people to the polls, then I will take notice.

Just like I've already pointed out, the Democrats know that they are losing the PR battle on healthcare. So they've decided that the current tactic isn't working. Let's move on to Plan B. Appeal to emotion. Rip their hearts out. Play up the wealth envy and emphasize the poor, poor, pitiful poor that can't afford health insurance (but who, by the way, are eligible for Medicaid).

Come September, expect a different sales pitch out of Washington. Obama will be focusing more on the "moral imperative to provide health insurance to all Americans" rather than get trapped on the details. This also includes doing away with informal townhall meetings. Yep, done are the days where angry Americans could get up and voice their opinions directly to Washington. Now, at least for the President, he will focus on a strategy that includes speeches rather than townhalls.

Ultimately, Barack Obama supporters are upset because they feel like this is not the Barack Obama they voted for. The man that is currently out there explaining the details of healthcare reform isn't the same rock star with a great bod and lofty speeches. So Obama has decided that he is going to dumb things down, once again, to the level of rhetoric that got him elected, and try and win over America on healthcare reform.

We are going to take a little trip to the Democrat Underground. Now if you ever wanted to really view the seamy underside of the leftist political mind, Democraticunderground.com is the place. Leave all logical thought, adherence to facts and rationality behind .. you are about to take a trip so far below the surface of intellect that the brightest of lights can barely illuminate something three inches in front of your face.

The mindless depravity of Democraticunderground is so intense that I gave up visiting years ago. I just didn't want to believe that I lived in a society that could possibly produce these thought processes. So, if a listener had not pointed me to this post., I never would have seen it. But I did .. and I don't want to have to suffer this alone. I believe that just reading the wealth-envy ravings of this moonbat have destroyed several million of my brain cells .. so, to share the pain, I'm going to share it with you.

Ladies and gentlemen .. may I present the dark workings of the liberal mind:

I'm honestly trying to figure it out.

Is it envy? I don't have any particular desire to be rich myself, especially if it means attaining such wealth the way so many other people have.

Is it jealousy? I don't particularly like the fact that there are so few rich people when there are so many more poor people who don't have what they have, but I don't really resent them for that reason alone.

What is it then? Could it just be the fact that to become rich it means stepping on so many other people below you in order to get ahead? In effect, EXPLOITING people in order to attain for oneself a vastness of resources that you in effect deny everyone else? Even this wouldn't be so bad if the rich didn't bitch about the fact that a portion (or even half) of their ill-gotten wealth gets taxed back by the PEOPLE that the government is supposed to represent!

I mean, you watch reality shows like "How'd You Get So Rich?" with Joan Rivers on the TVLAND channel, and listen to the "rags-to-riches" success stories. Doesn't it ever strike you how in all of those cases its either: a) getting people underneath them to make money off of their labors; OR b) charging exorbitant prices for their products which in effect distributes wealth from everyday people into their greedy little hands?

Do I think we should do away with all rich people? No, for you can never mandate total economic equality without a government gaining too much control over its populace. But do I have a problem with "redistribution of wealth" where the rich are taxed slightly higher than everyone else to pay for their unfair burden of resources that they hog to themselves? NO! After all, it's often THEY who benefit the most from government protections of all their wealth in the form of the police and courts, and from wars and other machinations of the State. They ought to pay their disproportionately fair share!

Am I really wrong to think this way?

Well ... Yes. You are wrong to think this way. Almost all of the premises you set forth in your jealous screed are wrong. You sense this, but you don't quite understand why. So, I'm here to help. Read on.

You probably think you're highly educated. My guess is that you've been through many years of school, but you weren't all that good at learning. No ...wait! Don't quit now. This is really going to help you. Just keep reading:

You really do think you're an educated person, and you believe that very few people out there will work as hard as you will to make it in our economy. You have a job, you do the work assigned to you, and you believe you do it well. I agree. You probably do. You also pay your taxes, obey the law, keep your lawn mowed and give to charity - though by your way of thinking you are "giving back." And THERE, my friend, is your problem. You don't really recognize that wealth is earned .. you think that it is handed out by some great unseen and ultimately unfair force.

Look at you! Here you are ... you've done what you were supposed to do. You went to school. You got a job. You worked hard. You are a good citizen. You're involved. You care about those who have less than you ... and despise those who have more. Why? Because you just can't figure out why they have all this stuff, and you don't. You're a good person, and you've played by the rules ... yet you're not rich. So, in your mind this means that those people who ARE wealthy aren't really good people and they didn't play by the rules. That just has to be the explanation for why they're rich, and you're not.

If you really knew these people, you might feel different. If you knew the risks they take, the hours they work, and the imagination they bring to the table you might recognize that their wealth was earned, not seized. If you watched them create jobs in their community while working 80 hours a week and risking all that they have to build a business you might re-think your line about "exploiting" people. If you saw them competing with other similar businesses in the marketplace - keeping their prices low enough to attract buyers, yet high enough to stay in business and eke out a profit, you might have other thoughts about "charging exorbitant prices."

Here's the bottom line. You just cannot accept the idea that those with more than you obtained their wealth through hard work, risk-taking and good decision making. I mean, after all ... if that was all it took then YOU would be rich, right? You work hard; you're not afraid of risks; and you make good decisions, yet you're not rich. NO! That just can't be the explanation. You're good, so they have to be bad. To believe anything else is to recognize your own shortcomings.

Hope that helped.

A new Gallup poll shows that more people describe themselves as conservative rather than liberal ... in all 50 states.

Here's a brief look at the stats:

In 2009, 40% percent of respondents in Gallup surveys that have interviewed more than 160,000 Americans have said that they are either "conservative" (31%) or "very conservative" (9%). That is the highest percentage in any year since 2004.

Only 21% have told Gallup they are liberal, including 16% who say they are "liberal" and 5% who say they are "very liberal."

Thirty-five percent of Americans say they are moderate.

So what is going on here? If this is really the case, then why aren't the Republicans running the show? Easy, because the Republicans are barely more conservative than the Democrats in charge. Plus, after Bush's spending spree and the institution of such programs as Medicare coverage for prescription drugs and immigration "reform," many conservatives simply don't trust the Republicans any more. Yeah, maybe they are socially conservative, but when it comes to the economy and spending, people lost faith in the Republican Party dramatically increasing government spending for many years. They got caught up in the power. So now, they are left completely impotent. They are left with a country full of people just dying for someone with real fiscally conservative gonads to represent them in Washington. But they just don't trust the Republicans to do it. Can you blame them?

... and I've been doing this for awhile, so that's saying something.

Try looking at this health care debate from the Democrat perspective. It has been a Democrat dream for decades to control the nation's health care delivery system. They thought they had it made in 1993 after Clinton's defeat of George H.W. Bush. Hillary got to work and created a monstrosity of a plan for government control of our health care, and it died a well-deserved and rather painful death. Within a year the Republicans had control of the House and the Senate.

For the following 15 years the Democrats wandered in the wilderness ... just waiting for their next opportunity to seize control of the American health care system. In 2003 Obama was making speeches telling of his support for a single-payer (government) health care system. He would tell the crowds that first "we have to take back the House, we have to take back the Senate, and we have to take back the White House." That magic day arrived on February 20, 2009. For the past 15 years I have been telling my listeners that if and when the Democrats once again control in Washington they would begin working immediately to make sure that they NEVER lost that control again, and they would do that by insuring that Americans became so dependent on government and Democrat policies that reelections were assured. So .. here we are, and here they go ... again.

Do you really understand how important this is to the looters? First, they have a president who has foolishly overreached. We're facing an economic crisis and, under the mantra of never letting a good crisis go to waste, Obama puts his chips wholly into ObamaCare .. a government takeover of American health care. Democrats feel that their failure to get ObamaCare passed will destroy Obama's presidency. They're willing to destroy American health care to save their leader. No surprise. Secondly .. Democrats earnestly feel that they may be looking at this as their last great chance. Perhaps they think that it's now or never. If they don't put our health care under their vast umbrella of government protectionism and coercion .. they may never get another shot.

Democrats are looking forward to elections in the years to come where they can tell the American dumb mass voter "If you vote for the Republican, he's going to take your health care away." They can't do this if government doesn't control health care. You starting to get the picture here? If not .. you had better clean your lens. This is a major threat to our republic and your future, not to mention the future of your children. Stay awake. Become involved. Be relentless.

Obama had his healthcare town hall yesterday in New Hampshire. What a bore. I guess the reason it was such a bore was that so many of the questions were offered by Obama campaign workers and Democrat operatives. But what else did we really expect? Do you actually think that Barack Obama's staff would get away with filling an auditorium with anything other than a carefully controlled crowd? No way. That's the last image that America needs to see - Barack Obama being chewed out by angry Americans.

So the event turned out to be pretty dull. He told people not to listen to us hate-mongers. People who "scare or mislead the American people." Obama says that the truly scary thing would be if we did nothing about our healthcare system. He gave us the typical rhetoric: "For all the chatter and the yelling and the shouting and the noise, what you need to know is this ... if you do have health insurance, we will make sure that no insurance company or government bureaucrat gets between you and the care you need." But perhaps the most ironic line of the whole event came when he was trying to describe government competing with the private sector. Obama said, "They do it all the time ... UPS and FedEx are doing just fine. ... It's the Post Office that's always having problems."

Just what in the world was Obama trying to say with that line about the post office? Was he kidding? How in the world do you promote the cause of government health care by citing an example of how absolutely horrible the government is at doing things? And here's something else to keep in mind: UPS and FedEx are not allowed to compete with the post office in the delivery of first class mail. They aren't allowed to leave packages in mail boxes. And so it will be with government health care. You are delusional if you really think that the Democrats will ever give the private sector to compete against government health care after the government system is fully in place.

And you do realize that many of the questions asked by those folks at the ObamaEvent were plants, don't you? That's Obama's style. Michelle Malkin has been doing a wonderful job keeping up with Obama's planned encounters with people at his various town hall meetings. You can read her full report right here. But let's take a look at one particular moment from yesterday's Obama town hall meeting

Remember the cute little girl who asked Obama how do kids know what is true and why do people want a new health care system? Her name is Julia Hall and she's 11 years old. Her mother is an attorney, Kathleen Manning Hall. On Kathleen Hall's Facebook page there's a picture of her with Barack Obama. She has contributed thousands of dollars to Obama, and her law firm has contributed thousands more. Now you tell me what the chances are that she was randomly called on at the ObamaEvent.

Look ... it 's the president. The organizers of that event could absolutely be expected to do everything they could to avoid an embarrassing moment for Obama. If you think that what you saw was really an open forum on health care ... well ... what can I say. You're an ... um ... and Obama voter. Simple as that.

Honestly the most entertaining thing that happened yesterday was not Barack Obama's townhall but Arlen Specter. Whew .. boy did he get his behind handed to him.

Okay so let's recap. All of you who are attending these healthcare town hall events and voicing your concerns, you are ..

Un-American.
Brownshirts.
Terrorists.
Right-wing mobsters.
Nazis.

And now let's add a comparison to the KKK into the mix. Rep. John Dingell appeared on MSNBC yesterday. He compared the current atmosphere to the one he experienced when he voted for the civil rights bill. He says, "At that time we had a lot of Ku Klux Klan folks and white supremacists and folks in white sheets and other things running around causing trouble."

So there you go. All of you folks who are running around town to attend these healthcare town halls, in the eyes of this Congressman you are no different than the opposition he saw during the civil rights movement.

And once again it is going to take an informed, aware minority to get this done. Generations of government educated Americans have, sadly, produced a population largely composed of government drones who believe that government has been, is, and always shall be the answer to life's greatest problems. These people simply are not aware enough to recognized the failures of government (Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, The USPS, etc) and the successes of the private market.

Democrats are the party of control. They are manipulators of the mob. Democrats know that their key to power is control. The more control they exercise over the voters, the easier it is for them to manipulate those voters into keeping them in power. Right now Democrats know that they cannot realistically control your access to food, transportation or shelter. To be sure, there are elements of our society that depend on the government for those needs, and for them the government has food stamps, public transportation and welfare housing. Still the majority of people are self-sufficient in these areas and aren't going to stand by and watch the government take over these segments of our economy ... at least not yet.

Then there's health care. After World War II the Democrats set their sights on controlling health care. They knew it would be a long process, but they began immediately to set the stage. They adopted a general goal of making it difficult for people to obtain bona-fide health insurance policies on their own. An employer could buy the policy for you and take a tax deduction. You buy the insurance for yourself and NO tax deduction. This, of course, made insurance more expensive when bought individually. Various states started adding mandates to policies. You were denied to chose what areas of medical care you wished to insure .. the state made that decision for you. Maternity benefits became pretty much standard. When health insurance has to cover the ordinary costs of childbirth ... and insure everybody against that cost ... well, add up the bucks. In Connecticut health insurance is required to cover hair transplants. Do the math. This, of course, made insurance all that much more expensive.

OK .. I need to cut to the chase here. Over generations the Democrats have been working their magic ... making it more and more difficult and expensive for you to get health care and health insurance on your own ... all the while touting health care as a "right." Democrats have never bothered to explain how one person can have this "right" to a portion of another person's (the health care provider's) life or property ... but they've made it stick. Now most Americans buy this "right to health care" absurdity.

Democrats thought the time was ripe in 1993 after Bill Clinton won the election. They put his wife, the charming Hillary, to work developing a plan. The public hated it so much that it never even came up for a vote. Golly! What's to hate? Well, how about the fact that if you were to take your own dollars and pay a doctor for a visit out of your own pocket, both you and the doctor could go to jail? The beans got spilled and HillaryCare was dead.

Enter ObamaCare.

Democrats have been plotting this ever since the voter revolution of 1994. When they lost control of the House and the Senate to the evil, greedy Republicans they vowed that once they regained that control they would never again be placed back into the minority. They are trying to fulfill that vow with ObamaCare. You cannot believe these people when they tell you that they just want to set up a "public option" that will compete with private health insurance companies to keep costs down. The insurance companies have to make money, or at least break even, to stay in the game. The government doesn't. It can operate at a loss. How long do you think private insurance companies can stand up to that?

Well ... since Democrats are comparing the protestors at health care town hall meetings to terrorists, let me present this scenario. Let's talk the real terrorists .. the Islamic ones. It has been said that they only have to be lucky once. We have to be on guard constantly. And so it is with the Democrat takeover of health care. They only have to be lucky once. Just once if they can get some version of government health care passed, they'll be able to use that program -- as weak or strong as it may be - to chip away at the private sector year after year until control is complete. Those who believe in freedom - those who believe that the private sector can do the best job of delivering health care to the people (if the government would just get out of the way) are going to have to fight this battle time and time again. The last battle was 1993. It's now 16 years later and the Democrats smell victory. To Democrats government health care is the sweet smell of control. To us it's the stench of tyranny.

You must educate yourselves and fight. And in a decade or so you're going to have to educate yourselves and fight again. Maybe sooner. Freedom needs protecting. Tyranny does not.

We've got another Democrat upset with the angry, right-wing mob when it comes to these healthcare protests. Rep. Brian Baird of Washington said that "a 'coordinated national effort' to disrupt public meetings with shouts and demonstrations, which he said Republican leaders were 'egging on,' was reminiscent of the kinds of things that drove Timothy McVeigh to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995. 'He believed himself to be a patriot fighting against an oppressive government,' Baird said of McVeigh, whose act killed 168.'"

I've searched the news archives to see if I could find any stories where this moonbat congressman made similar comments about Code Pink, MoveOn.Org and other leftist groups who protested President Bush at every turn. Guess what? Couldn't

Nazis. Brown shirts. Un-American. Right-wing mob. And now we have a comparison to a terrorist. Brian Baird is today's poster boy for a panicked Democrat Party. They fear they're losing their grip. Maybe name-calling will turn the tide.

Democrats are shell-shocked. They truly cannot believe that this is happening to them. Just last February they were participating in a coronation that was to usher in a new age of Government Cool. Now people are starting to realize that there is nothing all that cool about the government taking over almost 20 percent of our economy. The polls are clear ... almost 7 out of 10 people are satisfied with the health care they're receiving right now. They've seen the mess that government has made out of Social Security. Recently they saw that the government couldn't even do the work that thousands of used-car salesmen handle every week with no problems. These people wonder why Obama is so hell-bent on getting this done NOW, and they suspect that's because the more they learn about the plan the less they're going to like it.

Actually ... last week was rather fun! I say that because it is so fun to watch these Democrats squirm when the people of this country give them the metaphorical one-finger salute. We can probably expect more of it this week ... although things promise to be more violent now that the union enforcers are showing up at these townhalls. I've brought to your attention many of these events over the last week of these healthcare townhalls turning sour. But none may be able to top this one from right here in my hometown of Atlanta, Georgia. It made national news after Rep. David Scott of Georgia's 13th district shouts at a constituent who dared to ask him if he was going to vote for the healthcare bill.

This one bothered me because I've known David Scott personally for over 25 years. David Scott is a Democrat congressman representing Georgia's 13th Congressional District. He served in the Georgia legislature for years before going to Washington. He and I have had disagreements on many issues, particularly gun control, but over the years he has been unfailingly polite and even-tempered.

Apparently that was then. Now things are different. I would guess that, considering his district, Scott is under tremendous pressure to toe the Obama party line. He knew his job at that townhall meeting was to defend Obama's policies. Perhaps his irritation came from having to defend the indefensible. Or ... Maybe he was mad that there were no union goons at the meeting to deal with this doctor. As we've discussed ... the unions are offering themselves up to be Democrat enforcers. This morning on Fox News Channel they showed some video of encounters at health care demonstrations. In one video a member of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU) was heard calling an ObamaCare opponent a "punk" and a "Nazi." Another SEIU union goon ends up jamming a video camera into the face of some woman. In another video we see a SEIU goon deliver a knockout punch to a protestor. Remember, please .. the Democrats sent out the call for these union goons, and the unions are eager to please their masters. What was it Obama's deputy chief of staff said? Oh, I remember ... hit them back twice as hard.

Here's some definitions for you. If you show up at a townhall meeting and you support ObamaCare, you're a "citizen." If you oppose government-run health care, you're a "heckler." Or worse.

By the way ... my guess is that for the remainder of the month you're going to see more and more Democrat office-holders canceling their townhall meetings. They'll claim that the cancellations are for security reasons ... and the blame will be placed on those evil people who don't want government-run health care. In a sense they may be pleased with this turn of events. They'll be able to avoid the protestors by canceling their townhall meetings .. then they can continue with the bogus claim that Americans are solidly behind them.

Princess Nancy Pelosi and one of her Knights, Sir Steny Hoyer, have written an opinion piece for today's USA Today. Guess what? Thanks to Pelosi and Hoyer we now know that the protestors that are showing up at these townhall meetings are "un-American." Their angle is that these people are showing up at the meetings not to express their concerns, but to "drown out" opposing views. They're not concerned with crushing debt and horrifying budget deficits. They're not concerned with the inaccessibility or possible rationing of healthcare. They just don't like Barack Obama or his health care plan, so this makes them "un-American." I guess Democrats feel that to be an American you have to timidly accept any controls your government wishes to inflict on you. To protest government is, to Pelosi et al, is to be "un-American." This pretty much goes along with what I've been saying about Democrats for quite a while. These people think that America's greatness comes from government; certainly not from the dynamic of free people working together under the rule of law in an economy based on liberty. So ... to protest government is to protest America. This makes you "un-American." Oh yeah ... makes perfect sense to me.

I love some of the comments that appeared in USA Today after the Pelosi/Hoyer column:

• "Drowning out opposing views is simply un-American" As any conservative who has ever tried to give a speech on an American university campus could attest.
• The obvious thing for Pelosi to do is to create a committee to investigate the protestors--call it the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
• Oh contrare Oh mighty Democratic leaders. It's un-American not to allow a proper debate. It's also irresponsible and a dereliction of your duties to attempt to ram through (and not read) these bills.
• This is precious. Dissent isn't the highest form of patriotism after all. It's unamerican!

This is what is bothers Democrats so ... the people are standing up to them. This shouldn't happen in their version of a democrat society.

We've put our economy, our security ... our very lives ... into the hands of a group of men and women who have shown no particular skill beyond their ability to please their constituents through the expenditure of money seized from the private sector. They produce nothing of value, nor do they demonstrate any particular skill other than pandering to voters. They loot from the productive to buy votes from the moocher class. If you had your entire financial future invested in stock in one business, how well would sleep at night knowing that Barack Obama, Barney Frank, Henry Waxman, Nancy Pelosi and Maxine Waters were running that business? Their very survivability depends on their ability to use force to achieve their goals.

These are the people we are going to allow to completely change the nature of health care in America. Amazingly, some Americans still think that these people are actually working hard to figure out a way to deliver better health care to the American people at a lower cost. They're wrong. These DC political hacks are simply trying to control, not improve health care. Control means power, and power is the currency of Washington. If we expect anything but a complete disaster, we deserve what's coming.

Michelle Malkin has written a book. "Culture of Corrupton: Obama and His Team of Tax Cheats, Crooks and Cronies." The book is currently No. 1 on the NYT Bestseller's list. I downloaded it to my Kindle over the weekend and am really enjoying it.

Here we go ... another book written by a conservative topping the NYT Bestseller's list. Mark Levin's "Liberty and Tyranny" has been right there at the top for 12 weeks now. When liberals write books they struggle to get into the Top 10. Clearly readers are showing a preference for books written with some degree of attention to fact, a good dose of logic and a little less whining emotionalism.

Anyway ... I was looking at the reviews for Malkin's book on Amazon.com. I focused on the negative reviews - the ones that gave Malkin's book one star. I was looking for some focused and rational criticism. Here's what I found:

• Contributes to the roar of negativity and hate that is killing our political system.
• I have an aversion to sideshow carnivals. You know, PT Barnum's commentary about never going broke underestimating the intelligence of the American consumer. All you need is a freak show and a hook. In this regard, the book achieves its mission.
• This book plays right into that "hater" genre. Realizing that there are a lot of folks who are ideologically extreme, undereducated and who have grown unaccustomed to thinking for themselves [not to mention those who simply cannot accept a non-white in the White house], the author decided to throw raw meat to a pack of salivating hounds
• books like this are anti-intellectual carnival sideshow fodder designed to fleece an uncritical audience
• Just another symptom/source of the extreme polarization of American politics; look elsewhere for truth.
• I suppose that everyone handing out five star reviews are having to squeeze this reading in between going to "Birther" conspiracy meetings and making signs to carry when they go out to harass their congressmen during town hall meetings... how very trite... how scarily inappropriate in a time when the nation needs ALL citizens to work hard to try and save our country from the remains of Reagan/Bush1/Bush2 !
• March yourselves right into the ovens, you retards - the rest of us are trying to bring this country into the current century [with health care for all and jobs for any who can work]
• Just another cheap hit piece paid for by the same greedy & corrupt people (the Republicans & their rich bosses) who caused The Great Depression 2 that we are just really getting into now. Pass up this junk & back our president in trying to save what's left of our nation.
• This book is filled with so many distortions and outrages lies it's hard to believe that anyone sane would put this trash in print. Rupert Murdoch's pet Malkin must be making a lot of money writing this stupidity. If you enjoy right wing mindless propaganda this book's for you.
• The FAR right is crazy about Obama, and they will publish crap like this book because they know morons on the far right will buy it

Admittedly, I had to search through 148 reviews to find the negatives. Most are very positive. But do you notice how little substance there is to these critiques? You get the usual "hater" stuff in addition to some references to "greed" and "rich Republicans". You also get some bigoted references to Malkin's ethnicity. But NOWHERE do you see any specific and direct reference to any error in Malkin's material. You see charges of lying, but no references to lies. References to distortions, but no examples.

Perhaps this has occurred to you as it did to me. When it comes to talk radio conservatives rule. Liberals make infrequent and brief forays into talk radio success just as with bestselling books. When confronted with their repeated failures at the talk radio genre liberals start spouting the very same invective you see aimed at Malkin's book. "Greed, liars, distortions, rich Republicans, haters, retards..." All of it, and more. Maybe the left will try to set up some community review boards to monitor the efforts of publishing houses ... you know, make sure they publish liberal tomes along with the best-selling conservative and libertarian efforts. If they fail to promote liberal books they lose their publisher's license. What? There are no publisher's licenses? Damn. Something else Obama and his sycophants need to deal with.

Ok, I had seen the headlines proclaiming this to be the worst interview anyone has seen in a long time. So naturally, I had to check it out for myself. After watching this grueling eight minutes of Lawrence O'Donnell filling in for my buddy, Ed Schultz, I would have to agree.

Here's the set up. Lawrence O'Donnell was filling in for Ed on his TV show on MSNBC. O'Donnell's usual gig is as a political analyst for MSNBC. He was interviewing potential Senatorial candidate Peter Schiff. He is going to oppose Chris Dodd in the 2010 election. Now, from the little bit that Peter Schiff gets out of his mouth, you can gather that he is not a big fan of government. That's my kind of guy. But the fact that he could hardly get a word in edgewise is pathetic.

How long do you think this O'Donnell guy would last with a talk radio show?

How's it working out for him so far? According to Rasmussen, after six months in the Oval Office, Barack Obama has a lower job-approval rating than did ten of the last twelve presidents at the same point in their presidencies.

Barack Obama has been far worse than I ever could have imagined. I don't think that one year ago anyone could have convinced me that he would have been this dishonest, this radical and this dangerous to the cause of freedom and economic liberty. I have serious doubts about the ability of our country to survive eight years of this man's politics.

Are people really starting to wake up? Where are all of those ice scrapers that someone turned into Barack Obama bumper sticker removers?

Just can't let this go. It's funny, really, that the Democrats are so scared. They're shell-shocked. How DARE these people show up to protest the Democrat's biggest power grab since FDR? The ungrateful scumbags! The looters know they have to come up with a story, and the best they can do is to demonize the protestors. They insist on pinning any opposition to healthcare reform as a "mob." If you don't believe me, you have to watch the latest commercial from the Democrat National Committee. They want to convince the American public that the only people who are opposing their plans for reform are those infamous "right-wing extremists!" (Weren't they supposed to insert "bigoted" and "mean-spirited" in there somewhere? Remember those people? Those are the people whom Janet Napolitano warned us about many months ago. The commercial says, "Desperate Republicans and their well-funded allies are organizing angry mobs just like they did during the election. Their goal? Destroy President Obama and stop the change Americans voted for overwhelmingly in November."

I wonder when they're going to get around to calling the opponents "terrorists."

So are the Democrats right? Is it only these fringe Republican "mobs" that oppose their healthcare reform. It is safe to say that the answer is no. The Quinnipiac University Polling Institute released some figures yesterday showing that support for healthcare reform among independent voters is down. We aren't talking "right-wing extremists." We are talking about moderate, independent voters who arguably gave Barack Obama the edge in the election.

The Quinnipiac poll found that:

Independent voters, perhaps the key voting group, are more worried about the deficit rising than congressional inaction, 54 - 37 percent. These voters say 59 - 36 percent that overhaul should not occur if it would "significantly" increase the deficit.

Independents oppose 63 - 33 percent passing a bill with only Democratic votes.

Independent voters also don't think Obama can keep his promise to avoid increasing the deficit and pass health care by an overwhelming 77 - 17 percent.

Make no mistake ... this little White House beer party tonight between Obama, the whiney Professor Gates and Sgt. Crowley is all about rehabilitating the image of Barack Obama. He stepped in it big time ... and now he's going to use Gates and Crowley to wash that stuff off his shoes .. .with beer.

Oh .. and the woman who made the 911 call because she saw someone she thought was breaking into a house? Well now she's being called a racist. Yeah ... a racist. So ... here are the new rules. If you think you see someone committing a crime your first task is to determine whether or not that person's color. If they are white, you call 911. If they're black, you simply turn and walk away. Whatever you do, do not call 911. That, of course, would make you a racist. Hard to believe (or maybe it isn't), but this woman is actually getting death threats ... death threats from people who are legally entitled to vote.

Why is the Republican Party losing voters? Why is the Republican Party lacking in popularity while polls show that more Americans consider themselves conservative? Well according to Republican Senator George Voinovich of Ohio, it has nothing to do with the fact that the Republicans lack any original ideas. It has nothing to do with the fact that they are completely impotent. It has nothing to do with their general obsession with a woman's womb. According to George Voinovich, it has everything to do with Southerners. Yep .. Southerners are to blame for the Republicans' lagging popularity.

Voinovich told the Columbus dispatch that the Senate is filled with too many Jim DeMints and Tom Coburns. He says, It's the Southerners ... They get on TV and go 'errrr, errrrr ... People hear them and say, 'These people, they're Southerners. The party's being taken over by Southerners. What they hell they got to do with Ohio?'"

Anti-South bias. Nothing new to me. There are radio stations out there who refuse to run my program for no other reason than that it originates in Atlanta, Georgia. The bias is real ... but I'll just say that I'm damned glad I don't live in Ohio or New Jersey. I'll just take Atlanta and Naples and be more than thrilled.

Last week we got some news about the federal Franking Commission. Basically this is a Congressional entity that regulates official Congressional mailings. The news from last week was that the Franking Commission was blocking the Republicans from sending a flier about the Democrats' healthcare plan. That was bad enough. But this could possibly be even worse.

Rep. John Carter, a Republican from Texas, says that the Franking Commission is censuring the messages that Congressmen are allowed to send to their constituents. In this case, the Republicans wanted to use the phrase "government run health care" in order to describe the Democrat healthcare plan. But the Franking Commission took a look at this and said, "No way." They aren't dumb. They know that the people of this country have a growing mistrust in the government so any attempts to link more government to this healthcare plan could be bad news for the Democrats. So the solution is for the Franking Commission to change the language to something a bit more appropriate. Rather than "government run health care" you must use "public option health care plan."

Today comes news that said Franking Commission will not be allowing Republicans to refer to the Obama/Democrat plans for a government-run health care plan as a government-run health care plan. Instead, they must use the Democrat euphemism for their government-run health care plan.

Did you get that? Let's keep the whole "government" thing to a minimum and push the false notion that the great unwashed will have "options" under this plan! Looks like someone in the Franking Commission is sticking pretty darn close to the Democrat talking points.

Dr. Anne Wortham is the author of "The Other Side of Racism: A Philosophical Study of Black Race Consciousness". She is Associate Professor of Sociology at Illinois State University and continuing Visiting Scholar at Stanford University 's Hoover Institution. She is a member of the American Sociological Association and the American Philosophical Association. Pretty strong credentials, don't you think?

In researching Anne Wortham I also found that she is a follower of Ayn Rand. That's why I haven't heard of her before. A black university professor who is a Rand fan?

Why bring her up? Because I've just come across a letter she wrote to her fellow Americans on November 6th of last year. I thought you might enjoy it ... so here goes:

There. Couldn't have said it better myself.

This has to be a joke. I mean, I know that the average voter out there is government educated, but there is no way that the people of California could be ignorant enough to vote this twit into office. Here is a quote from Santa Rosa Democrat Noreen Evans about "living within our means."

Well, there is this mantra out there - "live within our means" - and while that sounds really nice . . . and it sounds really responsible, it's meaningless. Our means are completely within our control . . . We have just given away huge corporate subsidies in February; we have given away other tax reductions over many, many years; we've created tax loopholes; in good times, we routinely give away taxes, and then in lean times we never replace those tax deductions or close those loopholes. . . . So "live within our means" doesn't mean anything. The fact is, we have a state with a population that have [sic] needs that we have a moral obligation to provide.

And you wonder why California is in such trouble? I really didn't need to tell you that this barking moonbat was a Democrat, did I?

Well now. Our economy is really lunging forward, isn't it? What a ride! Are you holding on?

We're billions of dollars further in debt (trillions?) and the economy is still stagnant. TARP, the stimulus bill, massive debts our children and grandchildren will have to pay .. and what has this all brought us? Banks aren't lending, businesses aren't hiring - let along expanding - and consumers aren't buying. Oh, to be sure, the malls are crowded. Turn up the thermostats and see how long that lasts. Those aren't shoppers, they're just your neighbors trying to stay cool while watching the latest absurd teen fashion and freak shows.

Do what the initials SNAFU mean? That word was created to define government action, or inaction as the case may be. In 1942 Time magazine carried this revelation: "Last week U.S. citizens knew that gasoline rationing and rubber requisitioning were snafu." Well .. if there was ever a SNAFU, our economy would fit the description. To fully understand this, you have to know what the acronym stands for. Go ahead ... Google it

So ... after hundreds of billions of dollars, government seizures of GM, Citigroup and others, imminent bank nationalization, massive favors handed to unions at the expense of private investors, and a pantload of new czars in the White House ... all done to kick start our economy ... what do we have. SNAFU, that's what. Or TAUFU, if you like.

Look ... I'm just a talk show host. What the hell do I know? I've been sitting behind a microphone for 40 years now sparring with hundreds of thousands of callers who generally knew a helluva lot more than the hundreds of politicians I've interviewed over that time. Having said that ... I'm betting that this particular talk show host can, in just a few hundred words, give you some better ideas for kick starting our economy than you've heard from Obama and his Democrat sycophants over the past four months. Oh, and throw in most of the Republicans as well.

It's not all that hard, really. All you have to do is recognize and acknowledge the true goal of the political class. It's summed up in one word: POWER. You think they actually give a flying Krispy Kreme about you? What? I know you were born at night, but was it last night? They may care about your vote .. but that's it. It's power, my friends. Power and little else. Politicians will spout some lofty rhetoric about public service and wanting to leave this country a better place when they leave office; but, with few exceptions, that changes rather quickly. Once they get used to the privileges and the perks that go with their exalted positions their mindset changes. These people don't name research centers, bridges, parks, sports stadiums, university buildings, highways and office buildings after themselves because of their dedication to public service.

Where does that leave us? It leaves us in a situation where the people in power, the people who make the rules and decide how our economy is going to be fixed, are going to worry first about preserving and expanding their power and secondly (if they have time) about putting us back on a track to prosperity.

The basics: What does it take to get our economy moving again? Spending. If nobody is spending nobody needs to produce. You aren't going to gather the raw materials and personnel together to spend time and money creating a product or service unless you have some degree of confidence that there are people out there who either have or can borrow the money to buy it. Our economy is a constant day-by-day election process. The products and services put into the marketplace are the candidates. Consumers are the voters. Dollars are the ballots. If a candidate gets no votes, the candidate either reinvents himself or just simply goes away. The whole process slows down or grinds to a halt if the voters don't have ballots to cast.

Clearly, to stimulate our economy money had to be spent. That's basic. The question, then, was who gets to spend the money? If the American public gets to make the choices as to when and where the money is spent, that equates to power for the people. If, on the other hands, those decisions are made by the political class, it means no power to the people - the power goes to the elected elite. Now would someone please try to explain to me why these politicians, as completely immersed as they are in building their individual power bases, would ever want to turn over the power that goes with spending these huge sums of money to the great unwashed? How in the world is that going to benefit a politician? How do you generate a campaign ad for radio telling the voters that you deserve reelection because the private consumers in your district kept the local hardware store and a few clothing shops in business with their spending? Better you should be able to lay claim to a few road widenings and resurfacings and a new rehearsal hall for the local high school band.

Do you remember how much that stimulus bills was? Let's just call it $750 billion. For the sake of argument let's accept that this $750 billion had to be borrowed and spent to get our economy cranking again. Once you've accepted the $750 billion figure we're going to borrow, you then have to decide just who gets to spend that money and what they get to spend it on.

Here's an idea from Texas congressman Louis Gohmert (R 1st Dist.). Gohmert wanted a tax holiday. I've taken his idea and expanded it a bit. Last year Gohmert was floating an idea of allowing the American people to go one full month without paying any federal income or payroll taxes. The idea was that they would then spend this money and stimulate the economy. When Obama started talking about the $750 billion dollar stimulus price tag I did some quick calculations. It seems that $750 billion is almost exactly equal to the amount of federal income, Social Security and Medicare taxes withheld from American paychecks over a six-month period.

Are you following me? How about not a one-month tax holiday, but six months? How about letting people keep almost their entire paychecks for one-half of a year?

So -- here are the two possible scenarios our politicians had to work with:

1. Borrow the $750 billion and let the politicians (the looters) decide how it is going to be spent to stimulate our economy.
    
2. Give the producers a six month period in which they owe no federal income or payroll taxes. For these six months they get to keep their checks. This puts $750 billion into the hands of American workers - American producers - to spend and invest.

Either way you are going to have to borrow $750 billion. If you give the people a six-month tax holiday the money will have to be borrowed to replace the lost revenue.

You see it, don't you? There is one huge difference between the two plans. Under the government spending scenario the politicians get to decide how the money is spent. In other words, they get the power. Remember ... power is the goal. It's everything to the political class. Politicians wanted to decide which road is built, which park is refurbished, and which research project gets additional funding. Every one of these decisions would be made based on the political capital it will generate.

Under the tax holiday plan the people, not the politicians, get to cast the ballots/dollars. Spending choices would not be made on the basis of political expediency, but on the free choices of the people. Businesses that delivered a good product and good customer service would get the votes, not politicians who delivered a pork project to their districts.

A dollar spent on a new lawnmower at the hardware store does not generate a single vote. A dollar spent on a new job mowing grass along an Interstate highway does.

So ... there was a decision to be made. Massive amounts of money were going to be borrowed and spent to stimulate our economy (or so the storyline went). But just who would get to spend the money?

Do you remember that famous Bill Clinton line? It was January of 1999. The place was Buffalo, New York. The federal government had actually collected more tax money that it needed. There was a surplus. Someone asked Clinton if, considering the surplus, there might be a tax cut. His response: "We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right... But ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen." He then went on to describe the gloomy future of Social Security when more people are collecting benefits than paying taxes.

Sure .. it's your money. You worked for it; you earned it. That money actually represents the expenditure of a portion of your life ... and here's this politician telling you that even though he doesn't actually need that money right now, he's going to go ahead and keep it because if he returns it to its rightful owner - you - then you won't "spend it right." Now excuse me, but don't you get to decide what would be the right way and the wrong way to spend your money?

You know the rest of this story. The politicians in Washington decided that they would be doing the spending, not you. You just could not be trusted to spend it "right." So President Obama sent the word to Princess Pelosi to gather together all of the spending dreams and schemes of her Democrat members of congress and compile them into a massive spending bill. The bill would be pure pork and designed for nothing more than to secure reelections; but it would be called stimulus.

Now I could waste a few thousand words here describing all of the absurd ways this money is being spent. Vice President Biden actually told us that there would be waste. He was talking to business leaders in New York in early June when he said that waste would be inevitable in spending the stimulus money. Inevitable doesn't begin to cover it.

I know, it's hard to admit that you were wrong, isn't it? I mean, after all, how in the world can you admit that voting for someone with absolutely no experience at all - a former ACORN street organizer - someone who gravitated to Marxist professors and communist student groups in college - someone with no record of significant accomplishment at any endeavor - and someone who ran for office on the basis of focus-group slogans - how can you ever admit that such a vote might have been a mistake?

Do you see our economy improving? Have you noticed the improving employment figures?

Are you impressed by the burgeoning national debt that your children are going to have to pay back?

Are you looking forward to seeing your health care rationed?

How about the nationalization of General Motors, Citigroup and others? That's why you put that bumper sticker on your car, isn't it? So Obama could use some of his immense business experience to run some of our major industries. You do know he will nationalize the banks soon, don't you? Is that the change you had in mind?

Don't you see how smart this "sort-of" God really is? He's raising taxes while other nations are lowering business and personal taxes to fight the economic downturn. You knew that he knew something that the other world leaders didn't know ... didn't you?

How about our shows of determination and strength to North Korea and Iran? Obama really has the Gargoyle and Shorty in a tizzy, doesn't he? And I'm sure you're very impressed by Obama's instantaneous backing of that wannabe dictator and Chavez acolyte from Honduras.

So ... still got that Obama bumper sticker on your car? It's one thing to have been so profoundly ignorant in the last election. It's quite another to advertise it.

California State Assembly Speaker Karen Bass, a Democrat, did an interview with the LA Times. Thought you may enjoy her response to the following question:

How do you think conservative talk radio has affected the Legislature's work?

Bass' response: The Republicans were essentially threatened and terrorized against voting for revenue. Now [some] are facing recalls. They operate under a terrorist threat: "You vote for revenue and your career is over." I don't know why we allow that kind of terrorism to exist. I guess it's about free speech, but it's extremely unfair.

Now that's a first. I know that politicians don't particularly like talk radio, and I know that many politicians are quietly plotting the demise of conservative talk radio wherever they can find it and by whatever means. This, though, is the first time I've heard a politician call talk show hosts terrorists. She wonders how in the world we can allow talk radio terrorism to exist.

OK .. so this is just one barking moonbat from California ... though a powerful one. Let's see how long it takes for the rest of the left to pick up the "terrorism" gambit.

When is it not going to be "the moment" for Democrat legislation? I'm getting sick of being reminded by Barack Obama that if we don't seize this moment, these opportunities will be lost forever.

"Now is the time to pass climate change legislation ..."

"This is the moment to seize our chance to pass healthcare reform ..."

"This is the moment when the seas begin to subside ..."

"We cannot miss this opportunity to stimulate our economy ..."

I'll tell you when the moment passes. It's when (if ever) the American people wake up to see what's being done to them, their country and their freedoms.

I don't want it to say that I never display any empathy. Fact is, I do. I have empathy up to here [gesturing] for all of those ObamaBots who put so much thought and attention into their vote last year. You know the ones I'm talking about ... the people who swooned and fainted at the very mention of the word "change" and who went to sleep every night with visions of sugar plums and change we can believe in.

I'm trying to build a scorecard. Here's just a few items:

• Trillions added to our national debt.
• American is having trouble getting other countries to buy American debt
• Obama virtually ignores a corrupt election in Iran. We leave it to French President Sarkozy to speak out for the Iranian people wanting a free election.
• GM and Citigroup now government operations. More to come.
• The government (Obama) gets to set executive compensation levels.
• Obama seeking the ability to seize private businesses.
• Firing inspector generals who uncover corruption involving Obama buddies.
• Overturning established law to favor unions over secured creditors in GM's bankruptcy.
• Obama wants to reduce tax deductions for charitable deductions. Government doesn't like competition.
• The Washington DC voucher system, with a great record of success, slated for elimination while Obama's kids go to private school.
• Obama says 8% unemployment max. We're nearing 10%
• Obama moves to raise taxes on the small businesses that create the jobs.
• North Korea threatening to send a missile toward Hawaii
• While NK is lobbing missiles, Obama cuts spending in missile defense systems.

Hey .. that's just scratching the surface. How's this "change you can believe in" working out for you? I know. It's tough. You put all of this faith in Barack Obama. He's going to make everything just wonderful. All we need is change. Now you're sitting here trying to figure out just how long you will be able to keep that Obama bumper sticker on your car. After all ... being a sucker is one thing. Advertising to the world that you got suckered by focus group slogans is another.

Working out pretty well, isn't it?

Do you remember during the presidential campaign, Barack Obama continuously promised that he would "not take a dime" from lobbyists or political action committees? Well it seems as though that is easier said than done. See if this is what you envisioned when Obama made that promise.

Last night, Obama made a speech at a Democratic fundraising reception. In order to uphold his end of the bargain, there were no lobbyists allowed at his speech. But then we wake up this morning, and at the same exact hotel where PrezBO gave his speech we had registered lobbyists being invited to attend a Democrat issues conference and pay $5,000 if they wanted to maintain good standing with the House and Senate re-election committees.

So what's happening here? Democrats will still gladly take lobbyist money for the House and Senate re-election committees, as long as Obama isn't there to witness it. Then it doesn't count. Do you get it now?

Are Americans finally realizing that elections have consequences? Notice that your friends and your neighbors are silently removing their Barack Obama bumper stickers from their cars. Now they're walking around with a "who, me?" look on their faces. Notice also that more people growing weary of government spending and intervention. They may not admit it, but they know they were wrong. After all, Obama didn't lie about what he wanted to do as president - he ran on a platform of bigger government and more spending on healthcare, energy, education, etc. But most Americans couldn't see beyond his hot bod and charm. They we suckered in by focus group slogans. They voted for him anyway.

A new Wall Street Journal poll found that there are rising doubts among Americans. This is not good for a president that has the most ambitious government-growth plans since the Great Depression. For example, 70% of Americans are concerned about the increased government intervention in the private sector.

Now here is a prime example of a dumb Obama voter. This is someone who voted for Obama precisely because of the reasons above. Laura Zamora is a local government worker in Orange, California. Government worker ... that's your key. Ms. Zamora says she is frustrated with Obama, but here is why: "He's bailing out the private sector. He's putting all kinds of money into the private sector ... The money should be going to social programs, not to bailing out banks and GM. It should go to people who are unemployed." I would bet a day's salary that this bimbo was government educated. No bets on whether or not she's here legally.

The Democrats see this failing confidence in their Messiah. They know that if they want to increase government dependency through government growth they have to move fast, before more people out there wake up. It's classic. They're trying to steal your independence .. and their tip-toeing through your room in the dark of night trying to get it done before you wake up ... and they just heard you move under the covers. Why do you think the Democrats are bummed that they have to postpone a markup of the healthcare reform bill? Because they know that time is of the essence.

It happened last night. There was debate on the floor of the House over some amendments to a spending bill. The amendments were offered by Republicans and concerned funding for ACORN and an investigation into Nancy Pelosi's problems with the CIA.

As I understand the story, the Democrats announced that there would be no more votes that evening, and Republicans started heading home. When enough Republicans were gone the Democrats headed back to the House floor and called for a vote to end debate on all amendments to the spending bill. Republicans scrambled to get back into the House, but it was too late. Democrats saved Pelosi and ACORN with their little chicanery. For now.

Let's back into this. A Republican aide in the Tennessee state legislature sent out an email to fellow GOP staff members. The email was a collage of portraits from the other 43 presidents, and the last portrait depicted Barack Obama as two white eyes peering from a black background. Now the Democrats are calling for the aide, Sherri Goforth, to be fired.

Democratic Party Chairman Chip Forrester says, "I am calling on Sen. Black to reject this racist smear and fire this staffer who, on state government time, on state government computers, using a state government e-mail account, launched this bigoted attack on our president ... This e-mail is reprehensible, insults the office of the president, and is embarrassing to all Tennesseans regardless of political party," Forrester said.

The staffer shouldn't be fired because she's a racist. She should be fired because she's dumb as hell. Sorry ... and I know that the Democrats are using this for some good old-fashioned race baiting, but what kind of an idiot would send out that email in the first place?

Headlines like this that remind me why the Republican Party is in its current state of pathetic existence: "Conservatives Urge Americans to Pray for a Troubled Nation."

No .. I have nothing against prayer. I use it every day. But I'm sorry ... as crazy as it seems there are still people who are looking to the dysfunctional Republican Party for some ideas on how to bring our nation back from the Obama-socialist precipice. Maybe it's just me ... but when I look to the Republican leadership for some sort of a brilliant plan, "Pray for a troubled nation" doesn't quite cut it. Our pastors can handle that suggestion .. we expect more from elected officials.

The Republican Party believes that it has turned a corner and is making a comeback. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele has vowed for the GOP to more aggressively confront Barack Obama. Yes, this is how they are going to make a comeback ... by being more aggressive against Obama. Steele says that despite Obama's obvious personal popularity, the Republicans are prepared to take him on.

Now apparently, a lot of people in the Republican Party think that this is silly to confront the most popular Democrat: Barack Obama. Instead, they want to focus on less popular Democrats in order to show their strength. This is actually a good line from Michael Steele. He says, "They suggest that instead we should go after Nancy Pelosi, whom nobody likes. Or Harry Reid, whom nobody knows. Or this Tim Geithner fellow, whom nobody believes. Or maybe even Barney Frank, whom nobody understands."

Here's an idea for the Republican Party .. why don't you focus on getting some productive ideas of your own, rather than worrying about Barack Obama and the Democrats. No. one on the list? The FairTax.

The Media Research Center did an analysis of the lamestream media's coverage of Obama's first 100 days. Guess what? Turns out that they have done a great job of sending tingles up their legs but a lousy job acting as watchdogs.

MRC analysts looked at all 982 broadcast evening news stories about Obama and his administration from Inauguration Day (January 20) through April 29. Here are some of the interesting, though not surprising, things that they found:

- Obama's first 100 days were defined by massive spending, aggressive intervention in the private sector and proposals for a huge expansion of the federal government. Yet none of the networks aired a single story on whether Obama's policies were pushing the U.S. toward socialism, and no reporter used the term "socialist" to describe Obama.

- Not only that, network reporters never used the word "liberal" to describe either Barack Obama or his agenda during the first 100 days.

- The networks lavished good press on every major initiative of the early Obama administration, including the massive stimulus package, all of the various bailouts, health care, stem cells, the environment and foreign policy.

- In the days before the President unveiled his unprecedented $3.5 trillion budget -- with a record-shattering $1.75 trillion deficit -- four out of five statements on the evening newscasts parroted the White House spin that Obama was a deficit fighter.

- Reporters treated Obama's hugely expensive $787 billion stimulus bill to mainly positive coverage (58 percent positive, 42 percent negative).

- The networks applauded Obama's decision to use taxpayer money to fund embryo-destroying stem cell research (82% positive coverage).

- Network coverage of Obama's mortgage bailout was also positive -- 59% of statements supported the bailout or wanted even more intervention, compared to 41% who opposed the bailout as unfair to responsible homeowners.

- Reporters heavily skewed their coverage in favor of the President's actions on global warming (78% positive).

- President Obama's decision to send thousands of additional troops to Afghanistan was greeted by nearly unanimous (91%) positive coverage -- a far cry from the highly negative coverage of President Bush's successful troop surge in Iraq two years ago.

- Like Obama and the Democrats, the networks went on a feeding frenzy against big corporate bonuses. The networks aired six times more statements forwarding the "infuriated" reaction to business (104) than criticized politicians' grandstanding (16).

- The networks spent days decrying AIG's $165 million bonuses, but hardly mentioned the $210 million in bonuses handed out by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac (the bailed-out mortgage giants with strong Democratic ties). ABC and NBC completely ignored the Fannie and Freddie bonuses, while the CBS Evening News gave it 27 seconds.

They made him. They must support him.

George Will had another excellent column over the weekend, and a listener brought this paragraph of that column to my attention.

In "Democracy in America," Alexis de Tocqueville anticipated people being governed by "an immense, tutelary power" determined to take "sole charge of assuring their enjoyment and of watching over their fate." It would be a power "absolute, attentive to detail, regular, provident and gentle," aiming for our happiness but wanting "to be the only agent and the sole arbiter of that happiness." It would, Tocqueville said, provide people security, anticipate their needs, direct their industries and divide their inheritances. It would envelop society in "a network of petty regulations -- complicated, minute and uniform." But softly: "It does not break wills; it softens them, bends them, and directs them" until people resemble "a herd of timid and industrious animals, of which the government is the shepherd."

Read it a couple of times. When you fully understand what de Tocqueville wrote find a government-educated friend and try to explain it to them. If you REALLY want a challenge find someone who voted for Obama - and has not come to regret that vote - and see if you can explain it to them.

... that Democrats are working for legislation that would automatically register to vote anyone who obtains a driver's license or who qualifies for welfare benefits? There is no move to automatically register anyone who actually obtains a job, becomes successful and pays taxes.

... that three-quarters of the budget "cuts" that Obama identified in his new budget come from defense spending, not discretionary domestic spending?

... that one species of bat has a tongue that is 150% longer than its body? It cannot, however, breathe through the top of its head ... so what's the point?

... that the people who make Hotwheels and Matchbox cars made more money last year than the people who make Fords, Chryslers and Chevys?

... that there are strong rumors that Nancy Pelosi is conjuring up a plan to place a tax against all outstanding pension and 401K plans? I know the Clinton administration was looking at this ... but thus far no solid evidence that Pelosi is on the same track.

... that you use about 50 pounds of toilet paper a year? We are 7 percent of the world's population, yet we use half of the toilet paper. Even more since January 20th.

... that the feds are cranking up some new mortgage programs designed to get low-income people into the wonderful world of home ownership? In other words, plans to make sure people who can't afford to buy a home can buy a home. This is what got us in trouble in the first place.

... that the Republican party has absolutely nothing going for itself right now! OK. So you knew that one.

This is from a column in the San Francisco Chronicle ... a glossary of Republican doublespeak for all you right-wing conservatives. I'm ticked I didn't make the list.

No commentary necessary ... just read and enjoy.

Activist judges: Judges whose rulings are at odds with the perceived wisdom of Republicans.

Bankers: Stewards of the capitalist system who always know what's best for the economy, who deserve low taxes and big year-end bonuses no matter how poorly their institutions have performed.

Class warfare: Assaults on rich people in the form of the usual whining of poor people.

Clinton, Wm. Jefferson: Democrat president whose sexual dalliance sent the nation into a tailspin from which even George W. Bush could not save it.

Compassionate conservatism: Ignoring the poor, except for an occasional contribution to the collection plate at church. Also see "conservatism."

Democrats: Devil-worshiping scum, foes of free enterprise, champions of the shiftless and the lazy, enemies of hardworking Americans everywhere.

Energy policy: Drill, baby, drill.

Fairness Doctrine: A government regulation once imposed on broadcasters under the mistaken notion that the public airways were owned by the public. Wisely rescinded by Ronald Reagan, paving the way for the careers of Rush Limbaugh, et al.

Fox News: A place where failed newsmen go to live out their golden years (e.g., Britt Hume, Geraldo Rivera), with paychecks provided by an Australian capitalist intent on explaining America to itself.

Gore, Al: Democrat presidential candidate and sore loser who concocted the myth of global warming just to steal joy from the Republicans who beat him.

Greed: The emotion that drives food-stamp recipients.

Justice Department: Agency created to legitimize illegal acts of Republican presidents.

Liberal: Any of a species of lily-livered, weak and effeminate men, or pushy and overly masculine women who have either renounced men altogether, or turned them into "girly-men."

Limbaugh, Rush: A male Mother Teresa for the oppressed captains of business and industry.

New York Times: Propaganda organ, once affiliated with Pravda, now a subsidiary of Al-Jazeera.

No!: All-purpose reply to any idea that doesn't include tax cuts for the wealthy.

Obama, Barack: Inept, inexperienced and inarticulate Negro man elected to the highest office in the biggest mistake the American electorate ever made.

Patriotism: Hoping the nation's leader fails, if he's a Democrat. Hoping the nation's leader succeeds, if he's a Republican.

Pelosi, Nancy: See also "harpy," "harridan."

Poor: People born lacking the gene that creates a solid work ethic, but with an excess number of genes that prompt whining.

Profit: The most sacred goal of human existence. Anything that interferes with its pursuit or acquisition is an affront to God.

Republicans: 1) The only real Americans; 2) Those who uphold traditional American values, such as marital fidelity, and disdain un-American practices such as homosexuality. Republicans uphold these values in public, though they sometimes are found to betray those values in private. They're only human, after all. (see also Vitter, David, or Craig, Larry).

Saint: (n.) See Reagan, Ronald.

Secular humanists: See "spawn of Satan."

Victory: A word foreign to Democrats, who always favor retreat or capitulation to the nation's enemies, foreign or domestic.

Wall Street: The nervous system of America, linked directly to the heart and brain. In short, the essence of this great nation.

Do you think that Arlen Specter has had his "oh crap .. what have I done" moment yet? Considering the fact that he has lost all seniority in the Senate, I would say that moment is coming soon if it hasn't already. The amazing part of the story is that Senator Harry Reid apparently promised Specter that he would retain his seniority if he jumped parties. Angry Arlen trusted the cadaver? He didn't take into consideration the fact that government is all about power, and his fellow Democrats weren't about to give up any of their precious power just so they could claim another desk on their side of the aisle. Either way, Specter is confident that Harry is going to "work it out" and that his assurances on seniority "will be fulfilled." Keep dreamin, Arlen.

So what may have done it for the Democrats? Debbie Stabenow says that many of her colleagues were irritated when Specter told The New York Times that the Minnesota courts should "do justice" by declaring Norm Coleman to be the winner of the Senate race against Al Franken.

Here's why this seniority issue is a big deal for Arlen Specter .. it limits his ability to get pork projects, money and jobs for his state. See, Specter was a senior ranking member on the all-powerful Appropriations Committee. He says, "My senior position on Appropriations has enabled me to bring a lot of jobs and a lot of federal funding to this state." Without this, Arlen believes that he doesn't have the "power" he has accumulated during his 29 years in the Senate. Without power, he probably won't be re-elected.

Wouldn't that be wonderful?

In the meantime ... does anyone see a Republican leader on the horizon? Yeah, I thought so.

The Hill did a little survey to find out exactly what Congressmen think of each other. So over the last couple of months, they asked Representatives to name the hardest and easiest members of Congress to work with. Here's what they found ...

Most partisan Democrats

1. Nancy Pelosi (Calif.)
2. Henry Waxman (Calif.)
3. John Conyers Jr. (Mich.)
4. Barney Frank (Mass.)
5. Jim McDermott (Wash.)

Most partisan Republicans

1. Tom Price (Ga.)
2. Virginia Foxx (N.C.)
3. Jeb Hensarling (Texas)
4. Patrick McHenry (N.C.)
5. Michele Bachmann (Minn.)

Most bipartisan Democrats (listed alphabetically)

Neil Abercrombie (Hawaii)
Rick Boucher (Va.)
Bill Delahunt (Mass.)
Barney Frank (Mass.)
Steny Hoyer (Md.)
Jim Oberstar (Minn.)
Collin Peterson (Minn.)
Ike Skelton (Mo.)
Gene Taylor (Miss.)
Ed Towns (N.Y.)

Most bipartisan Republicans (listed alphabetically)

Judy Biggert (Ill.)
Bob Inglis (S.C.)
Walter Jones (N.C.)
Steven LaTourette (Ohio)
John McHugh (N.Y.)
John Mica (Fla.)
Ron Paul (Texas)
Lee Terry (Neb.)
Fred Upton (Mich.)
Bill Young (Fla.)

Did ya notice anything peculiar about these lists .... How about the fact that Barney Frank is the only House member to appear on both the partisan and bipartisan lists? You will notice also that Nancy Pelosi appears only as a hyper-partisan Democrat.

Nancy Pelosi is offering a little bit of advice for Republicans. Considering Arlen Specter is now batting for the other team, Nancy says that Republicans should "take back" their party ... and by that, she means that they should become more like Democrats.

Here's Nancy's sound advice, "I say to Republicans in America, take back your party ... The party of protecting the environment, the party of individual rights, the party of fairness."

So is that what a Republican is supposed to be to Nancy Pelosi? Boy does this explain a lot about why these buffoons can't get anything done in Washington. How about the party of smaller government? The party of lower taxes? The party of self sufficiency?

Pelosi is so tiresome.

The Republicans are starting a new outreach initiative. Basically, they know that their party is hopelessly screwed. They can't save themselves; they can only hope that the Democrats screw up enough to make the Republicans not look as bad.

But they are making an effort, nonetheless. Will it work? Well, this National Council for a New America launched an open letter to the American people. What is interesting about the letter is what was left out: illegal immigration, same sex marriage, abortion .... all of these issues that have the Republican Party completely handcuffed.

Now I have a strong personal interest here ... but I truly believe that if the Republican Party would work to understand and then promote the FairTax the American people would respond very positively. They could have the Democrats on the run. Am I dreaming here? Your thoughts?

Well .. it all ended too late for me to include in my notes, so I guess you'll just have to tune in the show today to hear my pithy comments.

How to grade Obama on his First 100?

Easy.

• If you love government and are afraid of freedom, you give him an "A"
• If you love freedom and fear government, you give him an "F"

Simple as that.

Senator Arlen Specter releases a statement that he is switching to the Democrat Party. Discuss.

I asked this question all day yesterday, and I will ask it again today. Then, to make sure you are completely bored, I will ask it again tomorrow. I will continue to ask it until somebody gives me a freaking response. For all the hoopla surrounding Obama's approaching 100th day in office, what has the man accomplished? Seriously, folks. I want someone to answer the question.

Now the Democrat National Committee will tell you that Obama has "laid a foundation for change." Big deal. Fidel Castro "laid a foundation for change" in Cuba in the late '50s. When in the world are people going to understand that its not the change that is important .. its what you're changing into. From my Obama's change has been all about changing a society based on individualism, liberty and self-sufficiency into one based on collectivism, soft tyranny and government dependence. If that's what you voted for .. well then that's just what you're going to get.

Back to the Democrat National Committee. They have a good bit of cash lying around ... so they decided to spend some on brushing up Obama's image. The committee has produced a television ad to promote Obama's accomplishments during his first 100 days! Wow! This ought to be pretty sensational! We're getting this straight from the source! So here is what the Democrat National Committee says that Obama has accomplished:

-He signed the economic recovery act (the stimulus bill)

-He signed the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Restoration Act

-He signed a bill for the State Children's Health Insurance Program

-He has outlined plans to "invest" in areas like healthcare, energy and education

Is there anything that stands out to you about this list? Here's something to think about ... how many of these acts or bills or plans do anything to decrease the size, scope or spending of the federal government? Another question ... which one of these great and glorious accomplishments actually enhance freedom in America? The answer would be none. Obama's greatest accomplishments have been promising change and growing our government. For a liberal, this probably makes Obama a very accomplished president. Obama isn't the only person out there who believes that America's greatness comes from government.

As I told you yesterday .. the people who are going to be most affected by Obama's first 100 days in office are people who are not in a position to comment on the job he's done thus far. These people are your children and your grandchildren. Save all of these articles and columns praising Obama for his rock star status and "hipness" ... let them see how cool future generations think it is to be paying of a massive debt brought on by a inexperienced bit-government leader who gained power on the basis of a slogan.

Speaking of rock stars .........

The articles pouring out of the lamestream media about Obama's first 100 days are priceless. I was serious, folks, about making a little scrapbook for your children. Yesterday I hope you had the chance to read the article about Obama being our "hippest" president. Today, we get this article from the American Free Press: Obamas rock and rule. Let me just give you a taste of what this has to offer ....

Fans swooning over the First Family's every move, wall-to-wall media coverage and one pampered pooch: the Obamas are the planet's hottest rock stars busy revamping the image of the US presidency.

In the 100 days since President Barack Obama and his family arrived in the White House there has been no sign of any let-up in the Obamania which swept the globe during the 2008 campaign.

Rather it has moved to the next level.

Tweenie girls now pin posters of the Obama's daughters, Malia, 10 and Sasha, seven, to their bedroom walls and fantasize about joining White House sleepovers and becoming BFFL -- best friends for life -- with the First Kids.

Magazine editors fight for the coolest image of the new president and his wife, Michelle, whether digging in the new organic garden, showing off their honed muscles, or romping with the First dog, Bo ...

And even though the United States is in the grip of its worst recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s, it seems the Obamas can do no wrong ....

Washingtonians have been lapping it up. Restaurants graced by the Obamas, see seats booked up for weeks ahead afterwards.

Kids are clamoring to get onto basketball teams in the hope that they will bump into one of the girls, and by extension their parents. And suddenly frumpy, staid old Washington is cool again.

This is what Americans wanted from their president, and they got it. The American Idol, YouTube, Entertainment Tonight voters of this country wanted a president that would look really cool on the cover of magazines, so they voted for the guy. They knew nothing about how he would represent our country to foreign leaders, no concept of his desires to radically grow our government, nothing. As I said before, your children will pay the price for this obsession with having a rock star for a president.