What Popped In My Head Yesterday

I was just minding my own business yesterday, messing around on Facebook, when this song popped into my head.

This is the best Barber Shop Quartet version of this song I could find on youtube. I wish it was better quality.



While I'm on the subject of barber shop quartets, My brother, the Liberal Democrat, was in a barber shop quartet in high school, way back when the earth was cooling. The four of them were close friends, and once, they were kicked out of the Orpheum Theater in Wichita for harmonizing in the lobby while they were waiting for the next showing.

What's Wrong With This Picture?

"Ted Kennedy was no JFK. In his 1961 Inaugural Address, John Kennedy said famously, ‘My fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you – ask what you can do for your country.’ Ted Kennedy inverted that phrase to read, ‘Ask not what you can do for your country, ask what your country can do for you,’ and in the process, turned the once-noble Democrat Party on end." – Mark Alexander

Question: What's wrong with this picture?

Click to enlarge so you can tell

Answer: The wrong flag covers the casket.

The correct flag is shown here:

Edward M. Kennedy

"God better have mercy on you. You won't get any from me." ~ Sheriff (From "The Oxbow Incident".)

Out of respect for the recently departed, I won't eulogize Senator Ted Kennedy. But, I will say one positive thing for him:

He is the main reason I became a Conservative.

After he murdered Mary Jo Kopoechne and got away with it, I decided I couldn't, in good conscience, be a Liberal.

And then, throughout his career in the Senate, he continually affirmed that I made the right decision.

That's the nicest thing I can say for now.

UPDATE: For another take on Kennedy, in words I wish I had the guts to say, click this link.

What Was In My Head When I Awoke

Cruisin' YouTube

"One never knows, do one?" ~ Fats Waller

I was just cruising Youtube and found this video from the Broadway show, "Ain't Misbehavin", which is a show featuring all Fats Waller songs. There are 12 videos from the show on youtube. This one with Nell Carter contains two of my favorite songs from the show.

Cash For Clunkers

"Good design can't fix broken business models." ~ Jeffrey Veen


OK. Let me add my two cents about Barack Hussein Obama's "cash for clunkers" program.

Many people may believe this is only Obama's scam.

But, the dealers are in on it, too.

One or two of my regular readers may remember last year, my wife purchased a brand new 2008 Kia Spectra from the local Kia dealership here.

Since then, the Ford Taurus she gave me has developed some rather expensive problems. I am not sure exactly what they are, but when there is an audible clunk and a violent jerk between the automatic transmission's first and second gears, it cannot be a good sign. Add to that, a high pitched squeaking sound emanating from under the hood somewhere in the vicinity of the alternator, and the fact that the battery won't hold a charge, I'm thinking any repairs done to it will ultimately end up being more costly than the car is worth.

So, my wife and I set out on a quest to find a suitable replacement yesterday.

The first thing I noticed upon entering the Saturn dealership was all the new cars being displayed on the lot had numbers and letters painted on their windshields that advertised the prices before and after the cash to be paid for the buyer's "clunker".

Not having been in a Saturn dealership before, I had no idea what the regular price for a Saturn should be, but considering Saturns have plastic bodies, I thought the prices shown were rather high.

I began to suspect the dealership had possibly raised the sticker prices on the new cars approximately $4500.00 so they could take full advantage of Obama's generous offer to consumers.

This is an old ploy in retail sales, particularly, in retail car sales.

See, what retailers do is raise the prices on their products before they advertise a sale. For example, a furniture dealer (furniture dealers and car dealers are probably the most common retailers that pull this scam) raises the price on a recliner by 50 to 100 dollars. Then, they advertise a great big "going out of business" sale, or a "lost our lease" sale, etc, and inform their prospective customers that they will reluctantly let their recliners go with a whopping 35-75 dollar discount.

Thus, not only do the dealers receive more than the manufacturers suggested retail price (MSRP), they get a bit of an extra profit on top of that.

And the customer thinks he got a bargain.

There is a common retail sales term for this practice but I can't remember what the term is. I used to know, because the management of a company I once worked for made it very clear that those tactics, if utilized by a salesman, would not be tolerated. The company was proud of the fact that they did not resort to questionable tactics to make sales.

In the end, the company went bankrupt because they lost too many lawsuits filed against them for using unethical sales practices.

But I digress.

After test driving a nice SUV, we then went back to the Kia dealer from where we last purchased a vehicle. Upon entering the sales lot, the first thing I noticed was the advertising painted on every new car's windshield, also advertising before "cash for clunker" prices, and after "cash for clunkers" discounts.

The second thing I noticed was that the prices before Obama's promised rebates were about $5,000.00 higher this year for the same models then they were last year.

Coincidence? Inflation? I don't think so.

The dealers are losing nothing on the "cash for clunkers" deal. In fact, the dealers are in Fat city. Not only do they get reimbursed for every $4,500.00 they pay out to customers who trade in a qualifying clunker, if the government does indeed reimburse them (which would make another entire blogpost in itself), but they still get the MSRP on every sale, meaning the dealer will get their standard profit plus an extra $4500.00, courtesy of --- who?

Why, us! The American taxpayer!

Oh, and by the way. Do you know what cars qualify as clunkers in this benevolent Obama government program?

To qualify, your clunker doesn't necessarily have to "clunk".

It just has to have 18 or less MPG.

By the book.

In other words, if your "clunker" was, when it was new, originally estimated to get an average of 18 miles or less to one gallon of gas (highway non-stop driving) your car qualifies as a "clunker".

Regardless of whether it still runs perfect or not.

My Ford Taurus, which makes an audible "clunk" when shifting from first to second gear, does not qualify as a "clunker". It's average estimated MPG, when it was brand new, never been driven, still on the lot, is 27 on the highway. I don't remember it ever getting better than 20 MPG on it's best days.

Cars that qualify as a "clunker", outside of a few SUV's and the Hummer, represent woefully few of the real clunkers now on our nation's roadways.

Also, while I'm on the subject, do you know what they do with the cars that they pay $4500.00 for? They drain all the fluids out of them, run the engines until they "lock up", and then send them off to the salvage yard to be crushed and ostensibly recycled to make yard ornaments and other attractive and useful items.

Well I'm not sure about that, but they do ship them off to the metal salvage companies.

That's part of Obama's law.

The salesman we talked to last night said many cars that were in good working condition were sent off to salvage along with the real clunkers. Meaning the dealer could conceivably clean them up a little, do some minor repairs, and resell them at a huge profit, but the government won't allow them.

They are to be scrapped, regardless of condition.

This strikes me as an enormous waste of money and common sense.

So, basically, this whole "cash for Clunkers" deal is a huge unethical scam, which frankly, can be expected from unscrupulous, slimy, shady, used car dealers and furniture dealers, etc.

Don't get me wrong. I'm all for making a profit, and if a businessman can make huge profits without resorting to unethical, illegal tactics, more power to him.

But, it is absolutely scandalous when it comes at the hands of a supposedly benevolent, empathetic, Democratically run Federal Government.

And that, as Kevin Jackson would say, is my rant.

Little Victories

"And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free" John 8:32

Conservatives and all other opponents of massive intrusive big Government can now claim victory in one arena.

We (I say we because I count myself among the Conservatives) have succeeded in causing the White house "snitch" line, flag@whitehouse.gov, to be shut down and dismantled.

The battle is not over, incidentally. The Whitehouse has opened another snitch line, but it will fail as well.

I cannot claim sole responsibility for this achievement, although I was one of the first (I believe)to encourage opponents of Obamacare to e-mail the site and turn themselves in. I realized, and so did the others, that doing so could invite more unwanted intrusion into our lives, and for many people, it did.

But the goal is worth the risk, in my humble opinion.

My theory was that if we overwhelmed their system by reporting ourselves, we would eventually pressure the Whitehouse into realizing the folly of a Socialist run health care system.

See, a Socialist system might gain popularity in some third world country, where poverty and injustice are a way of life from birth to death, but Americans know, and have known, freedom and liberty.

Socialism is known in this country to be the antithesis of freedom and Liberty.

Americans are much too educated a people to be seduced by an alternative governmental system which we know to be a failure in every country in which it has been implemented.

We remember what happened when Socialism gained a foothold in other countries. It wasn't that long ago. We remember that life in those countries, although leaving much to be desired, was nevertheless better before Socialism.

That can only last so long, however, if the patriotic, freedom loving people of America continue to relinquish our educational institutions to the Socialists in our midst.

We must keep up the fight.

We must not allow Liberal, Socialist educators and activists to rewrite history.

We must remember the injustices, purges, and oppression of Socialist, Communist, and Marxist governmental systems that have adversely affected so many human beings throughout the world, and throughout it's history.

We must remember how we won the cold war.

We must remember why we won the cold war.

Little victories like this one can and will defeat Marxism, but only if we keep the pressure on Obama and his Marxist cohorts in the Legislature and in the media.

We must keep the pressure on and continue to win the little victories.

Little victories such as this add up to Freedom for all.

How Much More Reform Can We Afford?

"The real distinction is between those who adapt their purposes to reality and those who seek to mold reality in the light of their purposes." ~ Henry Kissinger

The preceding quotation perfectly describes the the difference between thinking people and Liberals in general.

In my last post's comment thread, Liberal Jim asked a question of me and some of my commenters. He wrote: "Do you have private health insurance today?"

As I am sometimes wont to do, I began to type out a response to his question, but it became so long, I decided to create a new post to answer his question:

Jim, it's none of your business, but I'll answer your question:

No, I don't have health insurance. Private or otherwise.

I can't afford health insurance.

But, do you know why I can't afford it? Because the Federal government's harebrained intrusion into my business has reduced my income by 2/3 of what it used to be.

First, they passed a law which severely limited how my business could market to their prospects, and then, after I changed vocations to improve my situation, along comes Barney Frank, and Chris Dodd, and Obama to cut everyone else's income by forcing banks to make bad loans, and by so doing, pull the country into a recession.

Just about every business' success in America depends on customers ability to pay for their products or services, and so does mine.

If customers can't pay, I can't make money.

Plus, the Federal Government's over-regulation of the Health care and the pharmaceutical industries has caused health care costs to skyrocket.

And now Obama is pushing this ridiculously expensive so-called health care reform, in which I will have to pay taxes from my already weakened paycheck to pay for.

(Graphic by yours truly)

Health care is not the government's business. They have no right to take over the health care industry.

Government has already ruined my career by sticking it's nose in where it doesn't belong, and now it's trying to take what I have left by intruding further into my private life.

All because Obama wants a Marxist "utopia" in which everyone has an equal share in all the resources, whether they deserve it or not.

And, which has been proven beyond a doubt, is impossible to sustain.

Oh, except for him and his cronies. They will be the only ones with any power, money, or freedom. Power to control every aspect of your private life. Freedom to oppress the people further.


You seem to be overly concerned with the income of others (Such as Health Insurance CEO's). Why aren't you concerned about your own income? Or with how Obama intends to increase his?

No, Jim, I don't have health insurance.

I don't want it if it has to come with so great a price.

Got An Hour Or So? Read This

"Preserving health by too severe a rule is a worrisome malady" ~ Francois de La Rochefoucauld

Betsy McCaughey is the founder of the Committee to Reduce Infection Deaths, a health care patient advocate, and a former Lieutenant Governor of the State of New York.

She has read every version of the proposed health care reform bill now being debated four times, so she could be absolutely sure she understands exactly what they propose. She knows what it says, and consequently, what Barack Hussein Obama is trying to do to Americans.

She also knows why Obama's so-called health care reform is a very bad idea.

She knows Obama is lying.

The video is 40 minutes long, but it is vitally important to watch it in order to understand the Marxist agenda of Obama and his cohorts in the Congress.

Click here.

Click here to hear more.

More information on Obama's lies here:

Obama says: "But keep in mind - I mean this is something that I can't emphasize enough - you don't have to participate. If you are happy with the health care that you've got, then keep it."

THE TRUTH: The health bills now before Congress would force you to switch to a managed-care plan with limits on your access to specialists and tests.

Two main bills are being rushed through Congress with the goal of combining them into a finished product by August. Under either, a new government bureaucracy will select health plans that it considers in your best interest, and you will have to enroll in one of these "qualified plans." If you now get your plan through work, your employer has a five-year "grace period" to switch you into a qualified plan. If you buy your own insurance, you'll have less time.

And as soon as anything changes in your contract - such as a change in copays or deductibles, which many insurers change every year - you'll have to move into a qualified plan instead (House bill, p. 16-17).

When you file your taxes, if you can't prove to the IRS that you are in a qualified plan, you'll be fined thousands of dollars - as much as the average cost of a health plan for your family size - and then automatically enrolled in a randomly selected plan (House bill, p. 167-168).

It's one thing to require that people getting government assistance tolerate managed care, but the legislation limits you to a managed-care plan even if you and your employer are footing the bill (Senate bill, p. 57-58). The goal is to reduce everyone's consumption of health care and to ensure that people have the same health-care experience, regardless of ability to pay.

Obama says: "I want to start by taking a new approach that emphasizes prevention and wellness so that instead of just spending billions of dollars on costly treatments when people get sick, we're spending some of those dollars on the care they need to stay well, things like mammograms and cancer screenings and immunizations, common-sense measures that will save us billions of dollars in future medical costs."

THE TRUTH: The truth is that the second most prevalent disease of aging -- cancer -- is largely linked to genetics and unknown causes. It's occurrence increases with age. Your risk of being diagnosed with cancer doubles from age 50 to 60 according to the National Cancer Institute.

The risk of some forms of heart disease can be reduced through healthy living. But other forms are linked to genetics. Shifting resources from treatment to prevention will leave patients who become sick inadequately cared for. In addition, virtually all studies show that prevention saves lives but not money. Eighty percent of preventive interventions add to medical costs. The reason is simple. Most people who take cholesterol lowering drugs or get mammograms wouldn't get sick anyway. Louise Russell, an economist at Rutgers University, concludes that "hundreds of studies have shown that prevention usually adds to medical costs." (Health Affairs, March-April 2009). The evidence is so conclusive that the only people who claim prevention saves money are politicians.

Obama says: "Nobody is talking about reducing Medicare benefits. Medicare benefits are there because people contributed into a system. It works. We don't want to change it."

THE TRUTH: The Congressional majority wants to pay for its $1 trillion health bills with a $500+ billion cut to Medicare. This cut will come just as Medicare enrollment increases by 30%. Less money and more patients will necessitate rationing.

The assault against seniors began in February with the stimulus package, which slipped in comparative effectiveness research, generally a code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula, where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years that the patient is likely to benefit. In Britain, the formula leads to denying treatments for older patients who have fewer years to benefit from care than younger patients.

In a 7/17 letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, White House budget chief Peter Orszag urged Congress to delegate its authority over Medicare to a newly created body within the executive branch. This measure is designed to circumvent the democratic process and avoid accountability to the public for cuts in benefits.

But all this is a moot point.

The fact is, Government has no right---NONE---to intrude into private enterprise in America.

A government takeover of the health care industry, no matter how altruistic, is unconstitutional.

A Congress Gone Renegade

"Damn the torpedos! Full speed ahead!" ~ Admiral David Glasgow Farragut

This post started in the previous post's comment thread.

Every poll taken, From Rasmussen, Zogby, NPR, AOL, Facebook, Wall Street Journal/NBC News, The Washington Post, Gallup, Pew, and countless others, has shown overwhelming opposition to Obama's plan.

And yet, the Democrat Legislators continue to ignore the will of their own constituents. One Lawmaker, (I forgot which one) said she is even more resolved to pass Obama's health care legislation than before as a result of so much vocal opposition exhibited at the various town hall meetings across the country.

Others are simply refusing to hold or attend any more Town Hall meetings during the August recess. They don't want to be unduly influenced to change their minds, apparently.

These Democrat legislators are blatant in their refusal to listen to the people and do the jobs they were elected to do.

This reminds me of the lynch mobs in the old western movies. When the victim of the mob expressed displeasure at being hanged without benefit of a fair trial, they were usually told,

"You're going to get a fair trial, followed by a first class hangin'!"

The Health Care Reform Bill

"Holy Cow!" ~ Phil Rizzuto

Here it is! The actual bill that will be voted on when Congress reconvenes in September. Read it yourself. I don't have time. It's 1036 pages!

I find it interesting to note, on this, the US Congress' official website, that only 12% of the website's registered users are in favor of this legislation. You can see the results of their own poll on the right sidebar of the site.

I tried to vote, too, but for some reason, my registration was rejected. Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that I tried to vote first, then register.

By the way, for those of you who oppose the health care bill, here is a suggestion:

Since the Whitehouse wants us to report e-mails and things that are "fishy", I decided to comply with their request and send the link to the health care reform bill to them.

I think that's pretty fishy.

Here is the text of the missive I e-mailed to flag@whitehouse.gov:

Dear Sir or Madam,

I found this on the internet, and complying with your request to report things that are "fishy", I thought I'd better report it to you:

http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h3200/text?version=ih&nid=t0:ih:106

While I'm at it, I'd better report myself.

I will stand for Liberty and reject your soft tyranny. Every time!

Sincerely,

Mark XXXXXXX

(only I didn't spell my last name like that. I included my real last name)

It's just a suggestion, mind you, but I think if all those who oppose the bill do the same, it would overwhelm those who would try to follow up on the reports.

Be your own best judge.

An Epitaph For Journalism

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers" ~ Thomas Jefferson

A couple of weeks ago, I received two traffic citations for running red lights. On the first traffic stop, The policeman was wrong, and I told him he was. But then, I dropped the matter. One cannot argue with a cop. It only makes the situation worse. (Just ask Henry Louis Gates) I will go to court, and I will argue my innocence. I will have pictures to present for evidence that the light was not red when I entered the intersection.

The second violation, I will not contest. I did run a red light. I wasn't paying attention and I sailed right through. I have no excuse. I am guilty of that charge.

I find it interesting that some people who have no integrity will fight tenaciously against charges even when it is obvious they are guilty as sin.

I find it incredible that the Media will often back those same people despite their obvious guilt.

By the same token, the media will often go to great lengths to implicate certain other people whether there is evidence of any wrong doing or even if there is only a mere suggestion of a possible ethics violation.

The incessant unproven accusations (20 at last count) against Sarah Palin, to use one glaringly perfect example. All twenty have been dismissed as unfounded, by the way.

It depends, apparently, on their political affiliation.

The Associated (de)Pressed has finally become blatant in their Liberally biased reporting, if they weren't already. Up until recently, one would have to dig a little and pay fairly close attention to find the Liberal bias in the AP's news stories, but recently, they have come out of the closet so to speak, as an absolutely blatant Liberally biased news organization.

Case in point:

The recent AP story about the guilty verdict in the bribery trial of former Democrat Representative William Jefferson of Louisiana. Read this:

ALEXANDRIA, Va. (Aug. 6) - A jury handed federal prosecutors a victory in finding an ex-congressman guilty of bribery, racketeering and other charges, four months after a corruption conviction against former Alaska Sen. Ted Stevens was tossed aside in an embarrassing blow to the Justice Department.

(Emphasis mine).

Is this obvious or what? Liberal bias is supremely evident in the aforementioned emphasis. Why was it necessary to mention the overturning of Ted Steven's conviction, and why is that considered an embarrassing blow to the Justice department, anyway?

And, how does a decision by the Justice Department embarrass the Justice Department?

I thought reporters were supposed to stick to the facts and leave editorializing out of the report.

As far as the news story about the Guilty verdict in William Jefferson's case is concerned, I don't think that was a surprise to anyone. I mean, $90,000.00 was found in Jefferson's freezer! How else could anyone explain that?

But the charges against Ted Stevens were questionable, even though, from what we've been told by the AP, It certainly appeared that he was indeed corrupt.

But now, I'm not so sure we've been given the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

The pen really is mightier than the sword.

It could well be that the only thing Ted Stevens is guilty of is being a Republican.

Sean Hannity was right.

Journalism has died in this country.

Swimming Against The Tide

"Suppose you were an idiot and suppose you were a member of Congress. But I repeat myself." ~ Mark Twain

The Congress is now in recess for the month of August, and it couldn't have come at a better time. Now, they can't say, with any credibility, they don't have time to read the health care bill. Now, they have no excuse for being ignorant.

There are two things our lawmakers can do during this time to be better prepared to vote on the national Health care legislation:

1. Hold Town Hall meetings to better understand their constituent's concerns.

2. Read the bill!

The voice of the people is being heard, and evidently, ignored.









Did you hear the black woman with the Muslim headgear say, "Health care is a right, given to us by the United Nations"?

Really? I didn't know the United Nations was God! Did you?

One would think, with between 65% and 75% of Americans vehemently opposing this legislation, that it would be a no-brainer for those lawmakers who intend to vote for the bill.

Apparently, they have no intention of being re-elected.

It would seem to be clear from the poll numbers, if they vote for the bill, they will not be in office after the next Congressional elections.

Even Liberals Oppose Nationalized HealthCare

"A liberal is a person whose interests aren't at stake at the moment." ~ Willis Player

I found this on Michelle Malkin's website:

The New York Times/CBS poll shows:

Sixty-nine percent of respondents believe Obama’s plan will hurt the quality of their own healthcare.

Seventy-three percent believe it would limit their access to tests and treatment.

Sixty-two percent believe Democrats’ proposals would require them to change doctors.

Seventy-six believe healthcare reform will lead to them paying higher taxes.

A whopping 77 percent expect their healthcare costs to rise.

That's the New York Slimes! That's the newspaper whose publisher, Arthur "Pinch" Sulzberger, is an extreme Obama worshiping Liberal. Does anyone need proof?

According to Stanley Kurtz:

One day, the elder Sulzberger asked his son what Pinch calls, "the dumbest question I've ever heard in my life." If an American soldier runs into a North Vietnamese soldier, which would you like to see get shot? Young Arthur answered, "I would want to see the American get shot. "

If a Liberal newspaper conducts a poll of it's readers, and the poll shows an overwhelming opposition to that same newspaper's own ideology, is it then a legitimate poll?

Staunch defenders of the New York Slimes would insist any poll conducted by the "Gray lady" is legitimate. So how do the masses of Obama supporting Liberals who continue to defend this hare-brained scheme explain this apparent dichotomy? And why?

Let's dissect this concept.

Knowing, as we do, that Liberals don't typically watch what they consider to be Conservative biased news channels (read "FOX News").

And, knowing that Liberals don't typically listen to Conservative talk radio, such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Mark Levin, etc (with the exception of the unlawful so-called non-profit organizations, such as Media Matters).

And, also, knowing that Liberally biased radio and television stations and newspapers typically bury any stories that are contrary to their own ideology, if they mention them at all, doesn't this poll tell us much more than what's on the surface?

The readers of the New York Slimes, who are not Liberal are probably by now, harder to locate than good Kansas City style Barbeque in North Carolina.

Most Conservatives have long since abandoned the New York Slimes in favor of more unbiased and trustworthy reporting.

So, it isn't a stretch to assume the respondents to the New York Slime's poll are more likely to be Liberals than Conservatives.

And yet, the majority of the New York Slimes' respondents oppose Obama's over ambitious health care plan.

Is there a conclusion that can be logically drawn from this?