While we remember those who gave their lives for our freedom this Memorial Day weekend, let us not ignore the efforts of our own government to take away our rights under the Second Amendment.

In the United States Senate, freshman senator Rand Paul of Kentucky, fillibustered that body before a vote on the extention of the Patriot Act. What’s his beef? Doesn’t the Patriot Act protect us from terrorists? Yes, but it also allows the government to collect records of gun ownership and as the following series of videos show, what begins as innocent record keeping, ends up with confiscation. When you think of the 2nd Amendment as a check on the power of the government, doesn’t the government knowing where every gun in America is, defeat that purpose? Here is how it is actually happening in California.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlhIW8X5cRU

You can see it all over pass a ban on a particular type of weapon. Register all weapons to make sure they comply. Tweak the definition to broaden the definition of banned weapons. Run that new definition against the database of regisitered weapons. Go pick up the weapons from the registrants address.

We have to draw a line in the sand.

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

We knew it was coming because the situation was so clear. Congressman Paul Ryan introduced a bold plan to deal with out of control government spending and the Democrats had no credible plan of their own. So what does one do in a case like that? Lie, smear, distort, and scare the uninformed into thinking that we should shut up and surrender our liberties to the government. But the level of the latest lies is remarkable if only because of how shameless it is.

Here is the ad in question from the Agenda Project, titled “America the Beautiful.”

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OGnE83A1Z4U&feature=player_embedded

The message they want you to belive is simple. Paul Ryan’s would end Medicare, period. Seniors would be pushed to their deaths by Ryan and his “friends.” This is a blatent lie. The Ryan plan says that no one over the age of 55 would see any changes to their plan. Bill O’Reilly thought the ad was so dishonest that he ran a segment on his show, The O’Reilly Factor to address it, and right from the start his guest, Sally Kohn, scoffs when O’Reilly points out that no one under 55 would see any changes, saying perhaps they should put in a disclaimer saying the woman in the wheelchair was 54. Really? Did the woman in the wheelchair look like she was 54? or 84? Kohn said it was not a distortion, it was an exaggeration.

Distort, v. 1) to twist awry or out of shape; make crooked or deformed. 2) to give false, perverted or disproportionate meaning to; misrepresent: to distort the facts

Exaggerate, v. 1) to magnify beyond the limits of truth; overstate; represent disproportionately

Some might call that a distinction without a difference. Either way it is not true and she claims it is harmless. She then tacks hard left and says ads during the ObamaCare debate about death panels was an exaggeration and also a lie. Not even close. It is a fact that Ryan’s plan does not affect people over 55. It is a fact that ObamaCare wanted to install a government panel that would advise doctors on treatments that took into consideration how many years of quality life a patient had remaining. The only exaggeration was that ObamaCare didn’t actually call them death panels.

O’Reilly pressed on with the ads and Ms. Kohn poo-poo’d it away, “It’s a silly ad. I’m not going to defend a silly ad.” So telling outright lies is okay as long as you are silly when you do it? She continued, “We’re having this conversation because of this ad.” What conversation? A conversation about lying and silliness? What about debating what you don’t like in the Ryan plan and what the left has that is better? No chance. The smirk on her face gives it away. She is tickled that such a bold faced lie is out there and it will affect seniors and she knows the famous line from Winston Churchill, “A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.”

The tenth rule of ethics of means and ends is that you do what you can with what you have and clothe it with moral arguments.– Saul Alinksy, Rules for Radicals

So is the moral argument that someone uncovered the death panels? This is like the Democratic congressional aide that told me there is no such thing as ObamaCare, because there was no legislation that offically carried that name. The left calls it end-of-life counseling, the right calls it death panels. It’s a panel, and what typically happens at the end of one’s life? Death.

But don’t take my word for it, judge Ms. Kohn’s demeanor and truthfullness for yourself.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVAXXeBKOrA&feature=player_embedded

Ms. Kohn claimed that the real purpose of the “silly ad” was to get people talking. Okay, Ms. Kohn, then how about on your next public appearance you talk about this:

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RMJE9jBroUU

So, Sally Kohn, instead of making silly and stupid videos of grandma in the wheelchair, why not make an intelligent video like this one and make the case for your solution over Paul Ryan’s plan? Or don’t you have a case?

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

Compare the address below in honor of our wounded heroes with Michelle Obama’s famous statement that she was proud of her country for the first time in her adult life after her husband was nominated as the Democrat party presidential candidate.

First, watch Mrs. Obama’s address and then compare and contrast it with that of Herman Cain.

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYY73RO_egw

Here’s Mr. Cain’s address

httpv://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVuoarEQelY

How long will it be before Herman Cain is smeared as being an Uncle Tom, traitor to his race, etc., etc.? Start the clock.

(a hat tip to www.secularstupidest.com)

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours. Please comment below.

The bedrock principle of the First Amendment is to protect political speech from government censorship. That is what the Founders intended as a way for the citizens to disagree with their government without fear of reprisal.

Over the years we have seen some bizarre applications of the free speech doctrine to include such things as flag burning, and evolving into freedom of expression, whatever that really means. What the progressives want is that they and their main stream media chorus are alone in conveying their message. The McCain-Feingold campaign finance law banned using corporate or union money for “electioneering communications,” which meant broadcast advertising that identified a federal candidate within 30 days of a primary, or 60 days of a general election. In other words, it is the “Incumbent Protection Act.” As incumbents have the name recognition and the communication platform of their office, they begin a campaign with a considerable advantage. The particular timeframes in the act are when most people start paying attention, so if you can choke that off, the victory circle is that much closer.

In Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, at issue was a documentary film that was critical of Hillary Rodham Clinton, who was running for president at the time. The Supreme Court’s ruling in favor of Citizens United brought the scorn of President Obama upon the Court in his State of the Union address last year.

Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens blasted the Court’s 5-4 decision saying that the ruling was not grounded in the writings of the Founding Fathers.  His argument being that certain groups could have their speech curtailed and only individuals had their speech protected.  Justice Antonin Scalia wrote a separate concurring opinion to address Stevens’ argument.  In part:

“I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”… This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored….

The [First] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals–and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.” – Antonin Scalia, concurring opinion in “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission

This is an historic moment to be celebrated as another victory in the war to roll back government before it rolls over us.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zn739hxpGNI

That’s my opinion; I’d like to know yours.  Please comment below.

httpvh://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U4KQUs9Xms4&hd=1

In a “lightening round” where Kirsten Gillibrand and her opponent Joe DioGuardi answered the moderator’s question with only a yes or a no, proved interesting.  Among the things she revealed were:

• That the Tea Party movement is bad for America
• That in the race for New York’s governor, the two major candidates Andrew Cuomo and Carl Paladino shouldn’t debate face-to-face
• She believe Khalid Sheik Mohammed and other terrorists should be tried in civilian courts with the full rights of U.S. citizens
• Former New York State Comptroller Alan Hevisi was convicted of a felony regarding favors he gave based on his position.  When asked the simple question of whether or not he should go to jail, she could not give a yes or no answer.  She fumbled and hedged, saying it was a prosecutor’s decision even though he was already convicted.  As an attorney you would think she would know that a judge makes sentencing decisions.
• She said that if invited she would attend a ground breaking for the Ground Zero Mosque, if that project goes forward.  She hesitated about answering the question about Hevesi but didn’t miss a beat about saying yes on this question

Start spreading the news.  Kirsten Gillibrand has benefitted from her connections and a very low profile.  The more you see of her, the more freightening she is to have in the United States Senate

For all the hand wringing by the Republican establishment over Christine O’Donnell’s fitness for office two points must be made.  One, who is calling the kettle black?  Two, has anyone bothered to look at who she is running against?

In the desperate attempt to throw anything and everything they can find at Christine O’Donnell to try to derail her roaring comeback, her critics have gone all the way back to probe who her friends were in high school.  High school. If that is a criteria for being unfit for government office, how about these gems:

• President Barack Obama admitted using marijuana and cocaine in high school, but he is fit to be the chief law enforcement officer of the United States
• Vice President Joe Biden committed plagiarism and had to drop out of the 1988 Presidential race, but he is fit to be the “experienced statesman” to balance the Obama-Biden team
• President Bill Clinton lied under oath to a federal judge to prevent a woman with a legitimate case of sexual harassment from having her day in court.
• Senator Ted Kennedy left a woman in a submerged car to die rather than doing everything possible to help save her life and his Democratic colleagues called him the “Lion of the Senate”
• Timothy Geithner oversees the IRS, but didn’t pay his own taxes
• Charlie Rangel is under investigation for numerous ethics violations including not paying his taxes despite being the former chairman of the Congressional committee that writes the tax laws.
• Hillary Clinton, not as a high school student but as First Lady, held a séance so she could talk to Eleanor Roosevelt.

Is that enough or should I continue?  And these people and their supporters say, Christine O’Donnell is not fit for office?  Maybe she should rob a bank so that her resume would be more in line with these icons of the Democrat firmament.

What about Chris Coons?  In the midst of out of control spending and a dismal recovery burdened with the uncertainty of all that the Obama administration wants to pile on, this is from Coons’ own website:

• On the economy – “Chris Coons wants to focus on the millions of Americans who have suffered from the crisis.”  Great. More government programs.  Let’s not try to get government out of the way and let the economy create jobs and come roaring back, let’s make government bigger.
• On education – “performance in the classroom depends on more than teachers and curriculum. Housing, health care, crime and poverty all have a direct impact on a child’s development and their ability to learn.”  So if you think education is expensive now, wait until Mr. Coons starts trying to ramp up all these ancillary programs.  How about competence and getting rid of teachers who can’t teach?
• On energy – “He also is calling for a nationwide cap and trade program that will help establish a price on carbon.” Jacking up the price of energy is sure to boost the economy.
• On financial reform – no mention whatsoever about Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, just applause for the Dodd-Frank act.
• On health care – supports ObamaCare
• Offshore oil drilling – Coons is opposed.  He favors offshore wind farms and also has this gem on his web site, “Our state’s success in bringing Fisker Automotive to build innovative, sporty electric cars at the former GM Boxwood facility is a testament to the commitment of the federal, state, and county governments to alternative energy and building a green manufacturing economy in Delaware.” While it is commendable that Coons brought this company to Delaware, does he know that the starting price for these cars is north of $80,000.  Is he so clueless to believe that this is going to make us energy independent?  If he does, he better call Mr. Obama and tell him to lay off the “tax the rich” mantra, because it is only the rich who could possibly afford to buy these cars.

We’ll leave aside that as a college student he authored a paper titled: “Chris Coons: The Making of a Bearded Marxist.”  His current views are consistent with bigger government, more spending, less liberty.

So on the one hand we have Christine O’Donnell, who believes in the free market; that jobs are actually created by private industry; that the crushing debt burden that Obama and Coons want not only to continue but to accelerate; that taxes should be lower; and that government should be accountable.  All the other crap that the progressives are throwing at her will have no bearing on these positions that will get our country out of the mess we are in.  On the other hand you have Chris Coons who wants to double down on everything that Obama has done and make the debt even worse.

There couldn’t be a clearer choice.  Ignore the attacks from the left.  Do you like having your government crammed down your throat or do you want your government accountable to you?  Harry Reid’s “pet”, Chris Coons, wants you to open wide and say, “ahhh”. Christine O’Donnell thinks you’ve had enough.  What do you think?

Before you proceed with trying to increase taxes $700 billion in the midst of your very weak economic recovery, perhaps you should pass the plate around the White House.  Better yet call in Nancy and Harry and ask them to do the same.

According to the LA Times, 41 of your aides owe $831,000 in back taxes.  If you expand that to all federal employees, the number rises to $1 billion.  Just 638 workers on Capitol Hill alone owe $9.3 million in back taxes.  Let me put it another way, you want us to fork over $700 billion in taxes because you cannot collect the taxes from the other people who work for us. 

Fix the leaky bucket, before you come back for a re-fill.

To say today’s “Restoring Honor” event in Washington will be historic is an understatement.  Gauging by the biased reporting on the news pages of the New York Times and the seething, sputtering outrage from Bob Herbert and Charles Blow on the Op-Ed pages should give you a pretty good indication of the focus this event will garner.

Kate Zernike opens her report, titled “Where Dr. King Stood, Tea Party Claims His Mantle”, saying it is the ultimate “thumb in the eye” to stand on the anniversary of Dr. Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream Speech” in the place he stood and talk about restoring honor.  How dare he?  Isn’t that what racists said of Dr. King when he stood in front of the Lincoln Memorial with these words?

“Five score years ago, a great American, in whose symbolic shadow we stand today, signed the Emancipation Proclamation. This momentous decree came as a great beacon light of hope to millions of Negro slaves who had been seared in the flames of withering injustice. It came as a joyous daybreak to end the long night of their captivity.”

Ms. Zernike reminds us of the case of Shirley Sherrod, who was fired by the Obama administration when a videotape of her redemptive speech about how she first discriminated against a white farmer but later helped him was shown across the Internet.  She writes about video tape being heavily edited by failing to show how she mended her ways and helped that farmer.  But Ms. Zernike doesn’t finish the story where later in her speech Ms. Sherrod says that those who opposed Obama’s health care plan had racist motives because President Obama is black.  Ms. Sherrod’s redemption is far from complete.

She then says that the Tea Party’s talk of states’ rights raises the specter of Jim Crow and George Wallace.  But it was the federal government that passed and enforced the Fugitive Slave laws and it was independent states of the north, exercising their states’ rights, who supported the Underground Railroad and refused to actively assist returning slaves to the South.  So states’ rights cut both ways.

She concludes that, “Even if Tea Party members are right that any racist signs are those of mischief-makers, even if Glenn Beck had chosen any other Saturday to hold his rally, it would be hard to quiet the argument about the Tea Party and race.”  It’s hard to quiet the argument because those on the left keep falsely making it.  They cannot prove racism so they feel that by repeating often enough, they can make it stick.

I was at a street fair manning a booth for a Tea Party organization this spring.  An African-American teacher approached us tentatively to ask what we were about.  I asked her if she wanted the rumors or the truth and she opted for the truth.  I told her that we were a policy based organization focusing on accountable government, fiscal responsibility, limited federal government and following the Constitution.  She said she didn’t know any of that, she got e-mails from Moveon.org all the time and before leaving she signed our e-mail list.  When the truth reaches the ears of people over the screeching of the New York Times and the main stream media, it is generally well received.  The racial of mix of the Tea Party rallies will change over time when we can speak to the folks one on one without the lies of the left.

The Opionators

Bob Herbert begins his Op-Ed piece in a very open minded fashion, “America is better than Glenn Beck. For all of his celebrity, Mr. Beck is an ignorant, divisive, pathetic figure.”  Thank you for sharing that, Bob, but there’s no need to pull punches here.

“There is a great deal of hatred and bigotry in this country, but it does not define the country. The daily experience of most Americans is not a bitter experience and for all of our problems we are in a much better place on these matters than we were a half century ago.”

So why to you and your fellow travelers throw down the race card every time someone disagrees with a policy, if they are not of the same race?  Object to ObamaCare, that’s racism.  Object to the stimulus, racism.  Wanting Obama to fail to turn America into a socialist states, racism straight up.  Yes there is hatred and bigotry in this country, but it is primarily coming from the left.

Not to be outdone in the outrage department, Charles Blow titled his Op-Ed piece, “I Had a Nightmare.”  Mr. Blow said the following, “I find it curious that many of the same people who object so strenuously to the Islamic cultural center proposed for Lower Manhattan, many on the grounds that it is inappropriate and disrespectful, are virtually silent on the impropriety and disrespect inherent in Beck’s giving a speech on the anniversary of King’s address.”  This would be an excellent point, if he could point to 3,000 blacks that Glenn Beck has murdered in the name of restoring honor.  But Mr. Blow can make no such connection, so his analogy to the Ground Zero mosque falls flat.  Curious indeed.

After venting his spleen, Mr. Blow suggests we re-read Dr. King’s speech “and to recommit ourselves to the nobility of righteous pursuits.”  Let’s do that.

“But there is something that I must say to my people, who stand on the warm threshold which leads into the palace of justice: In the process of gaining our rightful place, we must not be guilty of wrongful deeds. Let us not seek to satisfy our thirst for freedom by drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred. We must forever conduct our struggle on the high plane of dignity and discipline. We must not allow our creative protest to degenerate into physical violence. Again and again, we must rise to the majestic heights of meeting physical force with soul force.” –“I Have a Dream Speech”

How do the actions of the left, throwing down the race card at every turn, accusing everyone who disagrees with Barack Obama to have racism at the core of that disagreement comport with not “drinking from the cup of bitterness and hatred”?  It arrogantly assumes that it is impossible not to see the glorious benefit of the government running every last aspect of our lives, therefore the only reason to disagree has to be racism.  With regard to violence, where do we see the violent demonstrations on the left or the right?  Breaking windows, looting, SEIU members beating down street vendors for selling anti-Obama buttons, etc. are all on the left.  When the police show up at rallies organized by the left they show up in riot gear, at Tea Party rallies the mounted police have to decide whether to let people pet their horses or not.

“I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal.’” –“I Have a Dream Speech”

Didn’t America elect an African American President of the United States with 53% of the vote?  More than voted for Clinton either time, or Jimmy Carter?  Barack Obama wasn’t elected by minority votes alone.

“I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.” –“I Have a Dream Speech”

Who more closely shares that dream, Glenn Beck, or those on the left who insist that forty years after Dr. Martin Luther King gave his speech that blacks can’t get into college or get a job without affirmative action; that black families have not been destroyed by government programs like welfare that drove fathers away; that government run schools that can’t graduate its students are far better for blacks than school vouchers that will let them escape those hellholes?  Dr. King’s speech says nothing about racial preferences.  Dr. King’s speech talks about color blindness.  Dr. King’s speech says give us an equal chance.  Glenn Beck believes that.  Those on the left do not.  It is those on the left who believe African Americans cannot compete without more government programs to help them.  Glenn Beck believe they can succeed if government gets out of their way and if the left stops the lies of dependency that hold them back.  It is the New York Times, Charles Blow, Bob Herbert who wrap themselves in racial division and then say, “Why can’t we come together?”  If you want us to come together, stop standing in the way.

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”  — XIV Amendment of the Constitution of the United States

Well that’s a pretty bold statement.  Who am I to say that children of Illegal Aliens are not Citizens upon birth?  I say that because of the part of the Fourteenth Amendment that most people choose to ignore.  It is a two part statement.  The first part concerns being born or naturalized in the United States and the second part states that you must be subject to the jurisdiction thereof.  It’s not either or, the requirement is that both conditions must be met.

We have in the news talk about Lindsey Graham introducing a new Constitutional Amendment to bar children of illegal aliens becoming citizens upon birth.  I don’t think that step is necessary.

Let’s look at the history.  The infamous Dred Scott decision said that no black of African descent could be a citizen of the United States, even if they were freed blacks.  After the Civil War Congress passed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which stated:

“All persons born in the United States and not subject to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States.”

Prior to the passage of this law, citizenship was conferred on individuals by the states and U.S. citizenship flowed from that.  This law reversed the process.  Why?  Because some southern states could have prevented blacks from becoming U.S. citizens by blocking state citizenship.  By turning it around, they were U.S. citizens first and then citizens of the states in which they lived.  Similar language was included in the Fourteenth Amendment to prevent subsequent Congresses from repealing the 1866 Act.  In the Fourteenth Amendment, the language regarding Indians was dropped.  There were some concerns raised that this would automatically confer citizenship upon Indians, who also had allegiance to their tribes.  Senator Jacob Howard who was the author of the Citizenship clause said this:

“Indians born within the limits of the United States, and who maintain their tribal relations, are not, in the sense of this amendment, born subject to the jurisdiction of the United States.”

Senator Lyman Trumbell, who was Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee agreed, “subject to the jurisdiction thereof {meant} not owing allegiance to anybody else…subject to the complete jurisdiction of the United States.”  Indians were not subject to the jurisdiction of the United States because they owed allegiance, even if only partly, to their tribes.

So if an illegal immigrant comes to the United States and has a child, is that child automatically a United States citizen?  Does this action comply with the Fourteenth Amendment?  To the first part yes, they are born here; but to the second part, no.  The mother is a citizen of her home country and is thus subject to the jurisdiction of that country, not the United States.  Secondly, she is here illegally so she is exempting herself from rather than subjecting herself to, our immigration laws.  As for the child, a newborn can hardly swear allegiance to any country, so in all cases it fails the second part of the Citizenship Clause.  Consider diplomats who may be assigned to the United States.  If the French Ambassodor’s wife has a baby while posted here, is her child not French?

Let’s take another look at the history.  In Elk v Wilkins (1884), the Supreme Court held that a “native Indian who had renounced allegiance to his tribe did not become ‘subject to the jurisdiction’ of the United States by virtue of the renunciation.”  It went on to state, “The alien and dependent condition of the members of the Indian Tribes could not be put off at their own will, without the action or assent of the United States.”  So that would mean an illegal alien could not come to the United States and declare in the delivery room, “I renounce my allegiance to [fill in country here],” and then her child would be a citizen.  “Neither the ‘Indian Tribes’ nor ‘individual members of those tribes,’ no more than ‘other foreigners’ can ‘become citizens of their own will.”  In other words there has to be a treaty or other legislation that allows the renunciation.  Congress began extending citizenship to various Indian tribes beginning in 1870.

In a later Supreme Court decision United States v Wong Kim Ark “conferred birthright citizenship to legal residents of the United States.”  It appears that the language of the majority opinion is broad enough to allow interpretation that this also extends to children of illegal aliens, but it should only take a Supreme Court challenge or legislation to clarify the meaning of the Citizenship Clause to do what the authors of that clause originally intended.  There is no need for the arduous process of a Constitutional Amendment.  With the will of the American people as strong as it is for regaining control of the immigration situation, this could be done with a new Congress in January.

Reference: The Heritage Guide to the Constitution, Regnery (Washington, 2005)

Back on the campaign trail where he feels comfortable that he knows what he is doing, Barack Obama traveled to Las Vegas to stump for Harry Reid.  Harry Reid used to be a boxer and when he told Barack Obama this he said, “Barack, I wasn’t the fastest.  I wasn’t the hardest-hitting, but I knew how to take a punch.”  Based on all the legislation that has been passed since 2008 that an  overwhelming majority of the American people have opposed, makes one wonder if Harry Reid took a few punches too many.

Shortly after taking office and settling into his “bash business” mode Obama blasted businesses for their extravagant meetings held in places like Las Vegas.  Someone then whispered in the president’s ear that extravagant business meetings in Las Vegas were good for Las Vegas and Harry Reid. Oops.  And there you have the crux of the problem.

What, exactly, is government’s role to tell private companies how to spend their money?  What is the role of governments to say to a BP, “Give us the $20 billion, or we’ll take it from you,” as was attributed to Joe Biden, without first going to court?  What is the role of government to say to its citizens, you must buy this health care product or pay a fine?  Well in Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela, it is probably all fine and dandy, but in America?

Barack, the standup comic, used the analogy that he and Harry Reid had mud on their shoes, were pushing hard to get the car back on the road, and were making progress little-by-little and when they finally got one wheel on the pavement the Republicans want to throw the car into reverse.  Really?  I would compare it more to conservatives telling everyone to get out of the car and help push, instead of waiting for Nancy Pelosi to come back from Dunkin Donuts with free food for all the overweight union bosses jammed in the car squawking that they didn’t do manual labor.  Their contract didn’t call for pushing cars out of ditches. 

So, while this car should have been out of this ditch and well down the road by now, Harry and Barry will try to convince us that what they’re doing is absolutely brilliant; it’s just that we are too stupid to see it.  After all, it took the greatest president in history, FDR, over eight years and a World War to get us out of the Great Depression, so relax we have another 6 ½ years to go.

Imagine what would have happened if the ever resilient American economy was allowed to work on its own without all the government intervention in the 1930s.  Perhaps the Depression would have been shorter like the recession of 1920-1921, and perhaps we would not have had World War II, and Fannie Mae, and a bankrupt Social Security, and a couple of generations later all of us swimming in debt.  It’s time the tow truck of the most powerful economy on the face of the earth to come along and be allowed to do its job.  Tell Harry and Barry to go sit down on that stump over there, and watch how it is really done.  “You’re making a mess of yourselves and embarrassing the rest us.”