Tag Archives: Harry Reid

The Cocoa-Puff Challenge

Posted at Renew America

Lieutenant Colonel Allen West (R-FL) can hardly host a town hall meeting or public event without being harassed by rowdy protesters who resent the Florida Congressman’s conservative politics.  West’s events are regularly disrupted by “sunshine blowing” CAIR activists, former Air America radio hosts, Robocall campaigners, and confused white women who mistakenly criticize West over issues they actually agree upon.

Always the gentleman, Allen West has even been accused by Democratic National Committee chair Debbie Wasserman Schultz (D-FL) of wearing “extreme disrespect as a badge of honor.”  Debbie believes West “thinks it’s ok to objectify and denigrate women.” Rest assured, if such an outrageous accusation was hurled in Barack Obama’s direction the media would interpret it, as a racial slur, insinuating that the accuser believes the hip-hop culture, notorious for “objectifying and denigrating women,” is endemic to all men of color.

Funny, when Debbie made the remark the NAACP and Al Sharpton didn’t demand an explanation for such a racially narrow-minded, Harry Reid, “light-skinned-lack-of-Negro-dialect” comment. Maybe it’s because besides having coffee and donuts with Joe Biden the left is otherwise occupied with identifying and rooting out every trace of explicit and “‘implicit’ (or unconscious) prejudice” wherever it manifests.

The left-wing media, together with the Democrat Party, work in tandem to keep the issue of prejudicial intolerance alive, even going so far as to say that public rejection of a healthcare policy instituted by the first African-American/bi-racial president is rooted in racism. In liberal circles, it’s understood that when Americans reject health care reform, it’s not loss of quality and choice or the threat of rationing or denied benefits that cause a negative public response, it’s purely a melanin issue – just ask racism Geiger counter Chris Matthews.

If increased numbers are a true measure for success and if Newt Gingrich calling Obama “The most successful food stamp president in American history” resulted in Newt being labeled a racist, why wasn’t the liberal female who bombarded Allen West with “coded racially-tinged language” also accused of racism?

Those on the left have redefined a “racist” as any person who disagrees with a black liberal’s policy. If a white American opposes anything Obama says, does, or bumbles – it’s automatically defined as racism.  Remember Jimmy Carter, the Nobel Peace Prize-winning ex-President who simultaneously expressed the opinion and instigated racial tension by saying that those with differing opinions who stand “against Obama have been influenced to a major degree by a belief that he should not be president because he happens to be African American?”

Even black presidential hopeful Herman Cain recognized the absurdity of such a statement when he said: “People who oppose Obama are said to be racists – so I guess I’m a racist.” Yet a similar logic is never extended toward black conservatives when liberal whites oppose their politics, because men like Colonel Allen West and Herman Cain don’t count due to their Uncle Tom status.

It could be that the media ignores slurs directed toward Allen West because according to the left’s standards he’s been spared the same level of mean-spirited racial attacks as those suffered by Barack.

Think of it – West has had zero debate surrounding his place of birth, which was Atlanta Georgia; religion, which is Christian; or missing college transcripts from the University of Tennessee, Kansas State or US Army Command and General Staff Officer College.  Not one single person has mentioned West’s pastor or cast aspersions on his race or background by linking him with radical associates.

Moreover, unlike Obama, thus far Mr. West has avoided bigoted questions surrounding racial hot potatoes like government spending and health care reform.

Nonetheless, the black Florida Congressman did receive a “non-toxic” albeit suspicious “white powder substance” in the mail.  He had his Social Security number disclosed in a Democrat Party “opposition mailer,” and coincidentally managed to settle in a town with the slavery-suggestive name Plantation, Florida, all of which could have been but is yet-to-be interpreted as color-driven bigotry.

One possible reason the issue of race is ignored for some and over-emphasized with others may hinge upon affiliation with Tea Party activists with whom the African American Allen West identifies.  If racist tendencies are determined purely on acceptance or rejection of all things Obama then according to liberals, even disagreeable black politicians can be racists, especially if associated with the Tea Party, which liberals are convinced is one hood short of the Ku Klux Klan.

Allen West, a victim of attacks that would certainly be interpreted as racist if his political persuasion tended left, shared his observations on the subject of media dismissal of what would be deemed racism if it were happening to Barack Obama: “I find it interesting that in all of these instances, the media simply dismissed the incidents. One might wonder – is it open season on a principled black conservative?  I wonder what the reaction would have been if I were a Democrat?”

Truth is, in an effort to take the spotlight off a seething boil called the Obama presidency, the media is gearing up to make race the central issue in the 2012 campaign. The game plan is to brand everyone a racist, including black candidates whose politics don’t align with President Obama’s, while at the same time dismissing what would otherwise be considered offensive if directed toward the President.

For example, on Fox News, liberal talk radio host/ Fox contributor Alan Colmes told Jamie Colby and Republican Tea Party pundit Angela McGlowan that both Herman Cain and Allen West were “Coo-coo for Cocoa Puffs®.” Racist watchdog Colmes never mentioned Sugar Pops® or the diverse multi-colored cereal Trix® and thankfully refrained from adding Count Chocula® to the mix.

Inane silliness aside, if the Obama race-baiting left refuses to discontinue the insanity then the right needs to demand equal time.  For starters, why not stipulate that racially-tinged slurs tying together brown cereal and being cuckoo with black conservatives be publicly acknowledged as racism by those who blindly throw around such baseless allegations.

Moreover, if the left insists on using a bizarre “food-stamp-president” paradigm to identify racists, then references to Cocoa Puffs and allusions to hip-hop mentality should certainly qualify for inclusion in the bigotry blame fest. The bottom line is this: If liberals make rules based on absurd criteria, black conservatives should be willing to help expose their illogic by demanding the left submit to the same standards to determine what is and is not racism that those on the left demand of everyone else.

Pelosi Proves Palin’s Point

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

When the health care debate was raging, one of arguments from the opposition was that an eventual shortage of government monies would result in lost lives.  Former Alaska Governor Sarah Palin was mocked and disparaged as a fool for warning Americans that Obamacare would usher in “death panels” where, due to budgetary restrictions, the aged and chronically ill would be denied care.

Even President Barack Obama joined smarmy liberal comedians like Bill Maher to publicly scoff at the idea of “death panels.” The left condemned what they called outlandish scare tactics employed by conservatives attempting to stop a policy that would provide coverage to 30 million uninsured Americans, but in effect would put the government in control of life and death issues.

Fast-forward to 2011 and the very people who condemned Sarah Palin and the Republicans for being over-the-top on the anxiety chart became the harbingers of imminent death panels, only this time the fatalities would be driven by budget cuts.

Take for example Nancy Pelosi saying that the budget bill would starve six million seniors to death and that impoverished children would be jettisoned out of the Head Start program. Worse than that, Nancy said that Republicans, led by Speaker of the House John Boehner (R-OH), were declaring an all-out “war on women.”

When speaking to CNN, Washington’s newest Death Panel Diva left no stone unturned, especially when it came to describing the detrimental effect of Republican policies on the fairer sex:

If you are talking about jobs, their pay in the work place, health care, making — no longer is being a woman a pre-existing medical condition. They want to change all of that. So in every aspect – whether it is employment, whether it is education, whether it is health care, whether it is retirement, whether it is collective bargaining which affects women as well women have a lot to lose with the ideological old style agenda of the Republicans.

According to Nancy, even modest spending cuts would result in a nation of unemployed, underpaid, uneducated, penniless, sick females unable to retire.  Pelosi predicted American women would be destined to roam the streets like zombies, riddled with cancer and missing womanly parts of their anatomy, all victims of “the ideological old style agenda of the Republicans.”

This is the woman who “called out former Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) for having made the ‘lie of the year’ for claiming the healthcare bill would set up ‘death panels.’”

According to the former Speaker of the House, cutting $38 billion, give or take a billion – which is about what it takes to run the US government for four days at $10.46 billion per day – American women would fast become the bane of planet Earth. Yet, ask a Democrat whether it will cost lives if a nation with a $14.3 trillion deficit ever had trouble coming up with $1.2 trillion for health care reform, and the answer is always a resounding “No!”

Nevertheless, when it comes to Democrat budgetary doom and gloom, Pelosi is not alone.  In response to Republicans demanding funding be cut to abortion provider Planned Parenthood, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid took a huge leap from those on the right not wanting to pay for dilation and curettage to accusing Republicans of wanting women to die of cancer.

On the Senate floor Reid said: “Republicans want to shut down the government because they think there’s nothing more important than keeping women from getting cancer screenings. This is indefensible and everyone should be outraged.”

Isn’t this is the same group who mocked Palin for suggesting that government run health care would end in death panels?

Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi attempted to win a budget battle by implying that Planned Parenthood being denied $349.6 million dollars a year in funding could ultimately impact the well-being of 91.4 million adult women, which is quite a stretch. Such an absurd claim greatly differs from Sarah Palin coming to the logical conclusion that a shortage of health care money could equal denial of care. Reid, on the other hand, is alleging secret motives of an entire political party amounting to purposeful murder.

Lest we forget, this whole the death panel discussion was resurrected because the government’s inefficiency has placed America in an economic quandary. And this is the same government that swears there will always be ample funds to ensure that even an 85 year-old grandparent will never be denied care and sent home to die.

During the Obamacare debate, Sarah Palin was merely pointing out that a virtually bankrupt government could never cover the high cost of caring for an aging population. It took Harry and Nancy carping about denial of funds to Planned Parenthood to confirm that Sarah was right.

In an attempt to smear Republicans, Harry and Nancy probably didn’t realize it, but they proved Sarah Palin’s original point that health care reform policy poses a threat.  If the left’s argument is correct that modest budget cuts have the potential to starve old people to death and threaten lives, what will happen when the entire nation is at the mercy of a government that finds it impossible to maintain the solvency needed to keep 300 million people alive?

Pelosi’s Planned Parenthood War

Originally posted at American Thinker blog

For peaceniks, Democrats sure have no trouble throwing the word “war” around. Jesse Jackson compared the budget impasse to the civil war and Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi believes her colleagues across the aisle have declared “war on women.”

House Speaker John Boehner promised religious leaders he would “win the war not just win a battle” over Planned Parenthood and abortion. After all, someone has to have the temerity to step forward, pull the plug on the death camps and discontinue funding organizations that pretend to care for women in one room while killing offspring in another.

Scripture quoter and crusader for the aged and reproductive rights, Nancy Pelosi sees the Republicans’ fight to defund Planned Parenthood as a “war,” and to defend abortion she seems more than willing to lace up her combat boots.

At the Feminist Majority Foundation’s Women, Money and Power Summit, Nancy Pelosi clarified the dispute: “Abortion is one issue, but contraception and family planning and birth control are opposed by this crowd too. We have a big fight on our hands, in terms of respect for women, and … what is right for our country in terms of our family decisions, in terms of Medicaid and Medicare. We have to create a drumbeat across America.”

Kindly old Grandmother Nancy Pelosi believes “respect for women…and…what is right for our country” is why Americans should be forced to bankroll an organization that destroys the lives of future Americans.  Majorette Nancy proposes the creation of “a drumbeat across America” on behalf of fetal genocide.  Well if ever there was a quintessentially American cause, Grandma, apple pie and funding Planned Parenthood is certainly it!

According to Nancy, the supposed war on postnatal women began earlier this year when Mike Pence (R-IN) audaciously proposed a bill in the House to cut off 40 years of funding to Planned Parenthood.  The Congress made it clear that Republicans were done coercing moral people to pay for ethically repugnant abortion procedures that cost taxpayers $363 million a year and in 2009 ended the lives of 332,278 Americans.

Thus far John Boehner (R-Ohio) has said that in the budget fight his caucus has not backed “down from [their] efforts to defund Planned Parenthood.” However, Boehner admitted abortion is “a major sticking point in budget negotiations between the House GOP” and a pro-choice White House.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Barack continue to use abortion as protective armor to preserve a radical voting base, and do so with the approving applause of a political party more than willing to go to war for the right to fund America’s most celebrated abortion mill.

In the interim, Nancy apparently felt moved to officially anoint herself St. Nancy de Abortion Rights. Pelosi is speaking out and has rallied a brigade of warmongering females ready to follow her into battle. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-DC) declared that refusing to fund Planned Parenthood is “the functional equivalent of bombing innocent civilians.”

The Republican budget rider that prevents DC from spending money on abortion for poor women was met by an “absolutely outraged” Norton, who also said it’s time DC told the “Congress to go straight to hell.”

Holmes said: “If …Republicans insist that, if they don’t get the whole pie they’ll take the whole country down with them…then we have got to make them pay the price.” Whoa Ellie!

There you have it – on behalf of the abortion “pie,” Nancy and company are more than willing to subject Americans to “paying the price” and the “hell” of a protracted political war, if winning makes certain that Planned Parenthood funding continues.

Clinton’s Caboose Campaign

Fortuitously, Hillary Clinton, aka the “smartest woman in the world,” as Secretary of State is banned from participating in political activity during the midterm elections.  Not to worry, Madam Secretary’s husband, better known as “Don’t Stop Thinking about Tomorrow” Bill, is busily working the campaign circuit sans and quite possibly on behalf of Hillary.

Supposedly in support of Barack Obama’s failed fiscal policies, William Jefferson Clinton has taken a reprieve from philanthropic efforts like “running a global charitable foundation,” and instead is “deploying himself on a last-ditch, dawn-to-dusk sprint to rescue his beleaguered party.”

Bill Clinton is a Democrat Party rock star.  The impeached president is even gaining popularity with clueless Republicans cursed with short memories.  Clinton has managed to obfuscate intense character flaws and lapses in moral decorum by hanging around Bush the elder, recovering from heart surgery, caring for Haitian earthquake victims and, as the father of the bride, biting his bottom lip while walking Chelsea down the aisle.

Interestingly, Democrat leaders in Washington DC have not orchestrated Clinton’s foray into campaign rehabilitation.  Anxious to reach out and touch the public, Clinton was “deployed by no one but himself.” Bill packed his own ditty bag, or as he says, “loaded up and started strolling around.”

Clinton’s modus operandi is to rush to the rescue and pretend the effort is for the benefit of the party. However, wily Willy always manages to elevate himself by pointing out that those he represents require the “North Star” of the Democrat Party to commandeer a botched undertaking.

If there is one party boy who knows how to endure a battering and still hold on to the goodies, Bill Clinton sure does. In fact, Bill recently expressed to friends that he “is baffled…Democrats have failed to articulate a coherent message on the economy and, worse, have allowed themselves to become ‘human piñatas.’”

While purporting to be on the side of Obama, couched within Clinton’s rhetoric are what appear to be subliminal messages that call attention to Obama’s lack of success.

Take for instance Clinton stumping in the State of Washington referring to voter angst by telling voters not to “…take everything that’s not working right now and put Patty Murray’s face on it.” Referencing “not working” in any context is an odd choice of words with Obama-driven unemployment presently at 9.6%.

Clinton’s idea of bolstering Democrats is to warn voters that “The worst thing you can do right now is bring back the shovel brigade to start digging the hole again.”  Bill Clinton mentioning “shovel” is another peculiar reference, especially in a time when 6.1 million unemployed Americans are buried beneath a job crisis Barack claims comes devoid of an available shovel.

Recent Clinton campaign encouragement included reminding those sitting on bleachers alongside cardboard cutouts of Bill Clinton that America is enduring a time where “More than 10 million of us are living in houses not worth as much as our mortgages and we can’t move like we used to do because our credit would be toast for a decade.”

Adept at appealing to enamored audiences, Bill maneuvers around a podium like a slick Lothario wining and wooing a woman before making a move. Unlike Barack Obama, Bill Clinton distinguishes himself by speaking extemporaneously without a teleprompter and rarely refers to notes.

While campaigning, a fully confident Clinton “speaks infrequently with the candidates – in some cases not at all before showing up for an event.”  The reason?  Although Bill touches upon “local issues defining specific races,” the former president spends ample political promotional time encouraging voters to vote for Harry Reid (D-NV) by “wax[ing] nostalgic” about the Clinton years.

Moreover, Bill never squanders an opportunity to support Barack Obama by pressing the flesh.  In a fashion similar to a Kathleen Wiley counseling session, Bill recently encouraged voters to vote Democratic by “wrap[ping] his arms around folks and listen[ing] for cues about what ails America.”

Coupling an odd mix of self-promotion with the fine art of verbal cuddling, theoretically Clinton is attempting to defend Barack’s honor. Nevertheless, and despite “packed legions of supporters” cramming into “basketball arenas, college quads and airport hangers” for Clinton, Obama/Democrat candidate hype is quickly growing stale and enthusiasm for Democrat campaign rallies is waning.

Even if it is all about him, apparently Bill Clinton is no longer a powerful enough presence to muster the fervor needed to save the Democrat Party. For some reason Clinton, who has been “Summoned everywhere – no matter how hostile the territory,” is beginning to “feel the pain” of rejection by associating himself with an out-of-favor Obama, whose shortcomings Clinton manages to intimate, in a roundabout way, every chance he gets.

Of late, crowds are so unenthused that Clinton, while attending a recent campaign at a Detroit high school, due to an “anemic… turnout at the rally,” was stuck giving a stump speech to part-time grannies from the guidance counselor’s office.  It is hard to argue Democrat enthusiasm is meager if the 42nd President of the United States, a man who “used to command a full house wherever he went,” is being forced to schmooze cafeteria ladies in Ruth Buzzi hairnets because the Clinton presence no longer adequately obscures the Obama fiasco.

In response, a perceptive Clinton campaign rebuke comes to mind where clever Bill managed to simultaneously excuse and call attention to Obama’s ineptitude by chiding impatient Democrats saying: “I’d like to see any of you get behind a locomotive going straight downhill at 200 miles an hour and stop it in 10 seconds.”

Clinton’s insightful analogy makes one wonder why he has gotten behind a similarly out-of-control Obama locomotive.  Is Bill, in 10 seconds, attempting to salvage what appears to be unsalvageable, or is the ex-president merely fueling a runaway train off the tracks in hopes of one day ushering the Clinton caboose straightaway into the station?

Presidential Poor Choices – American Thinker – August 9, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker Blog

Michelle having made what most would agree to be the wrong choice about where to be on her husband’s 49th birthday seems to be a family trait.  Maybe the First Lady was merely emulating a pattern Barack has repeatedly set forth as precedent:  Never be where you should be.  Exercise iconoclast attitudes and stun the world by doing the inappropriate

Take for instance the Spain-over-birthday attitude the President exhibited by observing a moment of silence on the South Lawn of the White House in lieu of attending Ground Zero ceremonies in New York City on September 11, 2009, choosing to send Joe Biden in his stead.

Didn’t Barack Obama also spend free time vacationing, golfing, going to baseball games and entertaining a Beatle instead of addressing the crisis of oil gushing into the Gulf of Mexico? A few days after the Deepwater Horizon oilrig explosion, instead of meeting with BP executives, Obama chose to eat barbequewith Michelle in Ashville, NC

Obama campaigned for Senate Majority leader  Harry Reid in Las Vegas, not far from a southern border state under siege. The President, who flew to Copenhagen to pick up an unearned Nobel Peace Prize, chose to prosecute Arizona even before personally assessing the illegal war on the border Arizonans struggle against daily.

Suddenly Michelle’s ill-timed trip to Marbella pales in comparison.

Lest we forget the discomfiting reaction Americans had when Barry flew home to Chicago for much needed R&R on Memorial Day, deciding to forgo traditional Arlington Cemetery commemoration ceremonies.

How about Obama using Eyjafjallajokull as an excuse to irreverently go golfing instead of attending the funeral of Polish President Lech Kaczynski, who was tragically killed in a plane crash in Smolensk, Russia.

Barack Obama is more than able to make his way to the gym, the links and even a basketball court on Sunday mornings, but not once has the President availed himself of the opportunity to be a role model to America’s youth by attending church.  The reason?  The man who shuts down whole cities for dinner dates, fundraisers and vacations doesn’t want to disrupt a congregation.

Reid: Unemployed men more prone to abuse – American Thinker Blog – February 23, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

Now that the Super Bowl Sunday domestic violence myth has been debunked feminist Harry Reid steps forward with with another reason for American women to fear being abused by the men in their lives.

According to Harry Reid, joblessness puts American women at risk for more than home foreclosure and weekly visits to the food bank.  Added to that list are black eyes and loose teeth by men who Reid contends beat women when unemployed.

Harry Reid, on the Senate floor, spoke on behalf of a bill to spur job growth.  The Senator”suggested Monday that domestic violence by men has increased due to U.S. joblessness.” Harry feels if there was ever a reason to pass a jobs bill, bruised females should be the impetuous moving hesitant lawmakers to provide women all across the nation a legislative ice pack.

“Reid, speaking in the midst of a Senate debate over whether to pass a $15 billion package meant to spur job creation, appeared to argue that joblessness would lead to more domestic violence.”  Harry shared compassionate stories saying “I met with some people while I was home dealing with domestic abuse. It has gotten out of hand. Why? Men don’t have jobs.”

Reid said that the effects of joblessness on domestic violence were especially pronounced among men, because, according to Reid, “women tend to be less abusive.”In defense of the defenseless Reid said, “Women don’t have jobs either, but women aren’t abusive, most of the time.””Men, when they’re out of work, tend to become abusive,” the majority leader added. “Our domestic crisis shelters in Nevada are jammed.”

Harry’s stereotypical statement implying unemployed men tend toward domestic abuse is on par with his insensitive statements that some African Americans speak with a “negro dialect.”

Harry should come forward with a similar apology to one made a few weeks ago after it was revealed Reid referred to Barack Obama as a “light skinned black without a negro dialect.”   An apologetic Harry said, “I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African Americans for my improper comments.”

This time, the apology should be for the Senator Reid’s “poor choice of words” directed toward unemployed men.

****

Jeannie Addendum :  Based on his view of unemployed men does Harry believe after November he  poses a threat to the safety of  Landra, the kids and his 16 grand kids?

Well, well, well …very interesting!



Obvious Opacity – American Thinker – January 25, 2010

Originally posted at American Thinker

According to Nancy Pelosi campaign promises have one purpose—getting a candidate elected.  After voting, a candidate’s word can be shelved like a magician’s prop.  If the Speaker is to be taken seriously nothing Barack Obama said during the presidential campaign holds weight and should be disregarded as roadside rhetoric.

If Pelosi’s ruling versus rhetoric conjecture is correct it explains the last twelve months. Nancy Pelosi insisting on defining clandestine conferences as transparency brings clarity to what America deals with every time Obama speaks. Since January of 2009 black is white, right is wrong and open is shut.  Overarching debt is economic stimulus, job loss is growth, socialists are capitalists, enemies are friends and despair and despotism is defined as hope and change.

Lest America forget, before the Democrats lost a filibuster proof Senate, though unsolicited, Obama repeatedly volunteered to “broadcast [health care] negotiations on C-Span.” Lofty promises were made because Barack Obama was falsely convinced the country would kowtow to every policy whim he proposed.  Obama thought wrong.  What the President didn’t anticipate was 49% of the American public being against socialized health care reform, as well as a united Republican Party standing in opposition to overhauling the entire system. Above all, this imperious president didn’t expect an unknown Republican from Massachusetts to wrest the Teddy Kennedy Memorial scepter from the late liberal icon’s  hand.

Yet in a distorted way, transparency truly does exist on Capitol Hill because liberals have been crystal clear about the desire to “fundamentally transform” America. For instance, Obama, together with the Democrat-controlled House and Senate, made no secret the intention to singlehandedly revamp 1/6th of the American economy.  Before health care expired, “guiding an honest process,” meant holding surreptitious negotiations, in the dead of night, sans public or opposition party participation.  Democrats are likely unaware of it, but skulking around in the shadows accomplished the opposite and made underhanded motives more transparent.

While debating Hillary Clinton during the 2008 presidential race Obama said he would broadcast health care negotiations on C-Span, “bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors.” After taking office, “broadcast,” “bringing” and “behind” were redefined Obama-style and backdoor negotiations and dishonest agreements became common practice. America patiently observed a non-transparent health care reform process abounding with “hidden agendas” where over the last year, deliberations became, “a breeding ground for more of the kickbacks, shady deals and special-interest provision that have become business as usual in Washington.”

Its no wonder Scott Brown, who seemed to appear out of thin air, won the special senatorial election. Obama’s repeated campaign pledge to “enlist the American people in the [health care] process,” and then doing the opposite was the final nail in the one-party-rule coffin.  With an election for Teddy’s seat on the horizon, America watched as C-Span CEO Brian Lamb sent correspondence to Pelosi and Reid beseeching Congress to open up health care reform deliberations to the public. The frustrated CEO’s requests were met with a half-hearted concession to open the negotiations to the public for one hour–a much shorter period than most Americans would be waiting for a throat culture if health care passed.

For weeks the nation, including voters heading for the polls in Massachusetts, observed Nancy Pelosi responding to C-Span’s request like a critical care nurse tightly pulling closed the privacy curtain. Pelosi’s contention that, “[t]here has never been a more open process for any legislation in anyone who’s served here’s experience,” prompts the question as to whether the Speaker should be rushed to the top slot in a psychological triage.

Brian Lamb spoke for American when he “urged Congress in his letter to fling open the doors in the final stretch of negotiations.”  Instead, the CEO was met with a sign above the double doors of the health care debate, which read, “Restricted Beyond This Area Authorized Personnel Only!” Denying C-Span right of entry to the health care dialogue put the Senate majority in hospice care.

Yet the left forged ahead with a plan to circumvent the usual Conference Committee procedure to reconcile the two chamber’s versions of the bill.  In the process, Democratic doctors Barry, Harry and Nancy, failed to take the pulse of the American electorate. The tragic trio made the fatal mistake of continuing on with the ruse allowing access to only a “few negotiators concocting the final version out of sight, without formal rules governing the process.” The Democrat leadership was convinced socialistic purposes would be better served without C-Span cameras in the room documenting the organ harvest.

Democrats pushed for secret deliberations to thwart “having to cut deals with problematic House Democrats like Michigan’s Bart Stupak, who promised to do what he could to scuttle the final bill if it provided for federal funding of abortion.” Aware an audience desiring the bill’s demise seeing one “party working on behalf of constituents,” would be detrimental to the left’s righteous cause, Democrats continued to connive behind closed doors, and while they did, America watched.

The nation obviously viewed the conduct as fraudulent and undeniably voiced a reproving opinion on a snowy Tuesday in Massachusetts.  The Speaker of the House, as well as America’s lucent President, were reminded by Blue State voters that, “[m]inimum disclosure to which agreements, dealings, practices, and transactions are open to all for verification,” is defined as lack of transparency.

If something is transparent it lacks hidden agendas and conditions.  Transparency is accompanied by the availability of full information required for collaboration, cooperation, and collective decision-making.  Essential to transparency is the condition for a free and open exchange whereby the rules and reasons behind regulatory measures are fair and clear to all participants.

So, in light of the constant barrage of mixed messages coming from power elites like Pelosi and Obama, its good to know that before entering the voting booth, Massachusetts voters brushed up on the literal meaning of transparency casting a vote for and sending a message from the entire nation.

Truth is, the people of this country are patient and forgiving.  But as Obama is finding out, messing around with the American psyche results in political ramifications like being flattened by a GMC Canyon . Little did Pelosi, Reid and company know, but  unabashed lack of transparency not only ensured the election of Scott Brown, but it also sealed a Stupak condemned, rare late term, political abortion of Democrat rule in Obama’s fourth trimester.

Michelle Obama: Snakeskin and Skin in the Game – American Thinker, January 18, 2010

Originally Posted at American Thinker

Based on one full year’s worth of observation, it is obvious that Michelle Obama’s pronouncements, advice, injunctions, and edicts include a personal exemption for the occupants of the White House Executive Residence. Michelle’s attempts at verbally imparting wisdom, if matched against the backdrop of action, expose the First Lady’s hypocrisy.

Take for instance Michelle’s disingenuous response to reporters pertaining to the issue of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s racial comments about “light skin tone” and “Negro dialect.” The First Lady said forgiveness comes easy because, “…she knows Reid so well.”

Such a quick dismissal of Reid’s sentiments is perplexing coming from a woman known to be intensely aware of race. The First lady’s forgiving words put the spotlight on what history reveals abides in her heart. Michelle said, “My experiences at Princeton have made me far more aware of my ‘blackness’ than ever before. … Regardless of the circumstances under which I interact with whites at Princeton, it often seems as if, to them, I will always be black first and a student second.” Reporters, eager for further insight, learned that Michelle evaluates “people more so on what they do rather than the things they say.” Oh really?

Michelle’s statement about measuring character on what is done, rather than what is said, presents a moral dilemma for the First Lady and President Obama, both of whom never come close to exemplifying the injunctions both freely impose on everyone else.

One such glaring example was at Saddleback Church, when candidate Obama shared that “America’s greatest moral failure” is not abiding by “Whatever you do for the least of my brothers, you do for me.” Citing America’s wealth and power, Obama shared from his perspective that our nation, “still doesn’t spend enough time thinking about the least of these.”

If moral fiber is measured by what is done rather than what is said, then why, as an example to America, hasn’t the First Lady passed on Narcisco Rodriquez and Jimmy Choo and addressed the least of Obama’s half-brothers, George Hussein Onyango, who lives in a shanty on less than a dollar a month? Why hasn’t she welcomed in the sister of Obama’s Kenyan father Aunt Zeituni, living in wretched poverty in a Boston ghetto?

In an article following Obama’s soaring inaugural address, David Broder alluded to the rhetoric-versus-deeds quandary, saying, “What speeches can accomplish, they have delivered handsomely for Barack Obama. Now, it will depend on his deeds.”

The First Lady is well aware that the President stresses that Americans should surrender personal aspirations for the sake of the collective. “All Americans will have to sacrifice to put the economy back on track,” Obama said. “Everybody’s going to have to give…Everybody’s going to have to have some skin in the game.” To date, Michelle’s contribution to “skin in the game” is the acquisition of an off-the-shelf, $1,900.00 snakeskin clutch.

Excusing herself, Michelle is of the opinion that “in order to get things like universal health care and a revamped education system … someone is going to have to give up a piece of their pie so that someone else can have more.”

Yet while stressing doing over saying, the First Lady seems averse to relinquish haute couture, and she freely participates in $56,000 worth of accommodations for a two-week Hawaiian vacation. Michelle lives a Robin Leach lifestyle while Americans financially struggle. Michelle boutique shops in Paris for the weekend, enjoys 250,000-dollar date nights and frivolously flies aboard Air Force One at the cost of forty to fifty thousand tax dollars per hour. If the First Lady is correct, and personal principle is exposed by deeds and not words, then she fails her own standard for the Harry Reid “skin tone” and “Negro dialect” test.

Can America ever forget newly-elected Barack Obama swearing that the “election is not about me” and then contradicting those words with actions that disregard the wishes of the majority whom the election supposedly was all about? Moreover, if humility means having a modest opinion of one’s own importance, and deeds speak louder than verbal expressions of reticence, then maybe on an upcoming speaking junket, Michelle could explain to America what accepting an undeserved honor reveals about an individual?

Nevertheless, Michelle can’t very well censure Barack for what she is also guilty of doing. Prior to Obama being elected, Michelle militantly spoke the words, “Barack will require [emphasis mine] his flock to work.” Once in the White House, the First Lady, having no official duties per se, hired a staff of 22 assistants with combined salaries totaling $1.5 million per year to assist her every whim. Michelle’s words portended imposed toil on the “flock” while harboring full intent to partake of a sumptuous, power-pampered lifestyle — regardless of whether the rest of the nation wallowed endlessly in the throes of a Great Recession.

Michelle also said, “Barack will demand [emphasis mine] that America sheds its cynicism.” Then, while volunteering at a Washington, D.C. food bank, the First Lady fed the impoverished while shod in $540 Lanvin sneakers. Over the past year, through repeated thoughtless actions, Michelle Obama has contributed greatly to Americans’ pervasive distrust of each others’ professed integrity and motives.

The First Lady also forewarned, “Barack will demand [emphasis mine] … that America move out of its comfort zone.” Yet if Mrs. Obama expresses a hankering for organic kale, then Washington, D.C. promptly shuts down. Three dozen vehicles set to work, police and Secret Service sweep the area, dogs sniff for bombs, barricades are erected, and fruit stands are staked out with magnetometers and rooftop binoculars. Only then, in an armored limo, can Michelle be ferried to the organic food stand to be welcomed with flower leis and cowbells by extremely uncomfortable people cordoned safely off to the side — far from their comfort zone.

In the UCLA speech, Michelle uttered rousing words of freedom from oppression and overbearing control, claiming firsthand knowledge of the fact that Americans “are sick and tired of other people telling them how their lives will be.” In spite of that, the First Lady heartily approves of dictatorial, liberty-curtailing decrees, enforced governmental management, and a presidential agenda poised to significantly impact everybody’s life but her own.

The most poignant Michelle Obama declaration was this: “Barack will never allow [emphasis mine] you to go back to your lives as usual.” One year later, after thousands of hours of empty, hypocritical rhetoric, Barack’s “requiring,” “demanding,” and “never allowing” actually appear to be words he plans to back up with action. To do so, he needs Harry Reid, which is probably why the First Lady held her nose and said she absolved the contrite senator.

However, if the past is any indication of the future, then Michelle, like Barack, is first and foremost concerned with personal political expediency, power, and prestige. With that in mind, although the First Lady graciously extended public exoneration toward Harry Reid, in reality, it’s highly unlikely that she ever really intended to do what was said.

Dr. Yank-US is in the White House

Three_stooges_doctor_smallIf America is wondering what health care will be like under the Obamacare overlords this is a small sample of what to expect.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dcELyKkOAak [/youtube]

Three Socialist Stooges, Barry, Harry and “Born Dizzy” Nancy are imposing policy on America that can only be likened to Moe, Larry and Curly pulling a tooth out of a cataleptic America intoxicated with Obama rhetoric like a patient high on nitrous oxide.

On Election Day we were knocked unconscious by the mallet of “hope and change” and promptly relegated to a dental chair in Dr. I. Yankum’s office.  Since day one, an anesthetized America has been systematically worked over by a crew of vicious amateurs, pretending to know what they’re doing.

America willingly submitted to a window washer fronting as an oral surgeon because of perceived pain. And now “Eeny, meeny, miny, moe, Larry and Curly,” Obama remains hell bent on pulling teeth, but doesn’t know which one to pull.   Disregarding his own lack of experience, Dr. Yank-US continues to do what he deems necessary catching a tiger by the toe and although America hollers a determined Obama just won’t let go.

Aware they are out of their league, Big Boss Barry, Harry and Nancy stand over the patient thinking, “Go ahead take a chance – whadaya got to lose?” One day Barry stands on the patients chest and Nancy does the pulling. On another day, Nancy or Harry do the holding and vice versa.

The treacherous team yank out healthy teeth in the form of policy proposals such as the revamping of health care. The threesome forge ahead while Obama marks time filling an unconscious America’s oral cavity with quick drying concrete.  The Stooges throw caution to the wind and  strategically place a bomb in America’s mouth in an attempt to correct the incompetent mistakes they’ve made.

The sizzling sound America groggily hears in the distance is a lit fuse slowly making its way up to the explosives.

Before you know it Dr. I. Yankum’s dental office will be like paradise compared to 7-11 colonoscopy centers where patients get complimentary Big Gulp’s and drive-by sigmoidoscopies from smiling illegal immigrants with names like Habib, Vasu and Mansur-Khan.

Truth is, all that matters to Dr. Yank-US is Three Socialist Stooges getting health care done in time to do the peacock strut at the State of the Socialist Union address.  The three bumbling stooges will be headlining in a prime time  preen parade  scheduled for February 2nd. 

“Bossy” Barry, “Dizzy” Nancy and just plain “Scary” Harry will claim health care victory, while disregarding the fact that kidney transplants are slated to be done behind the deli counter at Stop and Shop right next to the machine that slices bologna.  Or that, by the end of the decade, America will have not one person living, within out borders, sixty-years old or over.

Hey America, maybe its time for the window washers to take the scaffold down to the first floor and leave the clientele and the building in competent hands and do so before the cement bomb placed in the nation’s mouth blows up and kills the patient.

Shady Senatorial Dealings

682px-Shady_Lady_Ranch_brothel,_Nye_County,_NevadaNevada is on fire with opportunity.  Prostitution has been legal in rural Nevada since the early seventies and now owner of the Shady Lady Ranch, Bobbi Davis hopes to hire Nevada’s first legal male prostitutes.  The female owner of the brothel claims now that Nevada state health officials have approved a method to test men for infectious diseases, male prostitutes could be hired within the month.

Politics and prostitution are similar, just ask Ben Nelson of (D-Neb) who believes “Change is never easy, but change is what’s necessary in America.” If Bobbi Davis manages to usher in change by making a dent in the male prostitution market, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can direct the Nevadan Madame toward a large pool of accessible applicants.  In fact, Reid may even be able to recommend specific gentlemen experienced in the field that, as a result of an impending election, may be available for work.

Attempting to pass health care reform has brought morally unrestrained political libertines out of the woodwork en masse in Washington DC. While, politicians do not typically engage in ‘sex’ acts for money per se, accepting capital to agree to do things one would normally morally oppose can only be defined as prostitution. Thus, prostitution runs rampant on Capitol Hill because money has become the primary incentive for garnering votes.

Unfortunately for America, unbridled prostitution taking place on Capitol Hill and senators voting for health care reform presents a greater menace to national well being than HIV to streetwalkers.

Take for example, Ben Nelson of Nebraska who proudly identifies himself as one of four pro-life Democrats in the Senate.  Nelson held the moneybag for months threatening obstruction of health care reform based on the bill’s legislative language on the key issue of federal funding for abortion.  Nelson’s staunch stand against subsidizing abortion with tax dollars situated the Senator in the unique position to be offered and accept 30 pieces of silver in the form of federal aid for Nebraska. According to Senator John McCain, R-Arizona, “Nelson’s victory came at the expense of 49 states.” In other words, Nelson’s payoff betrayed American taxpayers and turned the nation over to be crucified.

Ben Nelson’s priority concerning the slaughtering of the unborn vanished when Nebraska secured permanent exemption from funding federal Medicaid expansion.  When presented with the choice to either obstruct abortion funding, or host a second Nebraskan Black Hills Gold Rush in the form of $45 million to state coffers– for Ben Nelson, a flush state treasury trumped saving babies. “Nebraska’s Republican Sen. Mike Johanns said he was “stunned and incredibly disappointed,” and called the compromise’s abortion language a “watered-down accounting gimmick that leads to Nebraska taxpayers subsidizing abortions in other states.”

Ben Nelson’s ‘cornhusker kickback/Nebraska windfall” makes the Senator a potential staff member at Bobbi’s sex ranch.  If the Madame is looking for male prostitutes Nelson  ‘kissing Jesus’ and then selling himself for a price makes the Senator a prime contender to secure one of the two plum positions for men at the brothel after the first of the year.

Davis said, “she wants to add two men to the three women she currently has living” at the bordello.  Who better to help the Madame identify candidates for the job than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid who, like Bonni Davis, can recognize a penny-candy hustler a mile away?

Like a pimp, Monsieur Senator Reid employs, “psychological intimidation, manipulation and force” to coerce resistant Senators into signing onto the health care reform.  Harry Reid has successfully overseen a federal escort service where Senators receive sordid gain providing services, in the form of votes, to liberal political Johns on Capitol Hill whose intent is to ravage the nation’s freedom, security and economic stability.

Luckily for Bonni Davis, Reid has more than a few candidates who meet the cathouse criteria for employment. Wooly Mammoth Ben Nelson would be attractive to a small, but specific group of clientele, while the Bernie Sanders type might be alluring to those who typically prefer Ben and Jerry to Ben Nelson. The Senator from Nebraska providing a more conservative addition to Davis’ stable of male workers than the liberal Bernie Sanders, I-Vermont who proudly professes, “Yeah, I wouldn’t deny it. Not for one second. I’m a democratic socialist.”

Senator Bernie Sanders supports a single-payer system and a Medicare buy-in provision. Contrary, to Ben Nelson’s complaint, the Vermont Senator considers the legislation too conservative, or not liberal enough. Sanders said, “I’m struggling with this…as of this point, I’m not voting for the bill… my vote is not secure at this point.”

Mandatory requirements for liberal support have always been Medicare expansion and the public option. Harry Reid slashed both, while working the senate strip-attracting centrist votes from moderate senators like Louisianan fille de joie, Landrieu and the rent-boy from the Nutmeg State, Joe Lieberman. Bernie Sanders being “undecided” about the health care vote did not present a predicament for Monsieur Reid who is adept at initiating hesitant values virgins into prostituting principles with piggy payoffs.

Harry Reid wooed Democrat holdout, Bernie Sanders, by flashing a gold tooth and a fat money clip.  The Senate Majority Leader ushered a “…clearly more enthusiastic” Sanders toward a ‘sweetheart deal’ in the form of “$10 billion in new funding for community health centers.” Bernie Sanders, who vehemently opposed the bill a day prior, was gently initiated into a 60-vote quorum.  A tossle-headed Bernie emerged from negotiations breathless and disheveled unabashedly transitioning from a cabin of personal conviction in Vermont into Harry’s Washington DC house of joy.

Proprietor of the Shady Lady Ranch, Bonnie Davis, remains hopeful that men can start working at her brothel at the beginning of the New Year. Ms. Davis contends, the state of Nevada, like the Democrat run Senate has, “…worked hard for years to make the traditional brothel business…socially acceptable and something we can be proud of.”

Currently, Davis has five bedrooms to fill with male and female strumpets. $100 million dollar courtesan Mary Landrieu was recommended by Reid last month for one of the openings and is currently in the process of negotiating salary and seriously considering, if need be, accepting an offer to shift from a Senate seat into a niche in the iniquitous desert den. Clearly, bawdy harlots like Ben Nelson and Bernie Sanders would gladly join Mary and submit to selling services to anyone willing to pay the price.

Right now, Madame Bonnie Davis is in a unique position of being the recipient of Nevada State Senator Harry Reid, overseer of a senatorial House of Ill Repute providing his state’s Brothel Owners Association with two highly experienced male gigolos Ben Nelson and Bernie Sanders. Davis, anxious to bring both guys onboard, has just one last quandary to surmount regarding, “…how to structure the men’s pricing?” Bonni can count on Reid to help out in that area too, because if anybody knows how much to pay male prostitutes, Harry sure does.

%d bloggers like this: