Friday, July 30, 2010

Another Example Of What Is Wrong With The American Congress.

Unbelievable but true, Arizona's 8th District US Congressional representative,the Hon. Gabrielle Giffords, in the recent meetings
of the House Armed Services Committee, asked General David Petraeus
the following question:


"General Petraeus, what are you doing to reduce carbon emissions in the war on terror?"

Wow. I had to read, and re-read this several times to believe it.

Folks, there are American sons and daughters dying every week
on the foreign battlefields of southwest Asia .

This nation is completely bankrupt and ... quite literally,
borrowing 43 cents for every dollar in federal spending.

We have the largest environmental disaster in the nation's
history in the Gulf of Mexico, and


We have Mexican drug armies invading our nation.

And yet ....
This member of Congress from Arizona 's 8th congressional district

took the time to ask our battlefield commander what he is doing

to curb carbon emissions in the war.


Gabrielle Giffords is the poster-child for what is wrong with the US Congress.

We are being led by imbeciles.


General ... I am sure you have better things to worry about
than carbon emissions on the battlefield.
I pray you'll get back to business of fighting
the war on terror without worrying about such petty
and nonsensical matters as your carbon footprint in the war.

Thursday, July 29, 2010

This Piece Of Cloth

Help!!

HELP!!

Can any of you help me on this one?

Does anyone know how to cancel a bid on eBay?

I put in a bid for a “Mickey Mouse Outfit”;

and now it seems I'm only thirty minutes away

from owning Obama’s entire Cabinet.

Tuesday, July 27, 2010

If George W. Bush

If George W. Bush
had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed
to be able to get through a press conference, would you
have laughed and said this is more proof of how he inept he
is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men
behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush
had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take
Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush
had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of
GM stock by 90% and given the unions a
majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush
had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics,
would you have approved?

If George W. Bush
had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly
formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful
and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush
had given the Queen of England an iPod
containing videos of his speeches,
would you have thought this embarrassingly
narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush
had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia
would you have approved?

If George W. Bush
had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent
"Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush
had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people
who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes,
would you have approved?

If George W. Bush
had stated that there were 57 states in the United States,
would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush
would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five
minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him
walking out his front door in Texas,would you have
thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

If George W. Bush
had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to
"Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador
when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued
to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in
embarrassment?

If George W. Bush
had misspelled the word "advice" would you have
hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and
potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush
had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree
on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's
administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions
of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan
causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether
they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush
had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the
Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in
New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing
political issue with claims of racism anincompetence?

If George W. Bush
had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him,
bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in
America , would you have approved.

If George W. Bush
had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation,
even though he had no constitutional authority to do so,
would you have approved?

If George W. Bush
had proposed to double the national debt, which
had taken more than two centuries to accumulate,
in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush
had then proposed to double the debt again
within 10 years, would you have approved?


So, tell me again, what is it about Obama
that makes him so brilliant and impressive?

Sunday, July 25, 2010

We've Landed in Alice's Wonderland

By Mark Hyman


"But I don't want to go among mad people,"
Alice remarked.
"Oh, you can't help that," said the Cat:
"we're all mad here. I'm mad. You're mad."
"How do you know I'm mad?" said Alice.
"You must be," said the Cat,
"or you wouldn't have come here."

(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)
-----------------------------------------------------
It appears America has become that mad land Alice
stumbled upon down the rabbit hole. There is so much
about American society that no longer makes any sense.
Up is down, black is white and right is wrong.
We've witnessed the implementation of programs, policies
and court opinions over the last several decades that defy
commonsense and logic.
And there appears to be no end in sight to the madness.

Consider that FDR's New Deal created a government
with an insatiable appetite for more money, more federal
workers and more bureaucracy which are expended in the
most wasteful manner.
Lyndon Johnson's Great Society programs incentivized
unemployment and created generational dependence
on government handouts.
Jurists became activists by ignoring the Constitution and
legislating from the bench.

There exists in Washington, D.C., today, a political climate
that considers business evil, hard work to be without virtue,
and individual liberty and freedom a plague that must be
eliminated.

Time after time, government bureaucrats, politicians,
academia, major news organizations and the cultural elite
demonstrate themselves to be out of step and out of touch
with the American people and their values.

Consider the following juxtapositions.

A country whose national character is typified by the
great melting pot is continually being redefined by
individuals who promote racial, ethnic, religious,
and gender division.

Elected officials who literally swear an oath to support
and defend the U.S. Constitution casually break that
very same oath.

Servicemen and women who are fighting a determined
foe in Iraq and Afghanistan are undermined by service
chiefs who announce the military's number one strategic
priority is not winning these wars but instead to achieve
diversity in the ranks.

The Internal Revenue Service -- placed in the hands of
a Treasury Secretary who is a bona fide tax cheat --
implements tax policy written by a House Ways and
Means Chairman who is also a tax cheat.
--------------------------------------------------------
Alice
Let me see: four times five is twelve,
and four times six is thirteen,
and four times seven is -- oh dear!
It would be so nice if something made sense for a change.

(Alice's Adventures in Wonderland)

Thursday, July 22, 2010

Obama at the Bat

Staten Island Catholic Church Board Blocks Sale of Old Convent Building for Muslim Mosque

BY Erin Durkin
N Y DAILY NEWS WRITER



The board of trustees of a Staten Island Catholic Church
has rejected the controversial sale of an old convent
building to a Muslim group to build a mosque.

The sale had sparked two months of angry rallies when
word got out that Father Keith Fennessy of Saint Margaret
Mary church had quietly agreed to sell the vacant building
to the Muslim American Society for $750,000.

Fennessy later reversed course and said he opposed the sale,
which needed to be approved by the parish trustees.

The furor came amid a national controversy that has swirled
around efforts to construct a mosque near Ground Zero.


"The trustees of the parish have met, as legally required
under New York State law, and voted to ratify the pastor's
decision," Joe Zwilling, spokesman for the Archdiocese of
New York said Thursday. "The Muslim American Society has
been informed that the sale of the convent will not take place."


A message left with a spokeswoman for the group
was not immediately returned.

Residents of Midland Beach, where the property is located,
were infuriated by the move, saying they worried whether the organization had ties with terrorist groups.
Muslim community leaders denied the charges as outrageous.

"It is also our prayer that unity will now return to the parish
and to the Midland Beach community," Zwilling said.

Rise Up--Jeremy Hoop

Sunday, July 18, 2010

Larry Gatlin "Live Free Or Die"



Be sure to check out Larry's
blog post at Fox Forem:
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/07/16/larry-gatlin-stop-debt-recession-god-references-arizona-illegal-immigration/

Ridding Ourselves of Obama

By Alan Caruba
For Canada Free Press


“The hope that fired up the election of Barack Obama
has flickered out, leaving a national mood of despair
and disappointment. Americans are dispirited over how
wrong things are and uncertain they can be made right again.
Hope may have been a quick breakfast, but it has proved a poor supper.”

—Mortimer Zuckerman, Editor-in-Chief,
US News & World Report, July 2, 2010

This from a man who on Fox News recently said he voted
for Obama, his newspaper, the New York Daily News,
endorsed Obama, and that he even helped one of his speeches!


The problem is an ancient one. How to remove from office a
king or, in a republic, an elected leader who has broken the
law and/or is perceived to be a threat to both the present
and future of the nation? In earlier eras, the solution was
usually bloody.

“Who will rid me of this meddling priest?”
England’s King Henry II was reputed to have said of
Thomas Becket, the Archbishop of Canterbury.
In 1170, his complaint was obliged when Becket was
murdered on a cold December evening.

I cite this famous quote only because the tide is rising
among Americans who would be rid of Barack Obama.
I would never suggest or condone the sword,

but surely one would think we the People might have

recourse to the courts or Congress.

The fear in both the courts and Congress is the torturous
process involved and, of course, the outcome.

Twice in our history, impeachment has been tried and failed,
first with Andrew Johnson whose Reconstruction policies
following the Civil War were in much disfavor and, in more
recent times, with Bill Clinton whose perjuries and other
problems were not deemed to rise to a level worthy of
removing him from office. Richard Nixon resigned before
he could be impeached.

The Constitution stipulates that “The President, Vice President
and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed
from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason,
Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The drawback of impeachment is the way it would inevitably
cast Obama as the victim of predatory politicians.
It is not a good choice.

Presumably, lying about one’s eligibility to hold the office
of President and spending huge sums to ensure that one’s
birth certificate and actual place of birth shall remain
unknown would justify removal.

We all know by now that, constitutionally, only a “natural born”
citizen may serve as President. His father was a British citizen
and both parents must be American to qualify as natural born.
We all know that considerable controversy exists as regards

the birthplace and citizenship status of Obama.

Was he a Kenyan?
Was he an Indonesian citizen at one point?

The enduring question on the minds of many is why the court
cases filed to get at the facts regarding his eligibility have
encountered so much resistance? Surely this is a matter of
major national concern. What nation would permit an
imposter to serve in its highest office?

Alas, early cases were dismissed when those bringing them
were deemed to have no “standing” before the court though
one might think the lowliest citizen should have standing.

As wrenching as the process of removing Obama from office
via the judicial process might be deemed, there is no
legitimate reason not to proceed.

There appears to be no evidence his birth was registered
with the American embassy or consulate in Kenya.
I have seen a photo of a document said to be his
Kenyan birth certificate. Having no way to authenticate it,
I am reluctant to pass judgment.

The birth certificate from Hawaii, offered during the 2008
campaign, is said to be one issued upon request as opposed
to the “long form” issued for those actually born there.
There was some question raised at the time as to its
authenticity with allegations that it was photoshopped.
There is a question whether a long form certificate exists.

My personal view is that many in government fear the
consequences of removing even an illegitimate President
from office, given that it would require that all legislation
signed into law and all executive orders issued by him
would be rendered invalid. I suspect some fear that chaos
more than waiting and hoping the electoral process will
end his term in 2012.

My problem is that the nation must endure some 900
more days of the malevolence or sheer incompetence
he will initiate; including a lame duck session of Congress
following the midterm elections that would impose
Cap-and-Trade, card check, and other legislative abominations
.

A large majority of the electorate presently wants
Obamacare repealed and will likely feel the same
about the alleged financial “reforms.”

There are constitutional scholars who know far more about
such things than me, but I confess to remaining baffled by
the failure to attend to the critical question regarding the
right of Barack Hussein Obama to be the President of the
United States.

Saturday, July 17, 2010

"Love Thy Neighbor"


Give Them A BS Remover For Christmas



Wednesday, July 14, 2010

Disagree with the Administration, Be Labeled a Racist

By: Jenny Beth Martin and Mark Meckler
for: Politico.com

A clear pattern of behavior has emerged over the last 16 months.
According to liberals, if you disagree with their thinking, and
if you disagree with the Obama administration, you are not only
wrong, you are a “racist.”

The latest strike by the left comes from the NAACP, which has
resolved that the tea party movement is inherently “racist.”
At its most simple, this is a direct attack on the First Amendment
rights of millions of Americans.

The NAACP has long history of liberalism and racism.

If you are a conservative — including a conservative African-
American there is no room for you at the NAACP. If you have
opinions that differ from the NAACP and the liberal establishment,
and if you are African-American, you are an “Uncle Tom,” a “negro,”
“not black enough” and “against our people.”

In other words, the NAACP fancies itself the thought police for
millions of black Americans. Disagree with them and you will be
ostracized and attacked. You will be subjected to public humiliation
and racist commentary from NAACP leadership. The message is clear:
Tow the line or pay the price.

But the NAACP does not stand alone in this regard. The left has
a long history of using the race card. It has been pulled on people
across the political spectrum.

President Bill Clinton was smeared as a racist by the Obama campaign
when Hillary Clinton was running for president. It seems that anyone
who disagrees with the far left, socialist policies of Barack Obama
and the current administration is subject to the heavy hand of the
race card.

This card is generally played when all else has failed.
It was inevitable that it would eventually be used aggressively
against the tea party movement.

First, members of the tea party movement were called disgruntled
voters, then House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said our
movement was nothing more than "astroturf" and laughed us off as
a flash in the pan that would disappear overnight.

Next the Democratic National Committee relased an ad calling us
an “angry mob.” Now, we’re being called racist.

All these attacks have failed because they are untrue and the
American people know it.
According to recent polling, more than 49 million people are active
members of the tea party movement (Winston Group, April 1, 2010).
More than 145 million people say that the tea party movement is
a good thing for America (Rasmussen, June 2, 2010).

The Obama White House and liberal interest groups are hitting the
panic button as they read weekly polls showing diminishing support
for their radical big government issue agenda, and a weariness for
the politics of division.

Like all movements, the tea party has its fringe.
President Barack Obama’s domestic terrorist friends from the
1960’s anti-war past never represented the Americans of good
conscience who opposed the Vietnam War. In a similar vein,
the racist posters of a few at a Tea Party rally do not represent
the feelings or behavior of Americans who believe in this movement.


Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. would be proud of this movement.

He dreamed of a colorblind society. The tea party is a truly
post-racial movement. Based strictly around the three simple
principles of fiscal responsibility, constitutionally limited
government and free market capitalism, the movement is
uninterested and uninvolved in the politics of race.

We are freedom loving Americans who have come together to
express outrage against a government no longer of, for and
by the people. Standing together as brothers and sisters in
the fight to return America to its founding principles, skin
color, religion, social status and even political party
affiliation are irrelevant to the people involved in this movement.

These are the facts. And these facts have already withstood
16 months of liberal media scrutiny and bombardment.

Wednesday, the NAACP is again bringing up the completely falsified
charges of racial epithets hurled at members of Congress during the
debate leading up to the passage of Obamacare. Widely reported as
fact by the liberal media, even an offered reward of $100,000 to
anyone who could provide documentary evidence proving the charges
could not coax videotape, audiotape or a single witness out of a
crowd of thousands present on Capitol Hill that day.
The race card played again; and once again discarded
by the American people.

When Kenneth Gladney, a black conservative activist was brutally
beaten by SEIU thugs at a protest outside of Rep. Russ Carnahan’s
(D-Mo.) office, the NAACP and the liberal left refused to intervene.
To the contrary, at an NAACP press conference in St. Louis in May,
Gladney was referred to as a “Negro,” an “Uncle Tom,” and someone
not worthy of the protection of the NAACP, because he’s working for the “other side.”

The NAACP has defended the thugs who beat Gladney.
At the press conference, money was raised for the
defense of the “brothers.”

At Tea Party Patriots we will continue to condemn the fringe
elements of the movement and any expression of racism or bigotry.
We sincerely hope that the Obama While House, the NAACP, and the
liberal left will follow our lead and do the same in their own ranks.

Mark Meckler and Jenny Beth Martin are co-founders of Tea Party Patriots.

Friday, July 9, 2010

THE MOUNT VERNON STATEMENT

THE MOUNT VERNON STATEMENT

CONSTITUTIONAL CONSERVATISM: A STATEMENT FOR THE 21ST CENTURY

 

           We recommit ourselves to the ideas of the American Founding. Through the Constitution, the Founders created an enduring framework of limited government based on the rule of law. They sought to secure national independence, provide for economic opportunity, establish true religious liberty and maintain a flourishing society of republican self-government.

            These principles define us as a country and inspire us as a people. They are responsible for a prosperous, just nation unlike any other in the world. They are our highest achievements, serving not only as powerful beacons to all who strive for freedom and seek self-government, but as warnings to tyrants and despots everywhere.

            Each one of these founding ideas is presently under sustained attack. In recent decades, America’s principles have been undermined and redefined in our culture, our universities and our politics.  The self-evident truths of 1776 have been supplanted by the notion that no such truths exist. The federal government today ignores the limits of the Constitution, which is increasingly dismissed as obsolete and irrelevant.

            Some insist that America must change, cast off the old and put on the new.  But where would this lead -- forward or backward, up or down? Isn’t this idea of change an empty promise or even a dangerous deception? 

            The change we urgently need, a change consistent with the American ideal, is not movement away from but toward our founding principles. At this important time, we need a restatement of Constitutional conservatism grounded in the priceless principle of ordered liberty articulated in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution.

            The conservatism of the Declaration asserts self-evident truths based on the laws of nature and nature’s God. It defends life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. It traces authority to the consent of the governed. It recognizes man’s self-interest but also his capacity for virtue.

            The conservatism of the Constitution limits government’s powers but ensures that government performs its proper job effectively. It refines popular will through the filter of representation. It provides checks and balances through the several branches of government and a federal republic.

            A Constitutional conservatism unites all conservatives through the natural fusion provided by American principles. It reminds economic conservatives that morality is essential to limited government, social conservatives that unlimited government is a threat to moral self-government, and national security conservatives that energetic but responsible government is the key to America’s safety and leadership role in the world.

            A Constitutional conservatism based on first principles provides the framework for a consistent and meaningful policy agenda.

  • It applies the principle of limited government based on the rule of law to every proposal.  
  • It honors the central place of individual liberty in American politics and life.
  • It encourages free enterprise, the individual entrepreneur, and economic reforms grounded in market solutions.
  • It supports America’s national interest in advancing freedom and opposing tyranny in the world and prudently considers what we can and should do to that end.
  • It informs conservatism’s firm defense of family, neighborhood, community, and faith.

If we are to succeed in the critical political and policy battles ahead, we must be certain of our purpose. We must begin by retaking and resolutely defending the high ground of America’s founding principles.

Sign The Pledge

Tuesday, July 6, 2010

Why Green??

By Vedran Vuk
for Casey Research

What do the War on Terror, green energy, and
the high-speed rail project have in common?
They all lack clear objectives and success measurements.

These three initiatives are perfect for politicians.
When there is a clear benchmark, government gets into trouble.
For this reason, politicians more and more avoid quantifiable
projects such as unemployment, poverty, income, etc.
Or they set arbitrary benchmarks.
For example, universal healthcare aims to insure the entire population.
I have no doubt that the government can insure everyone.
However, I have very strong reservations about long-term
affordability and quality.
Of course, the Democrats realize this too.
That’s why they focused on the number
of uninsured rather than price and quality.
They know that they will fail on price and quality.

The wars in the Middle East are also unquantifiable goals.
Are we winning or losing in Iraq and Afghanistan?
It’s impossible to say.
At best, one can have an educated opinion, but an objective
statement eludes both sides of the issue.
Occasionally, the government attempts to quantify success
by demonstrating lower casualty rates.
But even these statistics are worthless and deceptive.
Victory more often than not comes with higher casualties – not fewer.
Further, it’s impossible to say with certainty whether there would be
more or less terrorist attacks without the wars.

Sooner or later, we’ll have to exit the Middle East.
However, the unquantifiable century-long goal will be green energy
and the green movement.
Will green energy ever be more profitable than oil, coal, and gas?
Let me put it this way:
Green energy is little more than modern-day alchemy.
Today, oil is the gold, and the wind farm is the lead.
There are plenty of good uses for lead,
but ultimately it will never become gold.

Because environmental goals cannot be quantified,
the government will keep pushing them for eternity.
There’s no way to account for cleaner
air in a cost/benefit analysis – that’s why the government loves green.
Just ask yourself, what should society pay for 10% cleaner air?
You could pick any number. No matter the outcome,
the government can always claim success.
Those pesky cost/benefit approaches won’t bother them here.

Emissions are already following this model.
Goals are set to reduce emissions by arbitrary percentages,
but the quantifiable benefits are never revealed.
Further, the percentages themselves appear to be arbitrarily
picked out of thin air. Though the benefits are unaccountable,
the government can keep claiming that it’s “saving the planet.”
What does it actually mean to cut emissions by, say, 30%?
Where’s the benefit outside the catch phrases of a
“cleaner and greener world”? The benefits are always left vague,
generalized, and idealized with a touch of apocalyptic overtone.

The new high-speed rail project campaigns focus on the
environmental benefits and the improved livability of communities.
$8 billion is being spent on these projects around the country,
with $2.25 billion for California alone.
How does one calculate success in creating a “livable community”?
Ultimately, “livable” is a subjective term. And that’s exactly why the
government has adopted this as a goal.
Even if the project is a complete money pit,
they can always claim to have created more “livable” neighborhoods.

Then there’s the green angle that promises to reduce pollution.
Sure, maybe the air will be a bit cleaner. But is this worth $8 billion?
Once again, it’s impossible to say – and that’s the whole point.

If society actually valued high-speed rail, a system would have been
constructed long ago. When consumers demand a product,
entrepreneurs will be more than happy to provide it.
If the costs are greater than the consumers’ willingness to pay,
then the project will fail or will never even start.
The very fact that a private high-speed rail does not exist says
everything that you need to know about the cost/benefit analysis here.
Only unquantifiable goals can justify the project.
Hence, these are the goals centerstage.

But don’t worry. The high-speed rail will be a success –
just like the Iraq war, just like green energy, and just like
universal healthcare.
When there are no quantifiable goals and only arbitrary benchmarks,
every government project is a winner.

Patriots, I Think We Are In Trouble!!



***********************************************************


************************************************************


***********************************************************

In Case You Missed It

RCPB and South Florida 912 co-hosted a debate for the State Senate candidates in districts 25 and 27 last month. The complete videos of the event are now available on the website RCPB

Saturday, July 3, 2010

Friday, July 2, 2010

It's official...

Even though you've paid into Social Security
all of your working life...

And even though they promised to pay you back...

You can no longer count on getting what you're owed.

Take a look at this from The New York Times:


"This year, the system will pay out more benefits than it receives...accumulated revenue will slowly start to shrink,
as outlays start to exceed revenue...[and] by law,
Social Security cannot pay out more than its balance in any
given year."

We all knew this day would come. But nobody expected
it to come so fast - six years ahead of schedule.
In fact, even the Congressional Budget Office itself admits it.

According to their own calculations, the so-called American
public "safety net" they've forced you to pay into starts to
dry up as of Sept. 30, 2010. That's when it officially slips
$28 billion into the red.
And it just keeps sinking deeper from there.
In fact, this administration, burns through $183 million
of your dollars every hour of every day!!

Is Pelosi Insane, or Just Stupid – You Decide

 

By Don Grove

Casey's Daily Dispatch 

 

Readers of any duration know that while I don’t hesitate in pointing out

the follies of bureaucrats in general, Republican as well as Democrat,

I only rarely stoop to personal invective and name calling.

Yet, after watching  a couple of recent video clips of the esteemed

Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, I feel compelled to wonder aloud

if Madam Speaker might have lost her proverbial marbles.

If not, then the only possible explanation is that she’s just plain stupid.

As the latter seems unlikely, at least one would hope so, given her rise

to the very peak of power in the world’s most powerful nation, one has to

conclude at least one of our leaders may be clinically insane.

But I’ll let you decide.

In this first clip, Pelosi suggests that members of her audience with artistic

inclinations should feel free to now quit their jobs to pursue their inner muse

because, hey, the rest of us have got you covered. Here’s the clip

This second clip is even more startling, in that the Speaker goes to some lengths

to explain why it is that providing extended unemployment benefits is actually a

win-win for the economy. Here’s the clip.

Now, I sincerely feel for the chronically unemployed in this economy.

And I certainly don’t think that most are too lazy to look for work,

or take work they consider beneath them.

This is a tough economy and it’s going to get tougher, as the latest rise

in unemployment announced today confirms.

But the idea that handing out government checks is a no-lose proposition

all the way around is… well, it’s either insane or stupid.

You can prove the point simply by accepting Pelosi’s thesis as true –

in which case, why not just start writing checks to everyone!

And not just small checks but large ones.

Seriously, it’s time to consider regular testing of politicians

for the mid-term onset of mental illness.